From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.uk
Subject: Re: TOS picture quality on Beeb
Date: 9 Sep 92 05:14:57 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <92252.034132CHUNTER@UMAB.BITNET> CHUNTER@UMAB.BITNET writes:
<In article: <1992Sep4.113906.8071@syma.sussex.ac.uk>,
<andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) writes:
<
<> Right - TOS in the UK always used to start immediately with the "Space -
<> the final frontier...." bit and do all the credits before the story
<> actually started. I *thought* there was something different about it this
<> time around. Having got used to ST:TNG it didn't really register at first.
<
<Not so.  I remember when TOS was originally shown on BBC1 in the early '70s
<(7.10-8.00pm on Mondays, just before Panorama) and the precredit sequence
<came before the "Space, the final frontier" opening credit sequence, just
<like it was supposed to.  I'm pretty certain they were not cut either.  It
<was only in latter years that they moved the precredit sequence to after the
<credits and began cutting episodes (and banned "Miri").  I think (and here
<I'm not so sure) that they also retained the teaser at the end for the
<following week's episode.  "Mission: Impossible" was also shown with the "Your,
<mission, Jim, should you choose to accept it" sequence before the opening
<credits.  Ah, those were the days........
<
<> Picture quality not at all bad IMHO. I still have to pinch myself about the
<> acting, props and storylines, but then I'm still hung over from ST:TNG.
<
<Why should the picture quality be bad?  TOS was made on 35mm film and I know
<the the original elements are in good condition as I have many episodes on
<LaserDisc which would show up any flaws.  If anything, I'd expect TNG to have
<poor picture quality because all editing is done on NTSC.  Remember the final
<few years of "Dallas" where the colours were insipid and unnatural?  Lorimar
<edited in NTSC then conveted to PAL before shipping copies to the BBC.  The
<earlier years were edited on film so there were no standards conversion
<problems.  If TNG didn't exhibit poor colour, it's probably because Paramout
<sent NTSC masters to the BBC which then did their own standards conversion
<(the BBC engineering department has much better NTSC->PAL standards converters
<than almost anybody in the US has).  If Sky now has TNG, picture quality may
<suffer since you will now be at the mercy of either their or Paramount's
<NTSC->PAL standards converter which is almost certainly not as good as the
<BBC's.  It will be interesting to see how this develops.

Oh come now.  Just because they are the BBC doesn't mean they have the best
standards converter around.  Quite the opposite.  Because they are limted in
funds, they couldn't afford to purchase the best.

There, now we are probably both wrong.

I'm fairly certain that conversion houses on the West or East coasts have the
same, or better, model than what the BBC has.

What helps ST:TNG in that it is edited digitally, not in NTSC composite.  Being
split into color component helps the quality from beginning to end.  Only when
the final broadcast tape is made is it turned into NTSC.  Just because it is
NTSC doesn't make it necessarily bad.  Damn, how elitist can you get!  I get
that way myself sometimes.

We could argue the pros and cons of each system, but this isn't the time or
place.

I will agree that original 35mm prints will be better than NTSC to PAL.
-- 
      harvard\                          spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
Vidiot  ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
      rutgers/            INTERNET:vidiot!brown%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.edu
                                   brown@wi.extrel.com