ITV 4 Episode “Close-up”

Hi all,

Last Saturday's episode on ITV 4 was "Close up", possibly the least
memorable UFO episode – well personally speaking it is, since I had
to view both my recording and the Carlton DVD simultaneously, in
order to figure out where the edits were! :-D

The first edit was made at the beginning of the NASA launch,
including shots of the launch site and of mission control. The
second was during the astronaut sequence fitting the device into the
space probe, from the repeat of Barry Grays hauntingly beautiful
incidental music.

I say personally speaking, because I feel quite sure this episode
ranks reasonably highly for some fans; those having a particular
interest in special effects shots of the various "craft" and who
enjoy "technobabble" as dialogue. I'm happy where these illustrate
the plot, but this ep is necessarily over-reliant on both and is, in
my view, fairly dull. I suppose space exploration was at that time
in its infancy and such technical wonders fascinating to the public;
but it still goes along at the pace of a funeral ;-)

Furthermore, most of the episode is too reminiscent of
a "Thunderbirds" episode – insufficient use of the advantages
of "live action", with most of the cast sitting or standing around
looking grim. The script (as printed on Marcs site) shows it was
shot pretty much as written – so I suppose the writer is primarily
responsible for my perception…… ? :-)

In the original script there are some deleted scenes relevant to the
Straker/Ellis sub-plot, which imply that this was more to do with
Gay finding command of Moonbase and its personnel a struggle, rather
than taking umbrage at her belief that Straker was dissatisfied
with her work, which is how it appears on screen. He must've been
extremely perceptive to have picked up on this, given how little
evidence we see! Anyway, the "coffee" scene is the first true
appreciation of having live action and it still manages to make me
smile – how *all* the characters involved get things so wrong ;-D

Ignoring the unanswerable questions concerning how the probe managed
to follow the UFO all the way back AND undetected – that the UFO
would even go home anyway without having a second attempt; the plot
seems to be to obtain meaningful pictures of the alien home world.
Apparently this isn't the case at all, which is where it becomes
interesting, well, for me anyway.

At the outset of the episode Kelly's "pet project" is revealed,
although unclear; all we know is it is extremely small fry in
comparison to the importance of Straker's billion dollar project –
once we are told just what his project is. It all could have been
left at that – it didn't work and was a huge waste of time, expense
and risk to the lives of SHADO personnel, not to mention once again,
SHADO is not doing what they are supposed to – defending the earth
and blowing the UFO away. Although Kelly should have been bricking
himself over admitting the outcome to Straker, he instead used it to
his own advantage, by turning the whole focus literally inward
through his ingenious and risque demonstration of the problem.  

All eyes are now on Straker – well – except for those viewers that
can't get over the close-up of Gay's upper thigh – how is he going
to react? The disappointment must be pretty overwhelming
considering all his efforts and expectations and many superior
officers would have taken Kellys point personally, as intended, but
no. Despite the double whammy of Kelly's humiliation of him and Gay
Ellis's participation in it, Straker eats humble pie with an awesome
amount of grace. Yet it doesn't even end there, he feels absolutely
no resentment and demonstrates genuine respect of his subordinates
higher knowledge and sheer guts by finding the time to get Kelly the
appropriation he wants. Nice one.......

Finally, in actually watching the DVD and the ITV 4 recording
simultaneously, the inferiority of the picture and sound quality was
really brought home – and I must add that my recording was on HDD
therefore near-broadcast quality – goodness knows how awful a
videotape recording would've looked! Can someone tell me, why do TV
channels use such appalling prints? Is this *really* the best they
can do – or is it just a matter of economics – ie. they won't pay
for better prints? Not all the ITV 4 broadcasts of that era are bad
(Randall and Hopkirk comes to mind ) so what's the reason (if any)
for their apparent lack of any standard?


Many thanks for reading :-)


Sarah

> Can someone tell me, why do TV
> channels use such appalling prints? Is this *really* the best they
> can do – or is it just a matter of economics – ie. they won't pay
> for better prints?

I wonder if there is a phone number to complain to about the picture
quality, and someone could pursue this? It sounds like they could
simply broadcast the DVD versions, although then someone would be
required to make some effort to edit them down to time. In fact,
it could be that the only edited versions they have of UFO are
the poor quality, pre-DVD copies.

(and these days, stations probably don't deal with film prints --
they probably deal with digital videotape)

Marc

I am sure that ITV4 are simply using the cheapest/easiest to obtain copies
they have to hand. The way that these series are arbitrarily cut and have
trailers for the next programme intruding, usually at the climax of the
story tells you all you need to know about ITVs attitude both to its own
programmes and the viewers who watch them.

Any of the ITC series telecinied in the last 10 years or so would have been
telecinied digitally to Digibeta or better. Digibeta produces a better
quality image than a domestic TV can reproduce. The use of digital masters
in broadcast TV long predates consumer digital equipment.
Of course what film elements these series have been telecinied from - and
with what care makes the main difference. Preferably the elements would have
been either the original cut negative or internegatives interpositives
printed on 35mm from the original cut negs. In some cases this appears not
to have been done.

If you want to see truly appalling quality take a look at "The Adventurer".
The elements appear to be very abused and there seems to have been no
attempt to make the best possible transfer from those elements.
Certainly that series was shot on 1970s 16mm, rather than the 35mm of most
of the ITC series, but so was "Jason King" and that is a markedly better
job. I assume that, because there would be more sales income from "Jason
King", more care was taken with it.

There is also the issue of compression on digital channels. Despite the hype
(lies) about anything digital being necessarily superior quality to analogue
this is certainly not the case with most digital channels. On all of the
digital platforms there is the choice of presenting fewer channels at
optimum quality or cramming in more channels at poor quality. All the
platforms have opted for the latter which leads to all sorts of compression
artefacts which tend to coarsen and muddy the picture.

To see one such effect at it's most obvious look out for scenes set in fog
or smoke where the image is almost totally grey. You will see shimmering
colours, often in large shifting rings, as the compression software tries,
and fails miserably, to find the boundaries between colours.
This will tend to show up more on lower contrast images and large flat areas
of less-intense colour. The set design and flattish lighting of some of the
standing sets in UFO has a tendency to show up the shortcomings of digital
more than, say, "Randall and Hopkirk", "The Champions" or "The Saint" which
tend to have higher contrast, more saturated colour and be less flatly lit.

Incidentally, DVDs are themselves more highly compressed and of poorer
quality than the Digibeta (or better) masters from which they are derived.
The DVDs shoved down a satellite, freeview or cable compressed-to-hell
digital pipeline would look far worse than a DVD in your player - or a
DigiBeta master of that same DVD.

I would hesitate about complaining to a TV company in anything other than a
written manner. In my experience the person who takes the call hasn't got a
clue what you are talking about and will try to fit your complaint into an
easily understood pigeonhole. Your complaint is likely to come out at the
other end as a complaint about UFO per se or it's photography, or, worse,
that you are complaining that you "don't want to see these old programmes
which look terrible compared to the new stuff".

Regards
John

> To see one such effect at it's most obvious look out for scenes set in
> fog or smoke where the image is almost totally grey. You will see shimmering
> colours, often in large shifting rings, as the compression software
> tries, and fails miserably, to find the boundaries between colours.

Although the UFO DVDs have been universally praised for their great
image
quality, there are still some scenes where there are some obvious
degradations
due to the digital compression for DVD. The Skydiver liftoff sequence
(e.g. in
IDENTIFIED and COMPUTER AFFAIR) is probably the worst offender, as
the compression algorithm fails with the low-contrast difference
between the ocean and the sub. This is one of the few sequences which
definitely looked better on the older laserdisc releases. (I've seen
this
problem on both the UK and the US UFO DVDs).

Marc

--- In [hidden email], "moonbasegirl" <shaded2cinders@y...>
wrote:
>>
> At the outset of the episode Kelly's "pet project" is revealed,
> although unclear; all we know is it is extremely small fry in
> comparison to the importance of Straker's billion dollar project –
> once we are told just what his project is. It all could have been
> left at that – it didn't work and was a huge waste of time, expense
> and risk to the lives of SHADO personnel, not to mention once
again,
> SHADO is not doing what they are supposed to – defending the earth
> and blowing the UFO away.

ACTUALLY, THAT'S WHAT I LIKE MOST ABOUT THIS EPISODE, THE FACT THAT
FOR ONCE, SHADO TRIES TO GO ON THE OFFENSIVE (I.E. FINDING OUT MORE
ABOUT THE ALIEN PLANET... AND IT'S LOCATION = AN ASSET FOR SHADO IN
THEIR WAR VS. THE ALIENS !)

>
> All eyes are now on Straker – well – except for those viewers that
> can't get over the close-up of Gay's upper thigh –

... AS MINE WERE (LOL)

how is he going
> to react? The disappointment must be pretty overwhelming
> considering all his efforts and expectations and many superior
> officers would have taken Kellys point personally, as intended, but
> no. Despite the double whammy of Kelly's humiliation of him and
Gay
> Ellis's participation in it, Straker eats humble pie with an
awesome
> amount of grace. Yet it doesn't even end there, he feels
absolutely
> no resentment and demonstrates genuine respect of his subordinates
> higher knowledge and sheer guts by finding the time to get Kelly
the
> appropriation he wants. Nice one.......

THAT'S WHAT I LIKE MOST ABOUT STRAKER + THIS SERIES, THE FACT THAT
SUCH A STRONG AND VERY "OPINIATED" COMMANDER CAN AT TIMES ADMIT HIS
MISTAKES AND ACKOLEWDGE THAT VALUE AND IDEAS OF HIS SUBORDINATES OR
OF OTHER PEOPLE ! *

* One of my all-time favorite scenes, in any series of film, is near
the end of "Conflict":

Straker: "Of only you hadn't been so pistive that you were right !"

Henderson: "... like YOU were ?"

... that little knod by Straker, as if saying "... err... o.k., you
got me there... touché" is priceless !





 

John wrote:

>I am sure that ITV4 are simply using the cheapest/easiest to obtain
>copies they have to hand. The way that these series are arbitrarily
>cut and have trailers for the next programme intruding, usually at
>the climax of the story tells you all you need to know about ITVs
>attitude both to its own programmes and the viewers who watch them.


You're so right! But it hasn't always been this way. I have off-air
recordings of UFO from three of the UK broadcasts since 1987 and the
first copies are actually the best I have on videotape, in terms of
the quality of picture and sound. These were recorded using an
entry level VCR of the time on standard VHS tape, from a TV aerial
signal. However, all of my recordings, whatever the source and tape
quality, were superior to the pre-recorded PAL VHS tapes released in
the UK in the 1990s, their one redeeming feature being there were no
commercial breaks to FF through! ;-)



What you're saying is there's no way that this is what ITV 4 have
done for UFO? It strikes me that ITV 4 must be using copies of those
old pre-recorded tapes for their transmissions, as my ITV 4
recordings look even worse than they did! In respect of the edits,
none of my off-air recordings of the past were edited – I'm guessing
these have been done especially for this screening; someone please
correct me if I'm wrong……



>There is also the issue of compression on digital channels. Despite
>the hype (lies) about anything digital being necessarily superior
>quality to analogue this is certainly not the case with most
>digital channels. On all of the digital platforms there is the
>choice of presenting fewer channels at optimum quality or cramming
>in more channels at poor quality. All the platforms have opted for
>the latter which leads to all sorts of compression artefacts which
>tend to coarsen and muddy the picture.


I appreciate enough of what you're saying to understand that this
must be why it is that, despite my now having digital cable and an
HDD as my "off-air" recording facilities, the ITV 4 screenings are
nowhere *near* the quality of the analogue tapes I made in 1987,
never mind the DVDs! This is completely ridiculous, imo.  

I recall subscribing to cable for a while in 1994 and sending back
several analogue receivers because the picture quality was worse
than the aerial, until I had to accept that was the *best* cable
could produce at that time. Would this be for similar reasons - ie,
the signal was compressed somehow? Could it have been deliberate,
ie, lower the quality therefore expectation of the average viewer so
it would be less noticeable when they started really taking the p**s?

Now, ten years on from there, the quality is not amazingly better on
most channels, despite being digital and when really crap sources
are obviously being used, whatever's the point in our spending all
this money on so-called *upgrades* in home entertainment systems?  
Obviously not to watch "television"! Honestly, if it was me paying
the sub, I'd cancel and put the money towards renting or buying DVDs
of those series/ films I want to see ;-D


>I would hesitate about complaining to a TV company in anything
>other than a written manner. In my experience the person who takes
>the call hasn't got a clue what you are talking about and will try
>to fit your complaint into an easily understood pigeonhole. Your
>complaint is likely to come out at the other end as a complaint
>about UFO per se or it's photography, or, worse, that you are
>complaining that you "don't want to see these old programmes which
>look terrible compared to the new stuff".


Unfortunately, I have to agree with this; I'd go further and say any
method of complaint directed at ITV 4 themselves would be a waste of
time. Surely there must be a "watchdog" type commission for
television broadcasting companies that are meant to act on behalf of
the consumer that might take notice where channels are broadcasting
such dreadfully inferior transfers? ITV 4 must be *raking* in
money, judging by the length of the commercial breaks – even longer
because they've edited – surely they should be required to meet some
minimum standard? If not, they flipping well ought to! }:-(

One final comment i.r.o. ITV 4, they've stopped screening a repeat
around 2.30am Sunday of the episode shown Saturday at 7pm since
Christmas. Shame, because there were alot less adverts - probably
why I expect. I hope this doesn't mean they'll finish the run
prematurely :-(


"Furious UK television viewer" aka Sarah


P.S. Despite all this ranting, I notice that the list membership has
continued to rise, I'm assuming mostly because of the ITV 4
screenings, so there is at least one positive out of it :-D

"I have off-air
recordings of UFO from three of the UK broadcasts since 1987 and the
first copies are actually the best I have on videotape, in terms of
the quality of picture and sound."

There used to be very high technical standards for the source material to be
broadcast terrestrially. The minimum requirements would be that a programme
was produced on16mm or 35mm film or whatever the highest quality
professional video format was at the time - now miniDV is often accepted.
The programmes would be mastered on the highest quality video format.
Everything went through very demanding QC checks and would be actually
rejected for broadcast if substandard.
The equipment may now be capable of better quality pictures than ever but
there isn't the same pressure to make the best possible pictures and deliver
them at the highest possible quality.

Pre-recorded VHS tapes were and are produced in high volume and certainly
used to be poorer quality than a home recording from a decent analogue
signal.

"Now, ten years on from there, the quality is not amazingly better on
most channels, despite being digital..."

Digital is NOT necessarily better quality than analogue. A picture can be
made up of millions of pixels, which can look very good, or a handful of
pixels which will look appalling - they are both "digital". To repeat,
simply slapping a "digital" label on something indicates nothing about
quality. A good analogue signal will produce a better image than a present
Freeview or Sky digital signal. That may change with "HD" (another overhyped
and semi-meaningless label when it comes to describing quality) but expect
to pay through the nose for it.

I am sure that the edits were made for the present screenings. They can cram
in more ads without having to start the next programme at 5 minutes past the
hour. They obviously believe that their audience is too stupid to handle
programmes which don't start on the hour. This type of editing is common on
some channels e.g. old editions of Time Team on the documentary channels
(not the recent More 4 screenings).

"It strikes me that ITV 4 must be using copies of those old pre-recorded
tapes for their transmissions,"

No, I think they are just mediocre copies possibly made on older generations
of telecine machines some time ago, then compressed to hell by the digital
pipeline.

"...despite my now having digital cable and an
HDD as my "off-air" recording facilities, the ITV 4 screenings are
nowhere *near* the quality of the analogue tapes I made in 1987,
never mind the DVDs! This is completely ridiculous, imo. "

Agreed, but the main difference is that in 1987 the TV channels were doing
their best to broadcast the best possible picture with the technology
available. Few of them now give a damn.
Digital transmission has always been about more channels and the money that
would produce, not picture or sound quality. There is a trade off - fewer
channels = better quality, more channels = poorer quality. The latter
equation has always been chosen.


John

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:49:35 -0000
"JKS" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> A good analogue signal will produce a better image than a present
> Freeview or Sky digital signal.

My experience tells me you're right about Sky, but not Freeview. A
good Freeview transmission will comfortably beat any analogue TV
picture I've ever seen. Sky on the other hand always seems to look
overcompressed whenever I've seen it, and a decent analogue picture
is very much to be preferred.

James

--
Dig It : a forum for Euro Beatles fans - http://beatles.dyndns.org/

"My experience tells me you're right about Sky, but not Freeview. A
good Freeview transmission will comfortably beat any analogue TV
picture I've ever seen. "


Perhaps - it depends on your reception. My less than perfect analogue
reception produces a comparable picture to both my full-strength Freeview
signal or better than average Sky signal. On Freeview there is a similar
level of noticeable compression artefacts as on Sky for the same channel.

It is worth noting that Channels 1-5 on their digital platforms tend to use
less heavy compression than other channels. ITV2, 3 and 4, for example, have
more compression artefacts than ITV1 and it is very noticeable on a TV of
any size and definition. Some of the more obscure channels on the Sky
platform are so compressed as to be barely watchable.

John