BL
1. ITN went over to the ACR25 and played various sequences from it (them?). Bit of bugbear having to transfer bits and pieces to it if you were up against a tight deadline, but obviously with it's more or less instant start it must have made title sequences etc a lot easier. As we know the Betacart etc and now servers have made it so easy everyone thinks they can do it!!
Was it Frank Bough who used to scratch his nose at the appropriate cue point?
2. Thanks for the clarification over the BBC's vision mixers re NAM/Mix etc.
3. I have to disagree with you with regard to the desirability of the NAM 'effect'. My own opinion is that when used correctly it can provide a really nice visual effect. I'm thinking of performers against a very dark/black backgrounds and having them on the left and right of the screen at different sizes. But ... it's just my personal opinion and we will certainly not fall out about it!
Couple of issues here.
1. Back in the day VTRs and Telecines (which scanned film live) had to have time to run-up. So you would run them 5, or even 10" before the pictures and sound were stable. That meant you needed to run them 5 or 10" before the presenter stopped talking (or before they hit the script that needed to be covered with VT for a live voice over). For a scripted show this was relatively straightforward, you just back timed the script by 5 or 10" and ran the VT or TK when the presenter hit that bit (if all else fails follow the 3 words per second rule).
For an ad-libbed show you needed a way for the presenter to let you know they were coming to the end of their ad-lib (ideally). You'd see/hear a signal (ear scratch, agreed word, cue light or buzzer from presenter etc.), run the VT or TK, and then the presenter would hear the hard count into the VT/TK item from the PA and stop talking in time.
Imagine directing a busy news opening sequence when each headline VT was run from a -5" pre-roll. That really was a skill. (I've had to do it occasionally)
2. bluecortina - The original quadrant fader mixers (and the BBC split-fader GVG1600s) didn't do a "NAM" they did an "AM". It was an Additive Mix not a Non-Additive Mix. With a NAM you weighted the incoming and outgoing sources inversely by the action of the fader, and the brightest one "won" (effectively it was a kind of burn-through key effect). With an Additive Mix you separately weighted the two sources and added them, no "winning" required (You always got both signals across the picture). The Sony 7000 and 8000 Supermix with the right programming almost allowed you to do the same. Interesting that the new GVG K-Frames, like the 1600s, have the option of the split fader again. (You could split the T-bar into two halves - a left and right, or lock them together to work as normally expected.)
3. Markymark - dead right. It was additive, not non-additive. The NAM was a horrid US effect we seldom used in the UK.
1. Back in the day VTRs and Telecines (which scanned film live) had to have time to run-up. So you would run them 5, or even 10" before the pictures and sound were stable. That meant you needed to run them 5 or 10" before the presenter stopped talking (or before they hit the script that needed to be covered with VT for a live voice over). For a scripted show this was relatively straightforward, you just back timed the script by 5 or 10" and ran the VT or TK when the presenter hit that bit (if all else fails follow the 3 words per second rule).
For an ad-libbed show you needed a way for the presenter to let you know they were coming to the end of their ad-lib (ideally). You'd see/hear a signal (ear scratch, agreed word, cue light or buzzer from presenter etc.), run the VT or TK, and then the presenter would hear the hard count into the VT/TK item from the PA and stop talking in time.
Imagine directing a busy news opening sequence when each headline VT was run from a -5" pre-roll. That really was a skill. (I've had to do it occasionally)
2. bluecortina - The original quadrant fader mixers (and the BBC split-fader GVG1600s) didn't do a "NAM" they did an "AM". It was an Additive Mix not a Non-Additive Mix. With a NAM you weighted the incoming and outgoing sources inversely by the action of the fader, and the brightest one "won" (effectively it was a kind of burn-through key effect). With an Additive Mix you separately weighted the two sources and added them, no "winning" required (You always got both signals across the picture). The Sony 7000 and 8000 Supermix with the right programming almost allowed you to do the same. Interesting that the new GVG K-Frames, like the 1600s, have the option of the split fader again. (You could split the T-bar into two halves - a left and right, or lock them together to work as normally expected.)
3. Markymark - dead right. It was additive, not non-additive. The NAM was a horrid US effect we seldom used in the UK.
1. ITN went over to the ACR25 and played various sequences from it (them?). Bit of bugbear having to transfer bits and pieces to it if you were up against a tight deadline, but obviously with it's more or less instant start it must have made title sequences etc a lot easier. As we know the Betacart etc and now servers have made it so easy everyone thinks they can do it!!
Was it Frank Bough who used to scratch his nose at the appropriate cue point?
2. Thanks for the clarification over the BBC's vision mixers re NAM/Mix etc.
3. I have to disagree with you with regard to the desirability of the NAM 'effect'. My own opinion is that when used correctly it can provide a really nice visual effect. I'm thinking of performers against a very dark/black backgrounds and having them on the left and right of the screen at different sizes. But ... it's just my personal opinion and we will certainly not fall out about it!
Last edited by bluecortina on 8 December 2014 5:47pm