# Why do some TV programs look "funny"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 4, 2004, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470 "2004-05-04T15:16:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/1 "2004-05-04T15:16:47Z")
I’m not sure I can explain my question coherently, but I’ll try. Every once in a while, when I see a TV program, it looks odd to me. It looks as if the show was filmed on a set, rather than out in the real world, if you get what I mean. Almost as if it was filmed on a cheap video camera. I can’t tell if it’s the color, or the sharpness, or what. Man, this is hard to explain. I guess I can best show by examples. Daytime soaps look this way. So do a lot of the older British sitcoms. And often pre-post-production scenes from the special features of a DVD, as if there is some post-production procedure used to make the images seem more “real.” Does that make any sense? Before I ask the question of why this happens, I’ll ask – does anyone know what the farg I’m talking about? ---
**Author:** ![jk1245](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/49beb7/32.png) [@jk1245](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jk1245)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/2 "2004-05-04T15:25:05Z")
I know exactly what you’re talking about, and I’d always wondered about it myself. I always thought it was the difference bewtween shooting on film and video, but I have no technical knowledge to back that up. Also, the DVD features thing seems to shoot that down and suggest that it is some type of production effect. Guess I’ll just wait with you for someone who knows what they’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Kymodoce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8797f3/32.png) [@Kymodoce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kymodoce)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/3 "2004-05-04T15:25:14Z")
I understand exactly what you mean… though I would have as much trouble describing it as you do. For what it’s worth, I have wondered if the difference is whether the program was shot on real film or video? Or some other format I am unaware of, of course… ---
**Author:** ![TellMeI\_mNotCrazy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tellmei_mnotcrazy/32/3419_2.png) [@TellMeI\_mNotCrazy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TellMeI_mNotCrazy)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/4 "2004-05-04T15:25:40Z")
The first time I saw the difference tangibly was in Newhart (the one where he had the inn) - earlier episodes had that really “sharp”, almost garishly-lit look to them; later episodes looked somehow “softer”. Like the difference between watching a stage production and a movie - the first looks more “real” (since it is actually in front of you), yet the latter looks “nicer”. I always attributed it to difference in film and editing (and lighting). ---
**Author:** ![Kymodoce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8797f3/32.png) [@Kymodoce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kymodoce)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/5 "2004-05-04T15:26:19Z")
Yikes, and I even previewed… ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/6 "2004-05-04T15:33:05Z")
It’s the difference between film and video. We learned this little factoid in a film class I took once. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/7 "2004-05-04T15:36:11Z")
> [@TellMeI'mNotCrazy](#): > > The first time I saw the difference tangibly was in Newhart (the one where he had the inn) - earlier episodes had that really “sharp”, almost garishly-lit look to them; later episodes looked somehow “softer”. Like the difference between watching a stage production and a movie - the first looks more “real” (since it is actually in front of you), yet the latter looks “nicer”. I always attributed it to difference in film and editing (and lighting). Ah, early Newhart! Primo example! I was going to describe the effect as grainy, but it’s almost the opposite of grainy. It’s like extra sharpness. The effect seems most pronounced during pans. **jk1245** , I have to agree with your DVD comment – one would think that the same cameras were used for the features as for the filming. I think the one way this would be wrong is if there is a seperate video camera used along side the “real” one. Or that the video feed is being sent to tape rather than (or in conjuction with) celluloid. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/8 "2004-05-04T15:42:22Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > It’s the difference between film and video. We learned this little factoid in a film class I took once. Really? How old is video tape technology? I thought it came of age in the mid-70s, and I can remember some older TV movies that looked that way. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1968, with Jack Palance) certainly has that look. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/9 "2004-05-04T16:01:27Z")
_Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde_ with Jack Palance _was_ shot on video. Unmistakably. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/10 "2004-05-04T16:03:42Z")
Videotape was first developed in 1956 by the Ampex Corporation, specifically for recording TV shows for rebroadcast. ---
**Author:** ![SpoilerVirgin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@SpoilerVirgin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpoilerVirgin)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/11 "2004-05-04T16:08:21Z")
Definitely the difference between film (grainier and more realistic-looking) and video (sharper but harsher and more cartoon-like). We’ve discussed this at length in previous threads. Lighting also plays a part, particularly in daytime soaps, which use a three-camera process that requires a different lighting setup. The 1968 [Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062908/technical) was a T.V. movie which was shot on video. ---
**Author:** ![Small\_Clanger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@Small\_Clanger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Small_Clanger)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/12 "2004-05-04T16:11:52Z")
And things I’ve noticed - any TV/film technicians out there to fill us in? The super-real effect used in Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers and Gladiator. I’m guessing it’s an extra fast shutter speed but that’s a WAG really. I’ve seen the same thing on athletics broadcasts too where I guess it was a side effect of the technology rather than a deliberate artistic choice. Some shows seem to have a texture overlayed on them, maybe to offset nasty _videoness_ like **tdn** describes? IIRC a show called Tour of Duty (which was crap anyhoo) had a really obvious grainy pattern to it. Shows that have an altered “pallette” where the colour is skewed, Enterprise is one. What are these things and how are they done? ---
**Author:** ![Rico](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rico/32/3582_2.png) [@Rico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rico)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/13 "2004-05-04T16:13:08Z")
From [this site](http://www.cybercollege.com/filmtap.htm): > [@](#): > > Purely technical considerations aside, the primary underlying difference between film and video lies in the way it’s shot. > > Film is normally shot in a single-camera style, and video is normally shot using a multiple-camera production approach. > > In film each scene can be carefully set up, staged, lit, rehearsed, and shot. Generally, a number of takes are made of each scene and the best one is edited into the final production. As they strive for perfection in today’s high-budget feature film productions, some directors re-shoot scenes many times before they are satisfied. (Possibly the record is held by one well-known film director who reportedly shot the same scene 87 times.) > > Quite in contrast, video is generally shot with several cameras covering several angles simultaneously. Instead of lighting being optimized for one camera angle, it must hold up for three or more camera angles at the same time. This means that it’s generally lit in a rather flat manner, which sacrifices dimension and form. And, with the exception of single-camera production, multiple takes in video are the exception rather than the rule. And if you read the article you’ll also read about _film jitter_, which comes from utilizing the US and Canada’s NTSC type broadcasting system at 30 frames per second and trying to reconcile that with film’s standard 24 fps. There are quite a few reasons why. This article is very interesting regarding the difference. ---
**Author:** ![TellMeI\_mNotCrazy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tellmei_mnotcrazy/32/3419_2.png) [@TellMeI\_mNotCrazy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TellMeI_mNotCrazy)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/14 "2004-05-04T16:28:44Z")
\ I think I read somewhere that there was a scene in the Shining that took 125 retakes. But I am thinking that (although it’s a commercial), [this](http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/13/nhonda13.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/13/ixhome.html) has to take the cake for some record: > [@](#): > > Six hundred and six takes it took, and if they had been forced to do a 607th it is probable, if not downright certain, that one of the film crew would have snapped and gone mad. > > … > > Honda’s latest television advertisement, a two-minute film called “Cog”, is like a fine-lubricated line of dominoes. It begins with a transmission bearing which rolls into a synchro hub which in turn rolls into a gear wheel cog and plummets off a table on to a camshaft and pulley wheel. I’ve gotta find a clip of this ad! ---
**Author:** ![Scarlett67](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scarlett67/32/7387_2.png) [@Scarlett67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarlett67)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/15 "2004-05-04T16:35:41Z")
[Link to Snopes article about the Honda commercial, with links to clips](http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/hondacog.asp) ---
**Author:** ![marie1234](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7feea3/32.png) [@marie1234](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marie1234)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/16 "2004-05-04T16:37:44Z")
I know what you mean. It’s because of the cameras that are used. In America they use old cameras. I dont know why but they do. Here in Norway they use new cameras on most of the shows so it looks a bit better… ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/17 "2004-05-04T16:37:41Z")
[http://multimedia.honda-eu.com/accord/](http://multimedia.honda-eu.com/accord/) Click on the cog to launch it. Or this one, which launches automatically: [http://www.ebaumsworld.com/honda-ad.html](http://www.ebaumsworld.com/honda-ad.html) ---
**Author:** ![bughunter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aeb1de/32.png) [@bughunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bughunter)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/18 "2004-05-04T18:04:57Z")
I work with scientific imaging systems as well as commercial video cameras. There is a distinct qualitative difference between programs shot on video and those shot on film. Most people can tell the difference, but not everyone notices it consciously. The lighting is indeed the most noticable factor, but because of the technical differences between film and video, the lighting requirements are different. Modern videotape cameras are exclusively [CCD cameras](http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/digital-camera3.htm). The sensors convert photons to electrons with a linear response, i.e., the signal at each pixel is directly proportional to the number of photons received at that pixel on the sensor. After accounting for offsets and defects on the sensor, the number of electrons out divided by the number of photons in is a constant number. Film cameras, on the other hand, use a photochemical emulsion on a clear substrate, e.g., film. The change in the opacity of a spot on the film is not linear, but logarithmic… ie, as more photons hit the same grain of emulsion, that grain changes opacity a little bit less. The first few photons change the opacity of the developed film more than the last few will. This difference is important. It means that film can have a much greater _dynamic range_, or in other words it can record a much greater range of light and dark levels. This is also similar to how the eye responds to light, so it looks more natural. It also provides the director with a lot more options in how to light a scene and establish a “mood” in the scene. The quality of film also provides more control to the director. The director has a wide choice of film stock, with different sensitivity to light (speed) and different responses to color (look at _Three Kings_ vs _Twelve Monkeys_, or for Boomers, _Duel in the Sun_ vs. _Midnight Cowboy_). These kinds of effects can be simulated on videotape, but they can’t match the impact of the effects from real film stock variations. Different speeds of film also have different size “pixels” of emulsion, called grains. When they are large, you can almost make out individual grains… thus the “grainy” look. Additionally, these grains are randomly arranged and oriented, as opposed to the pixels on a CCD, which are all uniformly sized and shaped, and in an ordered rectangular grid. Thus, the CCD is susceptible to “aliasing” like when the local weatherman wears a checked tie and the image of the checks on the image sensor is about the same scale as the sensor’s pixels… resulting in that wild and crazy psychedelic effect. Most TV dramas are shot on film and then transferred to tape for editing and broadcast. If digital effects are required, the film is digitized and then recorded to videotape after the computer effects are added. Finally, the description of videotape being more “real” is entirely subjective. Part of it is the sharpness that is provided by the stark, flat lighting. It’s also a conditioned reaction, since most news stories are shot on video, whereas works of fiction are typically shot on film. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/19 "2004-05-04T19:00:15Z")
So what about sitcoms such as, say, Friends? Certainly multiple camera angles are used, so the lighting would have to accomodate that. ---
**Author:** ![Bongmaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Bongmaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bongmaster)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470/20 "2004-05-04T19:56:43Z")
> [@bughunter](#): > > I work with scientific imaging systems as well as commercial video cameras. > > There is a distinct qualitative difference between programs shot on video and those shot on film. Most people can tell the difference, but not everyone notices it consciously. The lighting is indeed the most noticable factor, but because of the technical differences between film and video, the lighting requirements are different. > > Modern videotape cameras are exclusively [CCD cameras](http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/digital-camera3.htm). The sensors convert photons to electrons with a linear response, i.e., the signal at each pixel is directly proportional to the number of photons received at that pixel on the sensor. After accounting for offsets and defects on the sensor, the number of electrons out divided by the number of photons in is a constant number. > > Film cameras, on the other hand, use a photochemical emulsion on a clear substrate, e.g., film. The change in the opacity of a spot on the film is not linear, but logarithmic… ie, as more photons hit the same grain of emulsion, that grain changes opacity a little bit less. The first few photons change the opacity of the developed film more than the last few will. > > This difference is important. It means that film can have a much greater _dynamic range_, or in other words it can record a much greater range of light and dark levels. This is also similar to how the eye responds to light, so it looks more natural. It also provides the director with a lot more options in how to light a scene and establish a “mood” in the scene. > > The quality of film also provides more control to the director. The director has a wide choice of film stock, with different sensitivity to light (speed) and different responses to color (look at _Three Kings_ vs _Twelve Monkeys_, or for Boomers, _Duel in the Sun_ vs. _Midnight Cowboy_). These kinds of effects can be simulated on videotape, but they can’t match the impact of the effects from real film stock variations. > > Different speeds of film also have different size “pixels” of emulsion, called grains. When they are large, you can almost make out individual grains… thus the “grainy” look. Additionally, these grains are randomly arranged and oriented, as opposed to the pixels on a CCD, which are all uniformly sized and shaped, and in an ordered rectangular grid. Thus, the CCD is susceptible to “aliasing” like when the local weatherman wears a checked tie and the image of the checks on the image sensor is about the same scale as the sensor’s pixels… resulting in that wild and crazy psychedelic effect. > > Most TV dramas are shot on film and then transferred to tape for editing and broadcast. If digital effects are required, the film is digitized and then recorded to videotape after the computer effects are added. > > Finally, the description of videotape being more “real” is entirely subjective. Part of it is the sharpness that is provided by the stark, flat lighting. It’s also a conditioned reaction, since most news stories are shot on video, whereas works of fiction are typically shot on film. Outstanding writeup, thank you. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-some-tv-programs-look-funny/243470.md?page=2)