[Tig] Re: MTV Music awards -greg again

Erik Utter eriku
Fri Aug 30 21:16:35 BST 2002


There was not a HD broadcast that I am aware of.  I don't think they did any
marketing of the show in HD, 24/p, or anything unusual like that. It was not
a "film look" effect.

They used a HD 24/p production truck that was down converted to feed the
network.  I am not aware of any extra processing.  I thought the color
"look" was pretty straight shading on the CCU's from the truck.  As far as I
know (I heard from the EIC last week), they did this for the "look" of film.
I'm sure the awards will re-run all weekend for those that missed the show.

As far as my opinion, I think they partly succeeded.  The look was passable
as a multi cam film shoot,.. though the lighting wasn't great.  The music
portions of the show looked the best,..  sort of like watching an actual
music video.  It wasn't particularly distracting except that it didn't feel
live...  it felt like a documentary or "making of" type of show.

Our receptionist today commented that she didn't think it looked good.  I
asked why, and her answer was that it "looked taped".  I'm guessing she felt
the same way I did about the "disconnect" from a live awards show.

Erik Utter

-----Original Message-----
From: tig-admin at tig.alegria.com [mailto:tig-admin at tig.alegria.com]On
Behalf Of Greg Dildine
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 12:07 PM
To: tig at tig.alegria.com
Subject: [Tig] Re: MTV Music awards -greg again


I assume the 25fps folks across the pond will again wonder why Americans
think adding 3:2 makes it look like film!  By the way, what did this show
look like "converted" to PAL/625-50??

I just hope that the average MTV viewer doesn't relate the "look" of this
particular program to HD exclusively.  It was of course the result of just
one of the many HD "looks."  But, this example (the MTV show) will NOT in my
opinion necessarily sell more HD gear and/or HD TVs.  If too many folks
think (or are told) this is what HD is and/or will be, I'm not sure there'll
be much of a run on new HD sets at the TV stores.

What were the thoughts regarding the HD broadcast vs. the standard def
broadcast here?  Was it actually broadcast both ways?  Did the folks
involved aim for the resulting "look" as it would appear in "native HD" or
as it appeared to 99% of their viewers downconverted in NTSC??  This will be
important to find out, especially if they didn't really care about the
downconvert or perhaps considered it a "by product" ("24P HD for STD DEF" vs
"24P HD for HD broadcast").  I'm assuming that even for the HD broadcast (if
there was one) that 3:2 was added OR did/does someone think that the 24P
would/will make it to TVs/monitors without 3:2 being added (or be displayed
with the 3:2 removed by the display device to match the acquisition rate)??

Also, someone else wrote that the "look" may not have just been 3:2 but that
some additional temporal processing was added in addition.  Any info out
there??

Don't get me wrong, I'm not entirely against this use of HD to impart a
style and "look" to a show.  I didn't particularly care for the "temporal
resolution" as I mentioned previously.  But since it did impart a
"different" look color-wise/contrast too and it's cool to try new and
different looks, I do applaud the folks with the idea for trying it!  It'll
be interesting to find out who was behind imparting this "visual style" to
this particular show. I'm sure some folks actually loved the look.

I am also still very interested to know if a Colorist was involved and what
tools were used to enhance the "look" beyond just the "temporal" look it
had... and whether it was done "just" at the cameras or downstream with a da
vinci, poggle, etc. type box.

Greg Dildine
Senior Colorist
Finish - Boston
greg.dildine at finishedit.com



On Friday, August 30, 2002, Erik Utter <eriku at flyingspot.com> wrote:
>As I understand it, the show was shot in 24p and down converted for the
>network,..  to lend a film look.  My issue with it was the disconnect I
felt
>from it being a "live" show.  It looked and felt more like a film
>documentary.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: tig-admin at tig.alegria.com [mailto:tig-admin at tig.alegria.com]On
>Behalf Of Greg Dildine
>Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 10:17 AM
>To: tig at tig.alegria.com
>Subject: [Tig] Re: MTV Music awards
>
>
>Was there a color enhancement system and/or Colorist involved in the show
>last night?  Anyone else have any thoughts or comments on the stylized look
>of the multi-cam live show?  It was "different."  I personally didn't care
>for the temporal resolution part of the "look."
>
>--
>Greg Dildine
>Senior Colorist
>Finish - Boston
>greg.dildine at finishedit.com
>
>
>
>--
>No marketing or advertising on the tig.  (help wanted ads excepted)
>Send such submissions to rob at tig.alegria.com.
>--
>consider supporting the tig with a contribution.
>http://www.alegria.com/tig3/info.html#money
>Copyright policy at
>http://www.alegria.com/tig3/info.html#copyright
>
>
>
>--
>No marketing or advertising on the tig.  (help wanted ads excepted)
>Send such submissions to rob at tig.alegria.com.
>--
>consider supporting the tig with a contribution.
>http://www.alegria.com/tig3/info.html#money
>Copyright policy at
>http://www.alegria.com/tig3/info.html#copyright
>



--
No marketing or advertising on the tig.  (help wanted ads excepted)
Send such submissions to rob at tig.alegria.com.
--
consider supporting the tig with a contribution.
http://www.alegria.com/tig3/info.html#money
Copyright policy at http://www.alegria.com/tig3/info.html#copyright







More information about the Tig mailing list