A lot of television shows are (or were, at least in the 1970s and 1980s) shot in a combination of film and video. It was invariably video for the indoor scenes and film for the outdoor scenes.
Now, I’m told the reason these shows weren’t shot entirely on film was usually for budgetary reasons: working with film is a lot more expensive than working with video.
But if you have enough money to shoot at least part of your show on film, why is it always the outdoor scenes? How come I’ve never seen any shows where the indoor scenes were shot on film and the outdoor scenes on video?
I don’t remember the distinction that you refer to in the premise of your question. It seems to me that all programs that I remember were either all film or all video. The only explanation that I can even imagine is that in some shows, stock film footage may have been used for exteriors, and that would have been the cheapest of all. Of course, your question evokes the great and wonderful Python skit in which the players, when looking out of windows and doors discover - and only when shot from the outside - that they’re on film, while the rest of the skit, the interiors, are all on tape. But that’s another story. xo, C.
It was more an issue on BBC comedies of that era than US TV shows. I recall it in “The Good Neighbors,” and “Doctor Who,” for instance.
It may have been union regulations, or it could have been the video was bulkier and clumsier to use than film. Video cameras of the day were considerably larger and heavier than film cameras, and keeping them supplied with electricity was a problem (they needed a regular power source, not batteries). You could manage in a studio, and it was probably cheaper than film (tapes could be reused), but once outdoors the advantages of video were minor.
That video/indoor and film/outdoor practice was mainly a British thing. Off the top of my head, I can’t recall it being used in American television production.
Before the late 1960s, there were no professional-level portable television cameras or videotape recorders. The latter were the size of a typical kitchen stove; the former weighed about 300 pounds.
In the early-'70s (since Python has been brought up) video gear was much larger and heavier and (I think) needed an external power supply – the mains or a genny. A 16mm film camera such as an Arri BL16, Éclair NPR or ACL, or similar weighed only ten or 15 pounds loaded, and could be pwered by a battery that was worn on a strap or belt or was onboard. An audio recordist could carry his or her trusty Nagra on a strap and synch with the camera either with a synch cord or by using synchronous motors on the camera and recorder. So outside of a studio a film camera required a smaller crew and allowed much more freedom of movement.
There were also lightweight MOS cameras (‘Mit Out Sprechen’, said to be coined by a German director – Erik von Stroheim? – working in the U.S.) in 35mm and 16mm. These are too noisy for recording dialog, but could be ‘blimped’ with heavy cast metal housings. There are also ‘silent’ cameras that are used when audio is to be recorded. Check out footage from the Vietnam War and you’ll see the occasional Beaulieu R16. This camera was too noisy for studio work, but was quiet enough for exteriors where the camera was far enough away from the microphone. The NPR and ACL were quiet enough for many interior shots. Still ‘barneys’ (soft, sound-deadening covers – sometimes as simple as a down jacket) were used.
Indoor scenes were shot in the studio. Since TV studios have video cameras permanently installed, it would be silly not to use them - and an unnecessary expense to hire in film cameras, anyway.
However, using video cameras outdoors was impracticable until the invention of lightweight CCD video cameras of sufficient picture quality. Older video cameras were extremely heavy and had to be mounted on wheeled camera tripods which could only be moved on a level and perfectly flat surface - achievable in a purpose-built studio but not outdoors. So it had to be film for the outdoor scenes.
No, TV cameras didn’t have to be mounted on wheeled tripods. TV cameras covering public events, like sports games or parades, were usually on stationary tripods.
You wrote that “older video cameas had to be mounted on wheeled camera tripods” (emphasis added). They didn’t, any more than older film cameas had to be mounted on wheeled tripods. Unless you were planning on doing tracking or dolly shots, both types of cameras could be mounted on stationary tripods. And in those British television productions of the 1960s and 1970s, you seldom see any tracking or dolly shots in the exterior scenes, even though they were using film cameras.
BUT - a TV director working outdoors will always prefer to use cameras that can be moved to cameras that can’t. Even if the script doesn’t call for any tracking shots, the director might (and often does) change his/her mind at the last moment about how to shoot a particular scene.
I don’t recall it being used in American TV either, but it was certainly quite common for Canadian shows. The first time I clearly recall noticing the film/video distinction was in the 1981 Canadian childrens’ television miniseries Read All About It. I’ve since noticed it in a lot of other Canadian and British programs made in the 1970s and 1980s (Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, etc.).
Ah, and now that I notice it, Psychonaut’s location appears to be pretty close to Greenwich, so I think the question is, indeed, more relevant for British tv viewers. Still, the big video recorder/ smaller film camera explanation is helpful in general. There may be more than one explanation for the phenomenon. xo, C.
Another possible reason for video indoor, film outdoor is that early video cameras were much more sensitive about light exposure than film cameras.
Inside a studio, you could control the lighting to work with a video camera. Outside, it’s mostly beyond your control, so you needed the flexibility of a film camera.
Possibly more to the point, video cameras “back then” needed great gobs of light. Rather than lug out two tons of lighting, it would be far simpler to just load a film camera with an appropriate “speed” of film for the exterior shots. Even for night shots, it’s possible to shot on fast film and “push process” it in the lab to get a usable (if somewhat fuzzy or grainy) image in conditions that would be entirely too dark for a video camera to see.
The extinct HBO show “The Larry Sanders Show” used both types of recording for dramatic effect. The supposedly ‘live-on the air’ scenes are shot on tape and then when they went to commercial we would see them on film for the ‘behind the scenes-off the air’ type shots.
[hijack]
While we’re on the subject, I don’t watch much network TV. Are there currently any US sitcoms (or any non-news) shows still shot on video? Is it just that HD video has replaced film because it can have a built-in ‘film-look’ to it.
Well, sitcoms on video were pretty much a thing of the 70’s and 80’s. Shows like All in the Family, and several others. But they look so bad compared to film shows that I am assuming that’s the reason sitcoms all went back to film by the 90’s. I’m not aware of any in production now on video, though perhaps some Disney kid sitcoms may be. Not sure, don’t watch the channel. But it’d be the only kind of show I’d expect like that.
As for non-news, just about 100% of reality tv shows are shot on video. They have to be, due to the obscene amount of tape they eat up. Shooting on film would be cost prohibitive. And Walloon covered the rest of the shows well.
Note that HD shows are sometimes shot on film and then converted to HD, and sometimes shot on HD directly, which would be a video source, even though they do tweak it to look more like film. But still lots of shows out there on film directly. The transition to shooting on HD will take a while longer, still lots of tech problems with the format, especially in feature films.
If I recall correctly, Cheers was filmed, on a set, while another popular show at the time, the cosby show was taped on video. I never understood why the 2 sitcoms were recorded in different formats.