Whenever I’m watching TV, I see an instant and obvious visual difference between soap operas/sitcoms and movies/dramas. The movies/dramas look realistic and the soap operas/sitcoms don’t. The difference is always obvious and immediate to me, and it’s not the live studio audience noises either).
Not being a student of filmography nor a very visual person, I can’t ferret out the reasons for this on my own. The only thing I can guess is it’s something to do with lighting… the soaps/sitcoms seem to have more overhead or artificial lighting. Can anybody help? This has been bugging me forever.
I think it’s mostly to do with film vs. videotape. Film is expensive, and soaps would need to shoot a lot of it, so they use video instead. The quality of tape is lousy, and that’s why soaps look the way they do.
It certainly looks different than film, but I wouldn’t call it lousy. I’ve heard cinematographers call 24 frames per second a feature, not a defect, as it is part of what is widely considered the “film look”, along with visible grain and other artifacts.
When I was little, I asked my mother why people in soap operas never turned their indoor lights on. She told me its was because they were crappy shows and couldn’t afford a bigger electric bill.
I’ve heard that they smear petroleum jelly on the lens when filming “older” actor’s scenes. Softens wrinkles, I’ve read somewhere. Is that true? La Lucci doesn’t really look smeared or softened and her waddle is now becoming quite, um, icky. But nonetheless I love the woman and she’s a part of my hypothetical family.
Susan is truly the Queen, bow and scrape to the Queen and ye shall be rewarded with perhaps another 30 years of Erica Kane!
I’ve been told, also, that one of the reasons for the “soap opera look” is that they light “generally”, so that any camera can take a shot without changing any of the lighting. Is that true?
I’ve heard of both vaseline and a “cheesecloth filter,” which IIRC was just a piece of cheesecloth in front of the lens for the same effect. No cites, sorry.
I would imagine that they have special lens filters these days, so actually putting Vaseline on the lens wouldn’t be necessary. (Think of the PITA it would be to try to get the gunk off the lens.) I’ve also heard that they sometimes change the lighting for older actresses, using a pinker light than usual, to give them a youthful look.
As for whether they still do this, I’d say watch scenes with older actresses. How distinct are the strands of their hair in comparison with other actresses? Look at other objects around them in the scene-- do they seem less distinct than in other scenes? Is the lighting a bit pinker?
To see how vaseline on the lens looks, look at any old movie with a starlet in it. Look for the shots with nothing but the girl, that’s the one with vaseline. Usually a reaction shot with her looking up. There’s a few in Casablanca. BTW, you’d put it on a filter, not the actual lens.
As for soap operas, they can’t afford delays like a boom mic shadow in the shot, so the trade-off for daily shooting turn-around is bland lighting.