I watched the 30 Rock live show last week and as usual I could tell immediately that it was a live show because the “look” of the show was different from one that isn’t live. Everything had a sharper and crisper look than usual. I assume that they use the same lighting and camera equipment whether the show it shot live or not. So what happens in post production that makes a TV show look different than when it is shot live?
The usual difference is video vs. film. The live show is an example of video, the usual look is an example of film.
A super HD TV can make film look like video. It’s kind of weird.
If we’re talking about video vs. film, when this has been discussed before there have been a range of explanations, but I’m of the opinion that it’s mostly down to frame rate. The new Hobbit film has been shot at 48fps, double the standard frame rate for film, and on seeing the preview people have apparently been complaining that it looks like video.
Thanks hogarth, that makes sense. I thought that they normally shot TV sitcoms with video cameras, but I must have gotten that mixed up…
Here’s one of many threads on the subject (from 2004, then revived in 2012):
It even mentions the previous “30 Rock” live episode.
Forget HD or not, it all comes down to frame rate. All current TV shows (and more & more movies) are shot on (digital) video, but it’s 24fps HD video so it looks like film. When they want it to still look like video (i.e. 30 Rock live shows, or SNL) they shoot (and broadcast) it in 30fps.
I have a Canon HD camcorder which can do both 24 & 30 fps and it’s the key to the ‘video’ vs. ‘film’ look…
Really? It’s mostly frame rate? For me, it’s mostly been depth of field (film usually has shallower depth of field) and lighting (film and video are usually lit differently). But minus the second part, film seems to usually have much shallower depth of field than video.
Depth of field is down to lenses (and lighting) not video vs film. You can have the same depth of field on both, but video cameras, even professional ones, traditionally didn’t have the need for high quality lenses, until the recent “digital” revolution where they’ve been attempting closer parity.
Well, yeah, I know it’s to do with lenses. What I’m saying is that it seems to me that video has always defaulted to a high depth-of-field look. I’m a professional still photographer. I don’t really know much about video, but when I see the look, everything looks to me like it’s shot at f/8-f/11. Film has more variance in the depth of field, with plenty of shallow depth of field shots I don’t usually see with video cameras. Only with the new generation of dSLRs that shoot video have I seen what I call the “film look” and that’s not because of the frame rate, but because of the lenses that allow shooting at the larger aperture range (f/1.2-f/2.8).
I wouldn’t assume that - they probably use MUCH different lighting, as, if I’m not mistaken, they filmed the live show in front of a live audience - different lighting requirements. Probably use different camera set ups as well.
Yeah, from my understanding–and somebody correct me if I’m mistaken–live recordings tend to be shot with multiple camera setups, which requires flatter lighting (since it needs to be workable from several angles). Sitcoms typically are multiple camera setups, from what I remember.
30 Rock is different, as it is a (mostly) single-camera sitcom. When you’re dealing with single camera lighting, you can optimize it for the shot, rather than having to compromise in order to get workable lighting situations for multiple angles.
It was also shot on the SNL set at 30 Rock. The indoor scenes are normally filmed at a studio in Queens.
Hail Ants is correct that most shows are now shot digitally in 24p, but 30 Rock is actually still shot on 35mm film (at least as of some DVD commentaries from earlier seasons, backed up by imdb).