Simulated analogue co-channel interference type effects on RTE clips of past news/archive clips etc

Antenna

rte1primetime13062023.png

See attached picture, from Primetime last night, now who thinks it is a good idea to impose these venetian-blind type interference patterns 'special effects' on past news/archive clips etc?

Analogue co-channel interference often (not always) resulted in this type of pattern (due to carrier offsets to avoid a worse type of pattern)

This 'simulated interference' is liable to be done on fairly recent news etc footage as well as footage from decades ago.

RTE isn't the only TV broadcaster to do this in recent years it has to be said.

What is the point of this?

If a broadcaster wants to emphasize some piece of video is old/ not recent footage, just superimpose the year concerned in the corner of the screen

zg3409

Could it be due to converting USA standards to EU standards, I know their digital tv is different and probably still has the 50/60Hz difference and then decoding, encoding etc. ? I imaging EU editing systems struggle to seamlessly take in USA content. I know of one Irish TV crew filming an advert and they were asked to switch the cameras to USA standards as the ad was intended for USA audience and presumably edited in USA.

I know one of the rag newspapers in Dublin used to take the live sport tv feed, record it and then use clips as photos for newspapers. Quality was terrible but it was cheap and fast for next days papers.

muffler

The video clip of Trump was the same on the RTE news. Best to email them about it.

StreetLight

Purely a visual gimmick to simulate archive footage. (And in today's media proliferation, archive means more than a week ago).

TAFKAlawhec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120714846#Comment_120714846

While the terrestrial transmission standards are different (DVB-T vs. ATSC), modern digital video on both platforms are essentially the same being based on MPEG, with accompanying audio being Dolby Digital as standard on ATSC with DVB-T/2 having MP2 or AAC audio as the main options (Dolby being optional). The only real difference these days is the frame rate, being a hangover of the analogue days being 24/30/60** in much of the Americas and 25/50 in most of the rest of the world where conversion from one "standard" to another can introduce either juddering artefacts (usually from having to "introduce" extra frames e.g. converting from 25 to 30 fps) or where some frames are cut (going from 30 to 25 fps).

In ye olde analogue days, it used to be the case that a lot of NTSC video content, either tape recorded or live), when converted to PAL often had the effect of providing very saturated colours in its output which gave such material a noted "American" vibe even among viewers that didn't know anything more technical that the on/off switch on their telly and knowing to press certain buttons to change channels. By the mid-1990's however these conversions had much more muted colour saturation on them, but still had some subtle effects where you could still tell it was an NTSC to PAL conversion. Modern digital video standards have pretty much eliminated most of these issues, bar the frame rate factor.

As it is, what the OP mentions is pretty much a gimmick used for "retro" TV clips. I've seen similar effects used for giving VHS "artefacts" on video material from the 80's, 90's & early 00's.

** Or 24/29.97/59.94 to be more precise in many cases