Kingpin;163825
I have to say that that comes off as a rather convenient explanation to cover why the issue would appear only at scene transitions, rather than at random points throughout the episode.
Surely there wouldn't be any “stress points” (for the lack of a better term, as incorrect as it may be) in the TV network master tapes, as those themselves would be prints of the very first finished cut of the episode.
Lets say for the sake of argument that you are right, and this was cut on film (possible but highly unlikely), what is the chance of the same editor making the exact same mistake at every cut? None.
Convenient? Of course it's convenient, becasue it's true, Serveo errors: It's not ‘stress points’, it when two machines to do not synch up. All tape editing copies from a source tape to a master, no physical cutting. A control deck is suppoed to synch them up, but doesn't always get it right. Umatic was infamous for synch error problems, and it was the main standard roughly from the mid seventies till mid-late eighties until BetacamSP became the norm, then DigiBeta.
A servo error occurs when the player tape is still trying to synch as the edit actually starts at the end of the pre-roll (usually 10 seconds). The recorder kicks in, but the player is still slighly off, resulting in a jump or ‘wobble’ or lines, or part-image on the screen for one or more frames, as the player is still getting into the correct place. As such, you might get part of a previous frame, a tracking wobble/line, a jump etc, depending on exatly where the player is at the time, and the speed it's playing at.
You're right this should not have been left if it was the case, but I've seen it happen myself.
Now for broadcast, dupes would be made of the master, during which they'd have been put through a time base corrector to remove the servo errors. A TBC re-writes the pulse code (tracking) on the tape, however it does not remove image consistencies. 70s/80s TV animation was not looked back on with much respect, it wasn;t even made with much respect, just look at the endless mistakes in Transformers, not only in the animation, but to backgrounds and so forth. If there was anywhere it'd be let through, it's here.
Chances are that they were aware of the error during the edit (it a Servo error is indeed what it is), but decided to plod through and finish it before getting the machine serviced, to meet a deadline. Umatics pretty much needed endlessly servicing, which is one of the reasons why many indie video production houses (corporate etc, not TV), opted for Hi8 when it came out. There's even a TV company based in Birmingham Uk that had a dedicated Hi8 unit, called Hi8us. It's a forgotten format now, but it was extremely good, and was the first mini-tape that excellent quality. It actually supasses Umatic, and does not have any of the major probelms associated with it. Was cheaper too.
I've even still got an old Umatic recorder sitting in the cupbaord in my office. Haven't used it in years, but it was still going strong last time. Not entirely sure why I'm keeping onto it really.
I'd strongly suggest you be less abbrasive if you want to convince people to your case.
I'm losing my pateience with people talking crap and telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. I take it as an insult after how long I've been in the industry. I come from the old Umatic Analogue non-linear days all the way through to current solid state media HD. I'm no newbie who only does a little bit of contemporary digital and thinks he knows how it's always been.
I do apologise, but I'm not in a good mood at all. I entered this discussion with the intent of clearing up some misconceptions and instead find myself being insulted and having childish comments thrown at me, for trying to help.
i corrected a load of rubbish being spouted about Green Screen at another forum recently, and didn't get flamed for that. Things sure are different here.
Given the features it encapsulates it definitely was designed for video editing, seeing as it's use is for adding special effects to digital video. I edited together my whole Final Major Project for my final year of University using it. It can be used in conjunction with Encore to create DVD menus.
You can use After Efftect for very basic editing, but it's not what it was designed for. You shouldn't be using it as such, and will find it a comparitively long winded and difficult way of doing it. It doesn't have any proper editing tools included, only minor alteration facilities (i'm referring to editing, not effects here, of which is much limiteless when plug-ins are taken into account). It's desingned to be used in conjunction with Premiere, where you cut your footage as needed, then import it into after effects for your effects/layering/keying etc.
There's a good reason why it's bundled with Premiere (and other programs) in the CS packages, you're supposed to treat each program as an interlocking suite, and move files between them as you need, not attempt to get each one to do everything. AE is an efects proram with minor editing capacity. Premeire is an editing program with some effects. I get the impression that some on here don't really understand where the line and definitions between the two lie. It's like saying Premiere is an Effects Program becuase it does do an small amount. And Premiere does a better job at Effects than AE does of editing…
Replies posted in bold.
I give up at this point. If people on this board wish to think I don't know what I'm taking about, it's their problem. Trouble is I'm out of my depth talking, for the most part, about old dated analogue technical issues here. it's too alien for the layman. That's not to insult people not in the know, but you clearly do need to have a substantial degree of experience and
real knowledge to grasp what I'm trying to say by the sound of it.
Nothing personal.
As I said before, what do I know? nearly 20 years experience, 38 IMDB entries, and a current project with Robert Englund amongst others, but apparently, according to some on this site, who generally have no idea, I'm the one who somehow doesn't know….It's a weird world.
Devilmanozzy is talking extreme rubbish. Not the first time I've seen stuff like this before. yes Ozzy, for the record I have taught. Shock, horror, a lot of pros do teach sometimes. How do you think students get taught? By people like you talking rubbish? Affer Effects in not used by ANY TV stations to edit footage. The main pro edit packages are still Avid and Final Cut Pro, that doesn;t appear to be changing anytime soon. AE is used by TV stations, yes, but for EFFECTS, not editing….Sheesh…
I had a short film released on DVD last month that was a complete visual effects piece, done in After Effects, bar 2 bits of CGI from 3D Studio Max. However it wasn't cut in AE.
You make claims, yet have no experience presented whatsoever to back up your side, whereas I've given detailed techincal information…. How exactly does what you read on the internet compare with professional experience?
Bit of hypocrasy there on your part?
My IMDB link, proving my claims:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2122946/ You can apologise now Ozzy. As you xcan see, it also clearly states my teaching work as well as a number of my film/video projects. So no, I don't fly balloons. Maybe you can now be honsest enough to say what you really do (working in McDonalds probably), or shall I accuse you of something silly as well? Or if it makes you feel bigger, continue to insult me, as I'm done trying to explain now, and wont respond to it. And if you're wondering why there aren;t more entries over the years, they don;t list corporate productions, which is where the bulk of my work is. And there's some special interest DVDs left off too, which is how I'd like to keep it, even althugh they are eligible for entry.
