Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.tech.broadcast > #70373 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-07-23 10:39 +0100 |
| Last post | 2026-07-28 16:08 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 73 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to uk.tech.broadcast
1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-23 10:39 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-23 11:05 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-23 12:02 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-07-23 13:50 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-23 15:26 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-07-23 10:15 +0000
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-07-23 11:29 +0000
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-23 13:46 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-07-23 13:00 +0000
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-07-23 15:35 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-23 16:38 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-07-23 17:42 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-07-23 17:43 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-23 20:20 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-24 09:48 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-24 10:27 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> - 2026-07-24 10:50 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-24 11:03 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-07-24 15:36 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-07-24 15:34 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-07-24 15:42 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-24 11:58 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-24 12:33 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-07-24 15:43 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-07-24 15:51 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-24 15:57 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-24 16:25 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-07-24 17:16 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-24 17:23 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-24 21:10 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-25 09:41 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-07-26 11:11 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-26 13:34 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-07-26 13:53 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-26 21:42 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-07-27 08:31 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-27 10:34 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-27 15:28 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-27 10:30 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-24 13:17 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-07-24 13:00 +0000
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-24 14:11 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-24 19:04 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-07-25 19:45 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-07-25 20:15 +0000
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-25 22:58 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-25 23:13 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-07-26 10:58 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-24 21:28 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-25 09:47 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-24 21:12 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-24 23:15 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-24 18:52 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-25 10:04 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-25 10:29 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-25 16:58 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-25 18:54 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-25 23:06 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-07-25 18:15 +0000
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-26 08:53 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-26 09:29 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-07-26 10:58 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-26 13:44 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-07-25 19:45 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-23 16:27 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-07-23 13:02 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-23 13:41 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Dave W <davewi11@yahoo.co.uk> - 2026-07-25 19:53 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-26 21:47 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-27 15:41 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-27 16:32 +0100
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-07-27 16:55 +0000
Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-07-28 16:08 +0100
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-24 15:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <113vtle$oua4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70401 |
On 24/07/2026 15:34, JMB99 wrote: > Kinematograph Weekly - Thursday 04 June 1953 > > Coronation for Cinema Scope > The Coronation will be filmed in Cinema Scope with the lens being used > to make the 20th Century-Fox production " Prince Valiant." The camera > position is Achilles Statue, Hyde Park Corner. 20th-Fox informed the > KINE. on Tuesday night that the Board of Trade had granted the licence > for showing the film to invited audiences only. > Prestatyn Weekly - Saturday 21 March 1953 Your Chance To See The Coronation NOVEL CINEMA CONTEST Cinemagoers in Rhyl and district have got a good chance of seeing the Coronation by winning one of the prizes offered in a novel competition sponsored by Odeon and Gaumont theatres throughout Great Britain. The contest begins on Monday, March 30. For identifyving the voices of twelve film stars from records, prizes are offered of ten double seats on the Coronation route, free first-class travel to and from London, and a cash sum for expenses; and 1,000 double seats to see the Coronation on big-screen cinema television. Winners of the seats at the London. Doncaster, Manchester and Leeds theatres showing big-screen television will see the J. Arthur Rank Organisation’s remarkable *“Cintel” equipment reproducing for the first time an event of international historic importance actually as it happens, For audiences outside London it will be the first time cinema television has been publicly demonstrated,l The records of the stars will be played in every complete programme at Rhyl Oceon for three weeks from March 30, Each record will carry the voices of four well-known British stars discussing films made in Coronation Year. By special arrangement with a London mewszpaper, which is cooperating with Odeon and Canmont in distributing thousands of big-screen television seats to charities, there will be a further opportunity for those people identifying the stars correctly to win a £250 cash award, Further details will be available later.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-24 11:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0qf66ll7nmg8bg06kp560oefbvm3v6s97m@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70393 |
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:27:52 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote: >>Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at >>the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it, or FR >>(Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was >>only possible at that time to record alternate fields. > >Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by >the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it >a limitation in how fast the camera could be run. Exactly as you say. 405 lines were scanned in two vertical passes, each covering half of the lines. The blanking interval between vertical scans was designed to allow sufficient time for the electron beam to be deflected back to the top of the picture for the next scan, but it was not sufficient for the mechanical system in a film camera to move the film to the next frame. The best (or least worst) compromise for film recording was for the shutter to blank the light path for an entire field. This gave the mechanism time to work, at the cost of missing half the lines. Later 'fast pull-down' film systems were designed specifically for recording from CRT displays, with mechanisms that could advance the film during the vertical blanking interval (or slightly longer). They would capture all (or most) of the lines in the picture during two vertical scans. Vertical resolution would be the same as the video source, and it could look better as long as nothing in the picture moved. If anything did move, the two consecutive fields would have slightly different picture content, which was not a problem when displayed electronically 50 times per second as intended, but would look odd superimposed on single frames of film shown 25 times per second. Rod.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-24 12:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <q7j66lli008hccou4o3ci2rsihi7grsgiq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70396 |
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:58:16 +0100, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote: >On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:27:52 +0100, Scott ><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote: > >>>Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at >>>the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it, or FR >>>(Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was >>>only possible at that time to record alternate fields. >> >>Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by >>the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it >>a limitation in how fast the camera could be run. > >Exactly as you say. 405 lines were scanned in two vertical passes, >each covering half of the lines. The blanking interval between >vertical scans was designed to allow sufficient time for the electron >beam to be deflected back to the top of the picture for the next scan, >but it was not sufficient for the mechanical system in a film camera >to move the film to the next frame. The best (or least worst) >compromise for film recording was for the shutter to blank the light >path for an entire field. This gave the mechanism time to work, at the >cost of missing half the lines. > >Later 'fast pull-down' film systems were designed specifically for >recording from CRT displays, with mechanisms that could advance the >film during the vertical blanking interval (or slightly longer). They >would capture all (or most) of the lines in the picture during two >vertical scans. Vertical resolution would be the same as the video >source, and it could look better as long as nothing in the picture >moved. If anything did move, the two consecutive fields would have >slightly different picture content, which was not a problem when >displayed electronically 50 times per second as intended, but would >look odd superimposed on single frames of film shown 25 times per >second. Thanks for confirming this, rather as I thought. Can this 25 fps film be upscaled using modern processing techniques?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-24 15:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <113vtmc$olll$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70397 |
On 24/07/2026 12:33, Scott wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:58:16 +0100, Roderick Stewart > <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote: > >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:27:52 +0100, Scott >> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>> Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at >>>> the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it, or FR >>>> (Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was >>>> only possible at that time to record alternate fields. >>> >>> Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by >>> the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it >>> a limitation in how fast the camera could be run. >> >> Exactly as you say. 405 lines were scanned in two vertical passes, >> each covering half of the lines. The blanking interval between >> vertical scans was designed to allow sufficient time for the electron >> beam to be deflected back to the top of the picture for the next scan, >> but it was not sufficient for the mechanical system in a film camera >> to move the film to the next frame. The best (or least worst) >> compromise for film recording was for the shutter to blank the light >> path for an entire field. This gave the mechanism time to work, at the >> cost of missing half the lines. >> >> Later 'fast pull-down' film systems were designed specifically for >> recording from CRT displays, with mechanisms that could advance the >> film during the vertical blanking interval (or slightly longer). They >> would capture all (or most) of the lines in the picture during two >> vertical scans. Vertical resolution would be the same as the video >> source, and it could look better as long as nothing in the picture >> moved. If anything did move, the two consecutive fields would have >> slightly different picture content, which was not a problem when >> displayed electronically 50 times per second as intended, but would >> look odd superimposed on single frames of film shown 25 times per >> second. > > Thanks for confirming this, rather as I thought. Can this 25 fps film > be upscaled using modern processing techniques? What would be the point, when there are cine film versions available? (It might be interesting to some of the original film that they sent across the Atlantic.) -- Max Demian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-24 15:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <113vu4n$p44b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70404 |
The note on the end is interesting Eastbourne Herald - Saturday 30 May 1953 Coronation Festivities LUNCHEON & TEA ON CORONATION DAY with Cinema Television Projection by GAUMONT - BRITISH - KALES NOTE- This Installation is permanent and will be available for Residents in future
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-24 15:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nchcoaFnhfgU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70405 |
JMB99 wrote: > Cinema Television Projection > by > GAUMONT - BRITISH - KALES OCR'ed? should be Kalee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-24 16:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tn076llfvk70bu7sn5gpkqf9kofn4kdicd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70404 |
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 15:43:25 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >On 24/07/2026 12:33, Scott wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:58:16 +0100, Roderick Stewart >> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:27:52 +0100, Scott >>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>> Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at >>>>> the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it, or FR >>>>> (Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was >>>>> only possible at that time to record alternate fields. >>>> >>>> Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by >>>> the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it >>>> a limitation in how fast the camera could be run. >>> >>> Exactly as you say. 405 lines were scanned in two vertical passes, >>> each covering half of the lines. The blanking interval between >>> vertical scans was designed to allow sufficient time for the electron >>> beam to be deflected back to the top of the picture for the next scan, >>> but it was not sufficient for the mechanical system in a film camera >>> to move the film to the next frame. The best (or least worst) >>> compromise for film recording was for the shutter to blank the light >>> path for an entire field. This gave the mechanism time to work, at the >>> cost of missing half the lines. >>> >>> Later 'fast pull-down' film systems were designed specifically for >>> recording from CRT displays, with mechanisms that could advance the >>> film during the vertical blanking interval (or slightly longer). They >>> would capture all (or most) of the lines in the picture during two >>> vertical scans. Vertical resolution would be the same as the video >>> source, and it could look better as long as nothing in the picture >>> moved. If anything did move, the two consecutive fields would have >>> slightly different picture content, which was not a problem when >>> displayed electronically 50 times per second as intended, but would >>> look odd superimposed on single frames of film shown 25 times per >>> second. >> >> Thanks for confirming this, rather as I thought. Can this 25 fps film >> be upscaled using modern processing techniques? > >What would be the point, when there are cine film versions available? 1. Historic interest as an original BBC broadcast 2. I assume the equipment was not used exclusively for the Coronation and there could be other material in the history of broadcasting that does not have cine film versions available.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-24 17:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1140342$qmm0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70407 |
On 24/07/2026 16:25, Scott wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 15:43:25 +0100, Max Demian > <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: > >> On 24/07/2026 12:33, Scott wrote: >>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:58:16 +0100, Roderick Stewart >>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:27:52 +0100, Scott >>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at >>>>>> the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it, or FR >>>>>> (Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was >>>>>> only possible at that time to record alternate fields. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by >>>>> the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it >>>>> a limitation in how fast the camera could be run. >>>> >>>> Exactly as you say. 405 lines were scanned in two vertical passes, >>>> each covering half of the lines. The blanking interval between >>>> vertical scans was designed to allow sufficient time for the electron >>>> beam to be deflected back to the top of the picture for the next scan, >>>> but it was not sufficient for the mechanical system in a film camera >>>> to move the film to the next frame. The best (or least worst) >>>> compromise for film recording was for the shutter to blank the light >>>> path for an entire field. This gave the mechanism time to work, at the >>>> cost of missing half the lines. >>>> >>>> Later 'fast pull-down' film systems were designed specifically for >>>> recording from CRT displays, with mechanisms that could advance the >>>> film during the vertical blanking interval (or slightly longer). They >>>> would capture all (or most) of the lines in the picture during two >>>> vertical scans. Vertical resolution would be the same as the video >>>> source, and it could look better as long as nothing in the picture >>>> moved. If anything did move, the two consecutive fields would have >>>> slightly different picture content, which was not a problem when >>>> displayed electronically 50 times per second as intended, but would >>>> look odd superimposed on single frames of film shown 25 times per >>>> second. >>> >>> Thanks for confirming this, rather as I thought. Can this 25 fps film >>> be upscaled using modern processing techniques? >> >> What would be the point, when there are cine film versions available? > > 1. Historic interest as an original BBC broadcast That's what I said: "(It might be interesting to some of the original film that they sent across the Atlantic.)" There's no need to upscale it. -- Max Demian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-24 17:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <68476l177aj1672evbu13jvcrkq6sf9vtp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70408 |
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:16:02 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >On 24/07/2026 16:25, Scott wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 15:43:25 +0100, Max Demian >> <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >> >>> On 24/07/2026 12:33, Scott wrote: >>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:58:16 +0100, Roderick Stewart >>>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:27:52 +0100, Scott >>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at >>>>>>> the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it, or FR >>>>>>> (Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was >>>>>>> only possible at that time to record alternate fields. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by >>>>>> the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it >>>>>> a limitation in how fast the camera could be run. >>>>> >>>>> Exactly as you say. 405 lines were scanned in two vertical passes, >>>>> each covering half of the lines. The blanking interval between >>>>> vertical scans was designed to allow sufficient time for the electron >>>>> beam to be deflected back to the top of the picture for the next scan, >>>>> but it was not sufficient for the mechanical system in a film camera >>>>> to move the film to the next frame. The best (or least worst) >>>>> compromise for film recording was for the shutter to blank the light >>>>> path for an entire field. This gave the mechanism time to work, at the >>>>> cost of missing half the lines. >>>>> >>>>> Later 'fast pull-down' film systems were designed specifically for >>>>> recording from CRT displays, with mechanisms that could advance the >>>>> film during the vertical blanking interval (or slightly longer). They >>>>> would capture all (or most) of the lines in the picture during two >>>>> vertical scans. Vertical resolution would be the same as the video >>>>> source, and it could look better as long as nothing in the picture >>>>> moved. If anything did move, the two consecutive fields would have >>>>> slightly different picture content, which was not a problem when >>>>> displayed electronically 50 times per second as intended, but would >>>>> look odd superimposed on single frames of film shown 25 times per >>>>> second. >>>> >>>> Thanks for confirming this, rather as I thought. Can this 25 fps film >>>> be upscaled using modern processing techniques? >>> >>> What would be the point, when there are cine film versions available? >> >> 1. Historic interest as an original BBC broadcast > >That's what I said: >"(It might be interesting to some of the original film that they sent >across the Atlantic.)" > >There's no need to upscale it. I thought were were talking about the technique in general terms. There must have been original film of other output that was not sent across the Atlantic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-24 21:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1140grr$t81c$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70404 |
On 2026/7/24 15:43:25, Max Demian wrote: > On 24/07/2026 12:33, Scott wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:58:16 +0100, Roderick Stewart >> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote: [] >>> Later 'fast pull-down' film systems were designed specifically for >>> recording from CRT displays, with mechanisms that could advance the Yes. They'd just about perfected the prototypes when video recording came along; must have been heartbreaking for the team working on it. (I've seen some of the film - it is excellent.) Apparently the machines were _very_ noisy - like a machine-gun, as you can understand from what they had to do. >>> film during the vertical blanking interval (or slightly longer). They >>> would capture all (or most) of the lines in the picture during two >>> vertical scans. Vertical resolution would be the same as the video >>> source, and it could look better as long as nothing in the picture >>> moved. If anything did move, the two consecutive fields would have >>> slightly different picture content, which was not a problem when >>> displayed electronically 50 times per second as intended, but would >>> look odd superimposed on single frames of film shown 25 times per >>> second. You see the feathered effect on some clips on YouTube. >> >> Thanks for confirming this, rather as I thought. Can this 25 fps film >> be upscaled using modern processing techniques? > > What would be the point, when there are cine film versions available? > > (It might be interesting to some of the original film that they sent > across the Atlantic.) > The 187.5-line film of the coronation might be interesting for historical purposes - presumably it had some camera angles the (colour, film) people didn't. But there might also be other filmed 405-line material, for which it's the only record. Whether upscaling would be effective, I don't know; I've always been dubious about upscaling anyway, but given its popularity (e. g. SD material upscaling), I'm probably wrong. the full- (or nearly) resolution film made by the fast-pull-down machines can of course, and has, been digitised, and doesn't need any upscaling (to restore the original resolution, anyway). Whether it could be de-interlaced to regenerate the original interlaced 50 fields signal, I don't know! -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-25 09:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j4t86ltemtmsrtjpufrqbliasgdgo5t0q2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70412 |
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 21:10:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: >The 187.5-line film of the coronation might be interesting for >historical purposes - presumably it had some camera angles the (colour, >film) people didn't. But there might also be other filmed 405-line >material, for which it's the only record. Whether upscaling would be >effective, I don't know; I've always been dubious about upscaling >anyway, but given its popularity (e. g. SD material upscaling), I'm >probably wrong. They repeated the whole thing in real time on one of the anniversaries, and I was able to record all five or six hours of it on a single DVD by using the lowest quality long play setting. Because of the limitations of the original material, hardly any quality was lost in doing this. >the full- (or nearly) resolution film made by the fast-pull-down >machines can of course, and has, been digitised, and doesn't need any >upscaling (to restore the original resolution, anyway). Whether it could >be de-interlaced to regenerate the original interlaced 50 fields signal, >I don't know! If there was sufficient interest, somebody could upscale, stabilise and de-interlace it. and maybe use AI to 'enhance' it in some way, perhaps colourising it as well. We have the technology to do all these things, so it's probably only a matter of time before somebody uses it, if they haven't already. Rod.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-26 11:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1144mg0$291qm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70416 |
On 25/07/2026 09:41, Roderick Stewart wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 21:10:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" > <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> The 187.5-line film of the coronation might be interesting for >> historical purposes - presumably it had some camera angles the (colour, >> film) people didn't. But there might also be other filmed 405-line >> material, for which it's the only record. Whether upscaling would be >> effective, I don't know; I've always been dubious about upscaling >> anyway, but given its popularity (e. g. SD material upscaling), I'm >> probably wrong. > > They repeated the whole thing in real time on one of the > anniversaries, and I was able to record all five or six hours of it on > a single DVD by using the lowest quality long play setting. Because of > the limitations of the original material, hardly any quality was lost > in doing this. > >> the full- (or nearly) resolution film made by the fast-pull-down >> machines can of course, and has, been digitised, and doesn't need any >> upscaling (to restore the original resolution, anyway). Whether it could >> be de-interlaced to regenerate the original interlaced 50 fields signal, >> I don't know! Was that the original film; the one flown across the Atlantic? -- Max Demian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-26 13:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1144urr$236p6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70435 |
On 2026/7/26 11:11:13, Max Demian wrote: > On 25/07/2026 09:41, Roderick Stewart wrote: [] >> They repeated the whole thing in real time on one of the >> anniversaries, and I was able to record all five or six hours of it on >> a single DVD by using the lowest quality long play setting. Because of >> the limitations of the original material, hardly any quality was lost >> in doing this. >> >>> the full- (or nearly) resolution film made by the fast-pull-down >>> machines can of course, and has, been digitised, and doesn't need any >>> upscaling (to restore the original resolution, anyway). Whether it could >>> be de-interlaced to regenerate the original interlaced 50 fields signal, >>> I don't know! > > Was that the original film; the one flown across the Atlantic? > Any film made from the actual video of the time - whether for archival purposes or to fly - would have been that made from just one field, i. e. 187.5 lines of picture information, as that was all they could do. I _think_ what was flown to America for showing _quickly_ was if that nature; presumably, they later got the colour film also shot at the event. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf It's easy to blame others for your own failures. No, really. Try it. - joke section back of Russian newspaper - Steve Rosenberg, 2026-5-12
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-26 13:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncmealFh5iuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70436 |
On 26/07/2026 13:34, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > On 2026/7/26 11:11:13, Max Demian wrote: > Any film made from the actual video of the time - whether for archival > purposes or to fly - would have been that made from just one field, i. > e. 187.5 lines of picture information, as that was all they could do. I > _think_ what was flown to America for showing _quickly_ was if that > nature; presumably, they later got the colour film also shot at the event. > The colour could have been flown to America on the same plane as the monochrome made from the video. Pathe had a whole system in place for getting the news to the cinemas in a hurry. Process the negative, then edit and copy it while wet, saving a few minutes. From what I was told, they could get an important event such as the cup final out to the cinemas for the matinee show the following day. Motor bikes were involved.... -- Tciao for Now! John.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-26 21:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e5sc6l1nt9j50is9g3t45tqjl3omtcpebi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70438 |
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 13:53:40 +0100, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote: >On 26/07/2026 13:34, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >> On 2026/7/26 11:11:13, Max Demian wrote: > >> Any film made from the actual video of the time - whether for archival >> purposes or to fly - would have been that made from just one field, i. >> e. 187.5 lines of picture information, as that was all they could do. I >> _think_ what was flown to America for showing _quickly_ was if that >> nature; presumably, they later got the colour film also shot at the event. >> >The colour could have been flown to America on the same plane as the >monochrome made from the video. Pathe had a whole system in place for >getting the news to the cinemas in a hurry. Process the negative, then >edit and copy it while wet, saving a few minutes. From what I was told, >they could get an important event such as the cup final out to the >cinemas for the matinee show the following day. Motor bikes were >involved.... The above process applies I assume to the monochrome since, as I understand it, colour cine film does not have a negative (same as transparencies)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-27 08:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncofprFqv2hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70439 |
On 26/07/2026 21:42, Scott wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 13:53:40 +0100, John Williamson > <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> On 26/07/2026 13:34, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >>> On 2026/7/26 11:11:13, Max Demian wrote: >> >>> Any film made from the actual video of the time - whether for archival >>> purposes or to fly - would have been that made from just one field, i. >>> e. 187.5 lines of picture information, as that was all they could do. I >>> _think_ what was flown to America for showing _quickly_ was if that >>> nature; presumably, they later got the colour film also shot at the event. >>> >> The colour could have been flown to America on the same plane as the >> monochrome made from the video. Pathe had a whole system in place for >> getting the news to the cinemas in a hurry. Process the negative, then >> edit and copy it while wet, saving a few minutes. From what I was told, >> they could get an important event such as the cup final out to the >> cinemas for the matinee show the following day. Motor bikes were >> involved.... > > The above process applies I assume to the monochrome since, as I > understand it, colour cine film does not have a negative (same as > transparencies)? > It depends on the usage. Both negative and reversal were and are available in the types needed. For Pathe, as they needed to produce multiple copies, they would have used negative, as it is easier to correct and grade the copies. Negative is also quicker to process, as there is no need for the intermediate steps which convert the negative image produced on the film by the initial exposure of the film to a positive. -- Tciao for Now! John.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | NY <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-27 10:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11478nn$336e8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70441 |
On 27/07/2026 08:31, John Williamson wrote: > Negative is also quicker to process, as there is no need for the > intermediate steps which convert the negative image produced on the film > by the initial exposure of the film to a positive. Was the fact the TV news reports used reversal film mainly due to the fact that you don't need to make a positive print in order to be able to assess shots for editing, or was it because less tweaking was required to telecine from a positive than from a negative? Did editing desks (Steenbecks) ever have a low-grade TV camera/screen to do the reversal from negative to positive to make it easier for the editor to assess shots, even if he then made a positive print from the cut negative, for transmission. Or was editing always done on a positive, and then a cutting list generated for the neg to be cut correspondingly (and then printed)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-27 15:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1147pua$3830h$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70443 |
On 2026/7/27 10:34:46, NY wrote: [] > Was the fact the TV news reports used reversal film mainly due to the > fact that you don't need to make a positive print in order to be able to > assess shots for editing, or was it because less tweaking was required > to telecine from a positive than from a negative? I think it was a matter of speed: though more complicated, the reversal process was probably quicker than two negative ones - and, you'd not need to keep as much stock. > > Did editing desks (Steenbecks) ever have a low-grade TV camera/screen to > do the reversal from negative to positive to make it easier for the > editor to assess shots, even if he then made a positive print from the > cut negative, for transmission. Or was editing always done on a > positive, and then a cutting list generated for the neg to be cut > correspondingly (and then printed)? > Interesting question! I've never seen or heard of a Steenbeck with such a camera, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. I suspect an experienced editor could assess from a negative anyway, especially in monochrome. (You could do reversal on monochrome - I used to do it (as a schoolboy) for stills, using a kit of chemicals from Johnsons and cheap bulk ordinary negative film, to make B/W slides; I must get round to scanning some of them!) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Old professors don't fade away - they just lose their faculties.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | NY <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-27 10:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11478es$3317b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70439 |
On 26/07/2026 21:42, Scott wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 13:53:40 +0100, John Williamson > <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> On 26/07/2026 13:34, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >>> On 2026/7/26 11:11:13, Max Demian wrote: >> >>> Any film made from the actual video of the time - whether for archival >>> purposes or to fly - would have been that made from just one field, i. >>> e. 187.5 lines of picture information, as that was all they could do. I >>> _think_ what was flown to America for showing _quickly_ was if that >>> nature; presumably, they later got the colour film also shot at the event. >>> >> The colour could have been flown to America on the same plane as the >> monochrome made from the video. Pathe had a whole system in place for >> getting the news to the cinemas in a hurry. Process the negative, then >> edit and copy it while wet, saving a few minutes. From what I was told, >> they could get an important event such as the cup final out to the >> cinemas for the matinee show the following day. Motor bikes were >> involved.... > > The above process applies I assume to the monochrome since, as I > understand it, colour cine film does not have a negative (same as > transparencies)? Film shot for amateur use is almost invariably reversal (like a slide/transparency) - the film you project is the same as the film that you shot in the camera. Film used for news reports was normally reversal - often Ektachrome 160 tungsten, with an amber filter for outdoor shooting. That's because it is the quickest way of going from undeveloped film to transmission on the news. All other use of film - for cinema or TV drama/documentaries - is/was negative. This allowed grading (adjustment of contrast or colour balance) and allowed many contact-print copies to be made: copying negative to positive is easier than copying positive to positive. I think film for TV is almost always transmitted from a positive (either reversal or print), though I'm sure there were occasions when it was transmitted from negative.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-24 13:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nch3emFm6gjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70396 |
Roderick Stewart wrote: > 405 lines were scanned in two vertical passes, > each covering half of the lines. The blanking interval between > vertical scans was designed to allow sufficient time for the electron > beam to be deflected back to the top of the picture for the next scan, > but it was not sufficient for the mechanical system in a film camera > to move the film to the next frame. The best (or least worst) > compromise for film recording was for the shutter to blank the light > path for an entire field. This gave the mechanism time to work, at the > cost of missing half the lines. Could have recorded odd frames to one film reel and even frames to another ... I wouldn't fancy the splicing job afterwards though :-P If that had been done, even if the two reels had sat on a shelf unspliced for decades, it'd be trivial to "stick" them together digitally now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | uk.tech.broadcast
csiph-web