"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,

So now from being an up to date
and viable alternative to video, it's a
washed out system which was
overtaken by better?

And it's *not* routinely used for news
in the UK. Not ever.

Elsewhere it was. And occassionally it was used in the UK for special
purposes.

The idea of using a medium which needs
processing before it can be shown for news is
plain ridiculous.

That was the norm. You really don't know. Electronic New Gathering (ENG)
only came in about 1979, and was horrendously expensive, and for many years
after film was still used as the prime capture medium, mainly 16mm, the
stuff you said was never ever broadcast. Only when ENG came down in price
did film get pushed out.

A fried of mine used one of the first ENGs in the UK, a Sony I think, I had
a go too. Heavy stuff. The men who used them had to be physically big as
the battery packs weighed a ton. Many were reluctant to dump film as in
comparison it was so light and easy to use. Super 8 even more so. ENG
getting cheaper, smaller and lighter killed off Super 8 as a news gathering
medium at birth. If ENG had not come along Super 8 would have been the norm
for news gathering in the UK, it was in other places. Try taking an old ENG
into a riot situation. No contest, a small film camera beats it hands down
for getting in tight. If the camera is trashed in the riot the cost is not
great to an early ENG setup.

You really don't know. It is clear you twiddle the bass and treble knobs in
the studio

As a disposable item as part of a news
item where the camera was going to
be trashed, who knows?

Pro film cameras were never cheap, Super 8 or 16mm. You don't trash them.
I recall in 1980 a news team went into Poland when Solidarity was active and
there were riots. They went in with Braun Super 8s as tourists. If they
went in with 16mm they would have been turned away. They bought the film in
Poland in the normal shops and came back with the images, all broadcastable,
the stuff you said never was capable of being broadcast remember.

I'm really educating you. Take note. Oh, I'm also great at disco dancing.




_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
news.net...

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

None of the facilities I commonly
work at even possess a telecine machine
these days. You'd need a specialist facility,
as all film is transferred to video for post production.

That was the norm 25 years ago, for Super 8 in news gathering.
Processed
immediately and direct onto video tape for editing. Not new at all.

You have been asking question to your mates because you didn't
know....he
said Super 8 and 16mm film formats were never broadcast, but after
talking
to his mates all of a sudden they are.....sad I know


You are a common LIAR.

Witless Jerry enter the fray...and of course babbles
garbage.................


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Joe" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Joe wrote:

TV News in the 1970s had an 8mm (Nizo?) and one of those dinky little
Nagras with 1/8 inch tape and hand rewind. Yes, it was for use where a
16BL and Nagra 4 or E would have been a bit conspicuous.


Special use where picture - and sound - quality didn't matter. Otherwise
they'd have been used universally. Cheap stock and cheap equipment
(apart
from the Nagra). The suit's dream.

How did they synchronise the Nagra to the film?


I don't think there was much of a lip-sync issue. You don't have
reporters working to camera when you want to keep it quiet. Normally it
would have been mute, and where sound was necessary there would rarely
be visual clues. There would also only be a few minutes at a time, which
wasn't hard to fix manually.

I recall some infra red/radio remote devices that could have the tape
recorder in synch, so a cable link was not required. The sound and cameraman
could dive for cover and be 50 yards apart and still be in synch and get the
sound and pics. I used it once with a Uher and a Beaulieu camera. Worked
well.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

In article ,
Doctor Evil wrote:
None of the facilities I commonly
work at even possess a telecine machine
these days. You'd need a specialist facility,
as all film is transferred to video for post production.

That was the norm 25 years ago, for Super 8 in news gathering. Processed
immediately and direct onto video tape for editing. Not new at all.

I'd ask how you can 'process immediately' a film used for news gathering.
Unless that 'news' took place outside the lab. And in case you didn't
realise, labs for processing something like 8mm film are rather thin on
the ground.

25 years ago - 1980 - you'd take the tape to the nearest broadcaster, BBC
or ITV, and bash it down the line to your base. If urgent. Or bike it back
to base. If you knew the need for urgency - ie some breaking news story -
you'd arrange for a direct link to your base. And it's the same today -
but with satellite comms, rather easier to do.

You have been asking question to your mates because you didn't
know....he said Super 8 and 16mm film formats were never broadcast, but
after talking to his mates all of a sudden they are.....sad I know

I asked you before to quote where *I* said 16mm wasn't used, because it
was the de facto standard for news use before portable electronic
equipment.

8mm never was.

Gettit, ******?

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Doctor Evil wrote:
......I used a full Nagra with a Super 8 Beauleiu. The Beauleiu
wasn't cheap, about the price of many 16mm cameras around......

*You* used a 'full' Nagra - whatever that is

...that is not the tiny Nagra.

Nagra make/made many models. Including a 1" C format video recorder. All
the bells and whistles 1/4 studio master recorders - the Nagra T-Audio.
Tiny and full aren't the sort of technical terms I know.
Perhaps you'll recommend tiny 'combi's' and full 'combi's' in future - it
would make as much sense.

- and a camera?

Got it in one...that is what you ise to take piccie with.....do some
reading that will tell you...

Is there no
end to your talents?

No. I'm also brill at poetry.

I'm very pleased for you. Perhaps you'd get your nurse to cast an eye over
the metre?

Now I know all about multi-tasking,
but no one in their right mind would
use two ancient ways of recording
pictures and sound as a one man
operation.

That is why they invented "sound cameras" note the words....then ask
your mates...

Tee hee. Now you're going back well over 1/2 a century...

Perhaps this is where your love of two combis comes from.

You can use two combi''s with a sound camera...ask your mates.....

You see double all the time...

How did they synchronise the Nagra to the film?

......the know-it-all caberman now admits he knows sweet
FA...brainache has set in...yes that is true....it was synched in
the normal way, via synch socket on the camera.....It is a Pro
camera for God's sake....this is what cabers do to you...sad but
true......

I just knew it was too much to expect a technical answer from you.

You mean you didn't know? It's true he never. A set of contacts make a
pulse for each film frame which is recorded on the tape. Then the film
and sound can be matched up using the pulses for perfect lip synch.

One pulse per frame on 8mm? Any idea how much flutter that would introduce?

How does it work?

He really doesn't know....now he'll have to ask his mates again.... It
is best he just read what I wrote, so much easier.

I was hoping for something like standard Nagra pilot tone. Ah well. My
fault for asking a technical question of a fool.

--
*The most common name in the world is Mohammed *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Joe wrote:
TV News in the 1970s had an 8mm (Nizo?) and one of those dinky little
Nagras with 1/8 inch tape and hand rewind. Yes, it was for use where a
16BL and Nagra 4 or E would have been a bit conspicuous.


Special use where picture - and sound - quality didn't matter.
Otherwise they'd have been used universally. Cheap stock and cheap
equipment (apart from the Nagra). The suit's dream.

How did they synchronise the Nagra to the film?


I don't think there was much of a lip-sync issue. You don't have
reporters working to camera when you want to keep it quiet. Normally it
would have been mute, and where sound was necessary there would rarely
be visual clues. There would also only be a few minutes at a time, which
wasn't hard to fix manually.

Yup. So 'special' use only? Of course, something like a PD150 is no larger
than an 8mm film camera, so I doubt there's much call these days.

--
*Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Joe wrote:
How did they synchronise the Nagra to the film?


......the know-it-all caberman now admits he knows sweet
FA...brainache has set in...yes that is true....it was synched in the
normal way, via synch socket on the camera.....It is a Pro camera for
God's sake....this is what cabers do to you...sad but true......


No pilot tone on the Nagra SN. The head's small enough as it is.

You've got to realise there's no point in trying a logical discussion with
IMM or Drivel as he simply makes things up...

--
*The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Evil wrote:
None of the facilities I commonly
work at even possess a telecine machine
these days. You'd need a specialist facility,
as all film is transferred to video for post production.

That was the norm 25 years ago, for Super 8 in news gathering. Processed
immediately and direct onto video tape for editing. Not new at all.

I'd ask how you can 'process immediately' a film used for news gathering.
Unless that 'news' took place outside the lab. And in case you didn't
realise, labs for processing something like 8mm film are rather thin on
the ground.

They were not then Kodak had two in the City and West end, with only a few
hours service. I recall the BBC had its own 16mm processing.

25 years ago - 1980 - you'd take the tape to the nearest broadcaster, BBC
or ITV, and bash it down the line to your base. If urgent. Or bike it back
to base. If you knew the need for urgency - ie some breaking news story -
you'd arrange for a direct link to your base. And it's the same today -
but with satellite comms, rather easier to do.

You have been asking question to your mates because you didn't
know....he said Super 8 and 16mm film formats were never broadcast, but
after talking to his mates all of a sudden they are.....sad I know

I asked you before to quote where *I* said 16mm wasn't used, because it
was the de facto standard for news use before portable electronic
equipment.

8mm never was.

It was in other countries and would have been here...see other posts. You
really don't know do you? One of thsoe sound men in a studio that no one
likes. A knob twiddler. sad but true.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

....out caber tossing man spurts forth...yes he does....

I was hoping for something like
standard Nagra pilot tone. Ah well. My
fault for asking a technical question of a fool.

...the man of caber tossing says I know about the Nagra
...a pilot tone, a pilot tone, he stamps his foot in anger
...a man is such a fool he says, knowing not of a recorder
...this is how the caber man sees the world of order

...his dream of archived cabers, it did not arise
...as sane people in this world, the cabers they despise
...they also hate the TV game; the people with disregard
...regarding one that works in there as tosser and retard



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
news.net...

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

None of the facilities I commonly
work at even possess a telecine machine
these days. You'd need a specialist facility,
as all film is transferred to video for post production.

That was the norm 25 years ago, for Super 8 in news gathering.
Processed
immediately and direct onto video tape for editing. Not new at
all.

You have been asking question to your mates because you didn't
know....he
said Super 8 and 16mm film formats were never broadcast, but
after
talking
to his mates all of a sudden they are.....sad I know


You are a common LIAR.

Witless Jerry enter the fray...and of course babbles
garbage.................


That's as may be, but you are still a liar.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Joe wrote:
How did they synchronise the Nagra to the film?


......the know-it-all caberman now admits he knows sweet
FA...brainache has set in...yes that is true....it was synched in the
normal way, via synch socket on the camera.....It is a Pro camera for
God's sake....this is what cabers do to you...sad but true......


No pilot tone on the Nagra SN. The head's small enough as it is.

You've got to realise there's no point in trying a logical discussion with
IMM or Drivel as he simply makes things up...

...we make thing up, the caberman said
...we took him to the doctorman to put him straight to bed
...the quack he kept him all tied up, the case it was severe
...babbling all time, about cabers, Nagras and cheap supermarket beer
...the quack he did forbid the beer, he then made such a racket
...your off Rampton and the likes to stay in that straight jacket.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
news.net...

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
news.net...

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

None of the facilities I commonly
work at even possess a telecine machine
these days. You'd need a specialist facility,
as all film is transferred to video for post production.

That was the norm 25 years ago, for Super 8 in news gathering.
Processed
immediately and direct onto video tape for editing. Not new at
all.

You have been asking question to your mates because you didn't
know....he
said Super 8 and 16mm film formats were never broadcast, but
after
talking
to his mates all of a sudden they are.....sad I know


You are a common LIAR.

Witless Jerry enter the fray...and of course babbles
garbage.................


That's as may be, but you are still a liar.

You are not having poem about yourself. Now **** off.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

In article ,
Doctor Evil wrote:
So now from being an up to date
and viable alternative to video, it's a
washed out system which was
overtaken by better?

And it's *not* routinely used for news
in the UK. Not ever.

Elsewhere it was. And occassionally it was used in the UK for special
purposes.

Suddenly you're going from it being the standard to 'occasionally for
special purposes'? Nice to see you've read and understood my posts, for
once. Or have you talked again to your pal who's put you right?

The idea of using a medium which needs
processing before it can be shown for news is
plain ridiculous.

That was the norm.

Of course it *was*. There was no alternative.

You really don't know. Electronic New Gathering (ENG) only came in
about 1979, and was horrendously expensive, and for many years after
film was still used as the prime capture medium, mainly 16mm, the stuff
you said was never ever broadcast.

Sigh. I keep on asking you for evidence of my saying this - a quote will
do - but that's plainly beyond you.

Only when ENG came down in price did film get pushed out.

You've moved back again to history. The discussion was about recent times.
Or do you just live in the past?

But in any case, the transition to ENG was rapid - as the benefits were
enormous. And the equipment and costs improved quickly.

A fried of mine used one of the first ENGs in the UK, a Sony I think, I
had a go too. Heavy stuff. The men who used them had to be physically
big as the battery packs weighed a ton.

On an ENG crew, the sound recordist would carry the U-Matic recorder. The
camera was lighter than a 16mm one. Your 'fried' must have been a one man
band with no knowledge of broadcast.


Many were reluctant to dump film as in comparison it was so light and
easy to use.

Your 'fried' was probably charging his gear to the company, so reluctant
to change. Happens all the time

Super 8 even more so.

Perhaps you'll get it into your addled brain that Super 8 was *never* used
as a *mainstream* format in the UK? Because it didn't meet specs?


ENG getting cheaper, smaller and
lighter killed off Super 8 as a news gathering medium at birth.

Good grief. So you finally admit it? WTF has this all been about, then?

If ENG had not come along Super 8 would have been the norm for news
gathering in the UK, it was in other places.

Rubbish. It's a crap domestic format. 16mm would have continued as the
format of choice in news in the UK.

Try taking an old ENG into a riot situation. No contest, a small film
camera beats it hands down for getting in tight. If the camera is
trashed in the riot the cost is not great to an early ENG setup.

True. Cheap disposable rubbish. So where are your arguments about the
better quality?

You really don't know. It is clear you twiddle the bass and treble
knobs in the studio

I've twiddled knobs worldwide. And observed. You'd do well to take advice
from one who knows- not some now out of work stringer with ancient
equipment.

As a disposable item as part of a news item where the camera was going
to be trashed, who knows?

Pro film cameras were never cheap, Super 8 or 16mm. You don't trash
them. I recall in 1980 a news team went into Poland when Solidarity was
active and there were riots. They went in with Braun Super 8s as
tourists. If they went in with 16mm they would have been turned away.
They bought the film in Poland in the normal shops and came back with
the images, all broadcastable, the stuff you said never was capable of
being broadcast remember.

All 'interesting' news footage - no matter how appalling in quality - will
be broadcast. Don't you ever watch the news? You'll get all sorts of
amateur crap shown - if it's relevant.

I'm really educating you. Take note. Oh, I'm also great at disco
dancing.

But surely at your age you should be resting - or possibly a gentle tea
dance?

--
*Sorry, I don't date outside my species.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Doctor Evil wrote:
I don't think there was much of a lip-sync issue. You don't have
reporters working to camera when you want to keep it quiet. Normally
it would have been mute, and where sound was necessary there would
rarely be visual clues. There would also only be a few minutes at a
time, which wasn't hard to fix manually.

I recall some infra red/radio remote devices that could have the tape
recorder in synch, so a cable link was not required. The sound and
cameraman could dive for cover and be 50 yards apart and still be in
synch and get the sound and pics. I used it once with a Uher and a
Beaulieu camera. Worked well.

A Uher with the ability to sync? You're having a joke?

--
*Why is it that to stop Windows 95, you have to click on "Start"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
A Uher with the ability to sync? You're having a joke?

I think he's been syncopating on the UHU

Owain

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Evil wrote:
I don't think there was much of a lip-sync issue. You don't have
reporters working to camera when you want to keep it quiet. Normally
it would have been mute, and where sound was necessary there would
rarely be visual clues. There would also only be a few minutes at a
time, which wasn't hard to fix manually.

I recall some infra red/radio remote devices that could have the tape
recorder in synch, so a cable link was not required. The sound and
cameraman could dive for cover and be 50 yards apart and still be in
synch and get the sound and pics. I used it once with a Uher and a
Beaulieu camera. Worked well.

A Uher with the ability to sync? You're having a joke?

Nope.


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

In article ,
Doctor Evil wrote:
I was hoping for something like
standard Nagra pilot tone. Ah well. My
fault for asking a technical question of a fool.

..the man of caber tossing says I know about the Nagra
..a pilot tone, a pilot tone, he stamps his foot in anger
..a man is such a fool he says, knowing not of a recorder
..this is how the caber man sees the world of order

So I'll take that as a poor poetic no, then?

You should go back to wanking. Typing with one hand saves you wasting so
many characters.

--
*If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Evil wrote:
So now from being an up to date
and viable alternative to video, it's a
washed out system which was
overtaken by better?

And it's *not* routinely used for news
in the UK. Not ever.

Elsewhere it was. And occassionally it was used in the UK for special
purposes.

Suddenly you're going from it being
the standard to 'occasionally for
special purposes'?

No. Standard in other parts of the world, would have been standard here
except ENG came in and became cheap rather quick. The BBC bought a whole
bunch of Braun Super 8s.

The idea of using a medium which needs
processing before it can be shown for news is
plain ridiculous.

That was the norm.

Of course it *was*. There was no alternative.

You really don't know. Electronic New Gathering (ENG) only came in
about 1979, and was horrendously expensive, and for many years after
film was still used as the prime capture medium, mainly 16mm, the stuff
you said was never ever broadcast.

Sigh. I keep on asking you for evidence
of my saying this

Evidence is me, that is all you need. The young spotty faced ones at your
work wouldn't have a clue.

Only when ENG came down in price did film get pushed out.

You've moved back again to history.
The discussion was about recent times.

Since when?

But in any case, the transition to
ENG was rapid - as the benefits were
enormous. And the equipment and costs
improved quickly.

I told you that for God's sake.

A fried of mine used one of the first ENGs in the UK, a Sony I think, I
had a go too. Heavy stuff. The men who used them had to be physically
big as the battery packs weighed a ton.

On an ENG crew, the sound recordist
would carry the U-Matic recorder. The
camera was lighter than a 16mm one.
Your 'fried' must have been a one man
band with no knowledge of broadcast.

He worked for ABC, a US news outfit. One worked for the Beeb.

Many were reluctant to dump film as in comparison it was so light and
easy to use.

Your 'fried' was probably charging his
gear to the company, so reluctant
to change. Happens all the time

Super 8 even more so.

Perhaps you'll get it into your addled
brain that Super 8 was *never* used
as a *mainstream* format in the UK?
Because it didn't meet specs?

You really are a thicko. You have to read what I write. It was used, for
special purposes in the UK, and it was assessed for suitability because of
the pro equipment available. Other countries used it and broadcast it for
news. That means it was used. Got it? No, I'm sure you haven't

It totally met the specs, except in long shot where it could not compete
with 16mm, but was fine for news. The plasticity of film made it much more
appealling that video at the time. The biggest problem in the UK was that
TV companies in a closed market of no competition made oodles of money and
would only go for expensive kit. Another was the attitude and image from
the mainstream outfits. Super 8 started out as amateur. Film stocks
increased emourmously, from 1965 when it was introduced, computers made
lenses very sharp in production and pro cameras followed on bringing Super 8
into the pro realm, at least for TV, where it was broadcastable, and was.

ENG getting cheaper, smaller and
lighter killed off Super 8 as a news
gathering medium at birth.

Good grief. So you finally admit it?
WTF has this all been about, then?

The point was that Super 8 was broadcastable, which you said it wasn't.
Then you went on about it not being used for broadcasting, which it was,
especially in other countries. What you said was total balls. It is fully
broadcastable. It has the rersolution.

If ENG had not come along Super 8 would
have been the norm for news
gathering in the UK, it was in other places.

Rubbish. It's a crap domestic format.

You show you ignorance. Stick to the bass and treble knobs.

16mm would have continued as the
format of choice in news in the UK.

It was looking to go Super 8 for local news and the likes.

Try taking an old ENG into a riot situation. No contest, a small film
camera beats it hands down for getting in tight. If the camera is
trashed in the riot the cost is not great to an early ENG setup.

True. Cheap disposable rubbish.

16mm cameras are disposable rubbish? Not rubbish at all, just not silly
money for getting piccies on air quicker. The early ENGs were not actually
quicker as the system was setup for news on film and telecined.

So where are your arguments about the
better quality?

Nope. That Super 8 was of a resolution, together with filmstock and pro
cameras (the Beaulieu had/has interchangeable lenses and a 16mm design of
gate, not a beam splitter) high enough to be broadcast which obviously you
didn't know. I even gave you a piccie of a pro camera, and you didn't even
believe that. And you keep saying it is amateur crap and can't be
broadcast. They more you keep saying that the bigger the idiot you look.

You really don't know. It is clear you
twiddle the bass and treble
knobs in the studio

I've twiddled knobs worldwide.
And observed. You'd do well to take advice
from one who knows- not some now out of
work stringer with ancient equipment.

I wouldn't dream of taking advice from you, you are clearly lacking. Sad
but true.

As a disposable item as part of a news item where the camera was going
to be trashed, who knows?

Pro film cameras were never cheap, Super 8 or 16mm. You don't trash
them. I recall in 1980 a news team went into Poland when Solidarity was
active and there were riots. They went in with Braun Super 8s as
tourists. If they went in with 16mm they would have been turned away.
They bought the film in Poland in the normal shops and came back with
the images, all broadcastable, the stuff you said never was capable of
being broadcast remember.

All 'interesting' news footage - no matter
how appalling in quality - will be broadcast.

Quality was excellent when the lighting was good. Low light was grainy.

I'm really educating you. Take note.
Oh, I'm also great at disco dancing.

But surely at your age you should be
resting - or possibly a gentle tea
dance?

I'm not even 40. Boy don't you work in a boring industry.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Doctor Evil wrote:

......the caberman has a change of stance.....from saying it never was never
used......it is now only used in news..........he fails to realise that of

Even if you are unable to comprehend, at least learn to read.

Dave said very clearly a good number of posts ago: "With the advent of
colour, colour 35mm stock was deemed just to expensive for most in the
UK - although the US continued to use it. So 16 mm became the norm -
later super 16mm which got a larger image onto the same sized film."

How does that equate to "saying it never was never used"?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
snip

Sigh. I keep on asking you for evidence
of my saying this

Evidence is me, that is all you need. The young spotty faced ones
at your
work wouldn't have a clue.


You really do have an inflated idea of yourself, can you quote a
single programme that your 'friend' has been credited on?

Only when ENG came down in price did film get pushed out.

You've moved back again to history.
The discussion was about recent times.

Since when?

You said in In article ,

quote
........he fails to see that news work is different and that Beulieu
made
professional super 8s, which is still used.....
/quote

No one had ever said that Super 8 wasn't used in news, but it was NOT
used as the norm in the UK and it has never been used in drama etc.
It's use would have had to be justified, just as the use of *domestic*
DV cameras has to be even today.

Each and every example you have suggested as proof that Super 8 was
used regularly proves nothing but the fact that in special
circumstances any image gathering medium will be used if it is the
only means to obtain images (such a posing as tourists in Poland).

Since the advent of the small analogue video camera and now the small
DV camera there is absolutely no need what so ever to use film let
alone a crap format like Super 8 - even in NTSC land.

snip the rest if drivels clap-trap

I'm not even 40. Boy don't you work in a boring industry.


No, I doubt you are, I suspect that you aren't even half that age....

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Dave said very clearly a good number
of posts ago: "With the advent of
colour, colour 35mm stock was deemed
just to expensive for most in the
UK - although the US continued to
use it. So 16 mm became the norm -
later super 16mm which got a larger
image onto the same sized film."

How does that equate to "saying it never was never used"?

His inaccurate comments:

"Hint. 16mm film struggles to make decent TV resolution."
WRONG!!! total balls.

"*If* 8mm was ever used, it would have been for something where a small - or
likely disposable - camera was *essential* as the quality can't and never
did - meet the specs required *by law* then for broadcasting equipment."
WRONG!!! Super 8 was used, and it meets broadcast standards.

"[Super 8] Rubbish. It's a crap domestic format."
WRONG!! Professional cameras and equipment , even pro flatbed editors were
all available and it was used professionally.

"Professional 8mm? You're having a laugh"
WRONG!! Professional Super 8 equipment was made and used for broadcast
work.

"You insinuated it was capable of meeting broadcast specs"
" Watch my lips. It never was and never will be."
WRONG!! Super 8 was, and still is, broadcast standard with correct pro
equipment, and met broadcast specs.

"16mm will beat the resolution needed for present analogue TV - when used as
intended and projected - but it's not quite the same when put through the TV
system."
WRONG!!! 16mm is full broadcast quality when telecined.

"16mm has been a mainstay of certain types of TV production since colour
arrived."
CONTRADICTION: 16mm is now acceptable from being not acceptable - he was
talking to the pros.

"[16mm] because it was the de facto standard for news use before portable
electronic equipment. 8mm never was."
WRONG!! Super 8mm was used for news in other parts of the world, (I once
met a Japanese crew who used Super 8 using Elmo cameras, any would also have
a spare small Super 8 camera in case the 16mm camera broke down) and limited
use in the UK.

"Super 8 was *never* used as a *mainstream* format in the UK? Because it
didn't meet specs?"
WRONG!! It met broadcast specs.

Since Super 8 was used for news gathering, alas no more, the filmstocks have
improved substantially. With higher quality film to video telecine
equipment, the final video picture is excellent.

Notice: when he is cornered he insults. Highly amusing. He is no pro, he
works in the stores and keeps the leads in order. A pro wannabe, but
doesn't have the brains.

Super 8 has had a resurgence in popularity, after nearly dying, because
cheap video flooded the market. Video has been the initial spur then people
want more. Video is great for learning as there is instant playback. The
topline Super equipment was ionly made fior a few years, as it was intenede
to compete with video. Video won, but left a lot of nearly new top quality
pro Super 8 equipment still around. The resurgence of Super 8 means that
that this stuff is now commanding high prices. Only a few years ago a
German company was selling brand new (well new old stock) pro cameras. They
just pulled them from from the back room, still in boxes after 20 years.

Fuji had their own format, Single 8, and have started production again of
filmstock. I believe they only process in Japan, but there will always be
someone who will process it for you elsewhere. The people who use Super 8
are the hols piccies types.










_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

The people who use Super 8
are the hols piccies types.

Correction:
The people who use Super 8 are not the hols piccies types.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

The people who use Super 8
are the hols piccies types.

Correction:
snip

What you meant to write was "I'm talking out of my arse".

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

The people who use Super 8
are not the hols piccies types.

What you meant to write was

You are not getting an ode.


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

quote
.......he fails to see that news work is different and that Beulieu
made
professional super 8s, which is still used.....
/quote

No one had ever said that Super 8
wasn't used in news,

Wrong, our caber tosser did.

but it was NOT used as the norm in
the UK and it has never been used
in drama etc.

The PRIME point: Was Super 8 broadcastable? Yes it was and still is. Even
more now with superior filmstocks and telecine equipment.

snip disjointed off focus stuff


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Doctor Evil wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


Dave said very clearly a good number
of posts ago: "With the advent of
colour, colour 35mm stock was deemed
just to expensive for most in the
UK - although the US continued to
use it. So 16 mm became the norm -
later super 16mm which got a larger
image onto the same sized film."

How does that equate to "saying it never was never used"?


His inaccurate comments:

So you can't find a quote then huh?

"[Super 8] Rubbish. It's a crap domestic format."
WRONG!! Professional cameras and equipment , even pro flatbed editors were
all available and it was used professionally.

I have used Super 8. It is crap by any standard. You have the same size
negative as a 110 camera - and they were crap without exception for just
that reason (and yes I am including the Pentax Mini SLR).

Super 8 has had a resurgence in popularity, after nearly dying, because
cheap video flooded the market. Video has been the initial spur then people
want more. Video is great for learning as there is instant playback. The
topline Super equipment was ionly made fior a few years, as it was intenede
to compete with video. Video won, but left a lot of nearly new top quality
pro Super 8 equipment still around. The resurgence of Super 8 means that
that this stuff is now commanding high prices. Only a few years ago a
German company was selling brand new (well new old stock) pro cameras. They
just pulled them from from the back room, still in boxes after 20 years.

The only reason Super 8 has any interest these days is that it is a
cheap way for enthusiasts to get that "filmic" quality to productions
that they can not get on video, and when they can't afford a real film
format.

someone who will process it for you elsewhere. The people who use Super 8
are the hols piccies types.

Now he's got it.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
Doctor Evil wrote:
A Uher with the ability to sync? You're having a joke?

Nope.

Perhaps you'll give its model number?

Or is 'full' and 'dinky' the limit of your technical knowledge?

--
*All generalizations are false.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Doctor Evil wrote:
Suddenly you're going from it being
the standard to 'occasionally for
special purposes'?

No. Standard in other parts of the world, would have been standard here
except ENG came in and became cheap rather quick. The BBC bought a whole
bunch of Braun Super 8s.

Other parts of the world? What's that got to do with the UK? Other parts
of the world have very different standards and expectations of their
broadcasting systems.

Oh - the BBC bought Blatnophones at one time. They used 3/4" open real B&W
recorders for some things.

But I'm talking about *now*, or at least recent times.

The idea of using a medium which needs
processing before it can be shown for news is
plain ridiculous.

That was the norm.

Of course it *was*. There was no alternative.

You really don't know. Electronic New Gathering (ENG) only came in
about 1979, and was horrendously expensive, and for many years after
film was still used as the prime capture medium, mainly 16mm, the
stuff you said was never ever broadcast.

Sigh. I keep on asking you for evidence
of my saying this

Evidence is me, that is all you need. The young spotty faced ones at
your work wouldn't have a clue.

Because you say so it must be true. Fool.

Only when ENG came down in price did film get pushed out.

You've moved back again to history.
The discussion was about recent times.

Since when?

Since you first said how good Super 8 is. It isn't, and never was. It's a
now largely forgotten domestic format - apart from for perhaps students to
learn the rudiments of pure film work - because of the lower stock costs.

But in any case, the transition to
ENG was rapid - as the benefits were
enormous. And the equipment and costs
improved quickly.

I told you that for God's sake.

How can you tell me what I already knew? I was around as it happened, and
know all the arguments.

A fried of mine used one of the first ENGs in the UK, a Sony I
think, I had a go too. Heavy stuff. The men who used them had to
be physically big as the battery packs weighed a ton.

On an ENG crew, the sound recordist
would carry the U-Matic recorder. The
camera was lighter than a 16mm one.
Your 'fried' must have been a one man
band with no knowledge of broadcast.

He worked for ABC, a US news outfit.

One minute you're talking about the UK, the next the US.

One worked for the Beeb.

BBC ENG followed the norm in the UK of separate camera and U-Matic
recorder. The recorder was carried by the sound man as it replaced his
Nagra or whatever. The ENG camera was no heavier than a 16mm one - and
both needed fairly heavy batteries.

Many were reluctant to dump film as in comparison it was so light
and easy to use.

Many were reluctant to change since they feared the competition from
cameramen brought up in the electronic field and were trying to protect
the exclusivity of their jobs. Your 'fried' would have been coy about
telling you this, though.

Your 'fried' was probably charging his
gear to the company, so reluctant
to change. Happens all the time

Super 8 even more so.

Perhaps you'll get it into your addled
brain that Super 8 was *never* used
as a *mainstream* format in the UK?
Because it didn't meet specs?

You really are a thicko. You have to read what I write. It was used,
for special purposes in the UK, and it was assessed for suitability
because of the pro equipment available.

And dumped before it got past the starting post. Thicko. Every format or
potential format is 'assessed'. Thicko. And most rejected.

Other countries used it and broadcast it for news. That means it was
used. Got it? No, I'm sure you haven't

Other countries broadcast off VHS as a routine. So what? Just because they
don't give a toss about quality has no relevance here.

It totally met the specs, except in long shot where it could not compete
with 16mm, but was fine for news.

Where long shots of everts happening - not talking heads - are the *prime*
reason for location news shooting? Do you think before shooting yourself
in the foot?

The plasticity of film made it much more appealling that video at the
time.

They're both made of plastic.

The biggest problem in the UK was that TV companies in a closed market
of no competition made oodles of money and would only go for expensive
kit.

They went for quality kit that would serve the purpose. And domestic kit
never does.

Another was the attitude and image from the mainstream outfits.
Super 8 started out as amateur.

And stayed that way.

Film stocks increased emourmously, from 1965 when it was introduced,
computers made lenses very sharp in production and pro cameras followed
on bringing Super 8 into the pro realm, at least for TV, where it was
broadcastable, and was.

While of course films stock improved - as I assume you mean - you can't
make a silk purse out of a cow's ear - or change the laws of physics.
And I'm still waiting for an example of a UK TV programme made on Super 8.

ENG getting cheaper, smaller and lighter killed off Super 8 as a
news gathering medium at birth.

Good grief. So you finally admit it? WTF has this all been about, then?

The point was that Super 8 was broadcastable, which you said it wasn't.

But it never was broadcast commonly, so there's no evidence to back up
your claims. No surprise there.

Then you went on about it not being used for broadcasting, which it was,
especially in other countries. What you said was total balls. It is
fully broadcastable. It has the rersolution.

You can broadcast the very worst amateur made VHS stuff. You see it every
week in 'You've been Framed'. Because something has been broadcast doesn't
make it a broadcast format.

If ENG had not come along Super 8 would have been the norm for news
gathering in the UK, it was in other places.

Rubbish. It's a crap domestic format.

You show you ignorance. Stick to the bass and treble knobs.

I was going to stay stick to boilers, but...

16mm would have continued as the format of choice in news in the UK.

It was looking to go Super 8 for local news and the likes.

By all those companies *you say* wanted to use only the most expensive
equipment? Isn't there a slight flaw there?

Try taking an old ENG into a riot situation. No contest, a small
film camera beats it hands down for getting in tight. If the camera
is trashed in the riot the cost is not great to an early ENG setup.

True. Cheap disposable rubbish.

16mm cameras are disposable rubbish?

You think a 16mm camera smaller than an ENG one?

Not rubbish at all, just not silly
money for getting piccies on air quicker. The early ENGs were not
actually quicker as the system was setup for news on film and telecined.

And all that film equipment could deal with 8mm? Perhaps you need a bit
more work on your train of thought...

So where are your arguments about the better quality?

Nope. That Super 8 was of a resolution, together with filmstock and pro
cameras (the Beaulieu had/has interchangeable lenses and a 16mm design
of gate, not a beam splitter) high enough to be broadcast which
obviously you didn't know. I even gave you a piccie of a pro camera,
and you didn't even believe that. And you keep saying it is amateur
crap and can't be broadcast. They more you keep saying that the bigger
the idiot you look.

I'm still waiting for examples we can all watch in the UK of quality
programmes made on Super 8. That can be the only proof of your rambling.

You really don't know. It is clear you twiddle the bass and treble
knobs in the studio

I've twiddled knobs worldwide. And observed. You'd do well to take
advice from one who knows- not some now out of work stringer with
ancient equipment.

I wouldn't dream of taking advice from you, you are clearly lacking.
Sad but true.

Then everyone working in the UK TV industry is lacking too. You are the
shining example to us all. Take your ideas straight to Mr Murdoch. He
isn't constraint with the idea of wasting money on pro equipment if
domestic will do. I'm sure he'll welcome you with open arms.

As a disposable item as part of a news item where the camera was
going to be trashed, who knows?

Pro film cameras were never cheap, Super 8 or 16mm. You don't trash
them. I recall in 1980 a news team went into Poland when Solidarity
was active and there were riots. They went in with Braun Super 8s as
tourists. If they went in with 16mm they would have been turned
away. They bought the film in Poland in the normal shops and came
back with the images, all broadcastable, the stuff you said never
was capable of being broadcast remember.

All 'interesting' news footage - no matter how appalling in quality -
will be broadcast.

Quality was excellent when the lighting was good. Low light was grainy.

But surely one of your influence could arrange for all breaking news to
take place in good light? Should be easy, given your connections and
experience? Or, perhaps, news crews should carry 'Super 8 IMM Pro'® for
good light stuff and their regular gear for everything else?
That would be a win win situation?

I'm really educating you. Take note.
Oh, I'm also great at disco dancing.

But surely at your age you should be
resting - or possibly a gentle tea
dance?

I'm not even 40. Boy don't you work in a boring industry.

So all your 'knowledge' of the film - ENG revolution is hearsay, since
you can't have had anything to do with it?

Yet you bandy words like 'Nagra' and 'Uher' around like you actually new
what they are and had used them as intended. Sad.

--
*Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Yet you bandy words like 'Nagra'
and 'Uher'

Uher with film sync. You really don't know do you? You are the storeman.
You keep the stuff on the shelves and brush up wearing yellow boots.

http://uher.net/Open_Reel/Report_Mon...000_report_mon
itor.html

http://www.cwo.com/~ashlin/ttl/sound.htm




_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Evil wrote:

Suddenly you're going from it being
the standard to 'occasionally for
special purposes'?

No. Standard in other parts of the world,
would have been standard here
except ENG came in and became cheap
rather quick. The BBC bought a whole
bunch of Braun Super 8s.

Other parts of the world?

....is actually serious saying that..

What's that got to do with the UK?

....is actually saying these things...yes he is...

Other parts of the world have very
different standards and expectations of their
broadcasting systems.

Like Canda, France, USA, etc.

Oh - the BBC bought Blatnophones at one time.
They used 3/4" open real B&W
recorders for some things.

They also had the mechanical Baird system too. Duh...

But I'm talking about *now*, or at least recent times.

......only God knows what you are talking about.

....You said Super 8 was not broadcastable...It is and was ...and I educated
you on the matter..

Evidence is me, that is all you need.
The young spotty faced ones at
your work wouldn't have a clue.

Because you say so it must be true.

Correct! Good, you are learning.

Fool.

Only when ENG came down in price did film get pushed out.

You've moved back again to history.
The discussion was about recent times.

Since when?

Since you first said how good Super 8 is.
It isn't, and never was.

....and he reallu shows his ignornace. Pro in film/TV? My asee!!!

It's a now largely forgotten domestic
format - apart from for perhaps students to
learn the rudiments of pure film work - because
of the lower stock costs.

....there has been a resurgence.

But in any case, the transition to
ENG was rapid - as the benefits were
enormous. And the equipment and costs
improved quickly.

I told you that for God's sake.

How can you tell me what I already knew?

....it clear you don't know and ask people and come back with half baked
responses....he goes on...

A fried of mine used one of the first ENGs in the UK, a Sony I
think, I had a go too. Heavy stuff. The men who used them had to
be physically big as the battery packs weighed a ton.

On an ENG crew, the sound recordist
would carry the U-Matic recorder. The
camera was lighter than a 16mm one.
Your 'fried' must have been a one man
band with no knowledge of broadcast.

He worked for ABC, a US news outfit.

One minute you're talking about the UK, the next the US.

Based in the UK.

Other countries used it and broadcast it for news. That means it was
used. Got it? No, I'm sure you haven't

Other countries broadcast off VHS as a routine.
So what? Just because they
don't give a toss about quality has no relevance here.

Acceptable to UK.

The plasticity of film made it much
more appealling that video at the
time.

They're both made of plastic.

....you are a clear idiot.

The biggest problem in the UK was that TV companies in a closed market
of no competition made oodles of money and would only go for expensive
kit.

They went for quality kit that would serve
the purpose. And domestic kit
never does.

Quite right that's why they went for professional Super 8

Another was the attitude and image from the mainstream outfits.
Super 8 started out as amateur.

And stayed that way.

...went pro my dear friend. Remember the pro camera piccie I showed you.

See:http://www.moviemaker.com/issues/03/super8.html
"but there's really very little difference between Super 8, 16 and 35 mm
after they're bumped to tape. "

Movie Maker is US business film mag, Note the Super 8 filmstock they rave
over.

Film stocks increased emourmously, from 1965 when it was introduced,
computers made lenses very sharp in production and pro cameras followed
on bringing Super 8 into the pro realm, at least for TV, where it was
broadcastable, and was.

While of course films stock improved - as
I assume you mean - you can't
make a silk purse out of a cow's ear - or
change the laws of physics.
And I'm still waiting for an example of a
UK TV programme made on Super 8.

It was used for news you silly pillock, you have been told that...

ENG getting cheaper, smaller and lighter killed off Super 8 as a
news gathering medium at birth.

Good grief. So you finally admit it? WTF has this all been about,
then?

The point was that Super 8 was broadcastable, which you said it wasn't.

But it never was broadcast commonly,

"commonly" so it was then? Well you wouldn't know anyway.

Then you went on about it not being used for broadcasting, which it was,
especially in other countries. What you said was total balls. It is
fully broadcastable. It has the rersolution.

You can broadcast the very worst amateur made VHS stuff. You see it every
week in 'You've been Framed'. Because something has been broadcast doesn't
make it a broadcast format.

News Super 8 was pristine.

Rubbish. It's a crap domestic format.

You show you ignorance. Stick to the bass and treble knobs.

I was going to stay stick to boilers, but...

....you want piccies of combi's don't you....

It was looking to go Super 8 for local news and the likes.

By all those companies *you say*
wanted to use only the most expensive
equipment? Isn't there a slight flaw there?

Nope. Being favourably assessed. I knew a small film company that made
small news items for local news. They sort they fill in with, like
reporting a stables opening up. The sort that can hang around for 6 weeks
until a fill place. They would deliver the slot on video tape, but recorded
it on Super 8. The TV company was unaware.

16mm cameras are disposable rubbish?

You think a 16mm camera smaller than an ENG one?

...you can't even follow the thread.

I wouldn't dream of taking advice
from you, you are clearly lacking.
Sad but true.

Then everyone working in the UK
TV industry is lacking too.

...there are many vacant people operating in that business.

Quality was excellent when the lighting was good. Low light was grainy.

I'm really educating you. Take note.
Oh, I'm also great at disco dancing.

But surely at your age you should be
resting - or possibly a gentle tea
dance?

I'm not even 40. Boy don't you work in a boring industry.

So all your 'knowledge' of the film - ENG
revolution is hearsay, since
you can't have had anything to do with it?

Boy don't you work in a boring industry.

Yet you bandy words like 'Nagra'
and 'Uher' around like you actually new
what they are and had used them as
intended.

...this pillock said a Uher could not be synched. How sad, how sad. I also
had a Marrantz professional cassette recorder synched. A company would
converted them for you.

BTW, I filmed with a pro Beaulieu 6008 Pro camera and a Uher an interview
that went on Venezuelan TV. Fully broadcastable. Excellent results all
around.

Boy don't you work in a boring industry as you clean the floor and look
after the stock room.







_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Yet you bandy words like 'Nagra'
and 'Uher'

Uher with film sync. You really don't know do you? You are the
storeman.
You keep the stuff on the shelves and brush up wearing yellow boots.


Well, if he is it means he has 100 percent more experience with the
equipment that you do, considering that the only times you come near
it is when you see picture of the stuff on a web page - just like your
experience with combi boilers is totally web based....

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

snip

See:http://www.moviemaker.com/issues/03/super8.html
"but there's really very little difference between Super 8, 16 and
35 mm
after they're bumped to tape. "

Movie Maker is US business film mag, Note the Super 8 filmstock
they rave
over.


No it is not, it's the equivalent to the UK magazine that used to be
called Camcorder User.

snip the rest of Drivels verbal diarrhoea

In article ,
Doctor Evil wrote:
The PRIME point: Was Super 8 broadcastable?

As is the very worst amateur shot VHS on a worn out tape full of dropout.
Anything is 'broadcastable'

Yes it was and still is.

It seems to be my fault with crediting you of being able to understand the
meaning of 'broadcast quality'. I should have known better.

Even more now with superior filmstocks and telecine equipment.

But you can't give any example of a UK broadcaster who uses it, or indeed
any firm proof of one who ever did in any major way, ie as their standard
for say news. But ramble on about what other countries may or may not have
used in the distant past - ignoring the fact that they don't use the same
TV standard as we do.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Doctor Evil wrote:
Uher with film sync.

Yes, it's possible to record a pilot tone on one track of any stereo
machine - which is what Uher have done on this *new* machine. Which you
said you've used? Of course it does say it's for amateur use. Did you read
or understand the blurb?

And of course, any sync system like this that merely kept things locked
speed wise, but didn't provide absolute sync, would be laughed out of
court by any pro. As would one with only one audio track...

You really don't know do you? You are the storeman.
You keep the stuff on the shelves and brush up wearing yellow boots.

Unlike you I have no need to make false claims about what I do for a
living - the proof is there for all to see in the credits of certain
programmes...

http://uher.net/Open_Reel/Report_Mon...t_monitor.html

http://www.cwo.com/~ashlin/ttl/sound.htm

Hope the second one provided good reading for you. How to bodge things for
the amateur. A sort of hacksaw in your terms.

--
*I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Doctor Evil wrote:
You said Super 8 was not broadcastable

Please provide the quote to substantiate this.

I realise you have the memory retention of a goldfish, but it's all still
in this thread, so shouldn't prove too hard for one so adept at searching.

--
*Elephants are the only mammals that can't jump *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Doctor Evil wrote:
See:http://www.moviemaker.com/issues/03/super8.html "but there's really
very little difference between Super 8, 16 and 35 mm after they're
bumped to tape. "

Movie Maker is US business film mag, Note the Super 8 filmstock they
rave over.

I suspect that article is 20 years old. It makes no mention of modern tape
formats, but talks only about composite analogue recorders.

--
*Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Doctor Evil wrote:
BTW, I filmed with a pro Beaulieu 6008 Pro camera and a Uher an interview
that went on Venezuelan TV. Fully broadcastable. Excellent results all
around.

Well, that will be easy to verify, then.

Can you give some more wild claims in your next posts so we can have
another laugh?

--
*Husband and cat lost -- reward for cat

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...


I note that you have side stepped the little mater of what programmes
your 'friend' has had his work credited on (or at least, if it was
news, what stories he covered) - if I asked the same question of Dave
Plowman I suspect he would be forthcoming with the info, that alone
suggests that this 'friend' is nothing more than a spark of
imagination in that single brain cell of yours....

quote
.......he fails to see that news work is different and that
Beulieu
made
professional super 8s, which is still used.....
/quote

No one had ever said that Super 8
wasn't used in news,

Wrong, our caber tosser did.

No he did not, and until you can cite the message(s) were he did I
will continue to call you a liar and a ******.


but it was NOT used as the norm in
the UK and it has never been used
in drama etc.

The PRIME point: Was Super 8 broadcastable? Yes it was and still
is. Even
more now with superior filmstocks and telecine equipment.

ANYTHING is 'broadcastable' IF there is no alternative, even images
recorded on 3G phones have been broadcast in the last 12 months! Are
you seriously suggestion that if a TV company had a choice they would
opt for Super 8 film above any other format - film or video?...


snip disjointed off focus stuff


The only disjointed off focus stuff is what you are posting, you quite
frankly know less about this subject than you do about nuclear fusion
!...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
news.net...

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...


I note that you have side

...I looked and saw
...oh please no more
...I'll do the newsgroup a favoured deed
...a snipping of the tripe we need
...no babble, no drivel for us to mention
...from half-wits requiring professional attention



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Evil wrote:

Uher with film sync.

Yes, it's possible to record a pilot tone

.......this one said a Uher can't be synched. Such a pro eh!!! You are a
storeman, you check the gear in and out









_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account