tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post3767221754164417560..comments2023-11-03T06:02:02.128-07:00Comments on By Ken Levine: Another thing about CHEERS you didn't knowBy Ken Levinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17305293821975250420noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-34366516697208564502016-09-28T11:54:20.039-07:002016-09-28T11:54:20.039-07:00I think videotaped shows get a bad rap. It's d...I think videotaped shows get a bad rap. It's definitely an aesthetic of its own and has merit. The look is more intense and theatrical and works for many of the older shows. For instance, the Norman Lear family of shows with their often loud deliveries and dramatic moments work well on videotape. When close-ups are tight, it mimics the soap opera look appropriate to the more dramatic moments (think All in the Family, Good Times, Maude, One Day at a Time, and early The Jeffersons). Those moments wouldn't have worked as well, in my opinion, on film. The high-key lighting and live look was perfect for Three's Company. And the bright, sparkly, sunny Florida look couldn't have been accomplished on The Golden Girls nearly as well on film. The film (or filmized) look is in, drama in sitcoms is out, close-ups out of style, but videotaped shows from the past are definitely a worthwhile artistic contribution to the timeline of the medium. Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15824760197705547365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-36365915546376147222016-04-11T14:36:50.456-07:002016-04-11T14:36:50.456-07:00One of the pluses of film shows is that you can go...One of the pluses of film shows is that you can go back and get an HD print off of them. You can't do that with the videotape of the 70s and 80s. So there are now HD prints of I Love Lucy, The Andy Griffith Show, Cheers, etc, but there will never be an HD print of All in the Family or The Golden Girls.Carsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07030655278020563466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-23701499667149217912016-04-11T13:42:06.345-07:002016-04-11T13:42:06.345-07:00@Wendy: The only downside of cinematic screening o...@Wendy: The only downside of cinematic screening of <i>Breaking Bad</i> is that while it was they did a handful of POV shots with a small $800 DSLR camera. The quality difference sticks out even on television, and I would imagine it would look stranger on the big screen.<br /><br />@Joseph: Just to be clear, Gilligan didn't lose any money from his budget by switching to digital. He simply decided it would be better for the series to take the money he would have been spending on film stock, developing, and telecine, and instead using that money for other things, like better visual effects and more speaking parts.<br /><br />Time and money are finite, so you have to balance out competing interests. When <i>The Greatest American Hero</i> came out in 1981, the producers knew they would need a lot of blue-screen flying shots, but the traditional optical film method was labor-intensive. It also produced pretty bad results unless you had a lot of time to work out the kinks, and they didn't have that time on a television schedule. So they wound up taking their 16mm film footage, converting to video, doing the composite with an Ultimatte chroma-key system, then converting that effects shot back to 16mm for negative cutting. The result was that the picture was less sharp during those flying scenes, but it also saved money and eliminated matte lines, and Stephen J. Cannell thought that was a fair trade-off.Andy Rosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-74790046985103402852016-04-11T08:34:34.303-07:002016-04-11T08:34:34.303-07:00Maybe it is a cultural thing, but from the sixties...Maybe it is a cultural thing, but from the sixties through the eighties, the British show Doctor Who was shot on tape and I always thought it looked so cheap it might just as well have been staged in a high school auditorium. But the Brits loved it. To make matters worse, while interiors were shot on tape, exteriors were shot on film, which made for jarring transitions. I don't know if it was an experiment or what but one 5 part episode was all shot on film which showed what it could have been. It didn't go all film until the modern revival of Doctor Who of just a few years ago (although the show had been defunct for more than a decade before the revival). Occasionally BBC America will have a special showing of a very old videotape episode and it is strange to see.James Van Hisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06658381884799398658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-28929709967822483652016-04-11T07:27:26.719-07:002016-04-11T07:27:26.719-07:00Andy Rose: I was listening to the latest BCS podca...Andy Rose: I was listening to the latest BCS podcast last night, and Gilligan was saying he'd really like to see BREAKING BAD shown on huge cinema screens. The image quality is certainly good enough for it - and those stunning views of the southwest. Even if I didn't want to watch the show I'd probably watch it for the scenery.<br /><br />wgWendy M. Grossmanhttp://www.pelicancrossing.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-76287384439960558032016-04-10T19:35:04.517-07:002016-04-10T19:35:04.517-07:00There's a world of difference between 80s vide...There's a world of difference between 80s video and modern digital, though :)Johnny Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13302545167970532080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-62461342969880718222016-04-10T18:51:04.870-07:002016-04-10T18:51:04.870-07:00@Mike Clark How high is your resolution? My set is...@Mike Clark How high is your resolution? My set is 720p LCD, and older shows filmed in NTSC (properly restored, that is) look absolutely wonderful: HOGAN'S HEROES and H.R. PUFNSTUF, in particular, are bright, vivid, and rich in color. The only time they look bad is when optical effects are used: on-screen titles, scene transitions, cropping and zooming, etc.<br /><br />@Andy Rose The difference I can tell is digital has a slight blur to it, and some obvious motion pixelation that isn't present on film (unless it was compressed poorly). I think the example you mentioned is more evidence of networks wanting their own way and wanting to take away more creative control and freedom from the creators. You say film can't show things on screen like digital can, but, heh, film resolution is actually higher than digital HD - it's just often compressed for obvious reasons. Like the video I linked earlier? That film roll was compressed down to 720p because the guy who shot that footage didn't have enough computer power to actually transfer the footage at 2 or even 4K.<br /><br />While we're all still on the subject, here's what Tarantino had to say on the comparison between film and digital:<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BON9Ksn1PqI" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BON9Ksn1PqI</a>Joseph Scarbroughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06851086150240380366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-35481080431502441642016-04-10T16:27:45.309-07:002016-04-10T16:27:45.309-07:00British productions are also creatures of habit. ...British productions are also creatures of habit. My recollection is that the first season of <i>Absolutely Fabulous</i> did outside scenes on film, and that was in 1992.<br /><br />These days, there are people who will tell you that film still looks better than digital, just like there are people who will tell you vinyl sounds better than a CD (and if you think that, fine... I'm not interested in a discussion). But 24 fps digital with proper color correction has become indistinguishable from film for 99.9% of people.<br /><br />When he made <i>Breaking Bad</i>, Vince Gilligan shot it on film because he always assumed that film was better, and he wanted a visually impressive show. When they started making the spinoff, <i>Better Call Saul</i>, the AMC people gently told Vince, "Hey, we know you like shooting on film, but you should know it costs an extra $150,000 per episode. You really think it's worth that?" So Gilligan arranged to have his DP Arthur Albert shoot four identical test shots in New Mexico. One film camera and 3 digital ones. They screened them in the biggest projection room they could get their hands on, and ultimately Vince and Arthur (who's been shooting on film for four decades) had to admit they couldn't tell with certainty which one was film. So <i>Better Call Saul</i> is shot with digital cameras, and Gilligan freed up an extra million bucks a season he can spend on things that will actually show up on screen.Andy Rosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-86830279244196452092016-04-10T11:54:50.321-07:002016-04-10T11:54:50.321-07:00Regarding Monty Python, isn't it true (it'...Regarding Monty Python, isn't it true (it's been decades since I've seen it) that <i>And Now for Something Completely Different</i> consists of selected segments from the first two series of <i>Flying Circus</i> reenacted and shot on film? gottacooknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-88240501715476722302016-04-10T11:08:57.502-07:002016-04-10T11:08:57.502-07:00One of the rare sitcoms that achieved a "film...One of the rare sitcoms that achieved a "film look" on videotape was SOAP. The lighting was very soft, the background colors muted (to make the actors pop) and diffusion was used on the video cameras. One other note: All NTSC seems to look awful when viewed on modern HD sets.<br />Mike Clarknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-4819998340703518782016-04-10T07:12:26.610-07:002016-04-10T07:12:26.610-07:00Wendy, it was simply cost. Video was cheaper to sh...Wendy, it was simply cost. Video was cheaper to shoot on... but it was impractical to video on location -- the equipment was much bigger and more complex, so exteriors were shot on film. <br /><br />There's a great article about it I found while checking my facts, that goes into more detail, too: <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VideoInsideFilmOutside" rel="nofollow">http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VideoInsideFilmOutside</a>Johnny Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13302545167970532080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-4693783055463105222016-04-10T03:58:38.235-07:002016-04-10T03:58:38.235-07:00What I found jarring when I first saw British sitc...What I found jarring when I first saw British sitcoms of that period was that the outdoor scenes were filmed even though the indoor ones were videotaped. I'm not sure why that was, but the abrupt change in quality of the picture was jarring. One second you'd be watching Felicity Kendall and Richard Briers sit in their nice, flat-lit kitchen, and the next they'd be all grainy out building the pigsty. I really wondered at the time why they didn't just pick a technology and stick with it.<br /><br />wgWendy M. Grossmanhttp://www.pelicancrossing.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-41041262581628565672016-04-09T18:31:02.616-07:002016-04-09T18:31:02.616-07:00Ken, most of the sitcoms shot since about 2000 hav...Ken, most of the sitcoms shot since about 2000 have all been shot digitally on HD, and I think they come very close to reproducing the same look of film in the 1980s and 1990s. I worked on about 50 sitcoms over the years for Technicolor, and I think the HD shows are actually a lot cleaner than the film shows. I totally agree that the standard-def TV series of the 1980s and 1990s are pretty ugly and hard to look at today. But it's a different world now.Marc Wielagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12744270267337480861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-47673204436927164092016-04-09T17:07:28.985-07:002016-04-09T17:07:28.985-07:00I suppose I'll sound like management here, but...I suppose I'll sound like management here, but what percentage of viewers would ever notice this or care?<br />cd1515https://www.blogger.com/profile/13442641020639066876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-56607493489754196442016-04-09T15:39:25.374-07:002016-04-09T15:39:25.374-07:00So Ken -- when are you going to write the definite...So Ken -- when are you going to write the definite backstage at CHEERS. FRAISER, WINGS, etc. book? You could even highlight the episodes you cast me in. Oh right. There weren't any. So THAT was the secret of your success! Gary Therouxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172963780748514142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-76739638003794323762016-04-09T15:09:57.695-07:002016-04-09T15:09:57.695-07:00I remember the first season of Newhart being video...I remember the first season of Newhart being video-taped, the show improved so much once it changed format and, of course, cast additions too. Kleehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14306497851609490015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-58362879651734706942016-04-09T14:04:34.798-07:002016-04-09T14:04:34.798-07:00I agree with some of the points that you guys are ...I agree with some of the points that you guys are making regarding traditional film vs. today's digital and "HD." I've mentioned this before, but I actually do have an HD camera, but because I much prefer the look of film, I often adjust the look in post, such as adding a little hint of noise/grain, as well as adjust the color correction (brightness/contrast, and saturation) to give it a technicolor look . . . I just have to remember I need to render and export at 24fps instead of 29.97. And, as I mentioned when Ken recently did a post about widescreen, I frame and edit the footage in 4:3 instead of 16:9 - it still comes out in HD, because the height of the resolution is still 1080p, that width is just 1440 instead of 1920.<br /><br />But just to see how well film still looks today, take a look at this film roll a guy shot and uploaded to YouTube - using a vintage Kodak camera and everything:<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ixOoCbeWI" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ixOoCbeWI</a><br />Even thought it's actually compressed footage (because his computer didn't have the power to fully convert the filmed footage at its full resolution), it <i>still</i> looks much better than digital or HD.Joseph Scarbroughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06851086150240380366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-31685095643919095982016-04-09T13:34:18.005-07:002016-04-09T13:34:18.005-07:00I have trouble watching videotaped shows. They'...I have trouble watching videotaped shows. They're just garish and they hurt my eyes. I think that's why they generally don't have the following that a lot of filmed shows do. The one series that I can make an exception for is "Monty Python's Flying Circus" and that's just because the quality of the writing and performances is so superior that I can overlook the aesthetic inferiority.<br />Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-79353337608997445072016-04-09T12:59:44.448-07:002016-04-09T12:59:44.448-07:00Something I've always wondered: Why did Nichol...Something I've always wondered: Why did Nicholas Colasanto never do the intro? It seemed like everyone else did.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15048816577520645651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-1152248976905455742016-04-09T12:42:18.830-07:002016-04-09T12:42:18.830-07:00I love watching reruns of shows like Columbo and M...I love watching reruns of shows like Columbo and Murder She Wrote, as they're from an era in which dramas were shot on film. You can see it in the filmic grain. Now, with everything shot in HD video, they all look antiseptic. Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-30127264656306785752016-04-09T11:11:35.849-07:002016-04-09T11:11:35.849-07:00Modern digital cameras can faithfully recreate the...Modern digital cameras can faithfully recreate the film look (at least well enough that you can't really tell the difference on a TV). But multi-cam shows that are designed to look like film (such as <i>The Big Bang Theory</i>) still tend to shoot in a film style, with full cinematic lenses, Chapman dollies, and two assistants on each camera. No particular reason for it I know of except tradition.<br /><br />When the "Filmlook" process of electronically trying to make tape look like film was first developed in the early 90s, <i>The John Larroquette Show</i> tried using it to save money. It looked awful, and made me literally seasick.Andy Rosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-71251009399695091632016-04-09T10:55:08.431-07:002016-04-09T10:55:08.431-07:00J. Lee...WKRP had to be on tape, or the music roya...J. Lee...WKRP had to be on tape, or the music royalties would have been prohibitive.Paul Ducanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-29629490888846731472016-04-09T10:46:17.176-07:002016-04-09T10:46:17.176-07:00I wish I could go back and make my favourite Briti...I wish I could go back and make my favourite British sitcoms shoot on film. Monty Python (the interior stuff) and BlackAdder would seem a lot more timeless if they did. Johnny Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13302545167970532080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-80603030887545942762016-04-09T10:08:58.969-07:002016-04-09T10:08:58.969-07:00If the writing and acting are good, then you can o...If the writing and acting are good, then you can overlook the cheap lighting. But if they aren't good, then it's all you can do NOT to notice.Rashad Khannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-75620023323152013902016-04-09T10:05:34.945-07:002016-04-09T10:05:34.945-07:00"Another thing about CHEERS you didn't kn..."Another thing about CHEERS you didn't know." Well, since I've been reading the blog for over four years, I did know!Geoff with a Gnoreply@blogger.com