A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

1. How are the backgrounds and floor effects done on shows like Dancing on
Ice and Who wants to be a Millionaire. If projected, why don't the
presenters get in the way?


2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the new
sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic reason -
but I can't appreciate it.

Incidentally - If you never watch TV, There is no need to tell us.

On 07/02/2021 18:21, JohnP wrote:
A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

1. How are the backgrounds and floor effects done on shows like Dancing on
Ice and Who wants to be a Millionaire. If projected, why don't the
presenters get in the way?


2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the new
sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic reason -
but I can't appreciate it.

Incidentally - If you never watch TV, There is no need to tell us.


The reason some people do not watch TV are because of programmes such as
Dancing on Ice and Who Wants to be a Millionaire.


--
Adam

On 07/02/2021 18:21, JohnP wrote:
A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

1. How are the backgrounds and floor effects done on shows like Dancing on
Ice and Who wants to be a Millionaire. If projected, why don't the
presenters get in the way?


2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the new
sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic reason -
but I can't appreciate it.

Incidentally - If you never watch TV, There is no need to tell us.

I never watch TV...

On 07/02/2021 18:35, ARW wrote:
On 07/02/2021 18:21, JohnP wrote:
A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

1. How are the backgrounds and floor effects done on shows like
Dancing on
Ice and Who wants to be a Millionaire. If projected, why don't the
presenters get in the way?


2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the new
sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic reason -
but I can't appreciate it.

Incidentally - If you never watch TV, There is no need to tell us.


The reason some people do not watch TV are because of programmes such as
Dancing on Ice and Who Wants to be a Millionaire.


and punters dressed up as god knows what singing.....with a panel of fat
baby .. covid party wummin...etc

Jimmy Stewart wrote:
On 07/02/2021 18:21, JohnP wrote:
A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

1. How are the backgrounds and floor effects done on shows like Dancing on
Ice and Who wants to be a Millionaire. If projected, why don't the
presenters get in the way?


2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the new
sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic reason -
but I can't appreciate it.

Incidentally - If you never watch TV, There is no need to tell us.

I never watch TV...

I never read Usenet posts.

--
Chris Green
·

On 07/02/2021 18:21, JohnP wrote:
A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

1. How are the backgrounds and floor effects done on shows like Dancing on
Ice and Who wants to be a Millionaire. If projected, why don't the
presenters get in the way?


2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the new
sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic reason -
but I can't appreciate it.

Incidentally - If you never watch TV, There is no need to tell us.

Although I don't watch either and therefore don't know what they are
showing, try Googling "Green Screen" or "Chroma Key".

On 07/02/2021 20:38, Steve Walker wrote:
Although I don't watch either and therefore don't know what they are
showing, try Googling "Green Screen" or "Chroma Key".

.... then go and watch the America's cup on YouTube. They lay down start
lines on water in post production. Things are changing.

Andy (who doesn't watch DoI either)

In article ,
JohnP wrote:
2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the new
sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic reason -
but I can't appreciate it.

'Lead sound' on a scene change is a very old technique. Dates back to the
early days of sound movies. It's one of those things that if it is so
obvious, badly done. Same as hand held shots.

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

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

On Sun, 07 Feb 2021 18:21:33 +0000, JohnP wrote:

1. How are the backgrounds and floor effects done on shows like Dancing
on Ice and Who wants to be a Millionaire. If projected, why don't the
presenters get in the way?

On Millionaire, it's all real stuff. The floor is transparent with lights
below it. The rest is movable spotlights. The backgrounds are all real.

I know. I was on it.

The amusing part is the pedestal in the middle. Not there during Fastest
Finger First. When that finishes, Tarrant takes the winning candidate by
the arm and starts to walk them to the centre. Then they stop the
recording and send them off for extra makeup. Then they wheel the
pedestal in, and someone crawls under the floor to plug it in. When the
contestant returns, they set up the same pose by using a freeze frame of
their previous position as a reference. The 'flash' arrival of the
pedestal is hidden behind a bit of balcony.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Sun, 07 Feb 2021 20:38:47 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

Although I don't watch either and therefore don't know what they are
showing, try Googling "Green Screen" or "Chroma Key".

I'm playing with chromakey for my jitsi backgrounds!

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

Or that they cannot see them any more?
I'd have thought most effects these days were green screen creations, it was
mainly blue when I was younger, but they now seem to use Green, does this
mean that nobody can wear the colour of the background?
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/2021 18:21, JohnP wrote:
A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

1. How are the backgrounds and floor effects done on shows like Dancing
on
Ice and Who wants to be a Millionaire. If projected, why don't the
presenters get in the way?


2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the new
sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic reason -
but I can't appreciate it.

Incidentally - If you never watch TV, There is no need to tell us.


The reason some people do not watch TV are because of programmes such as
Dancing on Ice and Who Wants to be a Millionaire.


--
Adam

In many cases they do not actually cut just use a fast fade from what I've
heard. quite why they do it that way is probably due to the built in default
effect and to help remind anyone who is involved in the show that the shot
is going to change.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Jimmy Stewart" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/2021 18:21, JohnP wrote:
A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

1. How are the backgrounds and floor effects done on shows like Dancing
on
Ice and Who wants to be a Millionaire. If projected, why don't the
presenters get in the way?


2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the new
sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic reason -
but I can't appreciate it.

Incidentally - If you never watch TV, There is no need to tell us.

I never watch TV...

On 07/02/2021 18:21, JohnP wrote:
A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

1. How are the backgrounds and floor effects done on shows like Dancing on
Ice and Who wants to be a Millionaire. If projected, why don't the
presenters get in the way?


Because it's projected from above from more than one source.

It takes a lot of lining up and adjustment BTW !

"Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)" wrote in
:

Or that they cannot see them any more?
I'd have thought most effects these days were green screen creations,
it was mainly blue when I was younger, but they now seem to use Green,
does this mean that nobody can wear the colour of the background?
Brian


Thnaks Brian. The way the view angle and perspective changes on the
background relative to the camera position intigues me.

Bob Eager wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Feb 2021 18:21:33 +0000, JohnP wrote:

1. How are the backgrounds and floor effects done on shows like
Dancing on Ice and Who wants to be a Millionaire. If projected, why
don't the presenters get in the way?

On Millionaire, it's all real stuff. The floor is transparent with
lights below it. The rest is movable spotlights. The backgrounds are
all real.

I know. I was on it.

The amusing part is the pedestal in the middle. Not there during
Fastest Finger First. When that finishes, Tarrant takes the winning
candidate by the arm and starts to walk them to the centre. Then they
stop the recording and send them off for extra makeup. Then they wheel
the pedestal in, and someone crawls under the floor to plug it in.
When the contestant returns, they set up the same pose by using a
freeze frame of their previous position as a reference. The 'flash'
arrival of the pedestal is hidden behind a bit of balcony.




Many thanks.

In article , Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)
wrote:
Or that they cannot see them any more? I'd have thought most effects
these days were green screen creations, it was mainly blue when I was
younger, but they now seem to use Green, does this mean that nobody can
wear the colour of the background? Brian

unless they want to be invisible. That particular blue was originally
picked because it doesn't exist in the human body, but when making a
religious programme with Mary, mother of Christ,they had to find another
colour, becasue Mary is traditionally in a blue dress.

Last Christmas, wearing my Christmas jumper, I was on a Zoom meeting using
a green screen and the christams trees on my jumper twinkled as I moved
since they were green. ;-)

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article , Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)
wrote:
In many cases they do not actually cut just use a fast fade from what
I've heard. quite why they do it that way is probably due to the built in
default effect and to help remind anyone who is involved in the show that
the shot is going to change. Brian

From my days in Television Centre which finished nearly 50 years ago, the
standard command from the Presention Editor was "lead sound and ... CUT"

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 07/02/2021 18:21, JohnP wrote:
A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

1. How are the backgrounds and floor effects done on shows like Dancing on
Ice and Who wants to be a Millionaire. If projected, why don't the
presenters get in the way?

I assume it is CGI these days. At one time, you could sometimes see
faint images on the performers, if you looked closely.

2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the new
sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic reason -
but I can't appreciate it.

It makes the transition less abrupt, rather like a fade effect, but
using sound rather than vision.


--
Colin Bignell

On 08/02/2021 10:40, nightjar wrote:
On 07/02/2021 18:21, JohnP wrote:
A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

1. How are the backgrounds and floor effects done on shows like
Dancing on
Ice and Who wants to be a Millionaire. If projected, why don't the
presenters get in the way?

I assume it is CGI these days. At one time, you could sometimes see
faint images on the performers, if you looked closely.

2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the new
sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic reason -
but I can't appreciate it.

It makes the transition less abrupt, rather like a fade effect, but
using sound rather than vision.


Some of it is Artificial Reality (which is in effect real time CGI) but
also quite a bit is 'real' projection.

Strictly Come Dancing this year used both (along with rendered images on
vertical screens)

A lot of the projection effects are used (or rather were used !) in
theatres. There's probably a surplus of both kit, and skilled people
that the TV companies are mopping up at present from their usual work.

On Sun, 07 Feb 2021 18:21:33 GMT, JohnP wrote:

A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

[snip]

2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the new
sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic reason -
but I can't appreciate it.

It's a video/film editing technique called a "J cut". See he
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_cut

Mark Carver wrote:

Some of it is Artificial Reality (which is in effect real time CGI) but
also quite a bit is 'real' projection.

Strictly Come Dancing this year used both (along with rendered images on
vertical screens)

It was pretty impressive overall, though in live TV, when the
images have a glitch in the tracking, there is not much you can
do about it.

I remember one AR shot that didn't look as though it had tracked
quite right, and I was able to compare with the dance-off when it
worked correctly.

Very occasionally in the shots showing rehearsal scenes, or other
background stuff, you get a glimpse of the line-up images used to
set up the graphics.

I think "Click" showcased some of the technology in a recent
programme.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
@ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

Caecilius wrote:

On Sun, 07 Feb 2021 18:21:33 GMT, JohnP wrote:

A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

[snip]

2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the new
sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic reason -
but I can't appreciate it.

It's a video/film editing technique called a "J cut". See he
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_cut

I believe on traditional film, the sound signal is displaced from
the image, as it needs to run smoothly whilst the image jerks
through the gate.

Is it the case that a well-chosen film splice could have just the
effect described?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
@ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On Mon, 08 Feb 2021 13:31:08 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Caecilius wrote:

On Sun, 07 Feb 2021 18:21:33 GMT, JohnP wrote:

A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

[snip]

2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the new
sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic reason -
but I can't appreciate it.

It's a video/film editing technique called a "J cut". See he
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_cut

I believe on traditional film, the sound signal is displaced from
the image, as it needs to run smoothly whilst the image jerks
through the gate.

Is it the case that a well-chosen film splice could have just the
effect described?

Chris

I think it's mainly an artistic technique that's been around since the
first sound movies. Some history he

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/wha...video-editing/

I guess there could have been a technical reason as well, but I've
never heard of that explanation.

On 07/02/2021 22:00, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/02/2021 20:38, Steve Walker wrote:
Although I don't watch either and therefore don't know what they are
showing, try Googling "Green Screen" or "Chroma Key".

... then go and watch the America's cup on YouTube. They lay down start
lines on water in post production. Things are changing.

Andy (who doesn't watch DoI either)

Sometimes the expected line of a shot on a snooker table are shown on
TV. It is fun to see how good the prediction and the shot are.

--
Michael Chare

In article , Chris J Dixon
wrote:
Caecilius wrote:

On Sun, 07 Feb 2021 18:21:33 GMT, JohnP wrote:

A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

[snip]

2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the
new sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic
reason - but I can't appreciate it.

It's a video/film editing technique called a "J cut". See he
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_cut

I believe on traditional film, the sound signal is displaced from the
image, as it needs to run smoothly whilst the image jerks through the
gate.

Since the early 1960s film runs smoothly thhrough the gate. The light
source is pulsed on. Couldn't do that with carbon arcs, but they are no
longer used.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
Chris J Dixon wrote:
Caecilius wrote:

On Sun, 07 Feb 2021 18:21:33 GMT, JohnP wrote:

A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

[snip]

2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the new
sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic reason -
but I can't appreciate it.

It's a video/film editing technique called a "J cut". See he
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_cut

I believe on traditional film, the sound signal is displaced from
the image, as it needs to run smoothly whilst the image jerks
through the gate.

Is it the case that a well-chosen film splice could have just the
effect described?

That would be more of a repair than edit. In the pro field, sound and
pictures have always been able to edit separately. Except, perhaps, the
early days of videotape.

--
*Am I ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

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

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)
wrote:
In many cases they do not actually cut just use a fast fade from what
I've heard. quite why they do it that way is probably due to the built
in default effect and to help remind anyone who is involved in the
show that the shot is going to change. Brian

From my days in Television Centre which finished nearly 50 years ago,
the standard command from the Presention Editor was "lead sound and ...
CUT"

Generally, the last thing you want is the picture cutting before the
sound, on a scene transition.

--
*Upon the advice of my attorney, my shirt bears no message at this time

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

On 08/02/2021 13:59, charles wrote:
In article , Chris J Dixon
wrote:
Caecilius wrote:

On Sun, 07 Feb 2021 18:21:33 GMT, JohnP wrote:

A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

[snip]

2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the
new sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic
reason - but I can't appreciate it.

It's a video/film editing technique called a "J cut". See he
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_cut

I believe on traditional film, the sound signal is displaced from the
image, as it needs to run smoothly whilst the image jerks through the
gate.

Since the early 1960s film runs smoothly thhrough the gate. The light
source is pulsed on. Couldn't do that with carbon arcs, but they are no
longer used.

Probably still had the sound and vision displaced though, to allow old
and new films to play interchangeably on old and new projectors.

On 08/02/2021 15:32, Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/02/2021 13:59, charles wrote:
In article , Chris J Dixon
wrote:
Caecilius wrote:

On Sun, 07 Feb 2021 18:21:33 GMT, JohnP wrote:

A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

[snip]

2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the
new sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic
reason - but I can't appreciate it.

It's a video/film editing technique called a "J cut".Â* See he
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_cut

I believe on traditional film, the sound signal is displaced from the
image, as it needs to run smoothly whilst the image jerks through the
gate.

Since the early 1960s film runs smoothly thhrough the gate. The light
source is pulsed on. Couldn't do that with carbon arcs, but they are no
longer used.

Probably still had the sound and vision displaced though, to allow old
and new films to play interchangeably on old and new projectors.

I am not sure, but I THOUGHT that the replay head moved along with the
film, in jerks...

--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

I am not sure, but I THOUGHT that the replay head moved along with the
film, in jerks...


The sound head is a distance away from the fim gate and the head is where
the film is moving steadily through a capstan. There is a loop in the film
to absorb the jerking.

On 09/02/2021 12:54, JohnP wrote:
I am not sure, but I THOUGHT that the replay head moved along with the
film, in jerks...


The sound head is a distance away from the fim gate and the head is where
the film is moving steadily through a capstan. There is a loop in the film
to absorb the jerking.

Ah yes! I remember now!
was back in the 1960s last time I played with cine film


--
"And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch".

Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14

On 08/02/2021 01:44 pm, Caecilius wrote:
On Mon, 08 Feb 2021 13:31:08 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Caecilius wrote:

On Sun, 07 Feb 2021 18:21:33 GMT, JohnP wrote:

A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

[snip]

2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the new
sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic reason -
but I can't appreciate it.

It's a video/film editing technique called a "J cut". See he
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_cut

I believe on traditional film, the sound signal is displaced from
the image, as it needs to run smoothly whilst the image jerks
through the gate.

Is it the case that a well-chosen film splice could have just the
effect described?

Chris

I think it's mainly an artistic technique that's been around since the
first sound movies. Some history he

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/wha...video-editing/

I guess there could have been a technical reason as well, but I've
never heard of that explanation.

Fascinating!

It's something that most of us have obviously noticed over the years,
but having it explained so clearly is excellent.

On 08/02/2021 02:18 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Chris J Dixon wrote:
Caecilius wrote:

On Sun, 07 Feb 2021 18:21:33 GMT, JohnP wrote:

A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

[snip]

2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the new
sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic reason -
but I can't appreciate it.

It's a video/film editing technique called a "J cut". See he
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_cut

I believe on traditional film, the sound signal is displaced from
the image, as it needs to run smoothly whilst the image jerks
through the gate.

Is it the case that a well-chosen film splice could have just the
effect described?

That would be more of a repair than edit. In the pro field, sound and
pictures have always been able to edit separately. Except, perhaps, the
early days of videotape.

As I understand it, editing of videotaped material has always involved
copying, rather than physical cutting and assembly.

The reason for this was brought home to me over forty years ago, the
first time I had a VHS cassette tape snap. I located the break, cleaned
up the new mating surfaces and made a new joint with several pieces of
1/4" audio splicing tape (something I'd previously been doing with
audio-tape, obviously).

It wasn't a physically bad job, considering the extra width of the
recording tape and the limited width of the slicing tape, but the
cassette was unusable because of the signal broke down when it got to
that point. This was when E180s cost £17.95 each...

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2021 02:18 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Chris J Dixon wrote:
Caecilius wrote:

On Sun, 07 Feb 2021 18:21:33 GMT, JohnP wrote:

A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

[snip]

2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the
new sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic
reason - but I can't appreciate it.

It's a video/film editing technique called a "J cut". See he
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_cut

I believe on traditional film, the sound signal is displaced from
the image, as it needs to run smoothly whilst the image jerks
through the gate.

Is it the case that a well-chosen film splice could have just the
effect described?

That would be more of a repair than edit. In the pro field, sound and
pictures have always been able to edit separately. Except, perhaps, the
early days of videotape.

As I understand it, editing of videotaped material has always involved
copying, rather than physical cutting and assembly.

2" video tape was initially cut for editing.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2021 02:18 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Chris J Dixon wrote:
Caecilius wrote:

On Sun, 07 Feb 2021 18:21:33 GMT, JohnP wrote:

A couple of things intrugue me about TV production:

[snip]

2. When cutting from one scene (in a drama) do they often cut to the new
sound - ahead of the picture? I suppose it is for some artistic reason -
but I can't appreciate it.

It's a video/film editing technique called a "J cut". See he
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_cut

I believe on traditional film, the sound signal is displaced from
the image, as it needs to run smoothly whilst the image jerks
through the gate.

Is it the case that a well-chosen film splice could have just the
effect described?

That would be more of a repair than edit. In the pro field, sound and
pictures have always been able to edit separately. Except, perhaps, the
early days of videotape.

As I understand it, editing of videotaped material has always involved
copying, rather than physical cutting and assembly.

Not so, although electronic editing (copying to another tape) was the
norm. But you could do it with a razor blade. Involved 'developing' the
tape with magnetic powder so you could see the pulses. But tape was very
expensive and cutting it made it no longer re-usable, so not used a great
deal except in a sort of emergency.

The reason for this was brought home to me over forty years ago, the
first time I had a VHS cassette tape snap. I located the break, cleaned
up the new mating surfaces and made a new joint with several pieces of
1/4" audio splicing tape (something I'd previously been doing with
audio-tape, obviously).

It wasn't a physically bad job, considering the extra width of the
recording tape and the limited width of the slicing tape, but the
cassette was unusable because of the signal broke down when it got to
that point. This was when E180s cost £17.95 each...

--
*Why is it that most nudists are people you don't want to see naked?*

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
As I understand it, editing of videotaped material has always involved
copying, rather than physical cutting and assembly.

Not so, although electronic editing (copying to another tape) was the
norm. But you could do it with a razor blade. Involved 'developing' the
tape with magnetic powder so you could see the pulses. But tape was very
expensive and cutting it made it no longer re-usable, so not used a great
deal except in a sort of emergency.

Cutting of tape was only possible with the early Quadruplex ("Quad") format
where portions of the picture were recorded as successive tracks almost at
right angles to the tape, and a tape cut/splice was possible as long as it
was made in the gap between tracks, aided by magnetic "developing fluid"
which made the control pulses visible so it was possible to see the frame
sync pulses to join like with like. The crucial advantage of Quad was that
the cut could be *guaranteed* to occur on a part of the tape between one
video track and the next, which the flying head would not touch. But as you
say, if you tried to re-use the tape, erasing the existing "electronic
sprocket holes", it is likely that the splices would then occur during a
track. At best this would cause a dropout in the picture and at worst the
loose oxide at the splice could clog the video heads.

Quad lasted for live events such as football matches, when highlights needed
to be compiled, even after it had been superseded in most fields by helical
formats on reel-to-reel or cassette, because splicing tape allowed segments
to be joined very quickly, without the need to dub them which would take at
least as long as the length of the compilation that you were creating.

In article ,
NY wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
As I understand it, editing of videotaped material has always involved
copying, rather than physical cutting and assembly.

Not so, although electronic editing (copying to another tape) was the
norm. But you could do it with a razor blade. Involved 'developing'
the tape with magnetic powder so you could see the pulses. But tape
was very expensive and cutting it made it no longer re-usable, so not
used a great deal except in a sort of emergency.

Cutting of tape was only possible with the early Quadruplex ("Quad")
format where portions of the picture were recorded as successive tracks
almost at right angles to the tape, and a tape cut/splice was possible
as long as it was made in the gap between tracks, aided by magnetic
"developing fluid" which made the control pulses visible so it was
possible to see the frame sync pulses to join like with like. The
crucial advantage of Quad was that the cut could be *guaranteed* to
occur on a part of the tape between one video track and the next, which
the flying head would not touch. But as you say, if you tried to re-use
the tape, erasing the existing "electronic sprocket holes", it is
likely that the splices would then occur during a track. At best this
would cause a dropout in the picture and at worst the loose oxide at
the splice could clog the video heads.

Quad lasted for live events such as football matches, when highlights
needed to be compiled, even after it had been superseded in most fields
by helical formats on reel-to-reel or cassette, because splicing tape
allowed segments to be joined very quickly, without the need to dub them
which would take at least as long as the length of the compilation that
you were creating.

Yes - I've watched it being done on sport. The edit block includes a
microscope to view the control track more easily.

I also remember it being used on a 'That's Life' where it was recorded not
long before TX for legal reasons. And a mistake made. Choice, because of
time, was a razor blade edit or do it again live. Went to the viewing room
and watched it go out - there was a slight colour disturbance on the edit.

Those used to non linear digital editing don't know how lucky they are. ;-)

--
*How do you tell when you run out of invisible ink? *

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

On 22/02/2021 01:34, JNugent wrote:


The reason for this was brought home to me over forty years ago, the
first time I had a VHS cassette tape snap. I located the break,
cleaned up the new mating surfaces and made a new joint with several
pieces of 1/4" audio splicing tape (something I'd previously been
doing with audio-tape, obviously).

It wasn't a physically bad job, considering the extra width of the
recording tape and the limited width of the slicing tape, but the
cassette was unusable because of the signal broke down when it got to
that point. This was when E180s cost £17.95 each...

For the rotating heads to hit a join, (or even crease) in the tape,
(considering the angular etc forces involved) was a huge mechanical
shock, that would shorten their lives.

Another reason the practice of physical VT editing in the 60s and 70s
was used 'sparingly' by the TV broadcasters

In article ,
Mark Carver wrote:
For the rotating heads to hit a join, (or even crease) in the tape,
(considering the angular etc forces involved) was a huge mechanical
shock, that would shorten their lives.

Another reason the practice of physical VT editing in the 60s and 70s
was used 'sparingly' by the TV broadcasters

Perhaps the main reason was the cost of the tape, then scrap if cut. In
the early days of TV things were only archived if thought of later use.
Nobody guessed there'd be so many channels that would show near anything.

Thames TV used to keep everything. Someone there had an eye on the future.
But even there we used to re-cycle 2" audio tapes used for dubbing and
music recording (after careful thought) Even some 1/4" too.

--
*I don't feel old. I don't feel anything until noon. Then it's time for my nap.

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

On Tuesday, 9 February 2021 at 12:54:27 UTC, JohnP wrote:
I am not sure, but I THOUGHT that the replay head moved along with the
film, in jerks...

The sound head is a distance away from the fim gate and the head is where
the film is moving steadily through a capstan. There is a loop in the film
to absorb the jerking.
BBC Research Dept produced a progressive scan digital telecine machine in the
early 1970s which moved the film in a continuous motion everywhere.
There was a CCD line sensor feeding a digital field store to generate an
interlaced signal.

John