| Ditto Tango 2 1 | 12 Sep 2009 10:57 p.m. PST |
I'm not even sure what to call this. I'm watching a B&W Twilight ZOne episode that, while B&W, seems to "look" different. I have no idea how to describe it. It's the difference in appearance of the film as you would see comparing a usual movie in a theatre compared to the way a soap opera looks. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?
--
Tim |
| britishlinescarlet2 | 13 Sep 2009 1:36 a.m. PST |
|
| Jay Arnold | 13 Sep 2009 2:22 a.m. PST |
Me too. I think it has to do with how film is processed and regular video is recorded. Or light levels. Or lens design. Or something else. But yes, I know of what you speak. Maybe a reader with some in-depth knowledge of television and film production can elucidate. |
Stronty Girl  | 13 Sep 2009 4:03 a.m. PST |
It could be all sorts of things, not having seen the prog in question, here are some guesses:
- one was shot on film versus the other on video (the contrast, quality of light, etc will look different)
- or on cheap and nasty 16mm film versus expensive 35mm or 70mm film (as above)
- set versus location filming (i.e. the extent to which natural light is involved)
- TV studio set versus movie set (i.e. physical size of the set, and the finite distance you can set the camera back from the rear of the set. Basically a cramped TV set can give a 'less depth of field' feeling, as the whole thing is floodlit by the lighting, rather than having the light more subdued in areas as if the room really WAS lit by that window and those tablelamps).
- how much the tape format it was stored on for decades has deteiorated and/or whether it is a copy of a copy of a copy as TV transmission tape standards have changed (e.g. the transmission master may orginally have been on 2 inch tape, then 1" then D3, etc) |
| jizbrand | 13 Sep 2009 7:12 a.m. PST |
It's the difference between film and early videotape. There were some shows toward the end of the B&W era that experimented with videotape to get a more "right now" sort of look (like soap operas, as you mentioned). |
| Space Monkey | 13 Sep 2009 2:05 p.m. PST |
I'm wondering if this is the same thing I noticed a kid when watching certain English shows… where the indoor scenes were video… everything looked brighter/sharper, and outdoor scenes looked less sharp with darker shadows. I'm thinking that older video needed scenes to be more brightly/evenly lit? |
| StarfuryXL5 | 13 Sep 2009 2:17 p.m. PST |
Agree with jizbrand. Video has a definitely different look than film. |
| ming31 | 13 Sep 2009 2:32 p.m. PST |
Twilight zone and BW always gave me the impression that they were Live shoots. Like a play with no multiple cuts or takes . one shot to get it right . But yes there is a different look |
| Lord Hypnogogue | 13 Sep 2009 6:20 p.m. PST |
Jizbrand got it. Some shows were shot on tape. There was one where an actress or showgirl was in a hospital for "nerves" or something similar and kept having premonitions about a certain room number. The room turned out to be the morgue. There were others, but none come to mind. |
| Ditto Tango 2 1 | 13 Sep 2009 6:56 p.m. PST |
Thanks folks, I think that's what it is – videotape versus film. I now vaguely recall as a kid being given a tour of a local TV station and this sort of thing being explained to us. I must admit, until now, I've come to associate videotape and film as the same thing, when they really are not.
--
Tim |
