JA
Porridge did, unfortunately, but AYBS didn't. I hope Goodnight Sweetheart doesn't have it as well.
BA
Slightly off-topic, but Antiques Roadshow appeared to have a filmic effect tonight as well. It doesn't suit the show at all.
JA
Hardly suprising unfortunately. Slapping it on everything seems to be an obsession of TV producers right now. Even if it's the last sort of show that should have it.
Slightly off-topic, but Antiques Roadshow appeared to have a filmic effect tonight as well. It doesn't suit the show at all.
Hardly suprising unfortunately. Slapping it on everything seems to be an obsession of TV producers right now. Even if it's the last sort of show that should have it.
LL
And yet, we have certain films experimenting with HFR at 48fps. I can't stand unnecessary filmic effects on television.
JA
We have experimental TV standards going up to 120fps to make movement as smooth (and as little motion blur) as possible too. Yet we still have TV producers obsessing with flickering 24/25/30p. Just what does it add a a show about people looking at antiques, or a sitcom set in a prison, or a weekly programme about countryside matters, or a baking competition, or countless other TV shows they insist on inflicting it on?
And yet, we have certain films experimenting with HFR at 48fps. I can't stand unnecessary filmic effects on television.
We have experimental TV standards going up to 120fps to make movement as smooth (and as little motion blur) as possible too. Yet we still have TV producers obsessing with flickering 24/25/30p. Just what does it add a a show about people looking at antiques, or a sitcom set in a prison, or a weekly programme about countryside matters, or a baking competition, or countless other TV shows they insist on inflicting it on?
JA
I'd like to hope so, but it still doesn't mean they won't have decided to take a different direction, as it is a different show. The period/time travel/sci-fi nature of the show makes me wonder as they're the sort of things it seems to be next to impossible to make without them shoving a film look on something these days.
I'd imagine it would be the same spec as the ITV series of Birds of a Feather as it's largely the same production team.
I'd like to hope so, but it still doesn't mean they won't have decided to take a different direction, as it is a different show. The period/time travel/sci-fi nature of the show makes me wonder as they're the sort of things it seems to be next to impossible to make without them shoving a film look on something these days.
DA
Unnecessary, or unconventional? There's nothing necessary about "filmic" effects any more.
It does look worse (or less conventional) when you shoot something like Porridge, lit and staged like a "live" sitcom. I think there's also a weird "hint" to it when they do it in post (which I think they did) instead of shooting directly at 25p.
Quote:
I can't stand unnecessary filmic effects on television.
Unnecessary, or unconventional? There's nothing necessary about "filmic" effects any more.
It does look worse (or less conventional) when you shoot something like Porridge, lit and staged like a "live" sitcom. I think there's also a weird "hint" to it when they do it in post (which I think they did) instead of shooting directly at 25p.
Last edited by davidhorman on 28 August 2016 11:18pm
WH
I'd like to hope so, but it still doesn't mean they won't have decided to take a different direction, as it is a different show. The period/time travel/sci-fi nature of the show makes me wonder as they're the sort of things it seems to be next to impossible to make without them shoving a film look on something these days.
Birds does have a kind of filmic effect on it doesn't it? It's hard to explain, i don't think it's a reduced frame rate but it looks slightly different to a conventional sitcom.
Whataday
Founding member
I'd imagine it would be the same spec as the ITV series of Birds of a Feather as it's largely the same production team.
I'd like to hope so, but it still doesn't mean they won't have decided to take a different direction, as it is a different show. The period/time travel/sci-fi nature of the show makes me wonder as they're the sort of things it seems to be next to impossible to make without them shoving a film look on something these days.
Birds does have a kind of filmic effect on it doesn't it? It's hard to explain, i don't think it's a reduced frame rate but it looks slightly different to a conventional sitcom.
Last edited by Whataday on 28 August 2016 11:24pm
JA
Well there does definately seem to be a different "look" to modern shows, but then it's likely down to modern lighting, cameras and colour grading and the likes. I do like that though, it looks more realistic compared the the flat, bright lights you used to get on studio stuff. I definately find some of those modern "picture enchancements", but with a 50/60i look can look quite impressive these days.
It's one of the reasons why I don't like people dismissing dramas being shot "video look" as looking like Doctor Who or Upstairs Downstairs (as I remember someone saying when this argument came up years ago). Why would something shot with modern equipment and single camera look like a multi-cam studio drama from the 70s? Even modern multi-camera stuff like sitcoms and soaps look massively better these days (just compare a modern Corrie to how it looked even in the 90s), so unless they drag out the old quad machines, EMI 2001s, turn the lighting up to 11 and build wobbly sets, why would it look like something from the 70s? The fact is though, nobody even seems to be prepared to make video look dramas (or even single-camera sitcoms) these days so we don't even have a way of judging how they'd look, short of going back 25+ years when production standards were very different.
The best we probably have is The Bill, Casualty and Holby before they went "film-look" as they're the only post-1990s examples I can think of (I think all three are/were single camera), but even then they were in SD, but I always saw The Bill and Causalty as being great examples of how good video-look dramas with 21st century production standards could look, particularly as there was a lot of fast-paced action in both.
Birds does have a kind of filmic effect on it doesn't it? It's hard to explain, i don't think it's a reduced frame rate but it looks slightly different to a conventional sitcom.
Well there does definately seem to be a different "look" to modern shows, but then it's likely down to modern lighting, cameras and colour grading and the likes. I do like that though, it looks more realistic compared the the flat, bright lights you used to get on studio stuff. I definately find some of those modern "picture enchancements", but with a 50/60i look can look quite impressive these days.
It's one of the reasons why I don't like people dismissing dramas being shot "video look" as looking like Doctor Who or Upstairs Downstairs (as I remember someone saying when this argument came up years ago). Why would something shot with modern equipment and single camera look like a multi-cam studio drama from the 70s? Even modern multi-camera stuff like sitcoms and soaps look massively better these days (just compare a modern Corrie to how it looked even in the 90s), so unless they drag out the old quad machines, EMI 2001s, turn the lighting up to 11 and build wobbly sets, why would it look like something from the 70s? The fact is though, nobody even seems to be prepared to make video look dramas (or even single-camera sitcoms) these days so we don't even have a way of judging how they'd look, short of going back 25+ years when production standards were very different.
The best we probably have is The Bill, Casualty and Holby before they went "film-look" as they're the only post-1990s examples I can think of (I think all three are/were single camera), but even then they were in SD, but I always saw The Bill and Causalty as being great examples of how good video-look dramas with 21st century production standards could look, particularly as there was a lot of fast-paced action in both.
Last edited by james-2001 on 28 August 2016 11:36pm - 4 times in total
DA
Because we associate 50i with multi-cam studio drama from the 70s. It's not logical but it's how humans work.
If modern cinema had started with 50/60 frame rates this wouldn't have been a thing in the first place. No-one would know any different.
But humans associate certain things with certain other things even if the relationship is backwards from the reality. There's probably a word for it.
Quote:
Why would something shot with modern equipment and single camera look like a multi-cam studio drama from the 70s?
Because we associate 50i with multi-cam studio drama from the 70s. It's not logical but it's how humans work.
If modern cinema had started with 50/60 frame rates this wouldn't have been a thing in the first place. No-one would know any different.
But humans associate certain things with certain other things even if the relationship is backwards from the reality. There's probably a word for it.