TV shows that used to be shot on film and now don't look as good.

C

Celluloid Dream

Active member
Just a couple of examples.

For its entire run, The Closer was shot on Fuji 35mm film and looked great. The spin-off Major Crimes came on right after the Closer finale last year. It was shot digital and looked like crap in comparison. You couldn't miss the huge difference.

The Mentalist used to be shot on Kodak 35mm film and used to have a really beautiful look, especially all the great California establishing shots, and skin tones of actors. I think 2 seasons ago they switched to digital and the look was immediately degraded and has never recovered.

Now I noticed with the start of the Fall 2013 season, it looks like the Big Bang Theory and Two and Half Men have switched from Kodak 35mm to digital. I noticed it right away and again, it's not for the better. I finally got the chance to watch the season openers of both shows this weekend and it jumped out at me like a sore thumb.

Has anyone else noticed that even on TV, digital never looks as good as 35mm film?
 
The flip side is that there have been plenty of TV shows that have been shot on film that are just flat out bad.

Without a good story, and all that goes with it, it doesn't really matter what the show was shot on.
 
The worst in the UK was when they shot the location material on 16mm film and then mixed it with studio based video, it always looked dreadful.
 
Shooting film was and is a true craftsmanship. Video is another thing and to achieve the same level takes time. Some do it good and some do it bad.
 
GaryNattrass said:
The worst in the UK was when they shot the location material on 16mm film and then mixed it with studio based video, it always looked dreadful.
Click to expand...

That was often out of necessity in the 60's and 70's, as video tube cameras did not have the latitude or flexibility of 16mm. Studio shoots were always controlled, but exterior shooting introduced serious issues for tube cameras as the sun (or bright lights) caused severe burn out... this could actually damage the tube in the camera itself - and tube cameras were not considered robust enough for major outside shooting.

Of course, when CCD chip cameras started to replace tube cameras (mid 80's), the landscape for TV production changed in the UK and a lot of drama started shooting on location with Betacam, leaving the higher end shows to shoot full 16mm/S16mm.

However, as a child of the 70's, I agree that I didn't like it... as a youngster it used to bring me out of a story... as I could see the difference and it was one of the things that made me aware of the industry and the world behind the scenes :)
 
Derek Chingwell said:
That was often out of necessity in the 60's and 70's, as video tube cameras did not have the latitude or flexibility of 16mm. Studio shoots were always controlled, but exterior shooting introduced serious issues for tube cameras as the sun (or bright lights) caused severe burn out... this could actually damage the tube in the camera itself - and tube cameras were not considered robust enough for major outside shooting.

Of course, when CCD chip cameras started to replace tube cameras (mid 80's), the landscape for TV production changed in the UK and a lot of drama started shooting on location with Betacam, leaving the higher end shows to shoot full 16mm/S16mm.

However, as a child of the 70's, I agree that I didn't like it... as a youngster it used to bring me out of a story... as I could see the difference and it was one of the things that made me aware of the industry and the world behind the scenes :)
Click to expand...

I too wanted to know the reason for the use of film for location shooting.

Thanks for posting.
 
David Jimerson said:
There is no reason whatsoever to gang up on somebody for posting an opinion. Posts deleted.
Click to expand...


Well the OP did rather set himself up for that sort of thing. There are similar (never ending ) discussions in still photography forums over digital and wet film. They get just as heated and pointed and quite nasty. I can't really understand why.

You are always going to find good and bad examples on both sides.

In still photography there were the same arguments when moving from glass plates (proper photography :-) to the amateurs who machine-gunned rolls of 36 exposure roll film.... the same arguments appeared when going from Medium Format still cameras to the 35mm "toy cameras" (or tourist cameras as Vogue told David Bailey) Then DSLRS wiped out film (or at least the "toy" 35mm cameras) but now DSLR's are video cameras. Things change and move on.

The current digital systems will also one day be usurped by something worse that is not as good as "proper" digital video...... not that we can at the moment even imagine what sort of system that might be.

As pointed out in this thread for a period when changing from (and mixing with) one of the many formats of film with video tape systems and then video (and film?) with solid state digital you are going to get miss-matches and some right horror stories. However in time it will all sort it self out as the new format matures and people get adept at using it. I have only just stopped storing my Compact Flash cards in the fridge where the rolls of film used to go :-) .

However as Kodak have closed their last acetate plant the writing is on the wall. Progress only travels in one direction
 
Derek Chingwell said:
That was often out of necessity in the 60's and 70's, as video tube cameras did not have the latitude or flexibility of 16mm. Studio shoots were always controlled, but exterior shooting introduced serious issues for tube cameras as the sun (or bright lights) caused severe burn out... this could actually damage the tube in the camera itself - and tube cameras were not considered robust enough for major outside shooting.

Of course, when CCD chip cameras started to replace tube cameras (mid 80's), the landscape for TV production changed in the UK and a lot of drama started shooting on location with Betacam, leaving the higher end shows to shoot full 16mm/S16mm.

However, as a child of the 70's, I agree that I didn't like it... as a youngster it used to bring me out of a story... as I could see the difference and it was one of the things that made me aware of the industry and the world behind the scenes :)
Click to expand...

I used to shoot 16mm for TV in the 70's and 80's until Betacam pretty much killed the market for general commercial work. It is only with the best of the new generation digital cameras now that I see film being equaled or surpassed in many respects. But digital is a unique medium of its own and working out new aesthetic approaches to take advantage of it will take some time. No it doesn't look like film, and never will. Doesn't look like a 19th century oil painting either.
Film is at the end of a 150 year evolution. Digital is just beginning.
 
GaryNattrass said:
The worst in the UK was when they shot the location material on 16mm film and then mixed it with studio based video, it always looked dreadful.
Click to expand...

Yes i agree the awful 16mm,why cant celluloid buffs just enjoy it if they do and stop their Pathetic snipes at digital,it is sad realy.
 
Like it or not, the majority of episodic TV shows are shot on digital. Off the top of my head, the only exception that I can think of is The Walking Dead. I'm sure there are others.

I believe The Big Bang Theory switched to digital years ago, not just this year. I've seen some behind the scenes pics that clearly show digital cameras on set (it looked like Alexas). Remember, this series started in 2007, when there weren't as many options for digital cameras.
Here is a set tour video that was posted to YouTube in 2011. At around the 5:00 minute mark, you can see the cameras used. They look digital to me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-o1Sq1l1B0


Here's another behind the scenes posted in 2012, but since it is video of season 4, it must have been made in 2010-2011:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCS3619pol4


In my view, The Big Bang Theory has lost nothing in its transition to digital. I still think it's a great show.

Digital isn't film. Film isn't digital. I don't see why one should try to emulate the other.
As Razz said, film is at the end of its life cycle, digital is just beginning. Who knows what we'll be shooting with in 20, 30, 40 years? I'm betting it won't be film.

I know some of you lament the aesthetic loss of shooting on film, as I used to love shooting with 16mm film. I still have my old CP-16R collecting dust in my garage. But the fact is, film is becoming less relevant. Nobody makes film cameras anymore. Even Arri removed them from their website. The final end users of TV and movie productions - the audience - simply don't care what medium was used. Three of the top five money making films of all time (including #1) were shot on digital. The audience cares more for story and content. And since digital is generally cheaper and easier to work with than film, producers naturally want to go that route.

And let's not forget that all of the new up and coming film makers cut their teeth on DSLRs and HD cameras. They've never used film.

But, good news for film enthusiasts: the new Star Wars movie will be shot on film.
 
GaryNattrass said:
The worst in the UK was when they shot the location material on 16mm film and then mixed it with studio based video, it always looked dreadful.
Click to expand...

I love that contrast though, especially in Python. Made no sense, but weirdly cool. The 16mm stuff back then looked just as crap as the studio taped stuff.
 
GaryNattrass said:
The worst in the UK was when they shot the location material on 16mm film and then mixed it with studio based video, it always looked dreadful.
Click to expand...

im having wonderful flashbacks to Benny Hill, and yes, even as a kid I always thought something was a bit "off" when they did that.

Thanks for for the explanation in this thread.
 
I always find the vast quality differences in (I'm assuming) different digitally shot shows. Assuming Hannibal (still on?) was done on some digital format, it looked freakin' phenomenal. Then you look at, say Criminal Minds or a show that isn't on anymore called "Moonlight" (guy from new Hawaii 5-0 is a crimefighting vampire or somesuch), those have a waaaaaaay too sharp, generally harsh look to them that's just icky. The question is, why? Budget? Time constraints? I have a hard time believing the DP or anyone in the creative department thought that looked good, to have every pore in stark relief on closeups.

On topic I remember when Enterprise switched from one format to the other, and i thought I could tell the difference but was apparently wrong. No difference. Of course that was before HDTVs were as ubiquitous.
 
On ALL the uk tv programns from the 70s & 80 decades that used film [16mm]for outdoor and video for indoor shots the indoor video was far superior,clean not flicky and sharper to watch.To be fair their telacine may not have helped.
 
If you think about the quality discussions now over different formats and 'looks' it is odd that nobody back then ever seemed to think the differences between the inside and outside shots was a problem. Back then film emulsions were available in loads of different types, so surely some attempt could have been made to match the film stock. Even on the shows that were all film, particularly 'The Sweeny' the look, by todays standards is very soft pastels - rather like the RAW material we often see being discussed on forums. I don't remember in the original screening era thinking they were different, so either things really have changed, or the higher number TV channels haven't spent any time tweaking their source material? However - Dad's Army outside footage looks really good and does match the inside stuff?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top