Running Time of episodes

Anyone out there know how long the first episode "Identified" is?
The reason I'm asking is I believe the time of the DVD release is
49:08 which seems to me a little short - I also do notice that
everything is speeded up a bit - the start music just sounds a bit
too fast. Other than that - these discs are great!!

KP

>Anyone out there know how long the first episode "Identified" is?
>The reason I'm asking is I believe the time of the DVD release is
>49:08 which seems to me a little short - I also do notice that
>everything is speeded up a bit - the start music just sounds a bit
>too fast.

In NTSC, IDENTIFIED is 51 minutes long. However, in PAL it is
49 minutes, because in PAL the film is run 4% faster than it
is in NTSC. I did an A/B test of a UFO DVD with a Japanese
laserdisc, and the difference in speed & pitch is really noticeable
when comparing them directly. I also had to keep pausing the DVDs
to let the laserdiscs "catch up"!

However, when it came to picture & sound quality, there was
no contest -- the DVDs were superior in every way to the
laserdiscs...

Marc

Marc,
So everything from the UK is going to be 4% faster? I was toying with buying
the Thunderbirds set, and of course the UFO set, but I don't know if I can
stand the audio being faster.
Does anyone own the Thunderbirds, Stingray, or Scarlet sets from the UK?

all the best,
Ken

>So everything from the UK is going to be 4% faster? I was toying with buying
>the Thunderbirds set, and of course the UFO set, but I don't know if I can
>stand the audio being faster.
>Does anyone own the Thunderbirds, Stingray, or Scarlet sets from the UK?

Yes, I own them... they are all 4% faster. If you really want to get
them 4% slower, you'll have to wait for the A&E versions, which are
based off of the same PAL masters, but have been slowed down by 4%
when the NTSC masters are created. Also, if you're going to watch
them on an NTSC television, the conversions done by Carlton for A&E
are much better than any consumer DVD player is going to do (although
these UFO DVDs look pretty darn good on my cheapo Apex!)

Marc

[hidden email] wrote:
> Marc,
> So everything from the UK is going to be 4% faster? I was toying
> with buying the Thunderbirds set, and of course the UFO set, but I
> don't know if I can stand the audio being faster. Does anyone own
> the Thunderbirds, Stingray, or Scarlet sets from the UK? >

Yes, all of the above. They are fine, the voices all sound
quite normal.

James

Aren't we being a little anal about this "sped up 4%"
issue? I've got the discs, they look and *sound*
great! I don't think anyone is going to treasure their
VHS tapes or even laser discs because *swoon*
the..DVDs...run..*choke*...4% FASTER!!!! OH, THE
HUMANITY!!!!!!!

Nowadays, if I wanted to introduce a friend to "UFO,"
the sped-up factor works great because everything you
see is so fast, MTV-edited anyway, just to keep our
finger from touching the remote button. It keeps the
episodes at brisk pace which even isn't noticeable.

JF

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.yahoo.com/

>Aren't we being a little anal about this "sped up 4%"
>issue? I've got the discs, they look and *sound*
>great!

Well, on a mailing list with 350 people on it, you're
going to have to expect that some fraction of it
is going to be a little anal... :-)

I think that some people are more sensitive to this
than others. I also think that for those of us who
grew up with the slower versions, audiotaped them,
listened to them hundreds of times as a child until
they are imprinted on our brains, anything that's
faster *is* noticeable. Also, for anyone who had
the Japanese laserdiscs (or video copies of them),
they might also notice that people are moving
around faster, talking faster, and the pitch is
higher.

I'm not saying that this *ruins* the DVDs, nor
does it take away from the amazing picture and sound
quality. But for those that really want
the slower versions, the A&E versions coming
out in July should indeed be slower.

As James said, this topic comes up from time to
time, and people have different opinions about
this, and nobody is going to change anyone else's
opinion, so there's really no point in trying.

What we can do however is educate people about
the DVD's, and let them decide for themselves
what they want to do about it. I personally
prefer the slower versions, so I hope that A&E
doesn't screw up these great transfers!

Marc

JF,
I work for a recording studio, and notice pitch problems, and audio
inconsistencies everyday. I don't consider it to be 'anal'. As Marc said,
those of us who grew up with original speeds will notice.
Also, your MTV analogy holds no water....come on. Should I speed up
"Casablanca" for you?
No flames here, just think before you write, okay?

Ken

--- [hidden email] wrote:
> JF,
> I work for a recording studio, and notice pitch
> problems, and audio
> inconsistencies everyday.>>

So I work in radio and radio production, headphones on
my ears 99% of the time! What's your point?

<<I don't consider it to be
> 'anal'.>>

OK, how about extremely nit-picky?

> As Marc said,
> those of us who grew up with original speeds will
> notice.<

I *also* grew up with the "original speeds"--but I
can't believe you're complaining!

> Also, your MTV analogy holds no water>>

Does it now? Where have you been the last 20 years?
EVERYTHING has been speeded up. In the 1980's radio
stations became playing "45 rpm" records at "48 rpm"
because not only did it sound "better" but it gave
them just enough more time for an additional
commercial in an hour. Attention span has been the
number one casuality in media these days; the shows of
yesteryear are simply too slow for today's comsumers
(25-54 ages).

> No flames here, just think before you write, okay?>>

Sure reads like a flame. Maybe you should do the same?
Good day, sir.

JF

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.yahoo.com/

--- In SHADO@y..., Marc Martin <marc@u...> wrote:
> If you really want to get
> them 4% slower, you'll have to wait for the A&E versions, which are
> based off of the same PAL masters, but have been slowed down by 4%
> when the NTSC masters are created.

You hope. Obviously that would be the nice way to do it - basically
running the PAL master at 24fps, interpolating the lines down from
625 to 525 and adding the 3:2 pulldown to get the required 30 frame
per second video... but of course, they might just decide to do a
video standards conversion, giving a US master that still runs 4%
fast and won't look as nice!

Will A&E go for the expensive, quality option or the cheaper version.
We'll see!

Steve

--- In SHADO@y..., Nektu@a... wrote:
> As Marc said, those of us who grew up with original speeds will
notice.

Oooh, shall we open that can of worms again??!! What *is* the
original speed? 24 fps or 25fps? Or by 'original' do you just mean
the speed you grew up with?

We had this debate a few months ago about Space:1999, where we showed
that the whole show was a mix of bits shot at either 24 or 25fps.
Anything with a monitor in shot seems to have been shot at 25fps in
order to avoid seeing rolling bars on the monitors.

Steve

>Will A&E go for the expensive, quality option or the cheaper version.
>We'll see!

Is it A&E that does the conversion from PAL to NTSC? I thought that
Carlton did this, and shipped them the videos already in NTSC?

Anyway, so far A&E's The Prisoner, Thunderbirds, and Space:1999
have been slowed down, so it's reasonable to assume that UFO
will be as well...

Marc

>Anything with a monitor in shot seems to have been shot at 25fps in
>order to avoid seeing rolling bars on the monitors.

On the Gerry Anderson commentary track, I believe he contradicts
this -- he went on about how they built special monitors that
they could synch up with their film cameras.

Marc

Ummmmmmmmm....the Space:1999 DVDs were converted from PAL and to the best of
my knowledge everybody walks at the right speed and talks at the right
speed -- at least I haven't noticed anything different.

So, I think A&E/New Video can handle it. :)

1999 Lives,
Anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: "doorstop100" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 3:27 AM
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Running Time of episodes

--- In SHADO@y..., Marc Martin <marc@u...> wrote:
> >Anything with a monitor in shot seems to have been shot at 25fps in
> >order to avoid seeing rolling bars on the monitors.
>
> On the Gerry Anderson commentary track, I believe he contradicts
> this -- he went on about how they built special monitors that
> they could synch up with their film cameras.

I knew I shouldn't have re-opened this debate... : ) If you go
back and look at the ITC DVD forum where we were discussing this last
year, you'll find some pictures of the labels from the original audio
recordings for a few episodes that clearly show that the camera was
running at 25fps.

I'm not saying this was the case all the time, but it suggests that
at the very least there was some mixed-speed shooting going on...

Steve

doorstop100 wrote:
>
> I knew I shouldn't have re-opened this debate... : ) If you go
> back and look at the ITC DVD forum where we were discussing this last
> year, you'll find some pictures of the labels from the original audio
> recordings for a few episodes that clearly show that the camera was
> running at 25fps.

25 fps would lengthen the running time, not speed it up. Slow motion
sequences are filmed by overcranking the camera and shooting at a higher
fps rate which extends the sequence when it is projected at the standard
24 fps rate.
AT

>I knew I shouldn't have re-opened this debate... : ) If you go
>back and look at the ITC DVD forum where we were discussing this last
>year, you'll find some pictures of the labels from the original audio
>recordings for a few episodes that clearly show that the camera was
>running at 25fps.

Yes, but that was Space:1999... this is UFO... :-)

In a bit of good timing, I received the new issue of Fanderson's FAB
magazine, and they have an interview with the guy who built a lot of
the instrumentation you see in UFO. He also was the guy who solved
their video monitor filming problem. He backs up what Gerry Anderson
said -- they didn't do a thing to the film cameras on UFO -- instead,
they built a device to alter the refresh rate of the video monitors
so they match the cameras. It sounds like they used a rate of 48 hz
on the video monitors (twice that of a 24 fps film camera) instead
of the usual 50 hz.

Also, if Carlton doesn't want people to know who is doing the
remastering of their DVDs, someone should tell Fanderson -- in this
issue, they mention (more than once) which company did the transfers
for UFO and Captain Scarlet, and then go onto to point out how much
better these transfers are than the ones for Thunderbirds &
Space:1999...

Marc

--- In SHADO@y..., Marc Martin <marc@u...> wrote:

> Yes, but that was Space:1999... this is UFO... :-)

That, of course, is a fair point!

> Also, if Carlton doesn't want people to know who is doing the
> remastering of their DVDs, someone should tell Fanderson -- in this
> issue, they mention (more than once) which company did the
transfers
> for UFO and Captain Scarlet, and then go onto to point out how much
> better these transfers are than the ones for Thunderbirds &
> Space:1999...

Oh dear! Well, I think that issue was resolved last year, so I don't
suppose it matters now. The main point of the investigation was to
ascertain whether employees from one contracted company had been
slagging off the work of another contracted company... which actually
hadn't ever happened. If anything, we understood the difficulties
that the other companies must have had.

Steve