TV Home Forum

What BBC1 and 2 could have looked like in 1991

(February 2016)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
MA
madmusician
AlexEdohHD13 posted:
623058 posted:
I cant really say much for it, thankgood these test were thrown in the bin.

Quote:
25 years ago today, on 16 February 1991, BBC1 unveiled its new ident, known as the “virtual globe” which remained until October 1997. On the same day, BBC2 began an era of “2” idents which continues to this very day.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcvQlqwZfkY

Also, does anyone notice the BBC logo is slightly different to the actual 1988 (used from 1991) logo?

That variant did pop up a bit in real life (although not on the idents) - it did appear on some BBC Sport globes and on the CBBC idents, alongside some other things. It works better than the white version, I think, just because the counters don't become as invisible as they did when shrunk to small sizes in the white logo.
AE
AlexEdohHD13
madmusician posted:
AlexEdohHD13 posted:
623058 posted:
I cant really say much for it, thankgood these test were thrown in the bin.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcvQlqwZfkY

Also, does anyone notice the BBC logo is slightly different to the actual 1988 (used from 1991) logo?

That variant did pop up a bit in real life (although not on the idents) - it did appear on some BBC Sport globes and on the CBBC idents, alongside some other things. It works better than the white version, I think, just because the counters don't become as invisible as they did when shrunk to small sizes in the white logo.

No, I mean the text.
LL
Larry the Loafer
AlexEdohHD13 posted:
madmusician posted:
AlexEdohHD13 posted:
Also, does anyone notice the BBC logo is slightly different to the actual 1988 (used from 1991) logo?

That variant did pop up a bit in real life (although not on the idents) - it did appear on some BBC Sport globes and on the CBBC idents, alongside some other things. It works better than the white version, I think, just because the counters don't become as invisible as they did when shrunk to small sizes in the white logo.

No, I mean the text.


The text in the BBC logo? Looks no different to me.
AE
AlexEdohHD13
The text in the BBC logo? Looks no different to me.[/quote]

Larry the Loafer posted:
AlexEdohHD13 posted:
madmusician posted:
That variant did pop up a bit in real life (although not on the idents) - it did appear on some BBC Sport globes and on the CBBC idents, alongside some other things. It works better than the white version, I think, just because the counters don't become as invisible as they did when shrunk to small sizes in the white logo.

No, I mean the text.


The text in the BBC logo? Looks no different to me.

Look very carefully at this one
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/logo-timeline/images/c/c6/BBC_logo_1988.svg/revision/latest?cb=20140906143500
Then look back at the clip very carefully.
Last edited by AlexEdohHD13 on 21 February 2016 12:50am
JA
JAS84
Only difference I see is the position of the first B, which is too far to the left within it's box in that image.
AE
AlexEdohHD13
JAS84 posted:
Only difference I see is the position of the first B, which is too far to the left within it's box in that image.

I mean the logo text . It's a bit different to the actual logo from 1988.
AG
AxG
AlexEdohHD13 posted:
JAS84 posted:
Only difference I see is the position of the first B, which is too far to the left within it's box in that image.

I mean the logo text . It's a bit different to the actual logo from 1988.

Saying "It's a bit different" is no good, go into detail, is it thickness, the counters, the curves, the points. What is it, since we are looking at a blurry 480 video with a standalone crisp image.
Larry the Loafer and Nicky gave kudos
JA
JAS84
AlexEdohHD13 posted:
JAS84 posted:
Only difference I see is the position of the first B, which is too far to the left within it's box in that image.

I mean the logo text . It's a bit different to the actual logo from 1988.
That was my point. The image you posted is NOT the actual logo from 1988, it's a recreation with mistakes on it. The one on those idents is the real thing. There are no inaccuracies on that logo at all.
AE
AlexEdohHD13
JAS84 posted:
AlexEdohHD13 posted:
JAS84 posted:
Only difference I see is the position of the first B, which is too far to the left within it's box in that image.

I mean the logo text . It's a bit different to the actual logo from 1988.
That was my point. The image you posted is NOT the actual logo from 1988, it's a recreation with mistakes on it. The one on those idents is the real thing. There are no inaccuracies on that logo at all.

I meant:

http://hub.tv-ark.org.uk/images/bbcone/images_idents/1991/bbc1_globe_id_1991e.jpg
http://hub.tv-ark.org.uk/images/bbctwo/images_idents/1991/bbc2_junction7_160291a.jpg
JU
Justin
AlexEdohHD13 posted:
JAS84 posted:
AlexEdohHD13 posted:
I mean the logo text . It's a bit different to the actual logo from 1988.
That was my point. The image you posted is NOT the actual logo from 1988, it's a recreation with mistakes on it. The one on those idents is the real thing. There are no inaccuracies on that logo at all.

I meant:

http://hub.tv-ark.org.uk/images/bbcone/images_idents/1991/bbc1_globe_id_1991e.jpg
http://hub.tv-ark.org.uk/images/bbctwo/images_idents/1991/bbc2_junction7_160291a.jpg

Ident on tape > Control room > Broadcast signal > TV > VHS > VHS tape ... time degradation .... record to computer > video editing >YouTube processing. Is it not possible that the video was degraded during that time?

From my eyes, the BBC 2 and the BBC 1 slides you've linked have a different BBC logo if we're just eyeballing it.
Warbler and Larry the Loafer gave kudos
NG
noggin Founding member
Looking at the original YouTube clips - there is something a bit odd about them. They look like they have had some 'fake archive' treatment added to me. The burnt in time code is not contemporary (it's far too nicely rendered), and the on-screen text looks a little too nicely rendered too.

There is a very small amount of edge-wobble (but not really enough to have come from VHS)

I'm not saying they're not genuine - but I have my doubts.
Last edited by noggin on 21 February 2016 1:37pm
MI
Michael
I'm willing to say they're recreations or modern-day implementations of the original idea. But they're certainly not contemporary to 1991.

Newer posts