BBC Archive have just tweeted this clip https://twitter.com/BBCArchive/status/1775040485037310033
(Sir Alec Guinness' 110th birthday, but that's not important right now)
The clip is fairly clear, but with very muted colour - the effect is
more like a PAL set with the colour control turned down quite low. I was wondering what the cause might be: I don't _think_ it's colo(u)rised
(would BBC Archive do that anyway?), but I don't think it's PAL -
there's no obvious colour bleed effect or similar. If it's film (I see
no film artefacts but could have been very well kept), I've not seen
film fade in quite this manner: usually the colours fade differently,
not evenly. I suppose it could be faded film that has been skilfully colour-corrected, but if that were the case, I'd have expected the
chroma to have been turned up a bit.
On 02/04/2024 09:53, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
BBC Archive have just tweeted this clip
https://twitter.com/BBCArchive/status/1775040485037310033
(Sir Alec Guinness' 110th birthday, but that's not important right now)
The clip is fairly clear, but with very muted colour - the effect is
more like a PAL set with the colour control turned down quite low. I was
wondering what the cause might be: I don't _think_ it's colo(u)rised
(would BBC Archive do that anyway?), but I don't think it's PAL -
there's no obvious colour bleed effect or similar. If it's film (I see
no film artefacts but could have been very well kept), I've not seen
film fade in quite this manner: usually the colours fade differently,
not evenly. I suppose it could be faded film that has been skilfully
colour-corrected, but if that were the case, I'd have expected the
chroma to have been turned up a bit.
Somebody or something has obviously worked on it, as it is playing here
in portrait format, which was not common until smartphones arrived.It
may just be X doing a default crop.
Working out what happened would be easier if there was a date attached
to the interview, but the poor resolution on the clip could be hiding a
lot of artifacts, such as head switching on a 2 inch machine.
In message <l7241eFlkpfU1@mid.individual.net> at Tue, 2 Apr 2024
11:13:02, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
Somebody or something has obviously worked on it, as it is playing
here in portrait format, which was not common until smartphones
arrived.It may just be X doing a default crop.
I was going to say it was square to me, but you are right, it's taller
than it is wide - but only slightly.
Maybe someone more familiar with Sir Alec can suggest a rough date from
his appearance - or someone can recognise the background or something.
On 02/04/2024 18:09, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
In message <l7241eFlkpfU1@mid.individual.net> at Tue, 2 Apr 2024
11:13:02, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
Somebody or something has obviously worked on it, as it is playing
here in portrait format, which was not common until smartphones
arrived.It may just be X doing a default crop.
I was going to say it was square to me, but you are right, it's taller
than it is wide - but only slightly.
The original would have been 4 wide x 3 high, so what we see has been
cropped to fit Twitter's target audience.
Maybe someone more familiar with Sir Alec can suggest a rough date from
his appearance - or someone can recognise the background or something.
It may have been shot on set between scenes, the background has the
look of the edge of a set. I'd guess U-Matic, possibly a portable
machine, and the later Hi Band U-matics had pretty good colour
resolution.
So why the reduced-colour effect?
BBC Archive have just tweeted this clip https://twitter.com/BBCArchive/status/1775040485037310033
(Sir Alec Guinness' 110th birthday, but that's not important right now)
The clip is fairly clear, but with very muted colour - the effect is
more like a PAL set with the colour control turned down quite low. I was wondering what the cause might be: I don't _think_ it's colo(u)rised
(would BBC Archive do that anyway?), but I don't think it's PAL -
there's no obvious colour bleed effect or similar. If it's film (I see
no film artefacts but could have been very well kept), I've not seen
film fade in quite this manner: usually the colours fade differently,
not evenly. I suppose it could be faded film that has been skilfully colour-corrected, but if that were the case, I'd have expected the
chroma to have been turned up a bit.
On 02/04/2024 09:53, J. P. Gilliver wrote:[]
BBC Archive have just tweeted this clip
https://twitter.com/BBCArchive/status/1775040485037310033
(Sir Alec Guinness' 110th birthday, but that's not important right now)
The clip is fairly clear, but with very muted colour - the effect is
It's definitely film. The overall look resembles film rather than
video, and I noticed a hair on one frame - I *thought* I spotted it so
I downloaded the video and went through that bit till I found the frame
https://i.postimg.cc/0y61djNz/temp.png
the hair is over his left shoulder, against the white border of the >background.
There are really *horrible* amoeba-like compression artefacts on the >background which may be due to film grain not compressing well.[]
I've wound up the saturation on the still
https://i.postimg.cc/63V8WYJx/temp1.png
which gives a more natural skin tone.
It looks as if it's a two-light shoot - you can see two catchlights in
his eyes, as if there is a main light that is casting a shadow of his
nose on his right (screen left), with a fill-in light to lessen the
effect of this. That suggests an on-location interview rather than an >interview in a TV studio where the lights are much higher up and less
likely to produce catchlights in the eyes.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 151:01:42 |
| Calls: | 10,383 |
| Files: | 14,054 |
| Messages: | 6,417,797 |
