When TV Logos Were Physical Objects | Hacker News Reader

When TV Logos Were Physical Objects

thisiscolossal.com

307 pointsadunk65 comments

Article seems to be under the mistaken impression that these tv idents were built, put in front of a camera and recorded and then the recordings broadcast - possibly after even applying postproduction effects. Actually they were generally broadcast live by pointing a camera at them. This is one of those artifacts of digital era thinking which misunderstands the nature of analog era technology.

These idents needed to be able to be shown on demand, in the event of a breakdown in some other piece of equipment. They needed to be able to run for arbitrarily long periods of time. They needed to be shown many times per day during regular programming. And you couldn't just connect up a computer and stream mpeg video - you would need some sort of a device that could generate the TV picture.

TV was recorded on video tape and video tape wouldn't work for this application - it would need to be rewound every time you stopped showing it; it would wear out with continual use; it would have a fixed maximum duration.

Having a camera standing by pointing at the appropriate device, on the other hand, was relatively easy.

Most tv stations just pointed a camera at a piece of card. The BBC obviously had to go one better and use a crazy globe and mirror setup.

Do you have a citation for that? Looping films have been around for a long time.

Yes, physical films may wear out, but it seems like it would be easier to produce and distribute copies than to produce physical devices in many places.

Sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noddy_(camera)

You do realize that recording video content was inherently created /after/ the ability to transmit it in the first place, so even if looping has been around for a long time, the ability to transmit video has been around longer. And, as the other reference mentioned, much longer. The point of these systems was to be an alternate to a failure, so it failing wouldn't be acceptable - and rewinding or even replacing with a second tape would be a failure of a system that has to constantly present an image to the viewer.

I'm sure you're correct, but be warned that starting a response with 'you do realize' is likely to make you sound like an asshole[0]

0. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you+do+realiz....

If your citation is Urban Dictionary, I think I'll take the risk. I could have been more tactful, sure, but so could have the post I replied to.

No, he's right. "You do realize" always makes you sound like a jerk. You know very well that the person doesn't realize whatever it is, and you're rubbing their nose in it. If you intend to sound like a jerk, it's a fine go-to, but if not it should be avoided.

I know of the zoopraxiscope, which displayed a looping motion picture in 1879.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoopraxiscope

That predates any video transmission I'm aware of by a significant margin.

Looks like the preferred technology for station logos and test patterns since the 50s was the monoscope, a specialized device to generate a single image. The Indian Head logo, used in the 1970s, was one example.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoscope

Victim of nerd-sniping - some early TV camera/broadcast systems in the 1930s, especially in Europe, first recorded to film, which was then immediately scanned for broadcast. This could be used outdoors where there was not enough light for the TV scanning directly. "Intermediate film systems" http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_film_system

Anyway, broadcasting from previously recorded film or other images has been around since the beginnings of TV broadcasts, even though recording the transmitted signal took until the 1940s (kinescopes - a film camera recording a TV screen).

You're right about things getting forgotten. Two of the setups you're referring to in the pre-tape era were the film chain for playback and the kinescope for recording. These things were finicky and required extra personnel, whereas pointing one of the cameras at a physical logo was much easier. Its why much of early television, especially local programming was not saved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_chain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinescope

This is a kinescope of Playhouse 90s production of Requiem for a Heavyweight which was performed live on TV like a play. Its amazing to think they changed sets and costumes during commercials.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B0h2Anklbo

This is contradicted directly in the article re the BBC logo. It says the globe and mirror setup was rotoscoped/traced over to create the final cartoon look that was broadcast. Or is the article wrong?

Edit: The article is wrong! The colour was added to the camera's output live!

There's an update at the bottom of the article for this:

> UPDATE: It turns out the BBC Globe ident wasn’t rotoscoped or animated, instead it was recorded live using the Noddy camera system and the color was created by adjusting the contrast. Thanks, Gene!

That's good. Although that's a bit wrong. You can't take a monochrome image and add colour just by adjusting the contrast. I'm also not sure you can say it was "recorded" at all if it was broadcast directly, but that's a language question.

I believe the contrast adjustment was likely to get rid of any unwanted shades of grey before colouring the two extremes.

I suspect 'coloring the two extremes' involves something more like 'wiring the luminance signal up to the chroma'. Again, try not to think digital. This isn't photoshop, this is signal processing.

Or it could be a filter over the camera lens.

Once you have a mostly Black, and White (with no greys) image - it's relatively simple via basic electronics to colour replace those with alternate colours - much like the old analogue chromakey 'blue-screen' techniques.

In the UK the Anglia TV 'knight' is remembered by old-timers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73CnqdPanio

> The Anglia Knight is over 100 years old and was commissioned originally by the King of the Netherlands.

> The king was a patron of a society called The Falcon Club, which met once a year to compete in horse races, falconry and other sports.

> In 1850, the King felt so confident that he would win the contest that he commissioned a trophy from a London firm of silversmiths. The trophy was modelled on the statue of Richard Coeur de Lion, which stands outside the House of Parliament, but it was made to represent the Black Prince.

> However, to the King's dismay it was won by an Englishman and brought back to Britain where it remained in the possession of the victor's family until 1959 the year Anglia first went on the air.

> A famous firm of Bond Street jewellers and goldsmiths (Aspreys) was commissioned to make certain modifications including the pennant on the lance and the magnificent trophy became the famous symbol of Anglia Television.

> The Anglia Knight is made of sterling silver and weighs over 700 ounces. The detailed work was hand-chased by a superb craftsman.

> The music that is heard when the knight is on air is part of Handel's Water Music, specially arranged for Anglia Television by Sir Malcolm Sargent.

> Thanks to Steve Hearn and Adrian Ruck

More background:

http://www.closinglogos.com/page/Anglia+Television

Here is the 1959 original:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFiC0RxKeH8

So was that on tape or live recorded? If so, how did the cut the camera shots? All possible live but is it?

I remember the Anglia TV knight! I didn't realise it had such a fascinating story behind it.

Perhaps the earliest example of this was Felix the Cat, used by early mechanical television stations in the late 1920s to claim their part of the broadcast band [1]. They placed a wooden model of Felix on a turntable, trained a 120 line "flying spot" camera on it, and left it on. I read a contemporary account of watching an early televised prize fight which mentioned this as well, but I can't for the life of me find it anymore.

[1]: http://framemaster.tripod.com/Electronictv.html

A monoscope tube was also sometimes used for this purpose. But they had to be custom made for a specific image. It was also only good for Black and White.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoscope

This Chive article has some movie effects from the silent movie era. Scroll down for the Charlie Chaplin roller skating one, it's stunning.

http://thechive.com/2017/01/10/how-movie-effects-were-pulled...

I loved the HBO animation when I was a kid, and I've seen that behind-the-scenes video a number of times since.

Conceptually I get the idea, but I'm still baffled as to how they composite all that together to get the final polished result, especially the fiber optic spinning lights with "lens flare" effects at the end. It looks completely computer generated.

I believe that predated digital compositing being used. However electronic analog compositing is still much easier than film compositing (like what was used to combine passes for Star Wars). For instance, blue and green screen was originally for video. You would do it using an Ultimate brand device that was completely analog. That device launched in 1976, but it's creator had been building a analog compositing devices since at least 1964 when he won an Oscar for it. If you are curious about how it worked, I would imagine patents can be found and read. Ultimatte just generate an alpha channel (then called a key and it was actually a separate b/w video signal). Other devices would act in the key to combine the foreground and background together, etc.

Real-time video composites were achieved on analog hardware such as Scanimate [0] starting around the 1970's; traditional film matte techniques [1] had also been used for well over a generation by that point and a travelling matte would suffice for compositing that image.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHjkMThH0aE [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matte_(filmmaking)

It's like the transition from physical models to CGI in space SF - I don't think we've lost anything in the process, and certainly the quality of visuals we can produce now so far outstrips the pre-digital days that a meaningful comparison is hard to make, but all the same, there was a kind of physical, manual craftsmanship in the old model shops that we rarely see any more, and I'd love to know if there's anywhere that such techniques still survive outside hobbyist and artistic pursuits.

There's still a lot of physical model making in movies for props, and costumes. Also there are companies that make costumes, animatronics, and physical models as publicity for movies and games.

http://www.legacyefx.com/

http://wetaworkshop.com/

And then there are the model makers who make prototypes for game pieces, toys etc... Many of them still start with physical models.

I visited Kerner Optical some years ago, which did that kind of work. They were originally a part of Lucasfilm, and were spun off to sink or swim on their own. They sank. Here's some of those guys at work, on the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" film.[1] They were 10-20 year veterans of physical effects. Someone who'd been there five years was the new guy.

Tippett Studios was one of the big model work studios. Phil Tippett saw the writing on the wall when Jurassic Park went digital. The original plan for Jurassic Park was to use models of various sizes. Now Tippett is a digital effects house.

Not that being a digital effects house means job security. That's become a grind of a business, outsourced and offshored.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urvcYSpiwQA

Minor clarification, Kerner Optical was the unofficial codename for ILM, the model shop that build physical props was spun off and they decided to name themselves Kerner Optical.

Do you mean the new Jurassic Park film, because the old ones were mostly models, https://youtu.be/DzCID0HinMg?t=460

In the original Jurassic Park, dinosaurs moving in the open are full CG.[1] Close-ups where the actors were directly interacting with the dinosaurs were model work. That was the first major film with photorealistic CG creatures.

It's still difficult to do close interaction between humans and CG-animated characters, although, with enough money and a huge team, it can be done. See "Guardians of the Galaxy" to see that done very well.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/how-cgi-works-in-jurassic-par...

Right, but there were only 7 mins of cgi dinosaurs in Jurassic Park 1

It's like the transition from physical models to CGI in space SF - I don't think we've lost anything in the process

I would argue that it depends on the money spent. Cheap CGI looks just as bad as the physical models of a 70s Godzilla movie, IMO. And the comparison to movies about everyone's favorite fire-breathing lizard is apt because Godzilla's model were cheap, too. But no one watches Japanese mutant monster movies for the attention to detail in the model work.

OTOH, if you're going to argue that CGI bests the model work in 2001: A Space Odyssey, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I won't argue that CGI can outdo 2001's practical effects. But those practical effects were the achievement of their century. Matching them in quality, in our century, has become nigh routine.

The main takeaway seems to be that master artists can produce amazing things regardless of the medium they use.

I remember a sci-fi show that was on in the early 80s (Buck Rogers?) that had a zooming-through-stars clip in the credits. It was pretty decent for the time until my dad pointed out it was just someone dumping ping-pong balls on a camera that was pointed straight up.

Wind tunnels. The workshop attached to DSTO's wind tunnel used to be a model maker's (and foreign order) paradise. I'd imagine that wind tunnels are gradually being supplanted by simulation, but that there is still a demand for the physical test and the associated modeling.

I think the biggest thing we've lost in the transition from physical modeling to simulation is the widespread ability to manipulate materials. The process of model making has an inherent value, whose payoff is the ability to imagine what is possible in the physical world and to make it happen.

This made me think of the making of the "computer graphics" in the BBC TV production of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbWAwynNf-0