The 'Film Effect' (Again)

I know we have this discussion on a regular basis but I thought I had to raise the question over its use again after watching some of the live music performances on the Graham Norton Show. Both with Mika and that red-haired woman this week (forgot her name) they suddenly cut to the annoying film effect for the performance and then suddenly cut back to normal as soon as it had finished. Not only did I feel the film effect was pointless, but it looked awful the way it just switched itself on and off.

What puzzles me more is the question 'why is there any need for it to be used at all?' Jools Holland doesn't use it for his music show, TOTP didn't use it and Jonathan Ross hasn't used it (as an aside the performance from the Kaiser Chiefs this week was great both musically and production wise with some good camera angles) so why is it used on The Graham Norton Show?

It's not a film 'effect' as such - it's just reducing the frame rate to roughly 20 frames per second as opposed to the usual 25/30.

My take on it is where there is creative merit in doing so, do it. Otherwise no.

Actually from 50 (interlaced) to 25 (progressive).

The only time it ever bothers me is when you've got almost entirely film (25p) production which suddenly has a video (50i) insert, as they once did in the middle of an episode of Spooks, or whenever they showed Joey on TV in Friends, or occasionally by mistake in the middle of a scene in Hollyoaks, for example. The "studio video with film inserts" (Doctor Who, Only Fools and Horses) look was so ubiquitous until recently that it didn't really bother me, though I'm glad it's largely done away with.

David

Nope - that isn't what is done.

Video cameras capture 50 interlaced fields per second (each field is every other line of a frame, but two consecutive fields are captured separately. Think of it as 50 half-frames per second rather than 2 halves of 25 frames per second)

Film is captured at 25 frames per second, so when broadcast via an interlaced system (like TV) the two fields that make up a "frame" ARE captured simultaneously so there is no motion between them.

As a result film has a 25Hz characteristic, and conventional video a 50Hz characteristic - giving video a "fluid" feel and film a more "jerky" feel.

The "film effect" is caused by processing a video signal, and removing the movement between fields (i.e. within a frame) via various methods. The cheapest methods ditch one field and repeat another (throwing away lots of vertical resolution and giving a very jagged edge to diagonals) - the best use all sorts of clever motion processing.

There is no "20 frames" vs "25/30 frames" issue - it is a straight 50Hz to 25Hz comparison - at least in the 50Hz world. (It is more complicated in the 60Hz regions where they shoot 24fps film and use 3:2 pulldown)

Where programmes have suddenly moved from video to filmic look I have often viewed this as a backwards step rather than progress. Take Grange Hill (here he goes again) for example. Exteriors on film up to and including 1985, then 100% VT until 1999. The difference was amazing; suddenly all the outdoor scenes became very much more "alive" and as if you were there in the playground yourself. Then, Diana Kyle brought the single camera technique to the show in Series 22; suddenly a filmic look was adopted and has remained ever since. Suddenly, the show felt rather oppressive and looked like something it wasn't - a schoolyard soap is hardly a televisual epic!

Interesting that Diana hasn't yet felt brave enough to bring a filmic look to Holby City; maybe she knows there will be mass protests on a scale which lead to Casualty abandoning FRV after only a few episodes in 1994. And Emmerdale having to do the same after Trisha's non-wedding to Marlon.

I remember my frustrations in the mid-1980s that Corrie was constantly dragging its heels over shooting exteriors on VT; the Rovers' fire in mid-1986 was shot on tape but subsequent episodes went back to film. I wondered if they'd ever make the switch.

Yes, Corrie was very much behind the times in this respect.

I recently got the third Crossroads DVD which includes Meg's final episode in 1981 where she leaves on the QE2 from Southampton docks. I was quite surprised to see this was all done on videotape despite it being on location, which I guess was quite rare in those days. It has the strange effect of making it all look much less dated.

In the 70s, Crossroads almost always shot on VT for exteriors. See the Christmas episode on X/R Vol 3, and the 1972 episodes featuring Sandy's accident on Vol 1.

The latter also features someone walking in front of the ATV prodcap at the end!

Skip to 2:00 (or even 2:50):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeNqwJ5xcho



David

I was watching Screenwipe, Charlie said in those days before computer editing, they used 16mm film cameras for outdoor scenes because it was easy to edit, hence the way it looks a bit cheap in that Monty Python clip.

To be quite honest, I like the film effect in Dramas and Documentaries but not Soaps.

Of course - forgotten about those episodes as well. For some reason it stood out more on Meg's final episode... but that's probably just me. It seems ATV were rather ahead of their time.

And yes, I'd noticed the person walking in front of the endcap. Fab stuff!

The BBC shot a lot of the late 70s and early-to-mid 80s location based drama on video (both single and multi-camera)

A lot of costume drama (Barchester Chronicles, Mansfield Park) and a lot of contemporary drama (Life and Loves of a She Devil, Blott on the Landscape, King of the Ghetto, Rockliffe's Babies) was shot on video cameras on location - and this was done by the BBC Outside Broadcast dept (who developed quite a good reputation for drama around this time) - not the film or studio depts.

This carried on longer for children's drama - where BBC OBs shot Grange Hill (oddly an OB done from an un-equipped Elstree studio), and most kids comedy and drama (Maid Marian was a popular example) until the early 90s.

Whilst there are limitations of camera mountings and camera technology on some of the early stuff - the multi-camera shooting style often allows scenes to be shot as-live (rather than as multiple single-camera takes), giving them a very different, often more authentic feel.

Some of them are hideous - others are still rather watchable. A couple (like Life and Loves and Blott) are really quite distinctive and stylish in their own way - and still very watchable (well I like them!)