35mm prints

[Daniel O'Brien]

Apologies if this has been covered before.

As I understand it, the following 1960s episodes are held on 35mm: 'The Dalek Invasion of Earth' 5, 'The Wheel in Space' 6, 'The Dominators' 3, 'The Mind Robber' 5, 'The Krotons' 1, 'The Seeds of Death' 5 and 'The Space Pirates' 2. I recall reading that 'The Power of the Daleks' 6 was also held on 35mm until it was junked.

Were these 35mm prints made so that the episodes could be broadcast in the UK from film rather than videotape. If so, why was this the case? Did they require further editing that was not feasible on tape?

I read on an old thread that the 16mm t/r prints made for export were not regarded as being of broadcast quality for the UK. Would this have been another reason they were seen as essentially worthless once foreign sales had dried up?

[Deleted]

Yes, the episodes you mention all survive on 35mm. The following were transmitted from that format (masters of these being made on film rather than VT for varying reasons of either ease of editing, to condense two eps into one or simply because VT machines were not available for pre-recording):
"The Dead Planet" 4
"Planet of Giants" 3
"The Dalek Invasion of Earth" 5
"The Power of the Daleks" 6
"The Wheel in Space" 5 & 6
"The Dominators" 3
"The Krotons" 1
"The Seeds of Death" 5
"The Space Pirates" 2
Only "The Mind Robber" 5 was not transmitted from this format though.

For more info on this topic, take a look at this useful article:
www.restoration-team.co.uk/

[Daniel O'Brien]

Thanks for the information and the link. The excerpt from 'The Krotons' 1 on the 'Aztecs' DVD got me thinking about the 35mm prints and why they were made.

[Roger Stevens]

In the 1960's drama that required editing was routinely telerecorded - either directly from the studio, or later from the VT tapes - and would then be handled by a BBC film editor - from the film editing department at Ealing. This is because it was impossible to quick cut shots - in say a fight sequence - in the same way that can be done on film. Just look at the 1st episode of Adam Adamant Lives and you will see Sheila Tomlinson credited as telerecoding editor on the end credits. Sheila was hugely expereienced editor with credits including 3 seasons of Blake Seven ( cutting film inserts). Of course not all of the above may have been TR'd onto 35mm for editing reasons, there may have been a shortage of available VTR's on the day.

16mm was always regarded as acceptable for broadcast. many BBC programmes were made entirely on 16mm, while others used 16mm for film inserts. Only title sequences, and the most lavish productions ever used 35mm, the corporation was hardly equipped to handle it. When I worked there - 80's, early 90's, 35mm equipment had to be dragged for the storerooms, and there were very few viewing theatres, and only 1 35mm dubbing theatre.

[Daniel O'Brien]

May 28, 2008 8:50:33 GMT Roger Stevens said:

16mm was always regarded as acceptable for broadcast. many BBC programmes were made entirely on 16mm, while others used 16mm for film inserts. Only title sequences, and the most lavish productions ever used 35mm, the corporation was hardly equipped to handle it. When I worked there - 80's, early 90's, 35mm equipment had to be dragged for the storerooms, and there were very few viewing theatres, and only 1 35mm dubbing theatre.

16mm filming was (still is?) a mainstay of TV production for years. So far as I know, 16mm copies of shows recorded on videotape were made for overseas sales and internal viewing (such as the print of the 'Unearthly Child' pilot). Given that 35mm broadcast masters were created for the episodes listed above, wouldn't this suggest that 16mm was regarded as inadequate for this purpose? Or am I misunderstanding the situation?

[Deleted]

16mm was fine for things actually shot on film but I would think that they wanted to keep generation loss to a minimum for episodes requiring more complex editing (bearing in mind the material was shot with studio / VT cameras rather than actual film cameras anyway and so this was a means of maintaining maximum possible quality). Hence 35mm.

[Reg Long3]

May 29, 2008 8:15:36 GMT Daniel O'Brien said:

May 28, 2008 8:50:33 GMT Roger Stevens said:

16mm was always regarded as acceptable for broadcast. many BBC programmes were made entirely on 16mm, while others used 16mm for film inserts. Only title sequences, and the most lavish productions ever used 35mm, the corporation was hardly equipped to handle it. When I worked there - 80's, early 90's, 35mm equipment had to be dragged for the storerooms, and there were very few viewing theatres, and only 1 35mm dubbing theatre.

16mm filming was (still is?) a mainstay of TV production for years. So far as I know, 16mm copies of shows recorded on videotape were made for overseas sales and internal viewing (such as the print of the 'Unearthly Child' pilot). Given that 35mm broadcast masters were created for the episodes listed above, wouldn't this suggest that 16mm was regarded as inadequate for this purpose? Or am I misunderstanding the situation?

perhaps an indication of the mind set at the BBC at the time is to mention Adam Adament . Where some outside scenes were recorded on 35mm then telerecorded?!?!? back onto 35 or 16.
(presumably this was to keep the smudged look across the whole programme)
It does make you wonder why they didnt shoot the whole damn thing in 35mm in the first place and have an internationally credible programme.




.





.

[B Thomas]

May 29, 2008 10:04:08 GMT Reg Long3 said:

May 29, 2008 8:15:36 GMT Daniel O'Brien said:

16mm filming was (still is?) a mainstay of TV production for years. So far as I know, 16mm copies of shows recorded on videotape were made for overseas sales and internal viewing (such as the print of the 'Unearthly Child' pilot). Given that 35mm broadcast masters were created for the episodes listed above, wouldn't this suggest that 16mm was regarded as inadequate for this purpose? Or am I misunderstanding the situation?

perhaps an indication of the mind set at the BBC at the time is to mention Adam Adament . Where some outside scenes were recorded on 35mm then telerecorded?!?!? back onto 35 or 16.
(presumably this was to keep the smudged look across the whole programme)
It does make you wonder why they didnt shoot the whole damn thing in 35mm in the first place and have an internationally credible programme.

Ermmm... Cost is the most credible reason that springs to mind...

[Deleted]

I don't think the intention would ever be too maintain a consistent smudged look (i.e. deliberately making the quality lower!). Again, editing ease would be the reason it was then transferred. Unusual though that the location work was shot on 35 rather than 16mm for this programme.

[Reg Long3]

May 29, 2008 11:25:56 GMT B Thomas said:

Ermmm... Cost is the most credible reason that springs to mind...

ERMM my point is ...that as a fantasy action series, they must have spent so much time and money jumping across formats that it may have been cheaper to do 35mm in the first place?.
Certainly in the long term there would have been more reruns and sales.

However after all that I am quite happy with what is left and glad we can still see it




..

[Deleted]

Shooting the whole thing 35mm would have been a lot more expensive than just shooting a few scenes on it and then transferring.

[Reg Long3]

pick it up if its wrong
but wasnt the budget for a Dr Who episode in the 60s around £5000 ?
an Edgar Wallace around £11,000
a colour Saint around £30,000 with ROG taking £3K himself

of course nothing compared to American productions, an episode of Bewitched around $70,000 dollars, studio bound using the same set most of the time

[Daniel O'Brien]

May 29, 2008 9:33:37 GMT @laurencepiper said:

16mm was fine for things actually shot on film but I would think that they wanted to keep generation loss to a minimum for episodes requiring more complex editing (bearing in mind the material was shot with studio / VT cameras rather than actual film cameras anyway and so this was a means of maintaining maximum possible quality). Hence 35mm.

Thanks for the clarification.

By the way, when 'An Unearthly Child' and 'The Krotons' were repeated in 1981, had the film prints undergone any kind of clean-up?

[Daniel O'Brien]

May 29, 2008 10:04:08 GMT Reg Long3 said:

It does make you wonder why they didnt shoot the whole damn thing in 35mm in the first place and have an internationally credible programme.

I'm no expert on 1960s TV budgets, but 35mm was very expensive. I don't know that 'Adam Adamant', for all its merits, would have sold well enough abroad to justify this extra cost, especially with the limited repeat options.

US sales would have been especially problematic. According to Gerry Anderson, it was very hard to sell British product in America, one reason he took such pains to 'Americanize' his shows, right down to printing the scripts on US quarto-sized paper rather than UK foolscap. Very few UK shows became big hits in the US, 'The Avengers' being a notable example.

Come to think of it, how successful was 'Adam Adamant Lives' in the UK? I assume it was a BBC attempt to replicate the success of ITV's 'The Avengers'. The fact that it ran for two series suggests it was moderately popular rather than a big hit.

[Jon Preddle]

<<Come to think of it, how successful was 'Adam Adamant Lives' in the UK? I assume it was a BBC attempt to replicate the success of ITV's 'The Avengers'. The fact that it ran for two series suggests it was moderately popular rather than a big hit. >>

AAL is one of the few UK fantasy / dramas series that never screened in New Zealand. I've never been able to ascertain why.

(Another was Doomwatch, but I suspect the reason for that was because many episodes existed only in b/w, and by late 1973 NZ had switched to colour.)

Jon