Some TV shows have very elaborate, expensive-looking sets that would cost a fortune to build in real life. I’ll use “Madam Secretary” as an example. They have the State Dept, West Wing, and the McCord’s residence–all of which look pretty realistic with lots of touches like detailed wood trim, marble floors, etc. Is all that stuff built pretty much the same as it would be for real? Or do they have some sort cheapo way of making linoleum floors look like marble, styrofoam look like detailed filigree wood moulding, etc. Some of those sets seem quite elaborate for the cost-conscious environment of a TV production.
Well, sure, there are loads of techniques for making a cheap surface look like something expensive - you can go to DIY sites and learn about them. The entertainment industry has folks who do that for a living, so they can make them look really good.
Not for every show certainly but many would be surprised how much CGI is now used in place of sets and backgrounds. Being able to build an elaborate set from scratch is much more impressive to me.
I am one of those people. I’ve spent the last 30 making things look lke what they’re not. It’s a great job!
there are all kinds of “shortcuts!” It’s alot easier to fool a camera than the naked eye - and the naked eye can be fooled. Most of them involve the paint or finish treatments. Making things look like other things for the camera is pretty straightforward. Such as this marble painting technique.
There are also construction techniques; mainly involving not "finishing the parts that are not visible to the camera or audience. Hallways and stairways that lead nowhere,etc
And then the set dressings (books, lamps, furmiture. . ) are sometimes the key to making something look lavish when it’s not.
mc
Reusing other sets helps. I watched the DVD extras for the West Wing boxed set. They reused the oval office set from the movies Dave and An American President.
The first year the sets were pretty ad hoc. They used a lot of tricks like doors, then showing the character walking out from the other direction. They rebuilt the set between the first and second season. They were allowed to tour the real west wing and take notes. By the end of the seven year run it was the biggest set complex ever for a TV show.
There was another special that showed the set decorators. They killed themselves. Little details like documents or a box of pens that had the presidential seal on it.
How fun! I bet it is a fun job to have. Have you ever seen Madam Secretary? Here’s a clip where you can see some of the sets:
You can see cherry-wood looking paneled walls, rich trim, domed ceilings, marble floors, etc etc. Is all that stuff fakery or did they really build it using the actual materials? Are the paneled walls covered in wood or a plastic facade? Is the marble floor made from marble tiles or is it cement painted to look like marble tiles?Probably the most excessive amount of set decorating overkill was Heaven’s Gate. Cimino had the construction crews build full buildings instead of false fronts even though only the fronts of the buildings would be filmed. Then he had the buildings furnished - again, even though there was no filming inside these buildings. He even went so far as having items placed inside drawers and closets.
I have not worked on Madam Secretary and I’ve never watched the show, so my answers will be educated guesses, but yeah, probably none of it is what it seems to be. Sometimes it is easier and cheaper to use the “real materials” but often it’s not.
I mentioned that it’s fairly easy to fool the eye with a paint treatment, but there is also the fact that sometimes the “real” material just doesn’t look real on camera! Marble is a good example. If you look at the nice green marble floor in that trailer; a real marble floor is a high gloss surface which reflects alot of light! Light reflection is a big pain in the ass for cameramen, and the reflections also make it hard to make out the details of the marble for the audience. So it’s probably a painted surface, but unlikely to be concrete. It’s most likely wood. MDF is the most used material in scenic construction because it’s easily workable, and has a smooth (no grain) surface which takes paint treatment very well!
mc
Two lifetimes ago, when I had a real job in a real office, they were doing some remodeling to the building. I got to see large cardboard tubes transformed into marble columns right before my eyes!
They used sting, art-class paint and fancy clear stuff to transform cardboard cement forms. It really was jolly well done!
I watched how they did it, and decided I would paint a motorcycle tank I had like that. Figured it would be really cool and one-of-a-kind.
Then, about a year later, everybody had one. 
That brings a related question to mind: how do you tape the cats together?
HA! HA!
mc
I did some aspects of set design for movies, mainly flooring and window coverings. For the window covering we would often use cheaper fabrics and Take a lot of shortcuts on the construction. Carpet was usually laid down without padding and not usually stretched in unless a particular set would be used quite a bit for the entire movie. I would sometimes get a call at 5pm telling me they decided on a different set which might be an old home on Los Angeles. They would be shooting at 5 am. I would have to get the carpet and fabrics for drapes together and have very thing ready and installed before morning. On rush jobs they didn’t bicker over prices and in most cases not even get a bid or give me a budget. It may have been because they trusted I would keep costs under control, not sure of the usual protocol for this.
Others have answered with first hand information, but I read a great article about dressing an old house set. It was cheaper to build one from scratch then rent a dilapidated house! Even the dirt on the windows and walls was fake.
The Star Trek set was just plywood that could be knocked down and quickly re-assembled. The back sides are a hodgepodge of exposed wiring for the control panels. Those cool doors that slide open are just cheap foam panels with a guy on each side to yank them open and closed on cue. They don’t make any neat “shish” sound.
There is a thread on one of the Star Trek forums about all the parts that have been re-used to make other things. Parts of one satellite have been recycled into maybe 4 other scenes.
Once they bought salt shakers but they were too modernistic and the director felt no one would realize what they were. But they were not cheap so they got recycled as the control knobs in doctor McCoy’s examination room.
Dennis
How difficult was the switch to HD? I’ve read that what looked fine before looked terrible with the higher resolution.
I work mainly in live theater and movies, and have only little knowledge of cameras, so i cant speak directly to that, other than to say it’s not just HD, but every camera and recording technology has its effects on how things look. It mainly has to do with color resolution and amount of light needed. The more light you need to put on something for the camera the more attention to detail and color you have to pay!
mc
I thought the salt shakers got recycled into Uhura’s earpieces.
His career really went into decline after the nineties.
They were used as McCoy’s handheld medical scanners.
(I can’t remember what I had for lunch today, but I can remember details from “The Making of Star Trek” book I read 45 years ago. Anyone want to hear me sing my elementary school song?)
If anyone’s curious to see some examples, Ex Astris Scientia has a lot of photos (scroll down to “Graphics Props and Costumes”)