with Kdenlive and Shotcut I will never complain again

Good lol, Because I Can Only Imagine The Fuck Ups Video Editors had to Go Through In These Days lol.

At least in those days people couldn't afford wasting their lives making the shit they make now.

for how long usually were studio/location recordings of various programmes generally kept for in those days?

Bryan Bortz I'd say yes and no. Meaning yes for the end-user but no for whoever has to fix the damn things. Just like with automobiles. Cars today are much easier to operate and maintain, but you have to be a computer scientist to poke under the hood.

As long as one didn't "electronically" edit. 2nd generation pictures in colour weren't as good.

I watched some of those VT Christmas tapes. Being an American, there's a little bit of a culture gap, but they do mention "10-second cues" a lot when it came to sports programs. Is that how much time you had to spool back a moment in a match for "instant replay", or just mixing to a different camera/tape source?

@@eddievhfan1984 The early quad machines took about 7 seconds to "lock up" and produce a stable picture. So 10s was chosen allowing a safety factor. Therefore the scripts were marked with a point 10s before they were needed and the VT was run at that point. Sometimes it was a bit scary when machines took a bit longer than expected! Later versions of quad machines could lock up much quicker.

They directly records on this tabe from camera

back then if a sequence in a Television Programme required a lot of editing (say for example a fight scene). it would be easier to record it on film several weeks earlier, then play the film sequence in 'as live' during the studio recording at a later date.

Or in another building completely, that may not even be a TV facility if it's an OB.

Pico Not to mention how prohibitively expensive it was to produce even the crappiest low-budget film. A no-name film budgeted at $5 million dollars in the 1980s can be made for less than $300,000 today. For better and worse filmmaking is fully democratized today.

Correct

They probably didn't have any more tape machines left in the studio to record it on.

The tape was 2" wide mainly because the Quadruplex recording method used 4 heads recording transversely onto the tape (as opposed to the helical scan methods of VHS, Beta, U-Matic, etc.) with full video bandwidth, as an audio-style transport (pulling the tape across a single head) would have severely limited bandwidth, use literally miles of tape for seconds of video, and/or require impossibly high tape speeds.

I don't know with any certainty, but the label on the audio head stack (2' 35") has a date in 1967, so I imagine the film was made within a year or two after that date.

Yet in those days they were expected to produce at least 26 hour slot episodes of a TV show on film or tape a year..these days they do about 10 episodes and "everyone is exhausted"

Why would you want to do that?

It's way too damn fidgety to try and cut the video and control tracks in one place, then move down to the edit point on the audio track so may inches away, make the cut there, then use a mess of splicing tape to join the two together, especially because a longitudinal cut (following the direction of the tape path) to accommodate the audio track has more of a chance of getting jammed in the tape transport and causing problems than a transverse cut (across the tape path). The least number of physical cuts you can make to a tape, the better, and especially avoiding longitudinal cuts at all costs.

Thanks for the explanation!

Phil- I should have been clearer. I meant why not cut the video and audio at different points rather than just straight across.

The offset between the video head and the sound head was several inches, so it wasn't practical to make a physical edit which cut the video track and the audio track in different places. What we often did was to copy the audio onto a 1/4" sound recorder, and fiddle around with that to make a clean join or a sound mix in the audio where you wanted it, and then lay that back onto the spliced videotape. If you were doing a quick turn around edit for something like a sports programme, then the commentators would have been instructed to leave gaps in their commentary in suitable places, to allow an edit to be made without it cutting halfway through a sentence. All a bit of a compromise, but it mostly worked quite well.

xD

hm.. sony vegas pre-release lol

Vegas Pro was a non-linear edit program, but in the 1960s there was no computers on Windows, no digital video files (like MXF or MP4), there was only linear edit using firstly cutter (50s-60s), then electronic edit was launched, (70s-80s) then non-linear edit computer systems (in 90s)

And why didn't they invent internal combustion Engines at the same time they invented the wheel?

And if the splice wasn't made perfectly, or there was a crease in the tape, you'd hear it as it went thru the scanner. We called 'em zingers. Hard on the heads.

Not at all. And the pictures were TX'd 1st generation!

Phil S Lekestue was NRK's version of this, yes. Did you scan this film yourself? Do you still have it?

Probably late 70's

I'd say some time between 1967 and 1968. There's a label on the audio heads dated 29/9/67, and note there is no colour video shown (the training film is film, hence colour) - Play School (the programme being recorded in the studio for most of this) apparently started being produced in colour in May 1968. No way this could have been "late 70's" which would have all been colour production (also look at the clothing, hairstyles, etc.).

You're very right Aaron; It's from late 1967/Early '68.

I'm guessing 1969. Based upon the length and style of the gentleman's hair in conjunction with what the women are wearing.

No he doesnt, the tape wont give him any sicknesses, dont worry.

As above, it's from late 1967/Early 68 not long before colour took over in the UK.