Uncovering the Mystery of Film Quality in Movies and TV Shows

  • Thread starter hypnagogue
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation is about the differences in film quality between movies/regular TV shows, newscasts, and soap operas. The main factors that contribute to these differences are the lens used, lighting, whether it is analog or digital, properties of the film used, developing techniques, and shutter speed. These variables can result in a wide range of image characteristics, such as graininess, contrast, and color saturation. Additionally, different filming techniques, locations, and production styles can also affect the overall quality of a film.
  • #1
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,285
2
OK, this has been bugging me for some time, and recently it came to my attention again and now I am just dying for an answer, stupid as it might seem. Doesn't really fit any of the other forums so I'm posting it here.

It's about film quality. There is something in the film quality of a movie or regular TV show that is much different from that of, say, a newscast or (for all 4 of you gals out there ) a soap opera. I can't really say WHAT it is, but surely everyone must know what I'm talking about! So, my question is, what is it that accounts for this qualitative difference? Surely something about the film/recording method, but what exactly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Originally posted by hypnagogue
or (for all 4 of you gals out there ) a soap opera.
what is that supposed to mean?
 
  • #3
The lens used...
The lighting...
Whether it is analog or digital...
The properties of the film used (light sensitivity, color saturation etc)...
The developing techniques...
The shutter speed...
The list goes on and on and on.
 
  • #4


Originally posted by Monique
what is that supposed to mean?

It means that I didn't forget to include you in the list, Monique. :wink:

Just kidding! Don't hurt me!
 
  • #5
Originally posted by one_raven
The lens used...
The lighting...
Whether it is analog or digital...
The properties of the film used (light sensitivity, color saturation etc)...
The developing techniques...
The shutter speed...
The list goes on and on and on.

Hm, if it comes down to so many variables, why are there only 2 or 3 recognizable types? Industry standards? High JNDs?
 
  • #6
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Hm, if it comes down to so many variables, why are there only 2 or 3 recognizable types?

Come to think of it, that's probably not true-- I can usually pinpoint what decade a movie or TV clip comes from by noticing differences in film quality. Or is that just due to film degradation?
 
  • #7
grmbl
 
  • #8
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Come to think of it, that's probably not true-- I can usually pinpoint what decade a movie or TV clip comes from by noticing differences in film quality. Or is that just due to film degradation?

I know exactly what you mean. When I was about age twelve I remember telling my dad that I could tell if a local news report was live or video taped. He was quite surprised and tested me; I was right. Really this was quite obvious since the live broadcast images were crisper and brighter than the recorded ones...I am sure due to the limitations on quality in the late 60s/early 70s.

Without googling...I think that the following is approx. true:
Very early TV used movie film and cameras; and then several variations on film size and shutter speed that each yielded unique image characteristics e.g. graininess, range of contrast, eff # of shades of gray [I'm really guessing on this one but this is what I perceive], and probably others. I know that for a short time in the very early years of TV, something called Cinemascope was used. I think used movie cameras for TV - resizing the picture for TV by re-recording the image through a lens or something. This method produced a very distinctive grainy and low contrast image. Anyway, due to the type of film used almost all of this material was lost long ago. I have heard some big star from the early years of TV lamenting this fact.

Then we see the early days of video that are really obvious in the programming of the late sixties. I'm not sure exactly how to describe it, but I think that what I see is a greater range from white to black, but with fewer shades of gray in between. In other words, video black is blacker that film black; and the same with white; but not so many steps between as in film. This is most of the stuff that was airing while I grew up – the early pre-color sitcoms like Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie, or Gilligans Island; as opposed to re-run shows from the 50's like Father Knows The Nelsons, Leave it to Beaver and so on.

From there we see early color and the increasing quality of Video as a date stamp. Also, in addition to that mentioned by one_raven, there appear to be popular or indicative styles in the sets used or the location shots chosen [for example, using the back lot of Universal Studios as opposed traveling to Texas for a location shot], filming techniques, sound quality, etc; in addition to the effects of time on the quality of the recorded information; be it film or magnetic tape. The number of plays takes a toll also.

Anyway, these are my observations and guesses. I know some of this is definitely true but I have never researched the history in detail.

I have made a bit of a hobby trying to distinguish between these difference most of my life. I have never heard anyone else mention it!

Edit: My guess is that most of the TV programs went from BW movie film to the standard BW TV film of the 50's; then BW video followed by color film, and then color video.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Originally posted by hypnagogue
It's about film quality. There is something in the film quality of a movie or regular TV show that is much different from that of, say, a newscast or (for all 4 of you gals out there ) a soap opera.
The difference according to the question the way you have asked it here, is that movies and regular TV shows are filmed while newscasts sre live, and soap operas are videotaped.

Regarding film alone, there is no limit, as people have pretty well pointed out, to how much the quality of a film image can be manipulated to emphasize different characteristics. Different "looks" become popular and seem to stay in syle for about ten years. Film reached an all time low in the late 60s early 70s with a cheap and sloppy look that is just about unbearable to watch.
 
  • #10
Thanks for all your info Ivan. Very insightful! I have such a hard time putting my finger on exactly what accounts for what I can so obviously distinguish as different.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Then we see the early days of video that are really obvious in the programming of the late sixties. I'm not sure exactly how to describe it, but I think that what I see is a greater range from white to black, but with fewer shades of gray in between. In other words, video black is blacker that film black; and the same with white; but not so many steps between as in film. This is most of the stuff that was airing while I grew up – the early pre-color sitcoms like Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie, or Gilligans Island; as opposed to re-run shows from the 50's like Father Knows The Nelsons, Leave it to Beaver and so on.

That is a great way of explaining it. I totally agree there. I recall seeing a very early episode of the Twilight Zone (possibly the first) where they used something like that TV format you describe, but even more exaggerated away from the traditional B&W film format. Looked very very odd! Like it was a home recording almost. It actually made a huge difference in the viewing experience, especially for a mystery drama-ish show that is intended to give you the hibbly-jibblies. The whole time I found it difficult to get into the episode because I couldn't get over how it looked like someone put it together using low budget/unprofessional filming techniques. It wasn't something blatantly bad like graininess or blurriness (the picture was very clear and crisp in fact, probably due in part to the brightness)-- just something that somehow gave me a very un-cinematic/transporting kind of feel. Funny how subtle film qualities like that can do so much.

I have made a bit of a hobby trying to distinguish between these difference most of my life. I have never heard anyone else mention it!

For me it really stands out whenever I watch an old program, although it winds up being the kind of Seinfieldian observation that you always experience in everyday life but kind of put in the file drawer and forget about.

The funny thing is that even when I watch things from the early/mid 90s now I can easily tell the film quality apart from modern shows, whereas I used to have those typed as modern-looking, or rather as having nothing conspicuously noticeable in film quality. It makes me wonder to what extent film quality is really changing/improving, and to what extent the film quality of older material just changes/degrades over time.
 
  • #11
Originally posted by one_raven
The lens used...
The lighting...
Whether it is analog or digital...
The properties of the film used (light sensitivity, color saturation etc)...
The developing techniques...
The shutter speed...
The list goes on and on and on.
Actually most of these apply to still photos.

I know what you mean Hypnagogue, I've wondered the same myself. I would say that it has to do with the type of camera used for the cinematography and maybe a few other things. If no one else knows, I know a film director I could ask, but he doesn't work much with tv.
 
  • #12
Film is not interlaced, while TV is. For example, PAL television uses 50 fields/second interlaced, which is equivalent to 25 full video frames. Also, soaps usually do on-site recording. After a while this will sink in and you can tell very easily if you are watching a soap opera, newscast, or whatever.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by Evo
Actually most of these apply to still photos.
And to motion pictures. One_Raven is quite right. I've taken both still photography and motion picture photography courses and the same techniques for manipulating the qualities apply to both.
 
  • #14
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
And to motion pictures. One_Raven is quite right. I've taken both still photography and motion picture photography courses and the same techniques for manipulating the qualities apply to both.
Zooby, you never cease to amaze me... :smile:
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Evo
Zooby, you never cease to amaze me... :smile:
By this I take it you are referring to my inability to stick with one field of knowledge causing me constantly to meander from one subject to the next, ending up never accomplishing anything in particular in anyone field. Yes, it is kind of amazing.
 
  • #16
Hey Zoob, we should team up. Together we could meander across twice as many fields and get half as much accomplished!
 
  • #17
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Hey Zoob, we should team up. Together we could meander across twice as many fields and get half as much accomplished!
I'm thinking a quarter as much: inverse square law.
 
  • #18
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
By this I take it you are referring to my inability to stick with one field of knowledge causing me constantly to meander from one subject to the next, ending up never accomplishing anything in particular in anyone field. Yes, it is kind of amazing.

Positive slant: A generalist.

So if you put it all together, what would you call your skill set?
 
  • #19
um.. jack of all trades, master of none?
 
  • #20
Originally posted by hypnagogue
um.. jack of all trades, master of none?

No no! I was looking for the positive slant...especially given Zooby's way with words.

Really though, I make a living as a generalist. I can't be an expert at every new piece of technology rolling off the line. In fact, no one is...often including the manufacturer's experts. I managed to take a physics degree and a jack-of-all-trades background and turn it into a real job! Electrical-mechanical-engineeroprogrammingdesigner-industrial-physics consultant.

You always add consultant on the end as a generalist!

I would love to hear Zooby's interpretation of his combined set of skills.

And you hynagogue, come on, let's here it.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
You wrote "Zobby" twice. You been hitting the kava kava?Edited to point out Ivan's edit above was to correct the alluded to mispellings.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
You wrote "Zobby" twice. You been hitting the kava kava?

ummm, don't know what to say...zobby
 
  • #23
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
So if you put it all together, what would you call your skill set?
Anyway, Ivvn, I'm not familiar with the term "skill set". It sounds like it refers to skills that can be combined to perform a third kind of thing?
 
  • #24
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Anyway, Ivvn, I'm not familiar with the term "skill set". It sounds like it refers to skills that can be combined to perform a third kind of thing?

Exactly...zobby.

I picked up the term "skill set" from a job finding class that I took at the college right after graduating. I found the class very helpful and it did help me to land a career using this concept. In your case, you are obviously very smart and very knowlegable in a number of areas. I was curious how you would sum it up. The same goes for hynagogue.

And really I am having a hard time typing here...I only slept about two or three hours last night and I'm about to call it quits and get a few more hours of sleep.
 
  • #25
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I would love to hear Zooby's interpretation of his combined set of skills.

And you hynagogue, come on, let's here it.
Me too!
Ok, Zobby & hynagogue (another Ivanism :wink: ), what would the two of you combined become (shudders at the possibilities).
 
  • #26
Zobnagogue?
 
  • #27
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Zobnagogue?

ROTFLMAO!
 
  • #28
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Zobnagogue?
Oooooh! I like it.
 
  • #29
Originally posted by Evo
Me too!
Ok, Zobby & hynagogue (another Ivanism]

Alright I got some sleep!
 
  • #30
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Alright I got some sleep!
Welcome back to the world of the living, dear.
 
  • #31
Originally posted by Evo
Welcome back to the world of the living, dear.

So that's what we call this place? I beg to differ!
 
  • #32
So, hypnagogue, did you get a satisying answer to your question?
 

1. What factors contribute to the overall film quality in movies and TV shows?

There are several factors that contribute to the overall film quality, including the script, acting, directing, cinematography, sound design, and editing. Each of these elements plays a crucial role in creating a cohesive and engaging story for the audience.

2. How do filmmakers ensure high film quality in their productions?

Filmmakers use a combination of techniques and tools to ensure high film quality, such as hiring talented and experienced actors, using advanced camera equipment, and collaborating with skilled editors and sound designers. They also rely on their own creative vision and attention to detail to bring their vision to life on screen.

3. Can film quality be objectively measured?

While there are certain technical aspects of film quality that can be objectively measured, such as resolution and sound quality, the overall film quality is subjective and can vary from person to person. What one person may consider a high-quality film, another may not enjoy as much. Ultimately, the success of a film is determined by its audience's reception.

4. How has technology impacted film quality in recent years?

Technology has played a significant role in improving film quality in recent years. Advancements in camera technology have allowed for higher resolution and more immersive visuals, while advancements in sound design have created a more realistic and dynamic audio experience. Additionally, editing software and special effects have become more advanced, allowing filmmakers to bring their visions to life in ways that were not possible before.

5. Can low-budget films still have high film quality?

Yes, low-budget films can still have high film quality. While a larger budget may provide access to better equipment and resources, it ultimately comes down to the skill and creativity of the filmmakers. With careful planning and strategic use of resources, low-budget films can still deliver a compelling and high-quality viewing experience.

Similar threads

Movies that you watch over and over again
    • General Discussion
3
Replies
101
Views
8K
I Factors that influence depth of field
    • Optics
2
Replies
41
Views
419
Film Advance system research for DIY Camera
    • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
3
Views
1K
AI Is An Alien Invasion Theory
    • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
1K
Exploring 8K vs 4K: How to Choose the Right TV Size
    • Electrical Engineering
Replies
7
Views
1K
The Scientist as Hero - or not
    • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Can’t tell the difference between a “good” school and a top 5 private school
    • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
946
Annoying Stereotypes and Devices in TV, Film, and Writing
    • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
3K
Public Enemies Movie - Amateurish?
    • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
TV shows, movies, and books that are ruined for you by physics
    • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
2
Replies
46
Views
7K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top