BBC Archive have just tweeted this clip
https://twitter.com/BBCArchive/status/1775040485037310033
(Sir Alec Guinness' 110th birthday, but that's not important right now)

The clip is fairly clear, but with very muted colour - the effect is
more like a PAL set with the colour control turned down quite low. I was
wondering what the cause might be: I don't _think_ it's colo(u)rised
(would BBC Archive do that anyway?), but I don't think it's PAL -
there's no obvious colour bleed effect or similar. If it's film (I see
no film artefacts but could have been very well kept), I've not seen
film fade in quite this manner: usually the colours fade differently,
not evenly. I suppose it could be faded film that has been skilfully
colour-corrected, but if that were the case, I'd have expected the
chroma to have been turned up a bit.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The thing about smut is it harms no one and it's rarely cruel. Besides, it's a
gleeful rejection of the dreary and the "correct".
- Alison Graham, RT 2014/10/25-31

On 02/04/2024 09:53, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> BBC Archive have just tweeted this clip
> https://twitter.com/BBCArchive/status/1775040485037310033
> (Sir Alec Guinness' 110th birthday, but that's not important right now)
>
> The clip is fairly clear, but with very muted colour - the effect is
> more like a PAL set with the colour control turned down quite low. I was
> wondering what the cause might be: I don't _think_ it's colo(u)rised
> (would BBC Archive do that anyway?), but I don't think it's PAL -
> there's no obvious colour bleed effect or similar. If it's film (I see
> no film artefacts but could have been very well kept), I've not seen
> film fade in quite this manner: usually the colours fade differently,
> not evenly. I suppose it could be faded film that has been skilfully
> colour-corrected, but if that were the case, I'd have expected the
> chroma to have been turned up a bit.

Somebody or something has obviously worked on it, as it is playing here
in portrait format, which was not common until smartphones arrived.It
may just be X doing a default crop.

Working out what happened would be easier if there was a date attached
to the interview, but the poor resolution on the clip could be hiding a
lot of artifacts, such as head switching on a 2 inch machine.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message <l7241eFlkpfU1@mid.individual.net> at Tue, 2 Apr 2024
11:13:02, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
>On 02/04/2024 09:53, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> BBC Archive have just tweeted this clip
>> https://twitter.com/BBCArchive/status/1775040485037310033
>> (Sir Alec Guinness' 110th birthday, but that's not important right now)
>>
>> The clip is fairly clear, but with very muted colour - the effect is
>> more like a PAL set with the colour control turned down quite low. I was
>> wondering what the cause might be: I don't _think_ it's colo(u)rised
>> (would BBC Archive do that anyway?), but I don't think it's PAL -
>> there's no obvious colour bleed effect or similar. If it's film (I see
>> no film artefacts but could have been very well kept), I've not seen
>> film fade in quite this manner: usually the colours fade differently,
>> not evenly. I suppose it could be faded film that has been skilfully
>> colour-corrected, but if that were the case, I'd have expected the
>> chroma to have been turned up a bit.
>
>Somebody or something has obviously worked on it, as it is playing here
>in portrait format, which was not common until smartphones arrived.It
>may just be X doing a default crop.

I was going to say it was square to me, but you are right, it's taller
than it is wide - but only slightly.
>
>Working out what happened would be easier if there was a date attached
>to the interview, but the poor resolution on the clip could be hiding a
>lot of artifacts, such as head switching on a 2 inch machine.
>
Maybe someone more familiar with Sir Alec can suggest a rough date from
his appearance - or someone can recognise the background or something.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother," said Pooh, as Windows crashed into piglet.

On 02/04/2024 18:09, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <l7241eFlkpfU1@mid.individual.net> at Tue, 2 Apr 2024
> 11:13:02, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
>> Somebody or something has obviously worked on it, as it is playing
>> here in portrait format, which was not common until smartphones
>> arrived.It may just be X doing a default crop.
>
> I was going to say it was square to me, but you are right, it's taller
> than it is wide - but only slightly.

The original would have been 4 wide x 3 high, so what we see has been
cropped to fit Twitter's target audience.

> Maybe someone more familiar with Sir Alec can suggest a rough date from
> his appearance - or someone can recognise the background or something.

It may have been shot on set between scenes, the background has the look
of the edge of a set. I'd guess U-Matic, possibly a portable machine,
and the later Hi Band U-matics had pretty good colour resolution.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message <l730nhFpsdpU1@mid.individual.net> at Tue, 2 Apr 2024
19:22:40, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
>On 02/04/2024 18:09, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <l7241eFlkpfU1@mid.individual.net> at Tue, 2 Apr 2024
>> 11:13:02, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
>>> Somebody or something has obviously worked on it, as it is playing
>>> here in portrait format, which was not common until smartphones
>>> arrived.It may just be X doing a default crop.
>>
>> I was going to say it was square to me, but you are right, it's taller
>> than it is wide - but only slightly.
>
>The original would have been 4 wide x 3 high, so what we see has been
>cropped to fit Twitter's target audience.

Agreed.
>
>> Maybe someone more familiar with Sir Alec can suggest a rough date from
>> his appearance - or someone can recognise the background or something.
>
>It may have been shot on set between scenes, the background has the
>look of the edge of a set. I'd guess U-Matic, possibly a portable
>machine, and the later Hi Band U-matics had pretty good colour
>resolution.
>
So why the reduced-colour effect?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Well I wish you'd just tell me, rather than trying to engage my enthusiasm,
because I haven't got one. (Marvin; first series, fit the fifth.)

On 02/04/2024 19:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> So why the reduced-colour effect?

Artistic choice by the uploader?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 02/04/2024 09:53, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> BBC Archive have just tweeted this clip
> https://twitter.com/BBCArchive/status/1775040485037310033
> (Sir Alec Guinness' 110th birthday, but that's not important right now)
>
> The clip is fairly clear, but with very muted colour - the effect is
> more like a PAL set with the colour control turned down quite low. I was
> wondering what the cause might be: I don't _think_ it's colo(u)rised
> (would BBC Archive do that anyway?), but I don't think it's PAL -
> there's no obvious colour bleed effect or similar. If it's film (I see
> no film artefacts but could have been very well kept), I've not seen
> film fade in quite this manner: usually the colours fade differently,
> not evenly. I suppose it could be faded film that has been skilfully
> colour-corrected, but if that were the case, I'd have expected the
> chroma to have been turned up a bit.

It's definitely film. The overall look resembles film rather than video,
and I noticed a hair on one frame - I *thought* I spotted it so I
downloaded the video and went through that bit till I found the frame

https://i.postimg.cc/0y61djNz/temp.png

the hair is over his left shoulder, against the white border of the
background.

There are really *horrible* amoeba-like compression artefacts on the
background which may be due to film grain not compressing well.

I've wound up the saturation on the still

https://i.postimg.cc/63V8WYJx/temp1.png

which gives a more natural skin tone.

It looks as if it's a two-light shoot - you can see two catchlights in
his eyes, as if there is a main light that is casting a shadow of his
nose on his right (screen left), with a fill-in light to lessen the
effect of this. That suggests an on-location interview rather than an
interview in a TV studio where the lights are much higher up and less
likely to produce catchlights in the eyes.

I'd say he looks about 50-60 - there is still a hint of his youthful
appearance in Kind Hearts and Coronets (though all the characters he
played in that looked very different to each other!) and he hasn't yet
got the lined face he had when he played George Smiley.

In message <_kOdnVjnepmj6pH7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Tue, 2
Apr 2024 22:23:10, NY <me@privacy.net> writes
>On 02/04/2024 09:53, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> BBC Archive have just tweeted this clip
>> https://twitter.com/BBCArchive/status/1775040485037310033
>> (Sir Alec Guinness' 110th birthday, but that's not important right now)
>> The clip is fairly clear, but with very muted colour - the effect is
[]
>It's definitely film. The overall look resembles film rather than
>video, and I noticed a hair on one frame - I *thought* I spotted it so
>I downloaded the video and went through that bit till I found the frame
>
>https://i.postimg.cc/0y61djNz/temp.png
>
>the hair is over his left shoulder, against the white border of the
>background.

Well spotted!
>
>There are really *horrible* amoeba-like compression artefacts on the
>background which may be due to film grain not compressing well.
>
>I've wound up the saturation on the still
>
>https://i.postimg.cc/63V8WYJx/temp1.png
>
>which gives a more natural skin tone.
>
>It looks as if it's a two-light shoot - you can see two catchlights in
>his eyes, as if there is a main light that is casting a shadow of his
>nose on his right (screen left), with a fill-in light to lessen the
>effect of this. That suggests an on-location interview rather than an
>interview in a TV studio where the lights are much higher up and less
>likely to produce catchlights in the eyes.
[]
Any thoughts on why the reduced colour? As I've said, usually if it's
due to film fading, that tends to put a colour _cast_ as the layers fade
in different ways (such as the famous green of the title sequence [and
some episodes] of the first series of All Creatures Great And Small), so
I'm puzzled about this case, where the effect is more just as if the
chroma has been backed off (but evenly).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

No. I demur. Let it [the Royal Variety Performance] glitter ridiculously on, to
affirm that other people's pleasures, even ghastly ones, are part of the great
mouldy patchwork clown-trouser of the nation. - Libby Purves, rt 2022/12/17-23