Since the BBC HD channel won't allow any commissions that use 16mm or Super 16mm film, most drama commissions have either switched to HD video/D-Cinema style shooting, or have stuck with Super 16mm and been SD only. Standard 4-perf 35mm film has been out of the budget range of BBC drama since the 60s (when the Beeb switched from B&W 35mm to Colour 16mm)

However a couple of recent BBC HD drama commissions have started using cheaper 3-perf, and now 2-perf stock for acquisition, and used DI for post.

The current BBC adaptation of Emma has been shot on 2-perf, and looks pretty good to me. (Though the BBC have dropped their HD bitrate from 16.5Mbs to 9Mbs since they replaced their encoders with much more modern, more effecient models. These have improved the quality of 50i stuff, but I'm not convinced that 25p stuff looks better, and feels a bit softer)

Interesting post, thanks:) Although I admit I had to look up a few terms on Wiki that I wasn't aware of:o
Not to get OT, but maybe you know the answer to this. Are you saying that a programs like Last of the summer wine(BBC) was shot on super 16mm? The versions that are broadcast in my OTA market seem more like super 8 quality but maybe that's due more to the conversion process to NTSC etc., they're WS but SD at best.
I find it odd the BBC still uses film, I think?? most US sitcoms are shot on video but I could be wrong:confused:
I've always wondered why some programs destined for TV were shot on film, I mean wouldn't video be more efficient? I can see movies being shot on film since they'll be played in a theater.

Yet another Emma? Wow. Well, guess that's much better, drama-wise, than another serial-murderer production seemingly favored in the U.S.

That 16.5-to-9 Mbps reduction is H264 or similar, not MPEG2, presumably...for those not attuned to BBC tech? Is that new encoder now very close to theoretical double MPEG-4-family efficiency, so 9 Mbps is similar to ~18 Mbps MPEG2? Recall you mentioned here that earlier BBC H264 encoders weren't all that good there. With 35mm stored away guess a 2k telecine is adequate rather than a 4k?

As outlined (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1134278&highlight=prejudice) in the Blu-ray (BR) software section here, the S16mm joint BBC/A&E 1995 production of "Pride and Prejudice," released on BR this spring, looks exceptionally good. As the BR colorist in this motion-video comparison (http://vimeo.com/3869589) of the DVD print telecine and Blu-ray negative telecine explains, it was an apparently recent telecine ability to filter out the signal "jumps" that occur with scans of negative splices that made the S16mm negative telecine for the BR discs possible. (Although, unexplained, AIUI, negatives have been used for TV productions for a long time since they aren't as "precious" as negatives for major film features; although discussions such as this one (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=17320581&postcount=30) imply even feature negatives may be scanned.)

Also, of course, the P&P Blu-ray I believe is using AVC (MPEG4-like) with bit rates way exceeding those for broadcast TV (either MPEG4-like or MPEG2). So, from what I've seen on my BR disc set, the negative telecine scan, plus high bit rates, seem to overcome the 16mm telecine compression problems (for broadcast) Bagley and you summarized (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=13167283&postcount=40) earlier. -- John

I've always wondered why some programs destined for TV were shot on film, I mean wouldn't video be more efficient? I can see movies being shot on film since they'll be played in a theater.
Shooting with film is easy. Shooting with the wide range of cinema HD cameras these days is more work.

Film and film cameras are extremely dependable. Film has incredible exposure latitude. You can overexpose it and not lose much detail. You can underexpose it and brighten it up without much loss. For location shoots where light levels are unpredictable you can shoot on film with impunity. Film cameras are designed for abuse and rarely fail. When they do fail, it's not expensive to keep a couple extra cameras around to replace them. Shooting a reel of film and getting into post-production is a standard simple routine practice.

Video cameras are picky about exposure. Overexpose and you'll lose detail and sometimes cause unpredictable color shifts. Underexpose and you'll risk creating distracting noise and very obvious horizontal banding (see Battlestar Gallactica) although some cameras excel at low light levels. Camera operators have to be more careful with exposure. They often need to be connected to large disk arrays which are the size of refrigerators. Some cameras create video that has to be used with the manufacturer's special software which some people don't like.

The cameras are expensive. When Smallville started shooting on the Genesis, they missed having extra film cameras laying around the studio. Whenever a camera failed or they decided to cover a scene with multiple cameras they knew the film cameras would be there.

Thanks Scowl, that makes sense then why maybe studio sitcoms (where lighting can be carefully controlled) would tend to be more video while something shot predominately outdoors might be still film.

Interesting post, thanks:) Although I admit I had to look up a few terms on Wiki that I wasn't aware of:o
Not to get OT, but maybe you know the answer to this. Are you saying that a programs like Last of the summer wine(BBC) was shot on super 16mm? The versions that are broadcast in my OTA market seem more like super 8 quality but maybe that's due more to the conversion process to NTSC etc., they're WS but SD at best.
I find it odd the BBC still uses film, I think?? most US sitcoms are shot on video but I could be wrong:confused:
I've always wondered why some programs destined for TV were shot on film, I mean wouldn't video be more efficient? I can see movies being shot on film since they'll be played in a theater.

LOTSW has used nearly every possible combination of production media!

Originally, in the 70s and early-80s, like most BBC sitcoms it used SD 50i multi-camera video for studio interiors and single camera 25p 16mm film for exteriors location.

Once SD location video became feasible on camcorders, it switched the exteriors to 50i video as well - so the whole show was 50i (multi-cam in studio, single-cam on location).

Then it was decided that the shows budget could stretch to shooting entirely on Super 16mm film and single camera. Thus the entire show went 25p film.

(I can't remember if there were 16:9 SD all 50i shows, or if the switch to Super 16 was also the switch from 4:3 SD to 16:9 SD)

Then when HD arrived they switched from 25p Super 16 film, to 25p digital video (using Viper I think), and I believe that the show continues to be shot on HD digital video.

The first season in HDTV had a very odd look - I think because the DoP etc. were treating the Viper just like a film camera, and not working WITH it.

I think we've now had three season in HD - but I may be wrong. Recent shows have looked much nicer. (The cut rate is amazingly low - presumably to reduce the number of takes as they are running single camera?)

Yet another Emma? Wow. Well, guess that's much better, drama-wise, than another serial-murderer production seemingly favored in the U.S.

Yep - and it looks to be a good one. Adaptation by Sandy Welch I think. The BBC haven't done an Emma for a while - but it is a popular movie format, and I think ITV did one relatively recently.


That 16.5-to-9 Mbps reduction is H264 or similar, not MPEG2, presumably...for those not attuned to BBC tech?


Yep - should have included that the Beeb are H264 - as all of Europe is for HD.


Is that new encoder now very close to theoretical double MPEG-4-family efficiency, so 9 Mbps is similar to ~18 Mbps MPEG2?

That's the theory. AIUI MPEG2 encoders are still improving as well though. At least one manufacturer claims a 15% efficiency improvement with their latest MPEG2 models I believe.

The new BBC encoder seems to do better with 50i stuff, though may have a bit more noise reduction, but 25p stuff does look a bit softer to me. As the BBC often repeat shows, and I have some lossless off-air recordings, then I'll try and record the same show at 9Mbs and compare!


Recall you mentioned here that earlier BBC H264 encoders weren't all that good there. With 35mm stored away guess a 2k telecine is adequate rather than a 4k?


No - the original H264 encoders weren't delivering the compression levels that were touted. We were running at 18-16.5Mbs for years - which is MPEG2 bitrate levels. However there was almost no macroblocking at all on motion - and to be honest there is still very little. I haven't seen any fast sporting events via the new encoders - but Strictly Come Dancing (our version of Dancing with the Stars appears to look better now than it did at nearly twice the bitrate via the old encoder!)


As outlined (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1134278&highlight=prejudice) in the Blu-ray (BR) software section here, the S16mm joint BBC/A&E 1995 production of "Pride and Prejudice," released on BR this spring, looks exceptionally good. As the BR colorist in this motion-video comparison (http://vimeo.com/3869589) of the DVD print telecine and Blu-ray negative telecine explains, it was an apparently recent telecine ability to filter out the signal "jumps" that occur with scans of negative splices that made the S16mm negative telecine for the BR discs possible. (Although, unexplained, AIUI, negatives have been used for TV productions for a long time since they aren't as "precious" as negatives for major film features; although discussions such as this one (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=17320581&postcount=30) imply even feature negatives may be scanned.)

Also, of course, the P&P Blu-ray I believe is using AVC (MPEG4-like) with bit rates way exceeding those for broadcast TV (either MPEG4-like or MPEG2). So, from what I've seen on my BR disc set, the negative telecine scan, plus high bit rates, seem to overcome the 16mm telecine compression problems (for broadcast) Bagley and you summarized (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=13167283&postcount=40) earlier. -- John

I've got the BBC P&P Blu-ray. The improvement over the original TX and the early DVDs is noticable. However I wouldn't describe the picture quality as exceptional - and it is noticable that the grain is Super 16 level rather than crisp 35mm or HD video.

Not an expert on film post - but have a feeling P&P was edited in the film domain using negatives to create A and B reels (with alternate shots on alternate rolls). AIUI both rolls would then be telecined to video, and the final edit done in the VT domain? This means there will be a splice on every shot change - and at HD levels this may be noticable with Super 16 film?

Many TV shows shooting on film don't edit on film - and instead transfer all the rushes to video (now HD or 2k/4k DI) and edit entirely in the video (or DI) domain, so there is never any physical splicing. When it comes to movies that are still edited in the film domain, they are usually edited on 35mm, which has tighter tolerances, and is a bigger frame, so any movement on splices is proportionally smaller?

The above is mainly guesswork though - others here may have a much better idea.

I'm wondering how many people who prefer to shoot on film will start to center-extract 1.78:1 from Techniscope? On the back of the envelope, it looks like you'd get 20%+ more negative space than super-16.

3 perf advance cameras are standard and would all have to be modified to shoot 2 perf since Techniscope cameras are long gone. I don't know if telecine transfers of 2 perf footage would cost extra since it isn't standard.

I think more productions would switch to HD video before adopting another format to save 20% on stock costs.

3 perf advance cameras are standard and would all have to be modified to shoot 2 perf since Techniscope cameras are long gone. I don't know if telecine transfers of 2 perf footage would cost extra since it isn't standard.


Arri are beginning to push 2-perf quite heavily in Europe - and offer a number of cameras and it is also possible to modify existing cameras.

Telecines like the industry-standard DFT (was Thomson/Philips) Spirit HD have 2,3,4 (and sometimes 8 perf) scanning for 35mm AIUI. (The Spirit is line sensor based not frame sensor based and works on constant motion rather than needing a pull-down mechanism - so different frame heights are less of an issue?)


I think more productions would switch to HD video before adopting another format to save 20% on stock costs.

Some do, some don't. A lot of DoPs and Producers still prefer the "look" of film, and the work flow of film, particularly when running handheld. They have been sticking to Super 16 in the UK until recently - and now that 2-perf is available at similar budget levels they are switching to 2-perf 35mm.

In the UK it isn't a case of switching from 3-perf 35mm and saving money, it is a case of having to ditch Super 16 (as it isn't HD suitable according to the BBC HD guidelines) and chose something that delivers HD quality at the same or similar budget levels as Super 16. 2-perf 35mm is the only film solution that is avaialable for this - otherwise you're in HD video or D-cinema land (which many are embracing - but not all).

I'd be interested to see a head-to-head between Techniscope and super 16 using a high quality digital intermediate. I'm frankly surprised that super 16 isn't considered good enough for HD with modern film stocks.

I'd be interested to see a head-to-head between Techniscope and super 16 using a high quality digital intermediate. I'm frankly surprised that super 16 isn't considered good enough for HD with modern film stocks.

It's apparently a grain thing - not just a resolution thing.

The grain on Super 16 is apparently more of an issue than with 2 perf 35, and although it can look pretty good uncompressed or lightly compressed when viewed in the edit, by the time Super 16 stuff has been through a transmission chain (compressed playout server, and then 9Mbs - formerly 16.5Mbs with older encoders - H264 for transmission) it doesn't look so great.

I'm sure if you ran with only slow stocks and high lighting levels you might be able to get round it - but that isn't really an option for a drama production tool.

The BBC did a lot of testing - simulating the entire transmission chain - prior to deciding that Super 16 wasn't up to high quality HD standards - and have taken a lot of flack in the industry for it. They HAVE stuck to their guns though.

ITV (the main commercial terrestrial in the UK) have not vetoed Super 16, and the most recent series of Lewis (the successor to Inspector Morse) was shot on Super 16 and shown on ITV HD (which runs at around 13Mbs H264 1440x1080/50i last time I checked). It looked AWFUL.

So personally I'm quite glad there is a push to HD video/D-cinema or 35mm, as it does mean higher overall picture quality.

Telecines like the industry-standard DFT (was Thomson/Philips) Spirit HD have 2,3,4 (and sometimes 8 perf) scanning for 35mm AIUI. (The Spirit is line sensor based not frame sensor based and works on constant motion rather than needing a pull-down mechanism - so different frame heights are less of an issue?)Less of an issue in the sense that it requires electronic zoom. I suppose a 4k scan would be effective for this format. As 2 perf was intended for 2.35 (via optical printer), I guess it's about the same loss of horizontal resolution as a pan/scan of scope.

This is all very interesting. If all of the elements are put in place, I could easily see 2-perf coming to dominate in Hollywood as an origination format. If everyone is using a DI, and nobody cares about 4x3 anymore (I think we're finally just about there), there's really no remaining reason to use 4-perf Super 35 anymore (though you could make a case for 3-perf in films meant to be projected in theaters).

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if scope productions are even happening anymore? The last Bond was not shot in scope--a telling departure.

The new BBC encoder seems to do better with 50i stuff, though may have a bit more noise reduction, but 25p stuff does look a bit softer to me. As the BBC often repeat shows, and I have some lossless off-air recordings, then I'll try and record the same show at 9Mbs and compare!
Perhaps a spectrum analysis (SA) of the luma, independent of displays, would aid comparisons of actual effective horizontal resolution? Since, from what I read, you tinker with HTPCs, perhaps the free/low-cost SA software used by dr1394 for a SA of a 1920X1080 stadium crowd scene (see two jpegs (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=5466046#post5466046)) would work at least for crispy looking static images. Since that shareware software graphs resolution vs contrast, maybe it'll spit out data for spreadsheet averaging of various images. Or maybe the Beeb has a spare high-end hardware analyzer, like the H-P model used by AVSer sspears years back when he found telecined feature movies on HD-D5 (~270 Mbps) 1080/24p master tapes were typically only 800--1300 lines (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=2498224#post2498224) effective resolution. (That's per picture width, not height, judging from Joe Kane's comments (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9314235&&#post9314235) about the same time.) -- John

Arri are beginning to push 2-perf quite heavily in Europe - and offer a number of cameras and it is also possible to modify existing cameras.
So in 50 years when we have 21:9 displays and a new HDTV standard, those old shows will be easy to transfer to the new wider screen format. :D

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if scope productions are even happening anymore? The last Bond was not shot in scope--a telling departure.
What do you mean by "scope"? There are tons of features shot in 1:2.35 with both spherical (Super 35) and anamorphic lenses these days.

Perhaps a spectrum analysis (SA) of the luma, independent of displays, would aid comparisons of actual effective horizontal resolution? Since, from what I read, you tinker with HTPCs, perhaps the free/low-cost SA software used by dr1394 for a SA of a 1920X1080 stadium crowd scene (see two jpegs (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=5466046#post5466046)) would work at least for crispy looking static images. Since that shareware software graphs resolution vs contrast, maybe it'll spit out data for spreadsheet averaging of various images. Or maybe the Beeb has a spare high-end hardware analyzer, like the H-P model used by AVSer sspears years back when he found telecined feature movies on HD-D5 (~270 Mbps) 1080/24p master tapes were typically only 800--1300 lines (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=2498224#post2498224) effective resolution. (That's per picture width, not height, judging from Joe Kane's comments (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9314235&&#post9314235) about the same time.) -- John

Some of my own past threads here were attempting to measure detail by how much high frequency info was available in the final output. And it works to some extent. The problem was that grain, CGI, and compression artifacts also all show up as very high detail by that standard so the results are sometimes quite misleading.

- Tom

The problem was that grain, CGI, and compression artifacts also all show up as very high detail by that standard so the results are sometimes quite misleading.


Yep - presumably compression noise and very sharp block-edges have a lot of HF components, as do unfiltered CGI with sharp edges?

It's very difficult to measure transmission/production chains without the source material to compare I guess.

What do you mean by "scope"? There are tons of features shot in 1:2.35 with both spherical (Super 35) and anamorphic lenses these days.
I mean with anamorphic lenses. Obviously lots of people are still using 2.35 super 35.

I mean with anamorphic lenses. Obviously lots of people are still using 2.35 super 35.

A few months ago there was a huge article in American Cinematographer about the magic of shooting with anamorphic lenses. They listed many recent major productions that were shot anamorphic.

There's a mystique about anamorphic lenses that to me, a still photographer (using spherical lenses of course), sounds absolutely crazy. Every ugly artifact that anamorphic lenses generate is celebrated in the cinematography world. They love every ugly flare they create, especially the one that causes a horizontal line across the screen when a bright light source hits the lens (you'll see this a hundred times in Blade Runner). Whenever CSI shoots in the sun they use anamorphic lenses and stretch the image in post. Why? To get those beautiful flares that only they care about.

The out of focus areas are stretched vertically by anamorphic lenses causing them to look rough instead of misty smooth. Even worse, when you rack focus, the out of focus areas stretch horizontally before they come into focus which looks like a fun house mirror being flattened. They even like how many anamorphic lenses are blurry around the edges, especially in the corners. Geez, you can easily create this effect with a filter or create it in post.

If a $50 photo lens had these problems, not one still photographer would dare use it.

I dunno, I think there's a certain charm to cinemascope artifacts. It the very least, they suggest an expensive production. I mean, you could make a similar case against using film at all (how can anyone celebrate grain?!)

I dunno, I think there's a certain charm to cinemascope artifacts. It the very least, they suggest an expensive production.
Twenty or thirty years ago, yes. Now some large Super 35 productions are shooting 3 perf to save money.