Why TV productions are recorded this way? (1 Viewer)

[John Stuart]

Hi there folks,
sorry if this subject has been discussed and explained anywhere, but I am a newbie about video-cameras and need to ask you something.

According to Wikipedia, a Professional video camera (often called a Television camera even though the use has spread) is a high-end device for recording electronic moving images (as opposed to a movie camera, that records the images on film). Originally developed for use in television studios, they are now commonly used for corporate and educational videos, music videos, and direct-to-video movies.

Professional video cameras, such as those used in television and sometimes film production; these may be studio-based or mobile. Such cameras generally offer extremely fine-grained manual control for the camera operator, often to the exclusion of automated operation.

Camcorders, which combine a camera and a VCR or other recording device in one unit; these are mobile, and are widely used for television production, home movies, electronic news gathering (including citizen journalism), and similar applications.

Well, here's my question: if the method used to record movies is much better why looks like was never used to record TV shows and general TV productions in the past? I mean, no offense, but today I was looking Doctor Who's 1st episodes (from 1963) and the image quality is awful. The same goes for Babylon 5 from the 90's (God knows how this show was recorded, because it looks very bad).

I was wondering, if TV channels and studios have all the budget why they don't used the best way to record these images that last for decades? Sorry if I am being stupid, but this is something I never could understand, why a 1940 movie can look better than a 1990 TV show. Can someone please explain?

 

[DeWilson]

There are many factors - all technically speaking are due to not only the camaras of the time but the recording medium as well.Original recordings are only going to be as good as the quality standards of the time.

Kinecopes,early 2" videotape,U-Matic,etc and so-on will look different than say a show filmed on 35mm or 16mm Look at the difference between the HONEYMOONERS "classic 39" (Shot on film 1956-1957),"Lost Episodes"
("Jackie Gleason Show" Kinescopes 1951-1956,1957-1958) and "The Honeymooners - Color Episodes" ("Jackie Gleason Show" CBS Color 2" Videotape 1966-1970.)

Except for a handful of episodes, all 1960's DOCTOR WHO episodes exist as 16mm film-recordings (or kinescopes) The BBC till the mid-1960's were broadcasting and recording at 405-lines of resolution. Again, the quality and technology of the time.

You can have the BEST Camara, but It's the way it's recorded that counts!

"Babylon 5" was shot on film - but edited and mastered on digital video
(Same as Star Trek: The Next Generation,DS9,Voyager,and most of Enterprise) again, you're looking at Early 1990's technology vs. Today. They can only do so much with the original recordings when transfering them to DVD.

 

[Yee-Ming]

That's the thing, they don't have unlimited budgets. Cost is always a factor, hence to this day, day-time soaps are shot on video, being significantly cheaper than shooting on film. I suppose with the latest digital cameras (such as those Lucas used on SWIII) this might in due course change as well, but for now shooting on film is expensive: not only do you buy the film stock, it has to be developed, then prints struck, or at least transferred back to video for TV transmission. As a 'bonus', video tape can be re-used, adding a further element in reducing overall cost.

 

[Mike*SC]

Television shows are filmed in a wide variety of ways (16mm film, 35mm film, straight video, hi def video, etc.), so there's no one answer. But budgets are budgets, and especially back in (for instance) the 1970s, when most people got their television signals over the air and into television sets that were incredibly crude by today's standards, there was no reason to spend money on detail and quality that would be lost in broadcast. Nobody could have foreseen that these shows would live on on a higher definition format thirty years later!

 

[Derek Miner]

Actually, you are missing a piece of the puzzle in your original question. The information you quoted only refers to video cameras. Even though it says video cameras are used "sometimes" in film production, that's misleading. They do release "films" that are made on video originally, but traditionally, "film" is a medium, or format, like video tape is a medium. You are on the cusp of the fact that video has long been a lower-quality format in relation to film, even when what you see in "video" actually came from a film camera in the first place. It's only been in the last decade that this gap has seriously closed with high-definition video.

For decades, they have used film for anything they wanted to "last for decades." Video was initially a novelty, and expensive. They didn't save tapes, because they needed to re-use them to justify the cost.

This gets to your Doctor Who issue, because they made that show using video cameras, but the only reasonable way to keep a copy of the show was to point a film camera at a video monitor. We're getting into new technologies that can take those films and correct some of the unnatural distortions associated with the the process of filming monitors, but even then, we're talking about video in the early days. 1963 video could not approach the look of film shot in 1940.

A good number of TV shows made between your examples - Doctor Who in 1963 and Babylon 5 in 1993 - did use film, and you might be surprised to see, for example, some episodes of Bonanza filmed before Doctor Who look relatively good, because they shot it on film. The original film probably was always sharp and fresh, but on TV, it was only as good as the technology that converts it to video. But the same film looks better on TV now than it did in the 1960s, because the process we use to play film on TV has changed dramatically. And we still have that film to go back and "try again" to put in into video format.

Shows like Bonanza (plenty of examples: The Fugitive, Bewitched, Columbo, Knight Rider to name just a handful) used to cut film before going to video, which at least left a piece of film that could be used in the future to "try again" and get better video. But at some point it became more efficient to put ALL the film on tape first and THEN edit. So the final program was set as a video, which is going to be the exact same (lesser) quality forever. They could "try again" by converting all the original film to video a second time with improved modern technology, but then you would have to edit again as well, which is more complicated and expensive than most people would want to approach (unless you're Seinfeld, I guess). So it's really unlikely Babylon 5 will ever look better, even though it's theoretically possible (unless they junked all the film).

Short answer: It's all in the way that the film gets converted into video, which took a long time to perfect. And "films" for theaters are expensive, while television is cheap.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Nice explanation. One specific point to B5: I think the effects were done on video, and worse still the digital files have been lost, so unless some serious coin is spent in re-doing all the effects, the PQ of B5 can't be improved.

I think the same applies to TNG, effects were only done in video, so again PQ is constrained by that.

 

[John Stuart]

Hi folks,
just to clarify one thing that I am not sure. When you say "edit" (B5 and TNG for example) you are talking about any kinds of special effects or simple things like fade-outs and common edits made on videos recorded on today camcorders?

Do you mean these TV shows were filmed on 16mm and the "rough cut" was then transported to videotapes and the original material was sometimes lost or not used anymore?

There is a short explanation on Wikipedia about this term:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_cut

I can understand why on the 60's some of them have done this, but not why decades after some companies were still threating TV shows like garbage like they did before.

This "edit" as you are saying was not possible to be done on film? Like they did on 2001: Space Odyssey, Star Wars, etc.?

Even if broadcasted shows of that time didn't have the same quality from the movies, they sure looked worse on the broadcast signal. I can't believe the restoration process of a TV show like Gunsmoke (recorded on 1955, before Doctor Who) has made the image looks sharper and cleaner than many things that came on the next decades.

But then again, when you think that decades before was possible to shot in colour, and to lower the costs many studios didn't used that benefit only because these TV sets were not largely used, you realize how stupid and narrow-minded this people are.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Up until the late 1980s, most American 1 hour dramatic TV shows were shot AND edited on film, most of the time 35mm. Many of the sitcoms were shot on video tape, Three's Company comes to mind.

Dr. Who, being a BBC production shot both on film and tape as did most of the other BBC shows. They would shoot the indoor sets on tape, but shoot 16mm film for the locations. This is one of the reasons Dr. Who has such a hit or miss look to it.

Starting around 1988 American TV shows switched to editing on tape. Shows like L.A. Law, Mattlock, and Star Trek: The Next Generation were among the first to do this. They would shoot the show on film just as they always had. Then the film would be transferred to tape, and all post production, editing, titles, sound mix, and any effects, would be done electronically. In the case of ST:TNG, model shots were done on film, but all the compositing (IE combining of models with backgrounds such as stars or planets) were done electronically.

The result of this is that all those shows from the late 80s are stuck with the look of late 80s tele-cine machines, which were fairly soft and and in TV resolution. In addition to that they were interlaced. This makes them look not so great on a large HDTV.

Shows like ST:TNG could be updated to HD resolution, however all the original film elements would have to be re-scanned, and each episode would have to be re-edited from scratch. This would include re-compositing the model shots, and completely re doing things like phasers beams from scratch.

In recent years most TV shows have gone to post production in HD, and don't have the problems that the shows from the late 80s and early 90s do.

This however is one reason that an old show like Perry Mason or the original Star Trek can now look fantastic, where as a late 80s show like Babylon 5 or TNG look pretty crappy. The have the original edited 35mm negatives of those old shows to go back and do brand new scans of.

Today this seems somewhat short sighted of the producers of these shows, however a show like Star Trek: TNG would probably not have been possible to produce on a TV budget if they had done all the post production on film.

Doug

 

[Yee-Ming]

That's a little unfair IMHO. At the end of the day, like it or not the TV studios are a business, and they were not going to spend unnecessary money incurring unnecessary costs on improving quality where hardly anyone, if at all, could actually enjoy the benefit, at that time. It seems 'short-sighted' now, but that's with the benefit of hindsight. You might as well say that it's 'narrow-minded' for movies to still be shot "only" on 35mm rather than full-blown 70mm, because in future we'll have 8K resolution in the home theater rather than the present 2K.

I agree it's a shame, but them's the breaks with technology. I often think the most 'famous last words' when it comes to tech are those of Bill Gates in relation to MS-DOS's cap on handling RAM, when he said something to the effect that no one was ever going to need more than 640K of RAM...

 

[Tony J Case]

Did you watch the restored version of Uneartly Child? The work that the restoration team did (the vidfire process mainly) is night and day from the old unrestored version.

Take a peek at what Vidfire does

 

[LizH]

A lot of British sitcoms still do that today ("Keeping Up Appearances" did it, as did "Black Books".)

 

[AndyMcKinney]

Not really. Most British shows are shot on one medium throughout these days, either tape or film (or, more likely than actual film, shot on tape and then having some post-production work run on it to make it look like film, such as the new Doctor Who, Footballers Wives, Worst Week of My Life, Coupling, Neverwhere, etc.).

Can't vouch one way or the other for Black Books, but for the other example you cite (Keeping Up Appearances, at least on the episodes I've seen on PBS, were shot on video throughout (even the outdoors scenes).

By 1986, most productions at the BBC were shifting towards OB ("outside broadcast", or video) for location work and moving away from film. Shows like Doctor Who, and 'Allo 'Allo! are examples of this change.

There might've been a few exceptions to this rule, but around 1985-86, the mixed-format approach for British TV shows was drawing to a close (though several sitcoms, like Only Fools and Horses and Last of the Summer Wine would occasionally do a special feature-length episode entirely on film).

 

[HenryDuBrow]

OB was sometimes used in Britain as early as the mid-70s. Like halfway through BBC's first season (1975) of the excellent (video/film shot) Survivors, they switched from film to OB for exteriors, resulting in a more 'soapy' less gritty look throughout.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Yes this is correct. Most sitcoms didn't start shooting on video until the early to mid 1970s. The Bob Newhart show was shot I believe on 16mm film, and Newhart in the 80s was shot on video for season 1 and film after that.

Jeannie, not being shot in front of an audience, did quite a bit of location shooting and was shot on 35mm film. Happy Days was shot on film in spite of being shot in front of an audience after the first season.

Doug

 

[Derek Miner]

Careful, "recorded" isn't really the right term for Gunsmoke, which was shot on film. Also, there isn't necessarily a "restoration process" in place for old TV shows. Restoration is only needed if materials are damaged or degrading, and is only likely if the show is a very important commodity. And restoration isn't even neccesary to get a better picture from many film-based television shows. Many have the potential to look better if a little more time effort was applied during the conversion to video, but some are treated quite well and look sharper and cleaner as you note.

 

[Mike*SC]

Realize that editing a show on video is not simply a cost-saving issue (though there is that). It's phenomenally faster. A producer can go into the editing room and see a variety of takes and make shot changes and timing changes on the fly, in a matter of minutes. When shows were cut on film, each shot had to be found and spliced into the actual film, a slow, slow process. The fact is, very few filmmakers (Spielberg being the rare exception) cut on film anymore. But when feature films are cut on video, the EDL (edit decision list) is then printed out and the actual film negative is cut to the specifications of what was cut on video. This is done because theaters required film (though the increasing number of digital movie theaters is changing this). Television does not require film. There was never any reason to add the expensive step of cutting the actual film, when that film would just be transferred to video for broadcast. It was only years later, when these shows proved to have a valuable life in higher resolution formats, that this became an issue. You can complain about their lack of foresight, but what business really would spend millions of dollars for a theoretical future that seemed ludicrous to most people (people are going to pay for shows they get free?!). And by the way, shows like "Star Trek: The Next Generation" sold very well, despite the soft picture quality, so the actual value of the show was not hindered to any large degree.

Since the television business has moved to high resolution, it's generally not an issue for current shows, anyway.

That said, there still are some shows shot on straight video. "Curb Your Enthusiasm," for instance, is shot on low resolution video, because the improvisational nature of the show requires enormous amounts of footage to be shot. They apply a "film look" to the video (a process by which frames are repeated and colors are muted, giving the video a slightly more film-like look, though since it relies largely on the slight stutter of filmed images in motion, the effect disappears when there's not much movement in the frame). Had that series started now, they certainly would have shot it on a high-def video such as 24P, but in 2000, that was not practical.

 

[LizH]

You also have to take into account the extensive photographic effects that were involved on that show.

 

[Mike*SC]

It doesn't look like anybody has really answered you (me included).

To "edit" a show is simply to take all the footage shot for it and assemble that footage into the finished show. If the show is originally shot on film, that film is processed and transferred to video and digitized for editing. Though technically, fades and dissolves and the like would have (in the old days) fallen into the category of opticals (that is, they had to be done later, and could not be done as they are now on an editing system), those things are included under the umbrella term "editing." Today's hard-drive based editing systems (most prominently Avid) are also capable of repositioning shots and of some special effects -- not spaceships, but putting images on television screens and the like. (These are often done later by an effects house, though.)

That said, many of us are using the term "editing" to mean all post-production. That includes not just editing but color-timing, special effects, titling, etc. For a show shot on film, once that film has been transferred to video (usually a few hours after it's been processed), the film is never used again, and while it's generally stored somewhere, it is extremely, extremely rare for that film to ever be touched again by anybody. In these days of high definition transfers, you won't miss the film.

 

[Douglas Monce]

yes very true. Lots of split screen effects and the smoke into the bottle effect, etc.

Doug

 

[AndyMcKinney]

Yes, the BBC did do some OB in the '70s, but that was the exception and not the rule.

Another example of early OB work was in the Doctor Who stories "Robot" and "Sontaran Experiment", both of which were from the 1975 season. They "Robot" entirely on tape (including locations) due to the heavy use of CSO ("bluescreen") for some of the Robot effects in episode four. As for "Sontaran Experiment", it was shot on OB because the director saw that as making the editing process more convenient.