This *_IS_* how they did it. The "Howlaround Effect" is literally just a feedback loop. The only difference between this video and the actual sequence is: 1. The spire that rises at the start of the Hartnell sequence was created by lighting a match in front of the camera during the feedback setup. 2. To get the Howlaround Effect to "morph" into the DW logo (and later, into Troughton's face), they setup a second camera pointed at a monitor displaying either the logo or Troughton. Camera 2 (filming the logo) feeds it's image into Camera 1 (the one in the feedback loop setup), which of course, is pointed at a monitor displaying it's own image. This causes the two images to "combine" in the Howlaround Effect. That's pretty much it. They spent a day shooting Howlaround Effects, then edited them together to create the title sequence. Oddly enough, what a lot of people don't realize is that the vortex "slit scan" sequences for Pertwee & Tom Baker was also done with a Howlaround Effect, except the camera takes a sequence of still shots, with each shot zoomed in slightly closer. When played back in rapid succession, it animates the illusion of traveling through a vortex.
@@sixstanger00 Damn 7 years ago how the time flies. I think at the time I was upset they didn't re-create the actual titles using the same techniques. Given how it's pretty random and equipment dependent, it makes sense. There's a really good video on RUclips about the slit scan where they show in way more detail than this video.
Of course, the thing to keep in mind is the original patterns were created by fading in the input from another camera and mirroring it. You can actually achieve this by putting a mirror up in front of the display / monitor, and it keeps the images centralised and structured.
Yes! I'd be really interested to see what people can come up with using other techniques on top of what we showed here. That being said, you can still get some really interesting patterns that look like stuff in the original with just the simple setup we showed here.
It's not only that, but the effect of the colour CRT monitor in this, the camera having chip sensors and there being no vision mixing will have an effect. The camera really should have been a tube type instead of using CCD or CMOS chips, as the comet tailing effect of tube cameras would have had an effect (comet tailing is where the camera saw a bright light and was then moved or the light source was interrupted, leaving a "comet tail" behind. You see this effect in nearly allold Who episodes, particularly colour ones. The shadow mask (or aperture grille for Sony Trinitrons) on the colour CRT would have had an effect, too, beaking up the light reaching the camera, so breaking up the light reaching the camera chips. A genuine black-and-white monitor, of course, doesn't have a shadow mask inside the CRT as it doesn't need one. In the original three sequences for the series, there was actually a vision mixer between the camera and monitor, to inject some images from a second input to trigger certain patterns or shapes to appear on the screen, thereby "inducing" certain patterns. E.g. the 1970 sequence had a pattern of lines in a diamond shape and you can just faintly see this in the sequence if you look closely. The biggest dfference, however, will be the line standard both the camera and monitor will be working in. The less lines on the screen, the less the light will "mould" into blobs. The 63 and 67 sequences were shot in 405 lines, and the uncoloured version of the 1970 sequence might well have been, too for all I know.
Sticky tape 'n' rust that’s so interesting. I’ve been trying to get stuff similar to the original titles, but sort of discouraged as I’ve released it’s really not gonna happen. I would love to be able to recreate those amazing Rorschach patterns and flowing liquid or shifting sand shapes. It’s so intriguing.
@@stickytapenrust6869 Reading your comment I was thinking the same thing while watching this: can they really get the same effect using modern digital/HD equipment instead of the old tube-based analogue hardware which was what they had back in 1963? When our group tried doing a Doctor Who fanvid back in 1993 we decided to go with the video feedback effect for the title and end-credits sequences and what we had in hardware was a VHS camera and an analogue TV and got some really interesting soft-focus swirl and "expanding/rushing blob" patterns not too far off from what the BBC accomplished. Ours was in colour and that generated some interesting effects as well. We had a video mixer so we could A/B matte in a black spot to alter the swirl patterns and a face and of course the titles/credits and the feedback patterns nicely "bled" off of those as well. We weren't attempting to exactly recreate the 1963, 1966 or 1970 howlaround effects but just produce something like them and it worked. But I can't help wondering if that sort of thing is even possible now using modern equipment. I'll have to experiment with it sometime just to find out.
3:51 - that is NOT the oldschool or classic logo! That's the 1996 tweak of the 1970 logo (bevel on leading stroke of D aligned oppositely to original 1970 logo and bevel on right edge of upper stroke of T instead of normal square edge), shaded with the 1963 feedback (first shaded this way in 2012 or 2013).
I know, these people get their facts wrong, i know something you might not about the tv movie (not to brag but i happen to know something many do not know)
What I love about the beginning of Doctor Who is the amazing results everyone got from things not being used the way they should. Like Delia putting the incredible theme together with a plucked string and loads of tape manipulation and oscillators, then the title sequence with the camera feedback. The sound of the TARDIS. The malfunctioning monitor that made the first regeneration like nothing else. Back then they were using magic. Legends
The logo and face would be blended in better if they were printed on a cel sheet, or if they were filmed on a seperate camera and combined with the main camera's footage.
iLikeTheUDK Yep in the original they used a vision mixer to superimpose the logo on the top and also to get some of the effects in the title sequence. We wanted to see how much you could recreate with a simpler setup.
I'd really like to know how long he practiced and exactly how he got all those complicated patterns. I'm sure a lot of it is in the equipment that was used.
I wouldn't be surprised, smoking was so ubiquitous back then. When we were doing our video feedback sequences in 1971 we put a low power analog tv transmitter/receiver in the loop and detuned the receiver to add noise and got amazing patterns. I think we may have blown some smoke in the visual field too, but I can't remember for sure - it's kind of hazy. You could control the tunnelling effect by the distance from the camera to the screen (or the focal length of the lens) and if you reversed the polarity of the vertical scan on the monitor you could get really complex symetrical patterns, especially as you rotated the camera to create the "swirl" effect. Of course that was all with ancient analog equipment. Today you could add delay by using a webcam setup and mixing in noise or flipping scans in software, but the organic looking analog images would be tough to fully recreate.
The only problem I have is that it doesn't look enough like the watery movement you see in the original title sequence... You did it the same way they did it back in the day but something was different....
analog vs digital technologies comes into play as well and I think that has to be part of why it's so hard to recreate the exact look with more modern equipment. The old cameras used in the original series had vacuum tubes and other less digital components and when i first I did these experiments in the 1990s the camcorders (and CRT TVs... I had a videonics digital video mixer as well) were filled with tiny silicon digital microchips and I could get close to the effect but not close enough to make me thrilled. It was still fun to play around with video feedback to see what you could get and if you could try and control it to get repeatable results :) Even the way older video cameras reacted to overexposure was different and you do get overexposure when playing with video feedback - the overexposed parts of your image will be pure white now but in the case of the really old analog video cameras the overexposed white portions would invert to black.
I am wondering. Is it possible to plug your iPhone 4 into your PC and get the PC camera to see what the iPhone camera is seeing? It's a long shot, I know. I want to play with this effect so badly, but right now this seems like the only way I can think of. :/
Sorry but I can't help myself. I don't think that's the classic William Hartnell logo. That's the Paul McGann logo with the 1st doctor titles effect inside it
Oh fair enough. I knew Jon had 2 opening's but I didn't know that was Mcgann's too. Nevertheless it wasn't William's but I take your comment on board. Thanks for correcting me
I know. It just irritates me. I mean, I don't mind it being used so much (even though it's the american movie logo) but in this video they're recreating the original which makes me think these people don't really know Doctor Who very well cause any Doctor Who fan would've used the matching logo for the 1963 titles surely
Phoenix 24 I understand your annoyance that they didn't use the 1963 logo when recreating the 1963 titles. But the logo they DID use is actually from the 3rd Doctor's era, created in 1969 by Bernard Lodge for Doctor Who's very first colour episodes. It was brought back and re-used in the 1996 TV Movie, but had existed for a long time before.
Martin Archer I know I'm a bit late in saying this, but your thinking of the 1973 titles. The 1970 titles were created in the same way the '63 and '67 titles were made.
You're right, old analogue cameras have more of a delay so it would make things in the feedback loop go slower. Everything was happening rather quickly in our attempt. Why don't you have a go and show us how it looks analogue style?
But how? What I mean is that you can plug a camera into a modern television and get a video feed from it straight away. You have to develop film and I think it was a little early for magnetic tape, so how could you get almost instant feedback on a screen in the 60s?
marzcorp The monitor would show the camera's output live, giving a direct video feed, which would then be recorded. Also, Doctor Who was filmed on tape throughout the 60s.
Indeed, it was also the one they used for the 1996 TV Movie. That was the only logo we got clearance to use for this video, but it's actually my favourite of the classic Who logos anyway.
Modern technology actually makes it harder to recreate - the time delays between loops are smaller now so the howlround effects happen really quickly. If we slowed the video down, it'd probably look better.
I'd love to see an *in-depth* explaination on how they did it not just some 'TRY IT AT HOME!' stuff...
@Idoit town probably still not completely in-depth, but still: ruclips.net/video/ylyXb-ZDnnA/видео.html
Oh man me too.
Big finish cover designer David burgess has made that, hang on... There it is ! ruclips.net/video/_nc7KDlyQgk/видео.html
This *_IS_* how they did it. The "Howlaround Effect" is literally just a feedback loop. The only difference between this video and the actual sequence is:
1. The spire that rises at the start of the Hartnell sequence was created by lighting a match in front of the camera during the feedback setup.
2. To get the Howlaround Effect to "morph" into the DW logo (and later, into Troughton's face), they setup a second camera pointed at a monitor displaying either the logo or Troughton. Camera 2 (filming the logo) feeds it's image into Camera 1 (the one in the feedback loop setup), which of course, is pointed at a monitor displaying it's own image. This causes the two images to "combine" in the Howlaround Effect.
That's pretty much it. They spent a day shooting Howlaround Effects, then edited them together to create the title sequence.
Oddly enough, what a lot of people don't realize is that the vortex "slit scan" sequences for Pertwee & Tom Baker was also done with a Howlaround Effect, except the camera takes a sequence of still shots, with each shot zoomed in slightly closer. When played back in rapid succession, it animates the illusion of traveling through a vortex.
@@sixstanger00 Damn 7 years ago how the time flies. I think at the time I was upset they didn't re-create the actual titles using the same techniques. Given how it's pretty random and equipment dependent, it makes sense. There's a really good video on RUclips about the slit scan where they show in way more detail than this video.
Of course, the thing to keep in mind is the original patterns were created by fading in the input from another camera and mirroring it.
You can actually achieve this by putting a mirror up in front of the display / monitor, and it keeps the images centralised and structured.
Yes! I'd be really interested to see what people can come up with using other techniques on top of what we showed here. That being said, you can still get some really interesting patterns that look like stuff in the original with just the simple setup we showed here.
It's not only that, but the effect of the colour CRT monitor in this, the camera having chip sensors and there being no vision mixing will have an effect.
The camera really should have been a tube type instead of using CCD or CMOS chips, as the comet tailing effect of tube cameras would have had an effect (comet tailing is where the camera saw a bright light and was then moved or the light source was interrupted, leaving a "comet tail" behind. You see this effect in nearly allold Who episodes, particularly colour ones.
The shadow mask (or aperture grille for Sony Trinitrons) on the colour CRT would have had an effect, too, beaking up the light reaching the camera, so breaking up the light reaching the camera chips. A genuine black-and-white monitor, of course, doesn't have a shadow mask inside the CRT as it doesn't need one.
In the original three sequences for the series, there was actually a vision mixer between the camera and monitor, to inject some images from a second input to trigger certain patterns or shapes to appear on the screen, thereby "inducing" certain patterns. E.g. the 1970 sequence had a pattern of lines in a diamond shape and you can just faintly see this in the sequence if you look closely.
The biggest dfference, however, will be the line standard both the camera and monitor will be working in. The less lines on the screen, the less the light will "mould" into blobs. The 63 and 67 sequences were shot in 405 lines, and the uncoloured version of the 1970 sequence might well have been, too for all I know.
Sticky tape 'n' rust that’s so interesting. I’ve been trying to get stuff similar to the original titles, but sort of discouraged as I’ve released it’s really not gonna happen. I would love to be able to recreate those amazing Rorschach patterns and flowing liquid or shifting sand shapes. It’s so intriguing.
@@stickytapenrust6869 Reading your comment I was thinking the same thing while watching this: can they really get the same effect using modern digital/HD equipment instead of the old tube-based analogue hardware which was what they had back in 1963? When our group tried doing a Doctor Who fanvid back in 1993 we decided to go with the video feedback effect for the title and end-credits sequences and what we had in hardware was a VHS camera and an analogue TV and got some really interesting soft-focus swirl and "expanding/rushing blob" patterns not too far off from what the BBC accomplished. Ours was in colour and that generated some interesting effects as well. We had a video mixer so we could A/B matte in a black spot to alter the swirl patterns and a face and of course the titles/credits and the feedback patterns nicely "bled" off of those as well. We weren't attempting to exactly recreate the 1963, 1966 or 1970 howlaround effects but just produce something like them and it worked. But I can't help wondering if that sort of thing is even possible now using modern equipment. I'll have to experiment with it sometime just to find out.
3:51 - that is NOT the oldschool or classic logo! That's the 1996 tweak of the 1970 logo (bevel on leading stroke of D aligned oppositely to original 1970 logo and bevel on right edge of upper stroke of T instead of normal square edge), shaded with the 1963 feedback (first shaded this way in 2012 or 2013).
And the 1996 tweak of the 1970 logo is still used on most merchandises and even comics.
Qweekskowped Yeah, it's on all my small collection of DVD's ... and is the reason that my DVD collection isn't larger. x-(
I know, these people get their facts wrong, i know something you might not about the tv movie (not to brag but i happen to know something many do not know)
Why does this matter? The focus of the video isn't from what era of the show the cut out logo is from!
and the background of the words its the hartnell sequence
Nothing like original IMO... still enjoy it.
What I love about the beginning of Doctor Who is the amazing results everyone got from things not being used the way they should. Like Delia putting the incredible theme together with a plucked string and loads of tape manipulation and oscillators, then the title sequence with the camera feedback. The sound of the TARDIS. The malfunctioning monitor that made the first regeneration like nothing else. Back then they were using magic. Legends
Did anyone else notice Andy saying "Yeah" over and over and over and over again throughout the entire video?
*yeah*
Liam Esterly Yeah
Yeah
Yeah
Yeah I also did yeah
If there ever was a reason to call something 'nerding out', this must be it
You may even say #nerdgasm :)
Also if you have your camera lingering on the side screen at the right angle you can create the Jon Pertwee Swirly Vortex.
You're doing it wrong. Zoom all the way into the TV and then you'll get the vortex look.
The logo and face would be blended in better if they were printed on a cel sheet, or if they were filmed on a seperate camera and combined with the main camera's footage.
they said they wanted to keep it simple and low-tech
Arctic IceFox But what I said is probably how they originally did it.
iLikeTheUDK Yep in the original they used a vision mixer to superimpose the logo on the top and also to get some of the effects in the title sequence. We wanted to see how much you could recreate with a simpler setup.
I wonder why the TARDIS sound at the beginning doesn't use the BBC's own TARDIS sound but a custom one...
I done this with a vhs camcorder, and it looked beautiful.
You’d need to use the original equipment to get anywhere need the original. They managed to get such complex patterns.
lol the dude with the purple shirt ''yea....yea.....yea'' xD
Exactly what I was thinking :D What was the point of him being in the video? :D
I'd really like to know how long he practiced and exactly how he got all those complicated patterns. I'm sure a lot of it is in the equipment that was used.
"Fantastic"
Another thing is they also would have done it in a really dark room.
Oh so it was an accident. Wonder if he then did it in a dark room though.
i love the old howlaround effect
that 2013 title sequence looks so pant's.
You can see how hard it is hsre, just shows the effort they put in
I heard they blew smoke from a cigarette into some part of the camera and it made those patterns and obviously they mirrored it
I wouldn't be surprised, smoking was so ubiquitous back then. When we were doing our video feedback sequences in 1971 we put a low power analog tv transmitter/receiver in the loop and detuned the receiver to add noise and got amazing patterns. I think we may have blown some smoke in the visual field too, but I can't remember for sure - it's kind of hazy. You could control the tunnelling effect by the distance from the camera to the screen (or the focal length of the lens) and if you reversed the polarity of the vertical scan on the monitor you could get really complex symetrical patterns, especially as you rotated the camera to create the "swirl" effect. Of course that was all with ancient analog equipment. Today you could add delay by using a webcam setup and mixing in noise or flipping scans in software, but the organic looking analog images would be tough to fully recreate.
you worked in tv?
Love the part when they told us how to recreate the doctor who title sequence.
is noone going to question that he has james may on his t-shirt
Fantastic, wearing black jacket, Doctor Who...
EXTERMINATE THE TITLE SEQUENCE
It was a quirk of the particular tube camera too. The time delay in digital cameras far higher than the original too.
Andy would be a great 9 doctor cosplayer
1:10 ImageCeption
Simple but very effective
Very helpful! Thanks. :)
Andy sounds like the ninth doctor
do a video on how the tom baker title sequence was done
The music at the end always makes me think of Sanity Not Included
Not even close lol
Problem with new cameras is all the automatic features, you need manual controls to grasp and adjust what is happening.
Didn't they use a candle flame?
The only problem I have is that it doesn't look enough like the watery movement you see in the original title sequence... You did it the same way they did it back in the day but something was different....
Back in 1963 they used Smoke aswell as light.
analog vs digital technologies comes into play as well and I think that has to be part of why it's so hard to recreate the exact look with more modern equipment. The old cameras used in the original series had vacuum tubes and other less digital components and when i first I did these experiments in the 1990s the camcorders (and CRT TVs... I had a videonics digital video mixer as well) were filled with tiny silicon digital microchips and I could get close to the effect but not close enough to make me thrilled. It was still fun to play around with video feedback to see what you could get and if you could try and control it to get repeatable results :)
Even the way older video cameras reacted to overexposure was different and you do get overexposure when playing with video feedback - the overexposed parts of your image will be pure white now but in the case of the really old analog video cameras the overexposed white portions would invert to black.
***** i agree, how do you re create the swirls!?
I'm gonna have to do it tomorrow because my camera needs charging
I am wondering. Is it possible to plug your iPhone 4 into your PC and get the PC camera to see what the iPhone camera is seeing? It's a long shot, I know. I want to play with this effect so badly, but right now this seems like the only way I can think of. :/
Yes I do think it's possible, in fact some smart TVs are able to mirror your phone/tablet's screen.
It must be a title sequence for the movie Rumors of Whispers.
Sadly modern cameras have CCD sensors and don't to.it as.good as old tube cameras .
"HeadSqueeze took it over, just like the Zionists took over the TARDIS..."
I don't remember that episode!
+Rory Connolly The Silence
Sorry but I can't help myself. I don't think that's the classic William Hartnell logo. That's the Paul McGann logo with the 1st doctor titles effect inside it
Oh fair enough. I knew Jon had 2 opening's but I didn't know that was Mcgann's too. Nevertheless it wasn't William's but I take your comment on board. Thanks for correcting me
That logo has sort of become the de facto logo for Classic Doctor Who in general. I don't think it's meant to be the original Hartnell logo.
I know. It just irritates me. I mean, I don't mind it being used so much (even though it's the american movie logo) but in this video they're recreating the original which makes me think these people don't really know Doctor Who very well cause any Doctor Who fan would've used the matching logo for the 1963 titles surely
Phoenix 24 I understand your annoyance that they didn't use the 1963 logo when recreating the 1963 titles. But the logo they DID use is actually from the 3rd Doctor's era, created in 1969 by Bernard Lodge for Doctor Who's very first colour episodes. It was brought back and re-used in the 1996 TV Movie, but had existed for a long time before.
How did they do the 1970 intro from spearhead from space
That was with slit scan, which was also used in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Have a look at this vid for more vimeo.com/71702374
Martin Archer I know I'm a bit late in saying this, but your thinking of the 1973 titles. The 1970 titles were created in the same way the '63 and '67 titles were made.
turned out good, and new who-y
Get a couple of analogue cameras and old tv
Digital is a waste of time. Too clean no reverberate
We did this in primary skill in the Media room.
OHO telly stuff
Fantastic!
With respect, doesn't everyone do this the first time they get their hands on a video camera?
+dfarmbrough Yes but no one really zooms in enough to see how cool it is until they learn about this.
SO THAT'S HOW IT WORKS!!!!
0:23 0:36 0:44 3:16 Martin Archer is 9th doctor
5:45 More "Fantastic"
Anyone notice they are using time and space a lot? lol
I like there's better
JK, but its still good, I wish BBC could released some other unused intro parts
What about if we don't have a monitor
A TV is the same thing - as long as it has an input that you can connect to the camera. Good luck.
I've done it and posted the video on my channel!
its called a TV my dude
this is so old now
“Yeah”
analogue video camera would give you better results
You're right, old analogue cameras have more of a delay so it would make things in the feedback loop go slower. Everything was happening rather quickly in our attempt. Why don't you have a go and show us how it looks analogue style?
Would I be able to do this on an iPad at all??
I swear I want to but I don't have the right camera and/or monitor
So how did they do it before digital cameras?
It's the same principle with an analogue camera too, just like the ones they had back in 1963.
But how? What I mean is that you can plug a camera into a modern television and get a video feed from it straight away. You have to develop film and I think it was a little early for magnetic tape, so how could you get almost instant feedback on a screen in the 60s?
marzcorp
The monitor would show the camera's output live, giving a direct video feed, which would then be recorded. Also, Doctor Who was filmed on tape throughout the 60s.
That was the first third doctor logo in black and white. The first doctor logo was different
Indeed, it was also the one they used for the 1996 TV Movie. That was the only logo we got clearance to use for this video, but it's actually my favourite of the classic Who logos anyway.
fantastic! :)
the thing is recreating the original 1953 theme is really difficult trust me i tried with the crew on set we tried recreating it and its not easy.
Don't you mean 1963?
***** yeah sorry, 53 is the queens coronantation and i got confused i keep say 50 rather than 60
that james may tshirt
I want that James May shirt
I thought it was done by using sand
They done it better in 1963!!! But this still looks alright!!!
#savetheday #doctorwho50th #doctorwho
Modern technology actually makes it harder to recreate - the time delays between loops are smaller now so the howlround effects happen really quickly. If we slowed the video down, it'd probably look better.
Head squeeze
Is that James May on his top?
Uhuh - James has one like it too, we hear he likes wearing it down the pub... Check out our channel to see James explaining more science!
Is that a james may t-shirt?
Yep, he's the main presenter on *****
What camera is that?
Is anyone else wondering why he has a t-shirt with James May on it?
James May is the main presenter on Head Squeeze :)
You're a slow driver
Superb :)
EPIC!
well that was awful and pointless.
No offence. The original was something that looked awesome. The 2013 recreation looks cheap as hell.
james may tshirt
Sure is! Head over to our channel to see more science explained by James : )
ruclips.net/video/JYQjeR5ASG8/видео.html
Also, a half-silvered mirror is your friend.
the original is better!
I did it better
Hi, it's me from this video! I'm now making videos on my own channel, so maybe you'd like to check them out?
Ok
Martin Archer You know mate you are kinda annoying in that video.
#Savetheday #Fakehair #davidtennant #mattsmith
WooHoo #savetheday
Try to remake to no success oof
This guy is so annoying. It's better with a 405 line monitor and a mirror.
Fantastic!