In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Thanks Dave., You put it most eloquently. Arny is confusing Beta with
BetaCam. I was simply stating that when VHS and the original Beta were
still both domestic formats, there were some local TV companies, for
example HTV in Sweden who used domestic Beta as a local ENG format where
quality was not paramount.

I'll take your word for it but in the UK ENG started with U-Matic.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Thanks Dave., You put it most eloquently. Arny is confusing Beta with
BetaCam. I was simply stating that when VHS and the original Beta were
still both domestic formats, there were some local TV companies, for
example HTV in Sweden who used domestic Beta as a local ENG format where
quality was not paramount.

I'll take your word for it but in the UK ENG started with U-Matic.

My first experiences in audio post for video were with U-matic HiBand
(horrible!). My pal Martti confirms that Beta (was it called Betamax
in the UK?) was used for local TV ENG, for straight un-edited transmission
inserts, without any post production. I doubt it was ever used by national
networks anywhere. At that time, until systems like Q Lock came along,
there was no TC controlled tape audio, (except Nagra Pilot-Tone, or
whatever it was called) and most audio for film suites used sprocketed
35mm and 16mm magnetic stock, on MWA (Albrecht) or something
similar, and bi-phase. I used to enjoy that. There is nothing quite like
pressing play, and watching a row of ten 35mm film follower machines
start to roll, and sync at the "Pip" mark. Magic:-)

Studios were using 2" and then 1" VTRs then. Video suites were reluctant
to give open reels formats to audio post, so TC striped U-Matic work prints
were usually made - with time code on track one and guide audio opn track
two. just as if the oríginal had been film material. One facility where I
worked often, had an Otari MTR90 layback machine, to which one
could make a final transfer of the audio to pic. It had better
audio quality than 1" VTR, but of course one still needed the U-Matic
work print for picture.

Do you have experience with D1 Dave? Most Quantel facilities seem to
have them with Harry, Henry etc etc. My only experiences with D1
have been audio layback. But DigiBeta is the standard workhorse for
transmission and also in audio for video post..


Iain

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
My first experiences in audio post for video were with U-matic HiBand
(horrible!). My pal Martti confirms that Beta (was it called Betamax in
the UK?) was used for local TV ENG, for straight un-edited transmission
inserts, without any post production. I doubt it was ever used by
national networks anywhere. At that time, until systems like Q Lock came
along, there was no TC controlled tape audio, (except Nagra Pilot-Tone,
or whatever it was called) and most audio for film suites used
sprocketed 35mm and 16mm magnetic stock, on MWA (Albrecht) or something
similar, and bi-phase. I used to enjoy that. There is nothing quite
like pressing play, and watching a row of ten 35mm film follower
machines start to roll, and sync at the "Pip" mark. Magic:-)

The ability to lock between a video master and audio multitracks etc was
well before either Betamax, VHS or U-Matic. It wasn't long after the first
electronic editing VTRs - so perhaps the late '60s. First electronic
dubbing suites used Sony or Shibaden open reel video recorders with a dub
off the 2" master with TC on the audio track for synchronisation.

Indeed, Thames TV had an even earlier version (Medway) which didn't use
time code but a simpler version with something like a 4 minute window to
lock to. The sound recorder was a Telefunken multitrack. There was still
one there used as a doorstop when I joined them in '78.;-)

The BBC had SYPHER suites. Synchronous Post dubbing with Helical scan and
Eight track Recorder. Those used the Studer TLS system with (at the start)
a Sony open reel video recorder and a Studer 8 track audio machine.
Because of original track, mix down track, TC and guard band, you only had
4 tracks to play with. Of course they later became 16 and 24 tracks. And
the 'master' video machine became a U Matic or whatever.

Studios were using 2" and then 1" VTRs then. Video suites were
reluctant to give open reels formats to audio post, so TC striped
U-Matic work prints were usually made - with time code on track one and
guide audio opn track two. just as if the oríginal had been film
material. One facility where I worked often, had an Otari MTR90 layback
machine, to which one could make a final transfer of the audio to pic.
It had better audio quality than 1" VTR, but of course one still needed
the U-Matic work print for picture.

I was perhaps at the forefront of demanding the original format machine in
the dubbing suite so I could access the field tapes for repairs to the
audio in those days. Fine now when it's all digitised. But in those days
all you got was the 'picture' editor's choice. And of course the layback
of the audio could them be my sole responsibility. ;-)

Do you have experience with D1 Dave? Most Quantel facilities seem to
have them with Harry, Henry etc etc. My only experiences with D1 have
been audio layback. But DigiBeta is the standard workhorse for
transmission and also in audio for video post..

I've not really used D1. DigiBeta gives you 4 tracks of CD quality so
that's fine for me.;-)

--
*If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?

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

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


The ability to lock between a video master and audio multitracks etc was
well before either Betamax, VHS or U-Matic. It wasn't long after the first
electronic editing VTRs - so perhaps the late '60s. First electronic
dubbing suites used Sony or Shibaden open reel video recorders with a dub
off the 2" master with TC on the audio track for synchronisation.

Indeed, Thames TV had an even earlier version (Medway) which didn't use
time code but a simpler version with something like a 4 minute window to
lock to. The sound recorder was a Telefunken multitrack. There was still
one there used as a doorstop when I joined them in '78.;-)

Yes. I have just had an e-mail from an ex-BBC pal , who reads this
group but *never* posts (I wonder why? :-) He referred to those
old systems affectionately as "semi-sync" :-)

He told me that Leevers Rick, Clark, and also EMI Laboratories at Hayes
were working on syncronisers. The EMI device was a built and working
prototype, but like their ill-fated compander, which would have pre-empted
Dolby A, it never came to fruition.

You and John are about the same age. He was a (senior?) sound
supervisor at BH for years and then a lecturer at the training centre
(Wood Norton was it called?) Did you go there, Dave?
He may remember you.

The BBC had SYPHER suites. Synchronous Post dubbing with Helical scan and
Eight track Recorder. Those used the Studer TLS system with (at the start)
a Sony open reel video recorder and a Studer 8 track audio machine.
Because of original track, mix down track, TC and guard band, you only had
4 tracks to play with. Of course they later became 16 and 24 tracks. And
the 'master' video machine became a U Matic or whatever.

My experiences with synchronisers goes back only to 1985, when I
freelanced (moonlighting) for a video post production company who
needed a music mixer.

I had used Studer A80's with TLS locked together, but had
never worked to picture, so it was a new experience. They had three
suites with Q-Lock. I borrowed a keyboard so that I could memorise
the routines - you become very fast very quickly. The lock time was
pretty long. One of the young guys working there said: "If I stay
twenty years in this job, two of them will have been spent in preroll!"

Later the Q Locks were replaced by Audio Kinetics "Eclipse" Editor. This
was my first experience of "tight lock" to sub-frame accuracy. The prof
CD players read 75fps, and so could cue and start with accuracy of
one-third of a frame. useful for sync of FX, footsteps etc.

I was perhaps at the forefront of demanding the original format machine in
the dubbing suite so I could access the field tapes for repairs to the
audio in those days. Fine now when it's all digitised. But in those days
all you got was the 'picture' editor's choice. And of course the layback
of the audio could them be my sole responsibility. ;-)

A key man:-))

In the places where I worked it was standard practice for the editor
to have access to original material, which he re-synced to the guide track
audio used by the video editor. Later, video editing suites could supply
an EDL on diskette, so the work was pretty simple.

In broadcast, programmes seem to start at ten hrs, i.e. 10.00.00.00.
In video post, for TH spots, and corporate programmes, the first prog
starts at 2 mins ( Colour bars and 1kHz to 1.45) It was rather
disconcerting when supplying material for satelite broadcasting,
to find that they required an an audio to video offset!!


Do you have experience with D1 Dave? Most Quantel facilities seem to
have them with Harry, Henry etc etc. My only experiences with D1 have
been audio layback. But DigiBeta is the standard workhorse for
transmission and also in audio for video post..

I've not really used D1. DigiBeta gives you 4 tracks of CD quality so
that's fine for me.;-)

Martti tells me that D format is the only truly lossless, full density,
picture format. As far as audio goes, it had no advantages over DigiBeta.

Iain

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

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


The ability to lock between a video master and audio multitracks etc
was well before either Betamax, VHS or U-Matic. It wasn't long after
the first electronic editing VTRs - so perhaps the late '60s. First
electronic dubbing suites used Sony or Shibaden open reel video
recorders with a dub off the 2" master with TC on the audio track for
synchronisation.

Indeed, Thames TV had an even earlier version (Medway) which didn't
use time code but a simpler version with something like a 4 minute
window to lock to. The sound recorder was a Telefunken multitrack.
There was still one there used as a doorstop when I joined them in
'78.;-)

Yes. I have just had an e-mail from an ex-BBC pal , who reads this group
but *never* posts (I wonder why? :-)

He's a wimp? ;-)

He referred to those old systems
affectionately as "semi-sync" :-)

Well, film based systems sync were only as good as the gap between the
sprocket holes in the film and SepMag sound followers if you think about
it. And of course the transfer from 1/4" to SepMag. On 16mm the accuracy
was up to one frame at worst. Even the early electronic systems could do
better.

He told me that Leevers Rick, Clark, and also EMI Laboratories at Hayes
were working on syncronisers. The EMI device was a built and working
prototype, but like their ill-fated compander, which would have
pre-empted Dolby A, it never came to fruition.

Thames, which had its own engineering research department, produced a 1/4"
machine which could be used as a master for VTRs to lock to in PAL colour
locked mode. Used the Nagra FM centre track system for the time code. The
recorders were made to spec by Levers Rich and were twin capstan drive
Prolines which were the standard 1/4" machines used at Thames at the time
and were actually Clark Technique designs which Levers bought the rights
to.

The idea was mainly for things like dance numbers where you'd do multiple
passes in the studio. The pre-recorded sound was played in from the 1/4"
machine and the VTR locked to it. This allowed each and every pass to be
edited together without the curse of the PAL eight field cycle which meant
pictures couldn't always be cut to the beat when going between takes.

Of course you could have used a VTR machine for play-in of sound only, but
that was expensive and a gram op in the actual studio was more likely to
be able to cue up quickly for the required part.

You and John are about the same age. He was a (senior?) sound supervisor
at BH for years and then a lecturer at the training centre (Wood Norton
was it called?) Did you go there, Dave? He may remember you.

I was there on three courses. TO, STO, and Sound Training. Of course they
had sewage disposal in those days. ;-) Don't remember a John as a
lecturer, though. Most were academics rather than operators and rightly so
as techniques change so often.

The BBC had SYPHER suites. Synchronous Post dubbing with Helical scan
and Eight track Recorder. Those used the Studer TLS system with (at
the start) a Sony open reel video recorder and a Studer 8 track audio
machine. Because of original track, mix down track, TC and guard band,
you only had 4 tracks to play with. Of course they later became 16 and
24 tracks. And the 'master' video machine became a U Matic or whatever.

My experiences with synchronisers goes back only to 1985, when I
freelanced (moonlighting) for a video post production company who needed
a music mixer.

By that time things had stabilised, somewhat. 10 years earlier was a
different matter.

I had used Studer A80's with TLS locked together, but had never worked
to picture, so it was a new experience. They had three suites with
Q-Lock. I borrowed a keyboard so that I could memorise the routines -
you become very fast very quickly. The lock time was pretty long. One
of the young guys working there said: "If I stay twenty years in this
job, two of them will have been spent in preroll!"

I liked the Q-Lock as an auto-locater - we used it in Thames 24 track
studio with an A800. Liked it for doing auto drop ins and outs if the
musos were worried about the competence of the tape op. ;-)
But for video dubbing it was hopeless compared to the Studer TLS.

Later the Q Locks were replaced by Audio Kinetics "Eclipse" Editor. This
was my first experience of "tight lock" to sub-frame accuracy. The prof
CD players read 75fps, and so could cue and start with accuracy of
one-third of a frame. useful for sync of FX, footsteps etc.

Don't know that one personally. The TLS lasted well up until things like
Audiofile took over.

I was perhaps at the forefront of demanding the original format
machine in the dubbing suite so I could access the field tapes for
repairs to the audio in those days. Fine now when it's all digitised.
But in those days all you got was the 'picture' editor's choice. And
of course the layback of the audio could them be my sole
responsibility. ;-)

A key man:-))

In the places where I worked it was standard practice for the editor to
have access to original material, which he re-synced to the guide track
audio used by the video editor. Later, video editing suites could
supply an EDL on diskette, so the work was pretty simple.

An EDL is of course useful, but in the early days of non linear editing
not everything got digitised. Still doesn't. So access to field tapes is
still important. You can sometimes find a repair from a take that was so
disastrous in every other way and the editor didn't even look at.

In broadcast, programmes seem to start at ten hrs, i.e. 10.00.00.00. In
video post, for TH spots, and corporate programmes, the first prog
starts at 2 mins ( Colour bars and 1kHz to 1.45) It was rather
disconcerting when supplying material for satelite broadcasting, to find
that they required an an audio to video offset!!

The 1000 TC was IIRC a Sony edit suite thing. Think because it couldn't
roll over 2400. Still the case with Sony and others these days.


Do you have experience with D1 Dave? Most Quantel facilities seem to
have them with Harry, Henry etc etc. My only experiences with D1 have
been audio layback. But DigiBeta is the standard workhorse for
transmission and also in audio for video post..

I've not really used D1. DigiBeta gives you 4 tracks of CD quality so
that's fine for me.;-)

Martti tells me that D format is the only truly lossless, full density,
picture format. As far as audio goes, it had no advantages over DigiBeta.

Iain

Think you're right. But given it's going to go on to DVD or transmitted on
DTTV...;-)

DigiBeta is still the doggies ******** for most things. Things will only
get worse as the suits cut costs.

--
*Happiness is seeing your mother-in-law on a milk carton

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

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:02:44 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


Martti tells me that D format is the only truly lossless, full density,
picture format. As far as audio goes, it had no advantages over DigiBeta.

Iain


AFAIR from a course that I did sometime ago DigiBeta doesn't record
the raw digits, it does a discrete cosine transform on the picture
information and then records the result of that transform. Most of the
time this is completely reversible and so lossless, but on very
testing material the higher orders can be thrown away, so some very
slight loss could be experienced. In reality the format is pretty much
lossless. Multiple passes have been done experimentally and the
perceptible degradation is either very low or none existent, unlike
analogue formats or some of the more highly compressed formats that
are used these days.

Bill

In article , Bill Taylor
wrote:
AFAIR from a course that I did sometime ago DigiBeta doesn't record
the raw digits, it does a discrete cosine transform on the picture
information and then records the result of that transform. Most of the
time this is completely reversible and so lossless, but on very
testing material the higher orders can be thrown away, so some very
slight loss could be experienced. In reality the format is pretty much
lossless. Multiple passes have been done experimentally and the
perceptible degradation is either very low or none existent, unlike
analogue formats or some of the more highly compressed formats that
are used these days.

I've only had the sales talk, not a technical course, so I never got a
completely satisfactory explanation for how it is possible for a digital
bit rate compression system with any loss whatsoever to allow a signal to
pass through an unlimited number of times without cumulative losses
showing after a few dozen passes. Yet they showed us some special effects
that required several hundred passes, and split screen displays of
severalhundredth generation against the original, with no visible
degradation at all, and they assured us that none was measureable.

Interpreting what the salesman was able to tell us, I think the system
must only be applying bit rate compression to those parts of the signal
that go above a "threshold" value coresponding to the maximum rate that
it can handle (50 Mb/s?), but passing it untouched the rest of the time.
This would result in the second and subsequent passes being passed
unchanged because they had already been compressed once. Even that "very
testing material" would only suffer whatever losses resulted from the
first pass, and could then be copied an infinite number of times without
becoming any worse. Perhaps somebody who knows more about it could
confirm this?

Rod.

In article , Roderick
Stewart wrote:
In article , Bill Taylor
wrote:
AFAIR from a course that I did sometime ago DigiBeta doesn't record
the raw digits, it does a discrete cosine transform on the picture
information and then records the result of that transform. Most of the
time this is completely reversible and so lossless, but on very
testing material the higher orders can be thrown away, so some very
slight loss could be experienced. In reality the format is pretty much
lossless. Multiple passes have been done experimentally and the
perceptible degradation is either very low or none existent, unlike
analogue formats or some of the more highly compressed formats that
are used these days.

I've only had the sales talk, not a technical course, so I never got a
completely satisfactory explanation for how it is possible for a digital
bit rate compression system with any loss whatsoever to allow a signal
to pass through an unlimited number of times without cumulative losses
showing after a few dozen passes. Yet they showed us some special
effects that required several hundred passes, and split screen displays
of severalhundredth generation against the original, with no visible
degradation at all, and they assured us that none was measureable.

I can't comment specifically on DigiBeta as I know nowt about it.

However it is possible in principle for what you describe to be the case.
This would be if the data thinning always used exactly the same rulesand
the data was otherwise unmodified between 'passes'. The point being that
the first data thinning removes the data that is 'unwanted'. Subsequent
thinnings would find that the data they'd remove is already absent, so they
are happy with that and pass what remains... :-)

Interpreting what the salesman was able to tell us, I think the system
must only be applying bit rate compression to those parts of the signal
that go above a "threshold" value coresponding to the maximum rate that
it can handle (50 Mb/s?), but passing it untouched the rest of the time.
This would result in the second and subsequent passes being passed
unchanged because they had already been compressed once. Even that "very
testing material" would only suffer whatever losses resulted from the
first pass, and could then be copied an infinite number of times without
becoming any worse. Perhaps somebody who knows more about it could
confirm this?

In principle, yes, the above would be a consequence of what I describe
above. The thinning works out what features have the 'priority' required to
not be thinned. On the later passes it then finds that this turns out to be
*all* the features in the data set, and nothing remains to be removed as it
has already gone.

If, however, the data is changed (by noise, distortion, or deliberate
alteration) between successive thinnings then the above may not apply. It
also assumes that identical 'rules' are applied for every thinning.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article ,
Bill Taylor wrote:
AFAIR from a course that I did sometime ago DigiBeta doesn't record
the raw digits, it does a discrete cosine transform on the picture
information and then records the result of that transform. Most of the
time this is completely reversible and so lossless, but on very
testing material the higher orders can be thrown away, so some very
slight loss could be experienced. In reality the format is pretty much
lossless. Multiple passes have been done experimentally and the
perceptible degradation is either very low or none existent, unlike
analogue formats or some of the more highly compressed formats that
are used these days.

You can copy tone and bars till the cows come home and not see any
artifacts. If you consider the previous Beta SP analogue - quite an
achievement.

You can see generation results with actual pictures eventually - but only
after far more than you'd reach with normal post production - even in a
linear system.

It's a brilliant format as a standard - rather like CD. ;-)

--
*What do little birdies see when they get knocked unconscious? *

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