Gee, Cartoon, how about letting me speak for myself? Sheesh.
Squeeqee - your guess is basically correct, it was the equipment that was expensive. Also there was tremendous expense in changing technologies. I know of several TV stations in the midwest who were using 16mm film for all their field shots as late as the mid seventies. I even toured a station in 1987 that was still use slide projectors for their title graphics. They switched to cg a couple years later.
And Cartoon, there are apparently plenty of recentTVshows that were (orare) shot in 16 mm. Maybe everyone should curb thier 'tude’s, huh?
It was shot on video because it was live - and it was supposed to be a newsy TV show shot in the ER because that was the only plausible explanation in the storyline for the format change. I was working as a video tech in Chicago during that season. ER screwed up the shooting schedule for many an industrial I was working on by booking a tons of equipment out of the main rental company in Chicago. When that particular show aired, a bunch of us video types gathered in a bar off the pedway to watch it. Most of them (including my then-boss) kept saying they couldn’t believe how good the video looked, and it showed how much the medium had prgressed. The rest of us still felt it looked like poo.
And your comment was “Virtually all prime time network programs shot on film were (and are) shot on 35mm. The exceptions shot on 16mm include some documentaries and some Saturday morning children’s programming (e.g. Shazam/Isis).”
I haven’t dug deep enough into imdb to check on your “95%” claim, but if you and I were face two face, I’d lay cash on the table that I could prove you wrong. Look at my links fer crissakes - both “Lost” and “The OC” are shot on 16mm!
Nope. Won’t ease up on the 'tude. Sorry. This isn’t some blankety-blanking Internet hobby for me, it is what I have done for a living for more than 20 years and when I cite something, you had best believe I know what the blankety-blank I’m talking about. Ok?
It’s the difference between mining IMDB and having SHOT television shows. How do I know that Sex & The City, and The Sopranos are ( were ) both shot in 35mm? BECAUSE I STOOD NEXT TO THE GODDAMNED CAMERA MOUNTED ON MY STEADICAM AND WATCHED THE 1ST AC’S RELOAD THE CAMERA BODY.
Clear? Good. Sheesh.
If you read both of my earlier posts, I made it clear that
A) Some shows are shot in 16mm, and I cited.
B) Most episodic shows are shot in 35mm, and I cited, and
C) Some live sitcoms are/were shot in film not videotape. Just off the top of my head, I cite The Mary Tyler Moore Show and Cheers. Both filmed in Panavision standard Academy, 35mm.
Hill Street Blues was shot in 35mm negative. This Helpful Link shows the chronology of Eastman Kodak motion picture film, including the inception year of Hill Street Blues.
I would highly doubt that the technique you describe has ever been used in anything other than an experiemental project or independant film. One cannot abrade negative and trust that it won’t tear in the developing machines. ( This was pre-ESTAR-BASE Eastmancolor negative, by the by ).
In 1986, T-Grain Kodak film was invented. Well, it was SOLD for the first time then. Prior to that, higher speed films were a bit grainy. The farther back you go ( say, the night exterior work of Midnight Cowboy or say, ** Taxi Driver** ), the grainer the highspeed film looks. When Hill Street Blues began shooting, it was able to make use of a highspeed stock and minimal lighting. The “gritty look” that we loved about that show had more to do with the heavy use of handheld camerawork ( which was pretty stellar work, as a body ) and the hidden lighting techniques, coupled with the grainier highspeed Eastmancolor Negative stock.
One can also chose to use filtration to “soften down” or blend in the harsh edges normally seen in real-life shots on film. There was a set of filters that were all the rage in the early and mid 1980’s called Wilson SupaFrost filters. I owned a set, they were very gentle in the lower end of the series. Hand-cut from plastic.
Anyway, IIRC everything on Hill Street Blues looked unfiltered.
I spent five years working as a videographer/lighting tech/sound tech/grip/producer/whatever-needs-to-get-done guy and may I say, Cartoon, that you are more than welcome to that entire industry, as far as I’m concerned. Getting out was the best move I ever made, and if I never work in TV again, it’ll be too durn soon. I can’t even stand to watch the idiot box anymore. You want to be king of that poop pile, fine by me, buddy! You weren’t really the one with the 'tude that was bugging me anyway, but 'nuff said on that.If we ever meet up at a dopefest I’ll buy you a beer and tell you some funny stories abut shooting sh***y shows in the midwest.
It may not be the age so much as the formula, which I believe is what you are suggesting.
I can speak from experience with audiotape. I have some 1950s tapes in perfect shape and some 1970s tapes that are so gummy you could sell them to Wrigley. But I have some other 1970s tapes that are fine.
My theory is that quality control may have slipped a bit. In the 1970s I bought a case of Scotch 206 pancakes (blank tape in bulk without reels) and within minutes of threading on the recorder, it began shedding oxide so much I had to clean the heads before finishing a 3-minute take. Scotch sent a techie to check, and exchanged the entire box. But Scotch 206 was the industry studio standard. I imagine there is some stock out there that was good enough to use, but began to deteriorate rapidly shortly after, and may not have been caught until too late.
Well, if you’re tired of it, I wouldn’t mind doing it for a living! I’ve done it on a much smaller scale that you and Cartooniverse, but I’m not completely inexperienced. If you know anyone in Seattle who’s looking for crew, hook me up!
