CY
How do you know when something uses the film effect? I didn't realise The Office was shot this way until they showed a clip on an awards show a few years back and I thought.....VIDEO!?! And I didn't know Heartbeat was shot this way until I saw a clip on an old daytime programme that Anne Diamond did about TV, then saw the same clip on Heartbeat.
NG
Was Doctor Who shot in SD or HD?
SD - the series is shot on DigiBeta in 16:9 576/50i, and "filmised" in post I believe.
noggin
Founding member
Hazzamon posted:
noggin posted:
...though undoubtedly the bulk of "flim flicker" material is shot 50i and post-produced. (Dr Who is processed this way - quite well)
SD - the series is shot on DigiBeta in 16:9 576/50i, and "filmised" in post I believe.
NG
ISTR an LWT regional (I think) Crime series using it before Heartbeat, using a VERY crude field-drop+replicate system. Looked horrendous - at first I thought it was a fault.
And lets not forget Casualty - where the effect was dropped within weeks - and the series producer "claimed" they were shooting on film...
noggin
Founding member
james2001 posted:
Brookside was far from the first. Heartbeat was using it in 1992, and there's probabally earlier examples.
ISTR an LWT regional (I think) Crime series using it before Heartbeat, using a VERY crude field-drop+replicate system. Looked horrendous - at first I thought it was a fault.
And lets not forget Casualty - where the effect was dropped within weeks - and the series producer "claimed" they were shooting on film...
DA
When it's done that way, don't they have to drop one field completely, halving the vertical resolution? I think Black Books was done like that, because the series is "filmic" but the outtakes were "video-y". Wouldn't it be better to record in 25p if you know that's going to be your eventual format?
I think I read somewhere that Sony offered the BBC HD cameras to use on Doctor Who, and it wouldn't cost them anything extra, but they turned it down.
David
Quote:
SD - the series is shot on DigiBeta in 16:9 576/50i, and "filmised" in post I believe.
When it's done that way, don't they have to drop one field completely, halving the vertical resolution? I think Black Books was done like that, because the series is "filmic" but the outtakes were "video-y". Wouldn't it be better to record in 25p if you know that's going to be your eventual format?
I think I read somewhere that Sony offered the BBC HD cameras to use on Doctor Who, and it wouldn't cost them anything extra, but they turned it down.
David
NG
When it's done that way, don't they have to drop one field completely, halving the vertical resolution? I think Black Books was done like that, because the series is "filmic" but the outtakes were "video-y". Wouldn't it be better to record in 25p if you know that's going to be your eventual format?
I think I read somewhere that Sony offered the BBC HD cameras to use on Doctor Who, and it wouldn't cost them anything extra, but they turned it down.
David
Only very crude techniques require you to drop a whole field of resolution information. Most decent "film effect" systems use sophisticated interpolation and other methods to retain most of the vertical resolution - and don't forget that interlaced video only has half-frame resolution (i.e. field resolution) on faster moving objects anyway...
Even the early Casualty film-flicker effect retained more than a field of resolution (though it wasn't THAT sophisticated)
I think there would have been howls of complaint if Dr Who had really only been shown at field resolution - but by simply watching it you can see it is sharper than that.
It would have been nice if it were shot in 25p SD or HD - but HD would have been too expensive with no HD co-production partners (even with kit subsidy), and 25p SD kit is still relatively new.
I don't believe that the HD offer was zero cost - there are all sorts of extra costs involved in shooting HD (the effects budget, make-up, set etc. all become significantly more expensive, as does hiring the right lenses etc.) Even if you shoot on HD cameras and down convert, there are still extra costs (tape stock is a lot more expensive, you still need expensive lenses etc.)
noggin
Founding member
davidhorman posted:
Quote:
SD - the series is shot on DigiBeta in 16:9 576/50i, and "filmised" in post I believe.
When it's done that way, don't they have to drop one field completely, halving the vertical resolution? I think Black Books was done like that, because the series is "filmic" but the outtakes were "video-y". Wouldn't it be better to record in 25p if you know that's going to be your eventual format?
I think I read somewhere that Sony offered the BBC HD cameras to use on Doctor Who, and it wouldn't cost them anything extra, but they turned it down.
David
Only very crude techniques require you to drop a whole field of resolution information. Most decent "film effect" systems use sophisticated interpolation and other methods to retain most of the vertical resolution - and don't forget that interlaced video only has half-frame resolution (i.e. field resolution) on faster moving objects anyway...
Even the early Casualty film-flicker effect retained more than a field of resolution (though it wasn't THAT sophisticated)
I think there would have been howls of complaint if Dr Who had really only been shown at field resolution - but by simply watching it you can see it is sharper than that.
It would have been nice if it were shot in 25p SD or HD - but HD would have been too expensive with no HD co-production partners (even with kit subsidy), and 25p SD kit is still relatively new.
I don't believe that the HD offer was zero cost - there are all sorts of extra costs involved in shooting HD (the effects budget, make-up, set etc. all become significantly more expensive, as does hiring the right lenses etc.) Even if you shoot on HD cameras and down convert, there are still extra costs (tape stock is a lot more expensive, you still need expensive lenses etc.)
NG
If you are used to telling video from film then it is quite easy - though some "film effect" techniques are getting much better, and stuff shot HD at 24p or 25p is quite difficult to judge sometimes.
The trick to telling if a show is shot on real film or flickered video is to ignore the flicker.
Instead look at the bright highlights (street lights, headlights etc.) and other areas that have a dead giveaway video look - you usually see very little detail in the highlights, and they often have a tell-tale "black edge" caused by detail/aperture correction - even if heavily reduced.
Poor film-effect processing also increases the jagged edges on diagonal detail.
Film grain, sparkle, dirt, and scratches CAN be a hint that something has been shot on real film, but similarly these effects can be added to video (though it isn't that usual - apart from grain which is used in quite a few cases)
One of the best film-effects I've seen recently was used on The League of Gentlemen TV series - not perfect, and in many ways the show had a look of its own - but it certainly didn't look like "bright and shiny" video.
The worst examples of "film effect" are where straight video is just flickered, with no thought to making it look like film when shooting (slightly underexposing and reducing aperture correction) or grading (fiddling with the colour balance and de-saturating a bit) in post.
noggin
Founding member
cylon6 posted:
How do you know when something uses the film effect? I didn't realise The Office was shot this way until they showed a clip on an awards show a few years back and I thought.....VIDEO!?! And I didn't know Heartbeat was shot this way until I saw a clip on an old daytime programme that Anne Diamond did about TV, then saw the same clip on Heartbeat.
If you are used to telling video from film then it is quite easy - though some "film effect" techniques are getting much better, and stuff shot HD at 24p or 25p is quite difficult to judge sometimes.
The trick to telling if a show is shot on real film or flickered video is to ignore the flicker.
Instead look at the bright highlights (street lights, headlights etc.) and other areas that have a dead giveaway video look - you usually see very little detail in the highlights, and they often have a tell-tale "black edge" caused by detail/aperture correction - even if heavily reduced.
Poor film-effect processing also increases the jagged edges on diagonal detail.
Film grain, sparkle, dirt, and scratches CAN be a hint that something has been shot on real film, but similarly these effects can be added to video (though it isn't that usual - apart from grain which is used in quite a few cases)
One of the best film-effects I've seen recently was used on The League of Gentlemen TV series - not perfect, and in many ways the show had a look of its own - but it certainly didn't look like "bright and shiny" video.
The worst examples of "film effect" are where straight video is just flickered, with no thought to making it look like film when shooting (slightly underexposing and reducing aperture correction) or grading (fiddling with the colour balance and de-saturating a bit) in post.
CY
If you are used to telling video from film then it is quite easy - though some "film effect" techniques are getting much better, and stuff shot HD at 24p or 25p is quite difficult to judge sometimes.
The trick to telling if a show is shot on real film or flickered video is to ignore the flicker.
Instead look at the bright highlights (street lights, headlights etc.) and other areas that have a dead giveaway video look - you usually see very little detail in the highlights, and they often have a tell-tale "black edge" caused by detail/aperture correction - even if heavily reduced.
Poor film-effect processing also increases the jagged edges on diagonal detail.
Film grain, sparkle, dirt, and scratches CAN be a hint that something has been shot on real film, but similarly these effects can be added to video (though it isn't that usual - apart from grain which is used in quite a few cases)
One of the best film-effects I've seen recently was used on The League of Gentlemen TV series - not perfect, and in many ways the show had a look of its own - but it certainly didn't look like "bright and shiny" video.
The worst examples of "film effect" are where straight video is just flickered, with no thought to making it look like film when shooting (slightly underexposing and reducing aperture correction) or grading (fiddling with the colour balance and de-saturating a bit) in post.
Very interesting thanks for that. I have another question about it though. Did you ever see when they made Red Dwarf with new effects? They did something to the tape to try and make it look like it was shot on film but instead it looked fuzzy. Why didn't it work there and yet The Office and Heartbeat had no problem making videotape look like film?
noggin posted:
cylon6 posted:
How do you know when something uses the film effect? I didn't realise The Office was shot this way until they showed a clip on an awards show a few years back and I thought.....VIDEO!?! And I didn't know Heartbeat was shot this way until I saw a clip on an old daytime programme that Anne Diamond did about TV, then saw the same clip on Heartbeat.
If you are used to telling video from film then it is quite easy - though some "film effect" techniques are getting much better, and stuff shot HD at 24p or 25p is quite difficult to judge sometimes.
The trick to telling if a show is shot on real film or flickered video is to ignore the flicker.
Instead look at the bright highlights (street lights, headlights etc.) and other areas that have a dead giveaway video look - you usually see very little detail in the highlights, and they often have a tell-tale "black edge" caused by detail/aperture correction - even if heavily reduced.
Poor film-effect processing also increases the jagged edges on diagonal detail.
Film grain, sparkle, dirt, and scratches CAN be a hint that something has been shot on real film, but similarly these effects can be added to video (though it isn't that usual - apart from grain which is used in quite a few cases)
One of the best film-effects I've seen recently was used on The League of Gentlemen TV series - not perfect, and in many ways the show had a look of its own - but it certainly didn't look like "bright and shiny" video.
The worst examples of "film effect" are where straight video is just flickered, with no thought to making it look like film when shooting (slightly underexposing and reducing aperture correction) or grading (fiddling with the colour balance and de-saturating a bit) in post.
Very interesting thanks for that. I have another question about it though. Did you ever see when they made Red Dwarf with new effects? They did something to the tape to try and make it look like it was shot on film but instead it looked fuzzy. Why didn't it work there and yet The Office and Heartbeat had no problem making videotape look like film?