Old sitcoms.... why did they use film for location shoots?

I was watching an early episode of blackadder and noticed that the location shoots (ie, all those outside) were shot on film as opposed to videotape. blackadder isn't the only culprit - only fools, fawlty towers and one foot in the grave all used film for their location shots in at least some of their episodes.

but why was this? surely it would have been no more trouble to get a video camera out on location than a film camera? and having all the shots on video tape would be easier in the editing process wouldn't it (extra time would have been needed to process and telecine the film)?

and also, why the huge drop in quality? the film shots always seemed (to me anyway) to be of lower resolution and slightly soft, yet film would almost certainly have given higher resolution, greater dynamic range and better colour than the video cameras of the time.

also, is there any shows on mainstream tv shot in film any more?

You also see a modern day reverse situation where, for 'dramatic impact', you get cut aways from what looks like film to crystal clear video.

In the 70s and 80s, broadcast quality video recording was done on large and heavy equipment - 'high band U-matic'?. The cameras would have been heavy enough on their own, but they would also have to be tethered to a tape deck which would be substantial. No such thing as a 'broadcast quality' camcorder then.

To take video to location would have been to take an OB truck - expensive and requiring many people.

So the less expensive and practical alternative was to take a single 16mm film camera with a cameraman and assistant. This didn't need to be powered or tethered, and could sit on a lightweight tripod. The sound man would be there independently with his recording apparatus.

Film editing is pretty fast for an old hand with a razor blade, and it would only be telecinied after the edit and dropped into the programme as a completed segment.

There are different grades of film stock, and some is formulated to work in natural light. This can look grainy and quite flat, but that's the payoff for not having to take large lights on stands which would have required power on site.

I remember the switch over to videotape in the late 80s (maybe even the early 90s?) for the location shooting part of Take the High Road, and was lucky enough to watch them filming (on film) location shots for some episodes. John Frame (the vision mixer for the show, and later a director) said he was really looking forward to having the opening titles shot on video, as he thought the old version on film looked dreadfully shoddy and tired.

so are OBs now recorded on video or has it all gone onto CD

I have never understood why film units use single cameras on soaps as this is more time consuming, I would have thought stedicams would work better but I bow to your superior knowledge of such things Gavin

I doubt CD's are used, uncompressed video data is massive. OB's if "live" will often just go to air/switched where needed and recorded somewhere along the line for archive and most certainty digitally too. However there are a number of "broadcast" tape decks in a number of formats that would be standard in OB trucks should they need to. You won't believe how heavy they can be too!

Re multicam/single cam/Steadicam. The Steadicam is merely a different type of support, it is no better or worse than any other grips equipment, dolly, jib, tripod.. Each has their own abilities. Re why shoot single cam not multicam is simple...

Cost.

Shooting with 3 cameras requires 3 cameras, 3 operators, depending on the complicity three focus pullers, camera assistants etc etc. Using 1 camera and 1 crew cuts costs and as with most things on TV, drama or doco they reshoot as needed to get other angles, cutaways to cover re-framing and whatnot.

Watching "Small, Far Away" the Father Ted documentary last night, they used multi camera for the location stuff similar to that as they used in 2TLS in London. Quads with ISO 1, ISO 2, ISO 3 or MIX and MAIN, was this common practise in the 1990s. Remarkably, Channel 4 kept all the raw recordings from each camera and the quads.

Additionally, some TV from the early 70s (specifically On the Buses, and also Crossroads) seems to switch between film and VT mid series and vice versa.

Indeed, it was standard practice for BBC drama series and serials to mix film on location and video in the studio until the late 80s. Only the very grandest of productions were entirely on film while some plays or individual episodes of programmes were studio-bound so entirely on video.

However quite a lot of ITV dramas were entirely on film so always looked better - Danger UXB, The Sweeney and Minder from Euston Films for instance.

If I remember, the last BBC drama to mix film and video would have been the last series of Howard's Way in 1990. All Creatures Great and Small and Doctor Who both changed over to video for location shoots a few years earlier. However comedies continued to mix the formats for many years afterwards. Indeed the last episodes of One Foot In The Grave and Only Fools were still doing this - even though they were 16x9 - but this may have been to maintain the feel of earlier episodes.

I noticed on the earlier series of Last of the Summer Wine they used film for locations and videotape for indoor scenes but in the 1991 series they just used videotape for both location and indoor scenes which looked rather odd for outdoors. Don't know why they just used videotape for that series. Then from the 1992 series until the shows end the show was shot entirely on film.

One of the upshots of shooting on Film/Camera mix is that in some cases, the film stock can be re-cut in HD as watching Sharpe in HD over Christmas shows so what was merely a time-saver also have benefits later along, some of the tape based "effect" shots look very poor in comparison.

Doctor Who did this from 1962-1985, sometimes however indoor shots were filmed on film, this was usually for the massive set pieces that were done in Ealing (See the Planet Of Evil).

Personally I think film looks much better than videotape (as per Doctor Who story mentioned above) & I think it's a shame they changed over to full Video in the 80's.

Thankfully now Video doesn't look so bad, plus the new filmic effect done with video these days looks rather good.

I watched the 1985 Only Fools and Horses episode 'To Hull and Back' over Christmas. This was a weird episode for two reasons, firstly it doesn't have a laugh track which is really noticeable for the first 5 minutes but soon becomes normal. The other oddity is that it is shot entirely on film. Again, this is noticeable for the first 5 minutes with a scene set in the familiar location of the pub but after that most of the episode is shot on location in London, Hull and Amsterdam so doesn't look that out of place. It becomes noticeable again when they return to the flat towards the end of the episode. In a way, apart from the lack of a widescreen picture it is like watching the film versions of On The Buses, Please Sir, Bless this House or any of the other sitcoms that were made in to films in the 70s/80s without a laugh track.

One thing that I notice when watching 70s sitcoms with location stuff shot on film is just how bad some of it looks. Some scenes have scratches all over the film but the video tape scenes look fine. Was this just how bad the film looked at the time or did the people/companies making the show just not look after it properly? How long would location scenes be stored on film? I'd guess that once they were edited on film they were then transferred to another format along with the video scenes ready to be played out. Did the film already look terrible at that stage?

When you compare sitcom film footage with feature films shot at the same time, the feature films tend to look much cleaner. Was this just a budget thing or am I just seeing the result of digital clean up when watching feature films?