Attn JMS: ANFAW Pan and Scan a simple error?

[B5JMS Poster]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: cm <dr at benway.com>
Date: 24 Nov 2000 12:50:02 -0700
Lines: 59

Jms,
	Will the "corrected" shows be shown on rerun?

And, if the crew is noticing some elements fall below the frame, does
this mean the show in question is "not" letterbox?  I mean, letterbox
shouldn't need ANY pan and scan, yes?

cm

Jms at B5 wrote:
> 
> >I didn't watch or tape this episode, but apparently it was panned and
> >scanned so that the text was always shown but then moved into a better
> >position when there was no text.  This would have to be deliberately
> >done, and whomever is responsible chose to keep their mouth(s) shut
> >regarding this.
> 
> First, understand that you're dealing with different arms of the same octopus.
> One arm selects which versions go into the machine.  Down the road, a week or a
> month later, somebody else loads those transfers and is told to make sure the
> things are letterboxed.  As it goes through that process, that person notes
> that some elements are below frame...so they pan and scan.  They do what
> they're told with what they have.
> 
> >It may not be the sci-fi channels fault, but not checking the remaing
> >seasons because season 1 was OK wasn't very smart.
> 
> It is, however, pretty standard.
> 
> >I think that everyone is a little too quick to pass the blame, when a
> >thorough check by the seller(WB) or the (sellee) or by having someone
> >that knows the show (fiona?) oversee the transfer.  I think those three
> >parties as well as the subcontractor need to take some responsibility
> >here.
> 
> Fiona has nothing to do with video transfers. Has never HAD anything to do with
> video transfers.  So knock that one out of your list right off the bat.
> 
> Should WB have checked?  Yes.  I imagine SFC did check, and found them correct
> initially.  They had no more reason to check the rest than I would've had.
> 
> And WB is currently fixing the situation.  They say that (barring unforeseen
> events) they should have the transfers in place in time for S4 airings, and
> right thereafter in subsequent runs, and at my request they are going to pay
> particular attention to the audio elements.
> 
> >I think that everyone is a little too quick to pass the blame
> 
> And there are always those a little too quick to *assign* blame to those who
> have nothing to do with the problem.  See above.
> 
>  jms
> 
> (jmsatb5 at aol.com)
> (all message content (c) 2000 by
> synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
> to reprint specifically denied to
> SFX Magazine)


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 24 Nov 2000 15:01:37 -0700
Lines: 24

>Will the "corrected" shows be shown on rerun?

Yes, once they have the proper versions, those will be the ones rerun.

>And, if the crew is noticing some elements fall below the frame, does
>this mean the show in question is "not" letterbox?  I mean, letterbox
>shouldn't need ANY pan and scan, yes?
>

Let me try this one more time.  They loaded up THE WRONG VERSIONS FOR THE
TRANSFERS.  In other words, NOT the letterboxed versions.  That's why the
transfers were screwed up in the first place.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)




-***
-*** B5JMS SUBSCRIBERS: Replies to messages go to the list maintainer,
-*** <b5jms-owner at cs.columbia.edu>.  If you want to reply elsewhere, adjust
-*** the "To" field.  See http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~ezk/b5jms/ for all
-*** other information about this list.