Does the fact that some shows are shot on videotape (usually sitcoms & variety shows) and the rest are filmed (1-hour dramas and some sitcoms) make a difference in how they are perceived? Example: Newhart was shot on film, but I’ve seen several episodes in syndication shot on video and it seems to lose something. Probably because I’m used to seeing it on film. The Drew Carey Show is usually shot on film except the live shows. I guess I prefer filmed shows. However, there seems to be a difference in videotaped shows. Look at the video quality of a soap opera versus a show like Night Court (currently on A&E). I can definitely see a difference.
Comments form any experts in this field would be appreciated.
I notice this too, but am also at a loss of words for describing it.
A good comparison between the two extremes would be programs on PBS like Masterpiece Theater or Mystery!, against cheaply produced commercials made for the local advertising market
The images in higher quality productions look more like photography done in a portrait studio, while cheap commercials look like a camcorder.
Are you sure that some shows (other than live eps of stuff) are shot in video only? I’ve been to a couple TV tapings (Dharma & Greg, and something else), and though they shot both in film and video (either for quick reviewing or for audience benefit, I’m not sure). Maybe these shows just had higher production values, but I’ve always thought that, generally speaking, all shows were filmed.
Even on “low budget” shows like MST3K, you can see a difference. IIRC, there was a movie shot on high-definition video back in the 80’s, but I can’t remember the name. I thought it was Plenty, but a check at the IMDB says it was shot on 35mm film.
I’m with you there. I remember an episode of The Good Neighbors/Good Life where Barbara (Felicity Kendal) obviously had a cold in the exterior scenes, but was OK in the stuido scenes. (The episode was entitled, “I Talk to the Trees”, in case you were wondering)
In North America sound film runs through the camera at 24 frames per second. The TV scans pictures electrically at 30 frames per second (this has something to do with our AC being delivered at 60 cycles). That’s not compatible. Projectors for television stations were constructed to allow certain frames to be scanned twice. This causes an amount of deterioration of the picture quality from a movie compared to the picture quality of a video tape that was electronically produced at 30 fps for TV viewing. The difference between film and video tape CAN be detected by most TV viewers in North America HOWEVER, early use of video tape was generally confined to the soap operas and low budget productions of TV networks. When you think about it what else would video tape be used for at that time? As a result there was an early perception of the video tape image as a “lower quality” production.
In Europe the standard speed of sound film is 25 fps. And by coincidence (and the fact that most European electricity is delivered at 50 cycles), TV pictures also scan electronically at 25 fps. I would guess that the BBC
productions that alternate between video and film are less jarring to the European viewers.