Ding Dong Avon Calling - Blake 7 to return!

Surely the point about VT/Film is not to use both formats in the same production

But nobody does anymore, and hasn't since the late 80s/early 90s, give-or-take.

The only reason it happened in the first place was that film was cheaper and easier to use on location than VT, which was still unreliable even in studios, and was frequently a colosssal headache for OB purposes.

You needed to park huge trucks housing the VTRs close to the location, the cameras needed large umbilicals connecting them to the trucks (so restricting mobility) and those old tube cameras needed shedloads of light, which you had to bring with you just in case the sun wasn't shining.

Under those circumstances, film was much faster, easier and cheaper to work with - the camera was smaller and lighter, with no umbilicals needed and a much greater exposure latitude.

On one or two of the early episodes of B7, you had the odd situation of a scene starting on one set on VT, swopping to another scene on either VT or film, then swopping back to first set, now on film, into a fight scene.

(On one episode, the opening 'punch' was shown on VT, then cut to another scene, then cut back to the fight, now on film.)

Why didn't they shoot all the scenes for that set, including the fight, all on film?

I certainly don't remember Dr Who from the same period having the same situation, according to repeats/videos/UK Gold.

Why didn't they shoot all the scenes for that set, including the fight, all on film?

Studio time problems.

In its first series especially, B7 had issues with getting enough studio time at TVC, because it was being produced on the budget and studio time allocation of Softly Softly Task Force (for which it was a rather last-minute replacement).

Contemporary police dramas can be shot with less time and money than futuristic telefantasy, which is why B7 found itself running out of studio time and needing to pick up shots or scenes out at Ealing Film Studios, which had no VT recording facilities.

Hmmm - by the 70s the "large umbilicals" were triax for many cameras (certainly by 1975) either to a back pack or from the camera head. This is a cable - but it isn't huge and massively unwieldy. As for the requirement for a truck - yep - but these could be parked quite a way away (along with the make-up, and location catering facilities...) and allowed for on-site racking (removing the need for massive amounts of TARIFing or grading in post production) It also allowed for a confidence check that a shoot had recorded well - along with a reduction in the number of takes if 2 or more cameras were utilised in multi-camera mode.

Your comment about lighting is completely valid- though I don't understand why 70s 16mm used in TV drama was so grainy (unless fast stock was used to reduce the lighting requirements - and the fast stock was grainier...?)

The Beeb and ITV both shot quite a lot of drama on video throughout the late 70s and into the 80s - as lightweight and more sensitive cameras became available. As a viewer I find things like the Barchester Chronicles and To Serve Them All My Days (recently repeated on UK Drama?) quite engaging - and a nice refreshing change to the split film/ VT style that was common. It certainly feels like a more coherent programme - in the latter the studio/OB junctions were noticable (and there were still occasional film sequences for the less used locations)

Yes - there were some good film dramas shot at the time - but as a viewer I find video much nearer to what I see with my own eyes, and therefore more believable. (It is the more fluid motion rendition more than anything - though the colorimetry and saturation of well shot video is also more to my liking)

Guess we'll have to agree to differ...

Hmmm - by the 70s the "large umbilicals" were triax for many cameras...

Whatever. The point remains that for much of the 70s and into the early 80s, shooting location VT was more of a logistical headache than shooting location film.

(removing the need for massive amounts of TARIFing or grading in post production)

Not being a BBC timeserver, I have no idea what TARIF is/was. Knowing how much the BBC likes inventing acronyms (often quite tortuous ones) that no other broadcast organisation in the world uses, though, I'm sure it's terribly impressive!

I don't understand why 70s 16mm used in TV drama was so grainy (unless fast stock was used to reduce the lighting requirements - and the fast stock was grainier...?)

Possibly the use of fast stock, but 16mm film generally *was* pretty grotty back then compared to today. Modern 16mm film stock represents a quantum leap in quality over what was available in the 70s, or even 80s or early 90s.

And things are improving all the time. I recently directed a night shoot on a new fast Kodak stock recommended by the DoP, and the gaffer and myself were amazed at the quality - incredible depth and richness with virtually zero grain, even when stopped right down.

Yes, bring back Dr. Who instead... or anything!

Still get comments about this all the time, and it was bloody 20 years ago..!

TARIF = Technical Apparatus for the Rectification of Inferior Film. One of the earliest colour grading systems used in Telecine transfer of film. It could be operated live (as was the requirement when ungraded colour reversal stock - which was very green biased I believe - was played out live for news reports).

Tarif was what was used to grade film (and also slides and some PSC VT) in the days before Pogle / DaVinci etc. It was a resaonably advanced RGB lift and gain device, but with joysticks for more intuitive control, and had basic gamma correction abilities (plus the ability to force things to B&W or monochromatic colour)

The reason the Beeb invented the acronym was because they invented the kit - there was nothing that was deemed operationally and technically suitable on the open market when required for the transition to colour broadcasting.

I agree that film stock has changed massively in the last decade or so - and excellent results are now available on Super 16 (as well as with CCD HDTV video cameras). However my point was that you stressed how much light tubed cameras required (undoubtedly true throughout the 60s and 70s - though less so by the 80s) to produce decent pictures. My comment about fast stock and low lighting being used in the 70s for film was that the results were so poor it would have been better if they HAD been lit properly...

Recently my Tivo has been storing the UK Gold DW repeats. It is interesting comparing the early (Pertwee I think) "Sontaran Experiment" - which was all video in 1973 (I think), the early Tom Baker episode "Robot" and the later Tom Baker episodes "The Talons of Weng Chiang" and "The Stones of Blood". The early OB stuff was a bit softer and quite a lot laggier (especially on dark overcast days) than the studio. However by the late 70s the OB stuff looked more natural, and the picture quality and lighting on the exteriors was, if anything, better than the interiors.

However what struck me most was that the OB style of shooting was more similar to the studio style - with the cameras physically moving on shot (tracking etc.) Most location film shoots looked like they were shot on tripods, with static cameras and zooms employed for movement, unless they were shot handheld. (Which was not often the case for the studio stuff)

It is interesting comparing the early (Pertwee I think) "Sontaran Experiment" - which was all video in 1973 (I think)

You're thinking of The Time Warrior, which was a Pertwee and the first Sontaran story. The Sontaran Experiment was 1975 and Baker.

Coincidentally, in the last few days the remiscences of the VT operator who worked on The Sontarant Experiment have been recounted on the Restoration Team forum. He recalls that the OB gear used was extremely old, with lead-covered camera cables and a single, enormous VTR mounted in an ancient OB truck. The VTR refused to spin the head drum at first, and one of the cameraman narrowly escaped injury when a capacitor exploded while he was inspecting a circuit board at close range.