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.
I completely sympathise with your view, Dale. Rather than get bogged down in technical details or frame rates / de-interlacing etc. though, it's most relevant to simply say that it's the intrinsic "look" of video that you much prefer over film which is the point here (I do too). It's one of the reasons a lot of current drama doesn't interest me; it doesn't have the same immediacy that traditional VT-look productions used to.
Post by richardtipple on Apr 17, 2012 12:23:30 GMT
I'd be interested to know what Confidential and what Who is shot on.
I'd have a guess that Confidential is shot on something like an EX3.. as for Who, well something significantly pricier I should imagine. It's not all down to post effects, cameras (and the technology or lack thereof within them) make a HUGE difference.
Post by Paul Cooksley on Apr 18, 2012 14:38:44 GMT
Personally speaking, I think the video "look" on shows shot as such suit certain genres - say like EastEnders for example - a programme that is (supposedly!) trying to portray 'real life' needs a fluid vt look to it to give it some 'down to earth realism'.
Personally, I think film or film "looking" video tape'd shows look and suit better if your programme is something totally fictional or fantasy/sci-fi etc..... I can't ever imagine taking to new Dr Who episodes if they were shown in their native raw video form.....it wouldn't (to me) look right....
Each to their own really, but I think modern stuff shot on video camera's and processed to mimic film generally look 'ok'.
What I can't abide is old shows, originally on vt, being given a 'filmic wash' (even on clips) - just doesn't look right, because, of course, it was shot and lit as a video taped and video looking production...
Anyone recall when Casualty (the first time round, not now!) attempted to "flick the film switch" on already shot video episodes? Same for Emmerdale as well a good few years back......the results were simply appalling and generated so many complaints that the BBC and ITV dropped them quickly back to the VT look.
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....
I've come rather late to this thread, but in 25psf the two 'fields' most definitely are not identical! If they were, the vertical resolution would be halved, which of course it isn't.
I very much share the view than any method of capture (whether electronic or film) which has a temporal sampling rate of only 24 or 25 Hz cannot reproduce 'reality'. Even in the movie industry they are beginning to appreciate this: Peter Jackson is shooting The Hobbit at 48 frames-per-second (criticised by some for looking too real).
Analogue video from a CRT camera at 50 fields per second is different from film and digital systems, in that each point in the image is sampled at a different time, due to the motion of the scanning electron beam over the target. Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood this, but this should give an even more "fluid" look than modern CCD-sourced video.
Analogue video from a CRT camera at 50 fields per second is different from film and digital systems, in that each point in the image is sampled at a different time, due to the motion of the scanning electron beam over the target.
Studio TV cameras haven't worked that way for a very long time! Solid State Sensors replaced Tube cameras long before the advent of 'digital' television.
Ironically the CMOS sensors used in some consumer-grade cameras once again do sample different vertical positions at different times, resulting in a disconcerting 'waviness' of verticals when the camera is panned.
Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood this, but this should give an even more "fluid" look than modern CCD-sourced video.
I don't see why it should make any difference - the temporal sampling rate is the same.
Post by Robert Belford on May 13, 2012 20:38:05 GMT
Studio drama was an art form in its own right and television was seen as something quite different to the film industry/cinema. In the early days a big part of that was the fact that nearly everything was live.
I'm not an expert, but I should think the reason various ATV series were made on film was because Lew Grade had an eye on selling them to the US market?
The obsession with making TV series' look like films started with Brideshead Revisited, which was large scale, highly expensive and made extensive use of tracking shots which were fairly rare in filmed TV drama until that point.
Allowing for inflation, one current episode of Doctor Who probably costs the equivalent of about six episodes of a multi-camera studio drama such as The Forsyte Saga. The viewer has been the big loser in this because companies can afford to make much less drama, now that everything is expected to look like a "movie".
Also I wonder what effect this has had/will have on the theatre?