Slashdot Mirror


Reverse Engineering Doctor Who Into Color

Lanxon writes "In 1967, the BBC set about junking its Doctor Who archive: a moment sci-fi fans wish they could travel back in time to prevent. There are 108 vintage episodes missing, but since 1978 a number have been rediscovered as 16mm black-and-white films. The BBC shot many of these series in color, but made monochrome copies for countries such as Australia, where many TV companies were still broadcasting in greyscale. The reels had sat in archives since. Now, the Doctor Who Restoration Team, an independent group contracted by the BBC, is using a new technique to regenerate The Doctor in color."

171 comments

  1. First post. by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

    I traveled back in time and re-posted it. . In Colour!

    --
    . . .gone when the morning comes
  2. color by slash.dt · · Score: 5, Funny
    The BBC shot many of these series in color

    Since this is the BBC, they shot *none* of them in color but many of them in *colour*....

    1. Re:color by korgitser · · Score: 1

      Stop with that black and white view of the world!

      --
      FCKGW 09F9 42
    2. Re:color by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      Since this is Slashdot, we pretend we are American and hence pretend to spell words

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    3. Re:color by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      What, that old spelling flame again? A better flame would be being a Eurocentric jerk and lecturing us all on the superiority of PAL vs. NTSC.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm from North America. Canada to be precise. And I would like you yanks to learn to spell as well. =)

    5. Re:color by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, there are more English speakers in the USA than in England... So? We Win!

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    6. Re:color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps so, but you forgot about the rest of the world, like where I am, the EU, India, Oz, NZ...
      Oh wait, this is slashdot and you're American and there is no rest of world.
      Ps. Shouldn't you be speaking Spanish by now?

    7. Re:color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh?

    8. Re:color by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      I'm from North America. Canada to be precise. And I would like you yanks to learn to spell as well. =)

      Have you got a spell for that Potter?

    9. Re:color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a reason why NTSC is said to be a shorthand for Never Twice the Same Color (obviously not colour :-))

    10. Re:color by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Actually, the US alone accounts for roughly half of all native English speakers in the world. And given that the rest of you guys can't settle on a particular dialect, I think it's a bit arrogant to suggest that our version isn't the dominant dialect.

      But, I'm sure counting lower class Indians as English speakers despite the fact that they aren't being taught it is equally valid.

    11. Re:color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So it's all about numbers? Does this means that sms language will soon become the official English spelling? And I suppose 50 cents is more talented than Mozart because more people listen to hip hop than classical music?

    12. Re:color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The U.S. doesn't have one dialect. If you did, you'd all sound the same. The United Kingdom doesn't have one dialect either, otherwise you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Londoner and a Scot.

      It doesn't matter how many people there are in the U.S. speaking English. The original post was eluding to the fact that people in the U.K. spell the word with a "u".

    13. Re:color by yfjyb · · Score: 1

      When they started rerunning the old episodes in Australia a few years back I really enjoyed them.

    14. Re:color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't the French use SECAM?

      Please - it's Anglocentric jerk, not Eurocentric.

    15. Re:color by AGMW · · Score: 1

      There's a reason why NTSC is said to be a shorthand for Never Twice the Same Color (obviously not colour :-))

      ... and presumably no reason why PAL was known as Pale And Lurid?

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    16. Re:color by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 2

      Have you been to India recently? Pretty much everybody there speaks English - it's one of their two national languages (along with Hindi) and it's taught in schools. As they have so many local languages, English is often used between two Indians if one of them doesn't speak Hindi.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    17. Re:color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We gave you the language, kindly use it correctly

    18. Re:color by xaxa · · Score: 1

      "Perfection At Last"?

    19. Re:color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The point being that 'the BBC' didn't destroy these tapes, at most, ONE or TWO idiots who worked for the BBC destroyed these tapes - and you can bet your bottom dollar that they were managers, arrogant tossers with an overblown sense of their own importance, who destroyed forever all the hard work of scores of people, which can never be replicated.

      Thanks for that, BBC!

      I notice we are never given the NAMES of the idiots behind these decisions. Somebody must know who they are.

    20. Re:color by Charliemopps · · Score: 0

      I HATE the spelling police. Can you people just leave the rest of us alone please?

    21. Re:color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I believe the term you are searching for is "accent", not "dialect". Especially in the US. Outside of a few slang words there is no difference between the language spoken in Boston, Miami, or Austin. The same goes for most other English speaking countries. You have different pronunciation, but the words and grammar are the same.

    22. Re:color by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      ..but as a Second (third, fourth... ) Language the rest of the world outnumbers the US...

      The US version is not dominant, nor the is British English, what is often called International English is ...

      This has many small variations, spelling is optional, and pronunciation very regional, but it is distinctly not what is taught in US schools or UK schools ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    23. Re:color by Combatso · · Score: 1

      im not your PAL buddy

    24. Re:color by GNious · · Score: 1

      Please also teach them to pronounce the letter "z" correctly, and soon - I'm running out of places to hide the bodies.

    25. Re:color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some NTSC user once commented "Pay for Added Luxury"...

      Anybody have any good ones for SECAM? (that's the invented by the French, for the French, because we're French - that's why you uncultured Anglophones...)

    26. Re:color by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      But we already know how!

      "as well". A-S-W-E-L-L. "as well".

    27. Re:color by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      And given that the rest of you guys can't settle on a particular dialect, I think it's a bit arrogant to suggest that our version isn't the dominant dialect

      We can't settle on a particular dialect here, either. I can barely understand someone from the NE seaboard; they seem incapable of pronouncing the letter R unless it starts a word. "Da dyam dwag is unda da cah!"

      Folks in the south have too many Rs. "Warsh thayut thar winder!"

      Then there's jive, ebonics, tex-mex, board-room, 133t5p33k, txt, and those are ones I can think of off the top of my head.

    28. Re:color by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

      Shh - don't tell us Brits that the PAL standard was developed in Germany.

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    29. Re:color by Bertie · · Score: 1

      Sure there is. And furthermore, you'll find huge differences between different social and ethnic groups even within those cities. There's an infinite variety of subtle and not-so-subtle differences which constantly cross-pollinate. Any attempt to ring-fence something and declare it "standard English" is doomed.

    30. Re:color by xaxa · · Score: 2

      "System Essentially Contrary to the American Method"

    31. Re:color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not your buddy PAL.

    32. Re:color by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the US alone accounts for roughly half of all native English speakers in the world

      That's only true if you only count first-language speakers. India has about as many English speakers as the USA, but most of them also speak two or three other languages.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    33. Re:color by operagost · · Score: 1

      I see you also spell "alluding" differently in the UK.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    34. Re:color by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Surrendering Eaters of Cheese Abetting Mis-compatibility

    35. Re:color by hattig · · Score: 1

      I think you mean Picture Always Lousy.

    36. Re:color by mikael · · Score: 2

      There is an article on the history of video recording in the production industry. The tapes (Ampex VRX-1000) weren't destroyed as in thrown out, crushed or incinerated. They were re-used to record new programming until the iron oxide was worn out. Given the relative costs of storage and purchase of each cassette, limited budgets, tight deadlines, the fact that copies were made for distribution, no producer or accountant would have given a second thought to overwriting the tapes for new programming. The same happens with server disk space for rendering these days. Once you've got the final reel out to the client, all that space is free for the next project. Someone with decades of experience might have seen the importance of saving all those clips for re-use, or using scraps for experimenting with, but then there would not have been the space to store them, or even the funding for archival.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    37. Re:color by ikeman32 · · Score: 1

      The BBC shot many of these series in color

      Since this is the BBC, they shot *none* of them in color but many of them in *colour*....

      Potatoe Patatoe, if they don't stopp killing the Doctor there isn't going to be any more regenerations left. Admittedly I haven't been keeping up on the new Doctor Who episodes or even know if it's still running but he has one or two regenerations left.

  3. technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article says that they are using color information that was on the b&w prints. Not really reverse engineering, but still cool.

    1. Re:technique by camperslo · · Score: 5, Informative

      It almost is reverse engineering. The chroma subcarrier in a video signal has a center frequency picked to allow the sidebands to fall between those of the main lumanance (black and white) video. The spectrum of those extends out from the main visual carrier frequency (or up from D.C. for the baseband signal) at multiple of the horizontal scan rate. The goal was to add color broadcast information to an existing greyscale system while introducing a minimal amount of interference. Here people are figuring out what is going on from the visual interference.

      The added signal amplitude represents the amount of color added/subtracted from the greyscale white, and the phase represents the hue. The phase of the signal is compared with a short burst (a minimum of eight cycles) sent just after the horizontal sync pulse prior to the start of video on each scan line. PAL, as used by the BBC, is very similar to NTSC, except the scan rates differ, the phase of the reference signal is inverted on every other line to help cancel out the effect of small phase errors on tint.

      Basically, those trying to recover color from the back and white films of on-air video have to use a comb filter to pick off the frequency (precisely related to the inverse of the spacing) of the resulting dots that are there from the color signal. The position of the dots from left to right carries the phase information. Considering that the dot pattern is probably quite weak, the resulting color would be noisy. Depending on the filtering used, the bandwidth (detail) may also suffer. But it is still a good starting point to know what the colors were.

      The dots aren't on/off like pixels. It's actually a sinusoidal intensity variation. I recall some older Zenith B&W sets had particularly good detail (and maybe some video peaking - enhancement) making it easy to see which programs were broadcast in color, and what parts of the picture were deeply saturated. In addition to a notch in the video response at 4.5 MHz to filter out patterns from the sound, some sets rolled-off or notched centered at 3.58 MHz (3.579545 actually) video response to reduce the interference. Better later sets (and color generally) used "comb" filters to separate the interleaved spectral components without those loss of detail seen with more primitive methods. Failure to filter color signals could cause wild colors/patterns on things like striped neck-ties when a shot zoomed in/out.

      It's pleasing to see that there are still a few around that understand the old analog technology well enough to realize there were visual color cues remaining. Even those that understand the electronics well often don't associate a particular visual characteristic with the responsible signal attributes.

      Although partial signal recovery is easy to envision with analog electronics, something along the lines of a GIMP/Photoshop plugin could work as well. Some might think of it as being similar to watermark detection.

    2. Re:technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 informative.... well done, sir!

    3. Re:technique by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My mom told me once she was watching a black and white TV with her family, and someone walked on the screen with green hair. Everyone watching the TV instantly started laughing because the guy had green hair. I don't entirely understand your post, but it does verify that my mom was not crazy, and average people watching in those days could distinguish even if they didn't know what was going on.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the guy had green hair. I don't entirely understand your post, but it does verify that my mom was not crazy,..."

      No, she was colorblind, it was a redhead.

    5. Re:technique by DeathElk · · Score: 1

      Good show, old chap, well done indeed. I, for one, miss the smell of hot dusty valves, and the high pitched whine of an ageing flyback transformer.

    6. Re:technique by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      "the guy had green hair. I don't entirely understand your post, but it does verify that my mom was not crazy,..."

      No, she was colorblind, it was a redhead.

      At least she was polite enough not to comment on his transparent trousers. You were really naive to think she was laughing at his green hair.

    7. Re:technique by paiute · · Score: 1

      My mom told me once she was watching a black and white TV with her family, and someone walked on the screen with green hair. Everyone watching the TV instantly started laughing because the guy had green hair. I don't entirely understand your post, but it does verify that my mom was not crazy, and average people watching in those days could distinguish even if they didn't know what was going on.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_with_Green_Hair

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    8. Re:technique by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      You mention the fact that pal alternates the phase on every line. IMO this is probablly among the hardest problems for those doing the recovery. This means each line has (roughly) the same color information but encoded in opposite ways.

      When you are working directly off a video signal this is no problem, counting lines is easy. But when that video signal has been translated into a 2D analog image it means you are going to have to seperate the lines (which are probably bleeding together). I suspect this is a bit that still needs some manual intervention to tell the computer which interpretation is correct.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    9. Re:technique by rufty_tufty · · Score: 2

      The colour distortions NTSC and PAL suffer from on high frequency luminance changes are interesting and a fascinating insight into the world before digital. Every geek should IMO understand this because it's interesting and cool and easy to understand. I'll try and simplify the explanation...

      The artefact in question results from a colour (analogue) TV trying to display a picture where the luminance (brightness to you and I) changes rapidly, i.e. with a high frequency. Viewers of old will be used to people with stripy shirts suddenly and stragely developing psychedelic colour patterns. Why do you get them? That's the interesting part:

      When NTSC was devised they had to design a system that was backwards compatible i.e. used the same bandwidth to transmit a colour signal. Worse than that they had to have the signal such that the colour signal would be interpreted by a B&W receiver as a B&W image correctly.
      So what they did was look at the signal and realise that although the bandwidth allocated allowed for rapid luminance changes, no set at the time (in domestic usage anyway) was capable of displaying them. Therefore they could transmit a high frequency signal on top of the luminance signal that existing sets would filter out, they would act like a low pass filter, and average it out back to the original signal. They could therefore superimpose a high frequency signal on top of the old luminance only signal. Now, how to carry information with this signal?
      Well you kept the frequency of this superimposition constant but you could vary both its amplitude and its phase* relative to a reference signal. This combined with some maths behind luminance and chrominance processing (wikipedia is your friend here) meant that you had good old luminance information for old sets, and two colour components that could be extracted by a compliant set, but would be ignored by older sets.
      Now where the artefact in question comes from should now be obvious, a high frequency luminance change looks indistinguishable from no intensity change with a certain colour information. The system was designed to minimise these, but they had to happen at least slightly. As TV sets and studio cameras have improved over the years there have become more of these artefacts as we have got better at displaying fine detail, so what wasn't a problem now shows the limits of the system.

      If you want information about how the colour reference signal was sent or to explain more please do ask, PAL and NTSC are one of my favourite geeky subjects. It's engineering from an almost forgotten era and a sign of just how clever some engineers are/were.

      *The difference between phase modulation and frequency modulation are somewhat academic for the purposes of this discussion, let's just say that phase modulation makes more sense because we have a reference waveform to compare it to.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    10. Re:technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She would have been watching a black and white program on a color TV. Or she's crazy.

    11. Re:technique by brianerst · · Score: 1

      Amazingly enough, the original implementation of 'Colour Recovery' was done in BBC Basic for Windows - an extension of the language used on the old Acorn computers in the 1980s.

      That link is a much more technical overview of the process - the first time they used Colour Recovery, they used it as a supplement to more traditional computer colorization. They had an outside firm (Legend) do a hand-colorization of a black and white episode using an improved version of the old Ted Turner colorization process. While it works, it tends to turn out a somewhat washed-out and unsubtle colorizing - it's really hard to get the gradations of skin tones right, so they desaturate the color a little bit so it just looks washed out rather than as if everyone is wearing pancake makeup.

      The Colour Recovery process is error-prone (you're using artifacts of the original color signal recorded on a different medium - there are drop-outs and inconsitencies due to the original transfer process) but where it works, it really captures the original color range and gradations much better. And it also takes out some of the guesswork - the Legend team based a lot of their work on still photos, but where none existed, they used their best judgment. In one case, they made flower in a jungle scene purple, where Colour Recovery picked up the fact that the cheap (er, cost-constrained) BBC effects department had just made everything different shades of green.

      In the end, they blended the two techniques - using CR to correct the Legend colorization. The link has Legend/CR/blend shots - the blend really looks good, while each of the originals have (different) problems.

    12. Re:technique by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Well, I've heard of people being able to determine the content of a wav file by just looking at the raw data, so...

    13. Re:technique by mikael · · Score: 1

      In the era of the 1980 home computers, It was an advanced programming technique, on the same level as VGA programming in the 1990's, or GPU shader programming is now. It was more of technological curiosity, with only one or two games used it (Tetris), since the results varied from TV to TV. It did seem strange how using a 320x200 monochrome screen could generate red, green, yellow or blue pixels just because the pixel size was smaller than the sampling rate of the CRT tube.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    14. Re:technique by mikael · · Score: 1

      You have an analogue signal that is split up into three difference luminance levels (red,green,blue). These would each be aligned so that they matched the red/green/dot pattern of the CRT screen. As the image is recorded onto black-white film which would have a fine crystal grain size, the individual intensities of each red, green or blue dot would have been recorded. Although the film was in monochrome, it would still have recorded the color information, but as a stipple or dither pattern. If you can convert this image into a high-resolution digital image and write a suitable algorithm, you could reconstruct the original color information.

      It would be no difficult from taking a close-up shot of a LCD screen, converting it to monochrome, and then writing a photoshop plugin to convert the image back into color.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    15. Re:technique by camperslo · · Score: 1

      My mom told me once she was watching a black and white TV with her family, and someone walked on the screen with green hair.

      What I wrote about is only a subtle dot interference pattern that has no directly visible color.

      But I think I know what your mom saw. There was some experimentation in the mid 60's with trying to get the perception of color on a black and white television. I haven't found a description in a search yet, I forget what it was called. There was a popular tv show called Combat! that was in black and white (color came later in the final season). There was publicity beforehand about an ad that was going to run during the program with color visible on black and white sets. It was for a soda... Squirt or Bubble Up or something similar. As I recall the effect was used just on the logo on the bottle. It depended on the brain perceiving some illusion of color when things flashed at a certain rate. Some people saw the effect more than others. It was used in some other ads beyond the one that got the publicity, but never caught on. The color effect had visible flicker to it and certainly couldn't pass as a normal full-color picture. I seem to recall seeing violet, but there may have been green too. I think besides not working consistently, there was also fear of triggering seizures in some people. I think it would have been fun to use in a 60's sci-fi show. Put out a gag news items saying that there had been suspected reception of tv from a parallel universe, causing color to been seen on black and white sets... then use the effect later.

      I've more recently seen other ads, and I think music videos, that were released in black in white, but with color in isolated spots, like maybe just one persons face, for shock value. That color still takes a color set to see though.

    16. Re:technique by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, I guess I described it wrong. What happened was (I think it was a comedy show), someone walked in with green hair, and everyone laughed and said, "He has green hair!" It was part of the routine. Then they stopped and suddenly started wondering how they could possibly know that, since they were watching black and white.

      In other words, it would seem that people are subconsciously picking up on the color after years of watching B&W TV. Or, were.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  4. Ted Turner's Revenge by david@ecsd.com · · Score: 1

    nt

  5. And now for the nerdery. by thechao · · Score: 5, Informative

    So the article was devoid of anything of particular interest other than some jargon. The jargon, on the other hand, led to fascinating little technique about reconstructing the color of the grayscale image from "chroma dots". The actual method was discovered by a BBC engineer, and you can read more about it here: colour-recovery.wikispaces.com.

    1. Re:And now for the nerdery. by e9th · · Score: 5, Informative

      Complementing TFA is the restoration team's FAQ, which covers some of the non-technical details involved.

    2. Re:And now for the nerdery. by KingAlanI · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.iwillvoice.com/faqpage.html#q3.6
      Question 3.6 from that FAQ seems to be that which specifically refers to this issue.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    3. Re:And now for the nerdery. by KingAlanI · · Score: 0

      http://www.iwillvoice.com/faqpage.html#q3.6 [iwillvoice.com]
      Question 3.6 from that FAQ seems to be the section that specifically refers to this issue.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    4. Re:And now for the nerdery. by dugeen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What you won't find in the FAQ is a list of all the changes the 'Restoration' Team have made to the stories - not only have they painted out boom shadows, camera reflections etc, but they've also messed up these changes on numerous occasions, resulting in missing sound effects, actors being left out of credits, credit backgrounds being the wrong colour, and everyone in Black Orchid looking like they're wearing bright red lipstick. But you can find a list here: http://tinypaste.com/c5441e

    5. Re:And now for the nerdery. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      They are human, for god's sake. Maybe they shouldn't be going into making corrections, but I am happy that they are there. They are working to try to help partially fix the massive mistakes the BBC unknowingly made so long ago. They are doing some yeoman like work, so please don't completely diss them.

    6. Re:And now for the nerdery. by noidentity · · Score: 1

      This is an informal working group devoted to the advancement of technology for the recovery of PAL colour information embedded within B&W film telerecordings

      In other words, they are just doing a software decoder of a composite PAL signal (which has been encoded on monochrome film).

    7. Re:And now for the nerdery. by jimicus · · Score: 2

      As long as they haven't made the oh-so-painful mistake of interspersing shots of a cheap, flimsy set which looks like something straight out of the 1960's with modern FX shots - they did that with the Red Dwarf remasters (though that was 1980's set) and my God, it was appalling.

    8. Re:And now for the nerdery. by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      There is a good argument to be made that they SHOULD FIX NOTHING.

      Just cleanup the black & white prints they have and stop there.

      People who are even interested in some 40 year old TV show will likely suffer the black & white versions.

      "Fixing" works primarily has the effect of annoying those that care about the work the most.

      Colorizing is a generally bad idea because of this.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:And now for the nerdery. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This is colorizing a B&W film of something that was filmed in color, not coloring a film that was originally B&W.

    10. Re:And now for the nerdery. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Yes, but colorizing is the way that some modern 'artist' can stick his/her thumb into the works and claim s/he had a role in it's creation. Also, it allows the work to be re-copyrighted (we're glaring at you, Ted Turner) in it's new form.

      If they don't make available the unaltered version as well, it's an outrage. But the same sort of busy managers are probably at work who trashed the original archive. They've got an important new role here. (they should be busy sanitizing telephones, but let's not cross over to a different series)

    11. Re:And now for the nerdery. by Nyder · · Score: 1

      So the article was devoid of anything of particular interest other than some jargon. The jargon, on the other hand, led to fascinating little technique about reconstructing the color of the grayscale image from "chroma dots". The actual method was discovered by a BBC engineer, and you can read more about it here: colour-recovery.wikispaces.com.

      http://colour-recovery.wikispaces.com/

      a link tends to work better.

      --
      Be seeing you...
  6. Rev the wrong thing by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can they reverse engineer the scripts instead? Color or black and white, those old episodes are damn unwatchable. We'd be better off giving Wikipedia descriptions of the episodes to the writing staff of Golden Girls. Those old droning 5-part episodes would be turned into 22.5 minutes of tightly scripted comedy starring Bea Arthur as the Doctor. And any of the other old hags as K-9.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    1. Re:Rev the wrong thing by tuffy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Color or black and white, those old episodes are damn unwatchable.

      108 of them are, at least.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    2. Re:Rev the wrong thing by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 3

      To be honest, I have not been able to really get into old Doctor Who at all. I've tried watching City of Death (I think that was it) multiple times, as I heard it was one of the better Fourth Doctor adventures, but when I watch it, the acting is too poor to really be able to enjoy it. I really want to experience the history of the series, as I love the revival to death. I guess it's just not for me. :/

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    3. Re:Rev the wrong thing by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 4, Informative

      You might consult the Doctor who ratings guide. Look under "Televised Adventures".
      Many people like Pyramids of Mars, and the Talons of Weng Chiang, though the latter isn't particularly culturally sensitive. Genesis of the Daleks is another keeper.

      Personally, I started with The Power of Kroll.

    4. Re:Rev the wrong thing by jamesh · · Score: 1

      When they started rerunning the old episodes in Australia a few years back I really enjoyed them. The acting wasn't real good, the fight scenes (fist fights etc) were so bad they were funny, and the strings holding up the dalek's spaceship were visible and it rocked side to side, but I still really enjoyed them.

    5. Re:Rev the wrong thing by Sulphur · · Score: 4, Funny

      When they started rerunning the old episodes in Australia a few years back I really enjoyed them. The acting wasn't real good, the fight scenes (fist fights etc) were so bad they were funny, and the strings holding up the dalek's spaceship were visible and it rocked side to side, but I still really enjoyed them.

      They had not mastered String Theory at the time.

    6. Re:Rev the wrong thing by heironymous · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Many people like Pyramids of Mars, and the Talons of Weng Chiang, though the latter isn't particularly culturally sensitive.

      I agree, but there's a wonderful moment when Tom Baker exclaims something like, "Wait a minute, you're Chinese," as if that visually obvious fact had eluded him up to that point. Made quite an impression on my young mind, that an alien -- even a super intelligent one -- would be less capable of seeing our trivial differences. To be truly unprejudiced, we must see through better eyes.

    7. Re:Rev the wrong thing by ThirdPrize · · Score: 1

      They are up there with the original Star Trek.

      --
      I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
    8. Re:Rev the wrong thing by Rysc · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd start with An Unearthly Child and continue chronologically with the highlights.

      I understand it may be too much for some people, like a DBZ marathon, but it's important to see the context and evolution. A brief skim through doctors 1-2, then settle in and watch most remaining Pertwee, then watch 4, 5, 6 and 7. Once finished go back and watch the ones you missed. Then start on the reconstructions and consider whether the new series is worth it.

      Of course for this you need an experienced Who fan to set up the "playlist" of early episode.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    9. Re:Rev the wrong thing by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I have not been able to really get into old Doctor Who at all. I've tried watching City of Death (I think that was it) multiple times, as I heard it was one of the better Fourth Doctor adventures, but when I watch it, the acting is too poor to really be able to enjoy it. I really want to experience the history of the series, as I love the revival to death. I guess it's just not for me. :/

      You should try reading the books instead, great sci-fi. Not trying to make a lot of deep social commentary or impress by being Literature, but thoroughly digestable if you're looking for some pseudo pulp.

    10. Re:Rev the wrong thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the original series (60's/70's) was made for children.
      Many of us who were scared silly by late night showings of Doctor Who now laugh at how fake the monsters look.
      Hard to watch sometimes, but nostalgic nonetheless.

    11. Re:Rev the wrong thing by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      And when you're watching the really old ones, remember that they're basically stage shows that someone was pointing a camera at. Back then, there were basically no experienced television actors (or producers, for that matter) and everything was set up just like a play and then filmed. You'll see The Doctor walking onto the set, waiting to make sure that the audience has seen him, and then delivering his lines. A modern production would edit out these pauses; they hurt the narrative, but they're interesting to see the evolution of television as an art form.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:Rev the wrong thing by Remloc · · Score: 1

      Actually, after being introduced via Torchwood, I've been trying to watch the entire series in order (including the "Loose Cannon" reconstructions for the fully lost episodes). I'm up to March, 1970. The 1st 2 Doctors aren't that bad, but when the 3rd is trapped on Earth in present day and every show starts being the same, I'd have to agree. Can't comment yet past that.

    13. Re:Rev the wrong thing by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      I agree, but there's a wonderful moment when Tom Baker exclaims something like, "Wait a minute, you're Chinese," as if that visually obvious fact had eluded him up to that point.

      Maybe he suddenly realized that Li H'sen Chang is Chinese as opposed to Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, or some other instance of Asian ancestry.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    14. Re:Rev the wrong thing by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      Many people like Pyramids of Mars ...

      I loved that episode. Sutekh was quite malevolent and wonderfully voiced by Gabriel Woolf who, incidentally, the BBC brought back to do the voice of the Beast in the 2-parter David Tennant story of The Impossible Planet and The Satan Pit.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    15. Re:Rev the wrong thing by Psmylie · · Score: 1

      The acting and special effects were fine... considering the time of the original broadcasts and the intended audience (children). I quite enjoyed it as a kid/young teen, though yes, going back to watch some of those episodes now is painful. The same thing happens to a lot of old shows, though, and if nothing else, the mythology of Dr. Who definitely withstands the tests of time.

      --

      psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

    16. Re:Rev the wrong thing by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      I've been rewatching the original Star Treks, and their quality is all over the board. Some episodes have great writing from great writers (the episode I watched last night was written by Theodore Sturgeon), great directing, and great acting, but others are painfully bad.

      TNG and Voyager had some episodes that were so scientifically wrong they were painful to watch (like when Paris hits warp ten and evolves... whoever wrote that episode knew absolutely nothing about evolution, and I think there's an equally stupid TNG episode that misunderstands evolution as well, pulling the same stupid stunt.

    17. Re:Rev the wrong thing by O-Deka-K · · Score: 2

      So you're saying that it's better not to see color?

    18. Re:Rev the wrong thing by Nyder · · Score: 1

      When they started rerunning the old episodes in Australia a few years back I really enjoyed them. The acting wasn't real good, the fight scenes (fist fights etc) were so bad they were funny, and the strings holding up the dalek's spaceship were visible and it rocked side to side, but I still really enjoyed them.

      I never understood this. The acting in Doctor Who has always been good.

      Look at other "sci=fi" stuff released by teh BBC and you'll understand my point.

      You want bad acting? rewatch Blake's 7 I had fond memories of that show during the 80's and found the acting to be so horrible when i watched it again recently that I couldn't believe i missed it the first time. But Doctor Who episodes? Nope, i rewatch them ever few years and don't have a problem with the acting at all.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    19. Re:Rev the wrong thing by mikael · · Score: 1

      That's fascinating - some time ago, the BBC had a trial where they made selected selections of their archive available online. Some of the 60's talk shows would have a bizarre Greek theme, with stone pillars, frescos, chessboard style titles, and even the hosts were in greek style dresses and makeup, yet in the same role as a talk host interviewing guests today. I'm guessing they just thought TV was just going to be like theatre.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    20. Re:Rev the wrong thing by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      I found that reading the stories and using my own imagination for the special effects provided a superior level of entertainment... the radio shows are also superior to the TV adaptations, and I'd consider them to be the true history of the series, with the TV adaptations just frosting (it's up to you whether you like frosting).

    21. Re:Rev the wrong thing by NoMaster · · Score: 1

      Late to this, but...

      To be completely fair, the acting in Blake's 7 is quite good. The problem is that it's good stage acting, not good television acting.

      Why it should be so, when Dr Who didn't suffer from the same problem 20-something years earlier, is a mystery. My personal guess is (a) all the principles in Blake's 7 (Blake, Avon, Servalan) and half the non-regular supporting cast were already established stage actors, while in Dr Who only William Hartnell was; (b) Dr Who was aimed at children (so the need for 'proper' acting was presumed to be lesser), while Blake's 7 was aimed at at more discerning 'adult' audience; and (c) each scene in early Dr Who was pretty much done on film and live to camera in one take (only egregious errors merited a second take) so as to be ready for broadcast next week, while Blake's 7 had the leisure of multiple takes (filming for the first series started 3 1/2 months before the first broadcast).

      (In fact, you can see evidence of that third point in the last 1/2~1/3 of season one - a lot more production errors were allowed to slip through than earlier that season or in later seasons, because the filming schedule had gotten all out of whack.)

      It's also interesting to note that the 'better' actors that crop up in early Blake's 7 were either primarily non-stage (TV, movie) actors, or from overseas (e.g. Australia, South Africa). I know that, in Australia at least, most actors had much more experience with TV (due to the smaller theatre circuit), and had a tendency to head to the UK establish their 'real' (i.e. theatre) credentials.

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
  7. There's Good News and Bad News... by Lev13than · · Score: 4, Funny

    The good news is that they've figured out how to restore colour to the B&W negatives. The bad news is that it requires Kodachrome processing...

    --
    When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
    1. Re:There's Good News and Bad News... by Lev13than · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, the process by which they're recovering the colour data is very interesting:
      http://www.insell.co.uk/colourisation/Recovery_of_Colour_Information_0-2.htm

      --
      When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
    2. Re:There's Good News and Bad News... by Phoobarnvaz · · Score: 2

      The good news is that they've figured out how to restore colour to the B&W negatives. The bad news is that it requires Kodachrome processing...

      No problem there at all. Just use the Tardis and go back to the heyday of Kodachrome processing. For this...it really helps to use a Time Lords trick of thinking inside the box.

      --
      Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
    3. Re:There's Good News and Bad News... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's silly, if you're going to go to that trouble, you may as well go back to 1967 and stop the films from being destroyed. Or better yet, take them out of the bin and bring them back to the 21st century.

    4. Re:There's Good News and Bad News... by heironymous · · Score: 2

      That's silly, if you're going to go to that trouble, you may as well go back to 1967 and stop the films from being destroyed. Or better yet, take them out of the bin and bring them back to the 21st century.

      Sorry, can't. Since they were actually destroyed, messing up the timeline is a no-no.

      Oh, but wait! We could copy them and put the originals back. Argh, can't do that either. Curses, RIAA.

    5. Re:There's Good News and Bad News... by NoMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, but what if someone convinced the BBC to knock off 6 more copies, then sealed them up in a wall so they could be picked up later and sold to collectors?

      Yeah, sure, they'd have "This is a fake" scrawled all over them, but since a copy by the original producer can't really be a fake...

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    6. Re:There's Good News and Bad News... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, but wait! We could copy them and put the originals back. Argh, can't do that either. Curses, RIAA.

      (Studies the 10th and 11th Doctors' crib sheets) -- That's it! Time CAN be rewritten!

      (One round trip later) What, exactly, were you referring to by the nonsense acronym 'RIAA'?

    7. Re:There's Good News and Bad News... by pgfuller · · Score: 1

      They did. However the Doctor's sidekick left an iPod behind. Kodak engineers reverse engineered it leading to the creation of cheap consumer digital electronics. The inevitable demise of analog technology and analog recordings followed as a natural consequence. Um...Where were we...

    8. Re:There's Good News and Bad News... by noidentity · · Score: 1

      This is the same sort of thing the NTSC video filters for game console emulators do internally to get the same picture you'd get on a TV.

    9. Re:There's Good News and Bad News... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      That's silly, if you're going to go to that trouble, you may as well go back to 1967 and stop the films from being destroyed. Or better yet, take them out of the bin and bring them back to the 21st century.

      Right now we are still trying to colorize Ted Turner.

  8. not so new, but still cool by mug+funky · · Score: 1

    this isn't a new technique - TFA even says it's a refinement of a technique that's been used before.

    damn cool though, to get the crap from the colour subcarrier that spilled into the luma image and re-generate the original from it.

    good thing those old kinescopes were in focus!

  9. Excellent by BungaDunga · · Score: 1

    "Computer Science: it works, bitches!"

    For a taste of recolored Who, see Babelcolour's videos (hand-recolored, frame by frame)

    1. Re:Excellent by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      "This video contains content from Sony Music Entertainment, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."
      Got a torrent?

    2. Re:Excellent by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      "Science: it works, bitches!"

      FTFY.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Excellent by BetterThanCaesar · · Score: 1

      "This video contains content from Sony Music Entertainment, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds." Got a torrent?

      What a nice look into the future. We might have colours, but we're not allowed to enjoy the media because we live in the wrong place.

      --
      "Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
    4. Re:Excellent by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      Future? This happens a lot, it's like they want us to pirate stuff.

  10. I wonder if they can use the same technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to put some taste back into their food.

    C'mon people! The war is OVER!

  11. Re:color/colour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, the Rolling Stones just called. They said you aren't taking The Mick anywhere.

  12. Why couldn't they have lost the right ones? by linguizic · · Score: 2

    Like everything from Colin Baker. Seriously, aside from Peri's chest, there was nothing of interest in those episodes.

    --
    Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
    1. Re:Why couldn't they have lost the right ones? by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 2

      What about Peri's ass?

    2. Re:Why couldn't they have lost the right ones? by Spacelem · · Score: 3, Informative

      I did enjoy some of the Colin Baker episodes. Seriously, the guy did an amazing job considering the crap they were putting it through, and it's the producer John Nathan-Turner who would have been better lost, as he seemed determined to make the series die a slow death. Being forced to retake scenes requiring strong emotions multiple times just because "that prop in the background still isn't quite right" must have been soul destroying for the actors.

      The good news is that Colin Baker is still doing Doctor Who via the Big Finish Productions, where he is given good scripts and is well liked among fans. Nicola Bryant seems to have settled into the role well too, and no longer sounds like she's about to burst into tears after every sentence.

    3. Re:Why couldn't they have lost the right ones? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

      I love the sixth doctor in the Big Finish episodes. BF has really allowed him to dig into the dark side of the character and do some complex stories that JNT would of never allowed. Colin Baker showed up at a really bad time at the franchise when they made some really bad decisions about the direction of the show (i.e... giving the Doctor too many unlikeable properties at once, too much domestic fighting in the Tardis, a horrible costume idea, etc..)

    4. Re:Why couldn't they have lost the right ones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second that, and have the pictorial evidence to prove it (in colour too)...

      http://shillpages.com/dw/story/d6/st--6t04.jpg

    5. Re:Why couldn't they have lost the right ones? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Different strokes for different folks.

      (hey kids! ask your mom to explain any double meaning in the above)

    6. Re:Why couldn't they have lost the right ones? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      I liked Peri's accent. So enticing. So sensual. So.... sexy.

      Do all America women talk like that? Because if they do, I'm packing my bags and heading across the pond!

    7. Re:Why couldn't they have lost the right ones? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I liked Peri's accent. So enticing. So sensual. So.... sexy.

      Do all America women talk like that? Because if they do, I'm packing my bags and heading across the pond!

      Why yes, all British born (and living in britian) American women sound just like that.

      --
      Be seeing you...
  13. Not a bad idea. by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

    At least, if they restrict this to those serials that were originally shot in color. I would be a bit uncomfortable if the older, black and white originally, serials were colorized.

    1. Re:Not a bad idea. by BungaDunga · · Score: 1

      If you read the article, they're actually recovering some of the colors from the originally color serials. This means it doesn't have to be done all by hand. Hand-coloring the originally B&W serials would take a lot longer and require rather more artistic license.

    2. Re:Not a bad idea. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I take it you weren't a fan of the colorized version of Casablanca?

    3. Re:Not a bad idea. by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      I take it you weren't a fan of the colorized version of Casablanca?

      The one with the happier ending?

    4. Re:Not a bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the parent obviously means Barb Wire.

    5. Re:Not a bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it you weren't a fan of the colorized version of Casablanca?

      Even worse was when Turner colorized the black & white parts of the Wizard of Oz!

  14. nitpicking the nitpick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Since in this case, film is meant to be run through a projector of some sort, the "white" areas are actually transparent, and the "gray" areas are, well, transparent areas that are partially obscured by black pigments.

    And AC simply because I don't care about karma whoring.

  15. Re:colour by Samurai+Tony · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the clue is in the name, you are speaking English not American.

    --
    ...oh, and yo momma's so fat, her Schwarzchild radius is visible to the naked eye.
  16. Much more technical information by deblau · · Score: 2

    On the restoration processes used in the past can be found on the RT's website, if you dig around a bit: http://restoration-team.co.uk/

    --
    This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
  17. Cheaper to re-film? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From TFA:

    "It's very, very labour intensive -- several hundred man hours' work every episode," says Roberts.

    Given the production quality of the original, I'd have thought it cheaper and quicker to redo it in the manner of Jack Black's "Be Kind, Rewind".
    Unlike the old movies featured in that, they might have made improvements to "Dr. Who?".

  18. Facts by BigBadBus · · Score: 4, Informative
    The article is a bit dubious on facts. While it is true that the videotapes of the series were being wiped in the 1960s, the film telerecordings/kinescopes were not being junked until 1972, and went on for about 6 years. Also, Steve Roberts is not 35! I knew him for a while; I'm currently 39 and he is at least a few years older than me!

    The politics behind the Chroma Dot story is intriguing and in some places unpleasant. The instigator of the team was James Insell, and a method was created to perform the chroma dot extraction by a man named Richard Russell. Insell became a bit proprietorial over it all, and he and Russell parted ways, and now Russell it doing it alone. The original Colour extraction blog is here but they don't seem to have made any huge advances since Russell left. There is some more info, plus a link to Russell's own work (including software download) on my own Dr.Who webpage here

    1. Re:Facts by dugeen · · Score: 1

      Further facts about the exact nature of the changes to the DVDs made by Steve Roberts et al can be found here http://tinypaste.com/a9756

  19. For their next trick... by vorlich · · Score: 1

    A method of digitally replacing, Jon Pertwee, Peter Davidson, Colin Baker, Sylvester McCoy and Paul McGann with... I don't know ... Ewan McGregor or anyone!

    --
    Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
    1. Re:For their next trick... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      You could replace all of them including Ewan McGregor with Tom Baker. Or possibly Brian Blessed.

  20. Overcomplicated by gafisher · · Score: 1

    All they really need to do is to give the prints to Turner.

    1. Re:Overcomplicated by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      All they really need to do is to give the prints to Turner.

      I t6hink they are basically doing the same thing but extracting the original colour from vestigial chroma signals, rather than using what some artist thinks the colours were like..

  21. Doctor who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, really.

  22. dumb question but why doesn't it just work? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    I am sure this is a dumb question but why doesn't it just work? If the colour subcarrier is there then why doesn't it just show in colour when displayed on a colour TV? I thought this was why some patterned ties, shirts, etc. with fine monochrome lines would show as a glittering rainbow of colours.

    1. Re:dumb question but why doesn't it just work? by kanto · · Score: 2

      If the colour subcarrier is there then why doesn't it just show in colour when displayed on a colour TV?

      I think the point is that the color subcarrier isn't there; all you have are the errors from the color subcarrier bleeding into the luminance part and now those errors are being used to extrapolate and restore color to the film.

    2. Re:dumb question but why doesn't it just work? by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      " ... Why doesn't it just work ... "

      Because colour TVs don't interpret chroma dots to display colour, they use three different signals for RGB. Engineers would have had to build chroma-dot interpretation into the colour TVs.

      Things don't just work. They have to be made to work. Are you in middle management by any chance?. Do you use the phrase "Make it so Number One"?

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    3. Re:dumb question but why doesn't it just work? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Note: the below applies to PAL, i'm not familiar with the details of NTSC but similar stuff probably applies there too.

      For a color TV to receive a color picture a few things are nessacery.

      1: the information has to be alternating in encoding on each line and at the right frequency,
      2: the chroma signal must be strong enough
      3: there must be a "colourburst" at the start of each line (outside the viewable area) to notify the TV of a colour image and to synchronise the oscillator in the chroma demodulator to the one in the chroma modulator. PAL TV uses QAM so synchronisation between the modulator and demodulator is vital for easy and unambiguous demodulation.

      Writing to and retriving from film will likely destroy most of these. The data may still be there but it is going to be in a form which is FAR harder to decode (and probably impossible to decode unambiguously requiring an operator to choose between the computers interpretatinos) than the form it was in when on the video signal.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    4. Re:dumb question but why doesn't it just work? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I am sure this is a dumb question but why doesn't it just work?

      From TFS: "There are 108 vintage episodes missing, but since 1978 a number have been rediscovered as 16mm black-and-white films. The BBC shot many of these series in color, but made monochrome copies for countries such as Australia, where many TV companies were still broadcasting in greyscale."

      There is no color subcarrier in 16mm black and white film.

    5. Re:dumb question but why doesn't it just work? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      I am sure this is a dumb question but why doesn't it just work?

      From TFS: "There are 108 vintage episodes missing, but since 1978 a number have been rediscovered as 16mm black-and-white films. The BBC shot many of these series in color, but made monochrome copies for countries such as Australia, where many TV companies were still broadcasting in greyscale."

      There is no color subcarrier in 16mm black and white film.

      Also from TFA:

      "But when they made the black-and-white recordings, they didn't filter off the colour carrier [encoded as a 'chroma dot' pattern in each frame]

    6. Re:dumb question but why doesn't it just work? by hattig · · Score: 2

      Because the film is distorted, and includes both interlaced frames in each image. So you scan it at a high resolution first (2k lines, for example).

      So they need to de-distort. And as you will remember from your old CRT monitors and TVs, the image distorts according to the image displayed, so each frame needs to be de-distorted individually.

      Then de-interlace. Then extract the information required. Then re-construct.

    7. Re:dumb question but why doesn't it just work? by camperslo · · Score: 1

      I am sure this is a dumb question but why doesn't it just work? If the colour subcarrier is there then why doesn't it just show in colour when displayed on a colour TV?

      It's a very GOOD question.
      Strictly speaking, the color data IS there, but the reference part of the signal isn't. The rate of those dots changing along a scan line is the chroma subcarrier frequency, 3.579545 MHz (usually just called 3.58). To decode that, the video is fed into a couple of mixers running in quadrature (also fed the signal from a crystal oscillator and a phase shifted version of it in the television). (Those decode something resembling the amounts of red and blue to add or subtract from the "Y" or black and white to get the desired color. It's actually something slightly different called I and Q due to the actual phase demodulation angles not being quite 90 degrees, but red and blue difference signals are close enough for this discussion)
      That oscillator is phase locked to a brief reference burst transmitted on the "back porch" of the horizontal blanking interval, the portion just after the horizontal sync pulse. The F.C.C. specification calls for a minimum of 8 cycles of that reference to be transmitted. That part of the signal is off the left edge of the picture so it is missing from a film capture.

      Similar to the squelch that mutes noise and weak signals in an old C.B. or similar communications radio, television sets have a "color killer" circuit that shuts off the color decoding during black and white programs. That prevents avoidable color noise from being added to the black and white content. So to decode color, an analog television needs that off-the-left-edge of the screen color burst to enable the color decoding circuits, and to provide the reference phase lock for the chroma oscillator.
      If the oscillator is the exact frequency, but wrong phase, you'll get the wrong tints. The old "tint" control knobs on analog sets varied the phase.

      If one is using a black and white film recording, the chroma reference signal is missing since it is off the visible part of a scan line. Some may recall the old horizontal hold control on analog sets. With the horizontal oscillator out of lock and slightly off frequency, diagonal bars are visible with twsited picture content in between. The main body of the bar is at "black" blanking level. At the end of each scan line, the sawtooth horizontal scan waveform rapidly moves the electron beam from the right back to the left. There shouldn't be any light produced by the beam during that time, so this black "blanking" video level is sent. (sets generally add additional blanking to allow for contrast/brightness settings where the blacl level wouldn't be displayed as totally black). Seen within those diagonal bars is a darker stripe. That's the horizontal blanking pulse. Comparitor circuits extract sync pulse information from the video by recognizing the higher "blacker than black" level of the sync pulses. On an out of lock signal, a sets color circuits get confused, because the gating pulse taken from the horizontal scan circuits looks at a small bit of random color information from the wrong part of each scan line. That causes the color killer to go on and off, the phase reference (tint) to jump around. But when the color is on, you still may be able to see a strip of color in the diagonal bars just to the right of the darker blanking pulse.
      So you can see the reference burst the color circuits normally use, and get a feel for it's position off the left edge of the picture.

      Having only the visible part of the picture to work from, one could substitute another very stable adjustable signal as the color reference for decoding, but it would take experimentation and probably frequent adjustment. A small frequency error would cause the colors to cycle through the spectrum. A phase error would just rotate the tint.

      Also, a picture of the picture would have to be the correct scale. If one zoomed in or out, the effec

    8. Re:dumb question but why doesn't it just work? by camperslo · · Score: 1

      Seen within those diagonal bars is a darker stripe. That's the horizontal blanking pulse.

      Small but significant typo. The darker stripe is the horizontal SYNC pulse... the color reference burst follows that, still on top of the wider black blanking pulse.

    9. Re:dumb question but why doesn't it just work? by camperslo · · Score: 1

      Because colour TVs don't interpret chroma dots to display colour, they use three different signals for RGB. Engineers would have had to build chroma-dot interpretation into the colour TVs.

      Although a color c.r.t. is driven with separate signals, the chroma part of the broadcast signal is easily looked at as just one. The information seen in what shows as the dot side-effect (the magnitude and phase of a signal), combined with the black and white signal does indeed end up decoded to RGB.

      (to any that are confused, we're talking about a fine light/dark pattern seen along each scan line, most intense in areas that would be brightly colored, not present in areas that are shades of grey. We are not talking about the small RGB dots, segments, or lines that are part of color display technology) The subtle pattern is how the chroma subcarrier presents itself when not filtered out on a full-detail black and white set.

      With both PAL and NTSC, the contrast of the fine dot pattern seen conveys the AMOUNT of color difference information. (think of it as the amplitude of a vector)

      The position or phase of the dots, compared to an off-screen sample, determines the hue (think of it as the angle of the vector)

      Compared to NTSC, PAL inverts the reference on every other line by 180 degrees. That's so a phase error that would shift flesh colors towards green on one line, shifts towards violet on the next. Those errors average to the correct color, just slightly less intense. With older tube type technology it was tough to maintain a consistent phase reference for NTSC. Adjust the tint control on one program or commercial, and it might be off on the next. Some used the nickname Never Twice the Same Color. PAL had some immunity to that problem. Scan rates and some other parameters differ some too, slightly affecting amounts of resolution and flicker.

      When people say color difference signal, they simply mean what you add or subtract from the existing luminance ("Y" or black and white) to get the color you want. Except for the first RCA sets, and later the Sony Trinitron, the combining for most sets was actually done in the c.r.t. with the black and white "Y" going to the cathodes, and R-Y, B-Y, and G-Y going into the grids. That worked, except the adjustments for matching the three color guns tended to only compensate the contrast/brightness of each guns black and white information so the total of the three looked like black and white. But if one gun had higher gain than the others, the amount of color difference signal was effectively too much. So two sets side by side of the same brand often couldn't give identical looking color pictures even if the black and white was adjusted to the same tint-free look.

      It's important to realize that there aren't three separate color or color difference signals sent.
      A single color signal effectively carries two.
      If one uses two synchronous mixers, but with the second fed a reference carrier oscillator 90 degrees off from the first, it's like having two independent double-sideband signals in the same spectrum. (in principle, that's how A.M. stereo works, although a modified version is used)
      Beyond the existing black and white "Y", TV has I and Q. (Almost the same as R-Y and B-Y but not quite, because red and blue aren't exactly 90 degrees apart). If we slightly simplify the discussion by calling the I and Q information R-Y and B-Y, those signals combined and subtracted from the Y or black and white leave the green. (The simplification doesn't change the theory at all, just small differences in implementation)

      Since it's only the relative phase that determines what color difference is there, the dot pattern seen is merely shifted to the left or right very slightly. So the entire chroma picture content is there, if the detail wasn't lost. The only thing missing is the reference burst of 8 cycles of light-dark dots sent before each line.

      Maybe a math analogy would help people understand? Think of th

    10. Re:dumb question but why doesn't it just work? by Megane · · Score: 1

      Because you need Block Transfer Computations to make it work.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  23. Sorry this is wrong by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    " ... Why doesn't it just work ... " Because colour TVs don't interpret chroma dots to display colour, they use three different signals for RGB. Engineers would have had to build chroma-dot interpretation into the colour TVs. Things don't just work. They have to be made to work. Are you in middle management by any chance?. Do you use the phrase "Make it so Number One"?

    I know enough to know this is wrong, PAL uses a colour difference signal. Fine patterns in the luminance signal do show up as colours, check patterns would often show as strobeing colour on older colour TVs.

    1. Re:Sorry this is wrong by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      That's true for fine interference patterns (They are not true colours anyway). But colour TVs won't "Just show" colour because there are chroma-dots that can be interpreted.

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
  24. more proof by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    This along with the MGM fire that destroyed the original Tom and Jerry prints, is more proof of how piracy can help us. If this stuff had been pirated all over the net like it would be today, it wouldn't have been lost in the first place. Hopefully they would have used a loss less format though... :-)

    1. Re:more proof by Grumbleduke · · Score: 2

      It goes even deeper than that - from what I recall the episodes were destroyed (rather than lost) by the BBC as the TV production unions were charging huge royalties simply for storing the episodes, during the "home taping is killing the television industry" craze of the 70s. It is excessive copyrights "protection" that caused the destruction in the first place - and being so popular, DW is one of the few shows from that time that survived in any form (mainly thanks to piracy and actual theft as all official copies were ordered to be destroyed). Fortunately it seems that none of the new DW episodes will ever be lost (or possibly unfortunately in the case of Midnight).

  25. Re:colour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  26. We've got the scripts, right? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Why not re-record them with the new cast? I'd love to see the old stories, but where there's nothing left but audio & a few stills...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:We've got the scripts, right? by Tapewolf · · Score: 1

      What they have been doing recently is animating them.

      The Invasion was given this treatment and frankly it's a bit jarring, since IIRC 6 out of the 8 episodes still exist, which means that there are two points where it jumps into animation and then back into live action for the next episode. Occasionally I think it might have been better to have animated the entire thing and kept it consistent...

  27. Re:colour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Americans write American, which is similar to English. The English and the rest of the Commonwealth (including India, Australia, N.Z., Hong Kong, most of Africa, Canada (excluding Quebec), etc...) write in British English. So to those of you who think that Americans out number the rest of the world, you'll need to check your stats at the door. The rest of the world actually learns to write British English except in countries with a significant post war American occupation/policing/McDonalds presence such as Vietnam - who learn to write American.

    In all cases, the critical point here is in how they write, not how they speak or pronounce the words.

    Texas, Louisiana, the Bronx ... entirely different story.

    Conservative Albertans could/should be excluded from any list where writing is a requirement. It's a similar story to the majority of Republicans in the US who were, most definitely, "left behind". ;)

  28. Re:colour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hoots mon ye awl diskrinate against mae az I spake Ollster-Scods!

  29. Re:The old doctors by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 2

    Ah, memories of watching Tom Baker followed by an episode of 'The Tripods' then to be lulled to sleep by 'The Star Hustler'.... On Fridays and Saturdays I could stay up WAY past 9:00...

    I seem to remember that episodes starring his immediate predecessor weren't bad either.

    Before that it was black and white. I think I only ever saw Dr #1 discover the daleks, and Dr #2 probably wasn't bad, but he did look like one of the Three Stooges...

    I also remember not liking to watch Doctor Who anymore starting with the Fifth Doctor there may have been more doctors? I stopped caring.

    Then as an adult, starting with Christopher E. , I've been a fan again. I've really enjoyed every one of the new Doctors since then.

    It's been long enough since watching the old Tom Baker episodes that I don't remember the plots anymore, but having gone back and watched a few on Netflix, I don't see myself watching any more of them.

    The special effects are very dated of course. I mean, green slime covered green lightbulbs wrapped in bubble wrap skin are obviously just what I described. But that's not the real reason. I just don't think the old episodes have much to offer someone who can/has viewed the new ones. The best of the old is part of the new character and plotwise, with HOUR long episodes to flesh things out more deeply.

    --
    ...
  30. color, colour, couleur by tepples · · Score: 1

    If "color" is incorrect, tell the Spaniards. The French have already been telling you "colour" is incorrect; it's "couleur".

  31. Re:colour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Colour", "centre", "realise", etc... these are all Frenchisms that the British slavishly adopted centuries ago during the period of heavy French influence after the Norman conquest, and now, for reasons unknown, defend as though they are some sort of historically English or even British spellings.

    If you want to use English spellings that are free from foreign meddling, you use -or, -er, -ize... basically, you use what you've erroneously been calling "Americanisms".

  32. Re:colour by mattsday · · Score: 1

    English is almost entirely made up of foreign meddling - it's a peasants combination of many languages that adapts and changes with time. Very few words (except modern technical terms) have no root in a foreign language.

    --
    Now there's one hoopy frood who really knows where his towel is!
  33. Re:colour by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Tradition says that technical terms be based in ancient greek or latin. Thus television, for example. Just about no-one spoke latin when the word was coined, but it's just tradition.

  34. This is the 2nd Color Restoration of a Doctor Who by seawall · · Score: 1

    This is at least the 2nd time the BBC restored a B&W Doctor Who episode to color [sic]. The first was by combining an early color videotape recording (by a fan in Texas for the color) and the B&W film for the image itself. They just superimposed the fuzzy chroma on the film image. The result was surprisingly sharp and colorful (but then I watch NTSC standard definition so I ain't picky). They had to adjust the picture shape just a tad because the VHS image wasn't an exact match for the film. *sic: Since the color tape was from a U.S. fan, I spelled it the U.S. way.

  35. Re:colour by dave420 · · Score: 1

    No, those are the original spellings of the words as first adopted into English. The spellings you advocate were created solely in the US, many by Webster.

  36. B&W broadcast tricks by cstacy · · Score: 1

    What most people don't realize is that K-9 was actually a zebra!

    1. Re:B&W broadcast tricks by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      What most people don't realize is that K-9 was actually a zebra!

      "Well, that's A Horse Of A Different Colour!"

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
  37. It was Red Dwarf by wiredog · · Score: 2

    It was supposed to be appalling.

  38. Black and white are my favourite colours by drwho · · Score: 1

    You may be pink, but black and white are my favourite colours.

  39. Why no one bothers to read TFA by chrismcb · · Score: 1

    For those that don't bother to RTFA I'll distill it down for you: From the summary we know that theyhave some long lost missing episodes that are in B&W and are converting them to color. The article says "...they didn't filter off the colour carrier [encoded as a 'chroma dot' pattern in each frame]" And continues with "...used the signal to reverse-engineer raw colour pictures that could be retouched frame by frame. 'It's very, very labour intensive -...' " Uhmmm... So basically TFA says "we reversed engineered it, and it is hard." I guess its for them to know and for us to find out. And here I thought TFA would maybe give me some INSIGHT on how they did it.

  40. Re:colour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And just like there's no country named America, there's no country named England.

  41. Re:The old doctors by niteHawk337 · · Score: 1

    I have roughly the same memories of watching public TV in South Fla and starting with Who, and endng with The Star Hustler.... I am very tempted to get some old eppies of it to show my son after he's done watching Who/Sarah Jane, just to see if the stars attract him as much as they did me...