|
|
Post by anthonyforth on Apr 12, 2012 22:29:50 GMT
If I understand correctly...
...most 60s Who was recorded on video.
...video tapes were very expensive so they were reused and shows were often not preserved for long.
...a few episodes were made on film. It was easier to edit, cheaper and sometimes tape (or recorders) wasn't available.
My question, is if film was cheaper, easier to edit and of acceptable quality for broadcast, why not just record all studio output on to film and not bother with video tape?
Anthony
|
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Apr 12, 2012 23:10:05 GMT
As far as I'm aware no 60s Dr Who was made on film. In fact, I think that the only Dr Who ever made entirely on film was Spearhead from Space.
Until fairly recently most TV drama was made using video in the studio with filmed inserts for exteriors, etc. This was because the multi-camera video studio was the most cost effective option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Apr 12, 2012 23:16:20 GMT
A case of swings and roundabouts really. If everyone knew their lines,and the scenery was sturdy, a tape show could be shot almost in real time with a multi camera set up that electronic cameras could provide, thereby making it much cheaper than film to produce.This was fine with variety and theatrical plays, producing a look that gave you the impression you were in a theatre watching it happen live in front of you. However Dr Who was Sci Fi and due to the wonderful imagination of the writers, was producing ever increasing scenarios where complicated shots and effects were needed that could only properly be done on film at the time. But the BBC were not interested in that, they were only concerned with filling a half hour hole on a Saturday night,so producers were told, here is a studio with some cameras in it,get it done asap. and once it had been broadcast they were not interested in it anymore. If ITV and Lew Grade had got Dr.Who it would have probably been made on film and looked something like this?....but they knew how to get hold of money www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVe-rT4TpJI(that was only a pilot btw which was rejected) but for all its losses and fuzzy pictures Dr.Who has endured and fans probably would not have it looking any other way now? |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Apr 13, 2012 7:10:25 GMT
As far as I'm aware no 60s Dr Who was made on film. In fact, I think that the only Dr Who ever made entirely on film was Spearhead from Space. Although they were still recorded as normal in the television studio with studio cameras, a handful of b/w episodes had their output recorded directly to 35mm film rather than videotape as 35mm was recognised as a UK broadcast standard. Most of these episodes (but not all) still survive. |
|
|
|
Post by Brad Phipps on Apr 13, 2012 8:38:32 GMT
As far as I'm aware no 60s Dr Who was made on film. In fact, I think that the only Dr Who ever made entirely on film was Spearhead from Space. Although they were still recorded as normal in the television studio with studio cameras, a handful of b/w episodes had their output recorded directly to 35mm film rather than videotape as 35mm was recognised as a UK broadcast standard. Most of these episodes (but not all) still survive. ...sob sob... The Power of the Daleks 6... sob sob... |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Rumbold on Apr 13, 2012 9:48:45 GMT
I'm constantly amazed by the people who wish that everything was made on film (accepting that this would have given more chance of preservation, possibly). From my experience as a TV viewer since 1962, and with no technical expertise in this field whatsoever, I see things on videotape as being like real-life, and things on film as being, well, like they're on film! I much prefer real-life to film, and cannot get my head round anyone liking it the other way. For instance, when old Dr Whos are found on film, they are now Vid-fired in an attempt to make them look like they were on tape. The irony of modern TV shows like Casualty and Holby City (and all US shows) producing pseudo-film images on videotape, presumably by dropping each alternate field, is not lost on me either. They looked much better at 50 fields a second rather than 25 (and the first time the BBC tried it they got so many complaints they reverted back for a while). The further irony of now broadcasting these deliberately down-graded images in so-called HD also grates (and don't get me started on the fact that an HD picture on an LCD screen is no better than an SD image on a proper set!)
So : I am really glad the early episodes were on videotape, as they looked much better that way (even as a child I commented on the film insert bits as being a poorer picture, without understanding why that was so at the time). It's just a shame they were disposed of! And that the modern version of Dr Who is down-graded to that awful filmised look.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Moss on Apr 13, 2012 11:13:37 GMT
Dale, I understand what you're saying about the live look of interlaced VT, but the days of simply dropping a field are long gone. I think I'm right in saying that, these days, deinterlaced material is actually shot so that all of the lines are captured at the same time, rather than half of them being captured 1/50 of a second later than the first half, as used to be the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyforth on Apr 13, 2012 11:34:20 GMT
I am not actually suggesting that video is worse in some way than film (it's subjective), it's that it was apparently very expensive and had the practical problem of being hard to edit.
Some episodes were recorded directly to 35mm and it was an acceptable medium, so why not just do them all this way.
I suppose it could be that being able to reuse the tape made it cheaper in the longer term.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Apr 13, 2012 11:54:31 GMT
sometimes developing film was hit & miss, some of the film sequences for The 2 Doctors had to be re-shot at some cost after the negatives were damaged.
For the rest of the 1980s Doctor Who was just made on videotape mostly because of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Rumbold on Apr 13, 2012 12:01:44 GMT
Dale, I understand what you're saying about the live look of interlaced VT, but the days of simply dropping a field are long gone. I think I'm right in saying that, these days, deinterlaced material is actually shot so that all of the lines are captured at the same time, rather than half of them being captured 1/50 of a second later than the first half, as used to be the case. As I said, I have no technical understanding of this really : all I know is that shows like Casualty and Dr Who are post-processed in some way so that the images are blurred to seem like they were shot on film : if you watch Dr Who Confidential the pre-processed VT look is there for the sequences shown. Movement is crisper etc. I just don't know why anyone would not want it that way. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Apr 13, 2012 13:59:47 GMT
VT was still shot at 25fps whatever era it was from. No such thing as 50 frames per second if there was there would have been no room on the aerial for any other channel as it would have took up too much bandwidth.
What you are seeing on VT is the illusion (the frame being split into two fields) if it wasnt an illusion it could not be so easily replicated with vidfire.It looks 'live' because the camera can also produce a live picture and that is what you are use to seeing.
'The Saint' was originally going to produced on VT at up to £15K per episode by Rediffusion. ATV stepped in and put up £24K per episode for a film budget.
Where would the Saint be today if it had been made on VT? certainly not on a dozen trips around the world and still being run somewhere today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Apr 13, 2012 16:57:36 GMT
I admit to having a soft spot for things made on VT, as the image is fairly close to normal vision, lighting permitting. This a fairly easy to do in the studio, but the earlier hand held OB cameras seemed to give a fuzzy image if not handled with care.
The House Of Elliott was the last drama (soaps permitting) I can think of using all standard VT.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard Tipple on Apr 13, 2012 18:56:55 GMT
Film looks great though doesn't it? That's why most modern digital cameras (EX1/EX3/5D) try to mimic it's look and distance itself from videotape!
|
|
|
|
Post by Brad Phipps on Apr 13, 2012 22:49:06 GMT
Dale, I understand what you're saying about the live look of interlaced VT, but the days of simply dropping a field are long gone. I think I'm right in saying that, these days, deinterlaced material is actually shot so that all of the lines are captured at the same time, rather than half of them being captured 1/50 of a second later than the first half, as used to be the case. A lot of the stuff we work with is mastered at 25psf (progressive segmented frame). That is to say the two fields are identical, so it gives the appearance of a progressive (or film) look but can be played as interlaced (50i), but as I said both fields are identical. |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Fretwell on Apr 17, 2012 10:05:06 GMT
I would say that VT was used because it was originally meant replace live broadcasts and permit regional time differences on transmission (BBC Wales/Scotland). Editing and preservation would not have been considered important.
|
|
