TV Look vs. Movie Look - What is it really?

[Wesley Scoggins]

Recently watched the new trailers for "Che" and "Knowing", and they got me thinking about something that i've always pondered.

What makes something definitely look like a TV show and something else definitely look like a Movie?

For instance, I've watched a few episodes of "Sanctuary" on Sci-Fi, knowing that they shot with a Red, and it looks great, but it still has a very "TV" look. Like I know it looks great, but it still has something intangible about it that makes it look Non-Movie-ish in places.

When I say it doesn't look like a movie, or it looks uncinematic, I don't mean "bad", just, I watch "Crank" and "Superbad" shot with digital cameras with lower resolutions than Red, (heck even "28 Days later") and they all look like Movies to me, but Sanctuary doesn't.

It's obviously not the Camera, because I watched the HD trailers for "Knowing" and "Che", and they look practically indistinguishable to me when compared to films shot with 35mm.

So what is it that REALLY makes something look like it's a TV show, and what REALLY makes something look like a film? Is it the lighting? The color correction? The sound? Some convergence of these elements?

I mean, some TV shows look very Cinematic, "Battlestar Galactica" looks better than something like the "Wing Commander" movie and yet Galactica has used the F900 a lot, so I KNOW it's not JUST the camera.

So what is it that really separates something from looking Cinematic to something that looks like Television?

 

[Brandon Fraley]

IMHO, its all about time. TV shows are produced much faster than movies. Often I feel like TV looks "over lit" (or lighted, whatever, get off my back) because they just don't have the time to finesse it like most feature films. Same goes for the DI. More and more TV shows go through some kind of digital grading process, but they don't have the same amount of time as theatrical releases.

Although, I think the real thing is more subliminal. I think TV feels different than movies, it's pushed along faster, often the music is more pasted on, and of course your writing and editing around commercial breaks. I think that "feeling" spills over to your (or at least my) interpretation of the look.

Example: The office is shot in a documentary style, seemingly mostly with built in lighting, and yet to me personally, it feels much more movie-ish than other TV shows. And I think the reason is that they use no music. The fact that there is no score make it feel much more realistic, and also feel much more specifically paced. Thereby somehow convincing my eyes that it actually "looks" more cinematic.

Anyway, just my observations.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, I agree -- a lot of it has to do with the time constraints of shooting TV, which favors volume of shots over quality sometimes, and the stylistic visual structure of many TV shows -- their coverage, editing style.

But a lot is due to simple economics -- cheaper locations are chosen to shoot in, less time & money are spent art directing the locations, less time is spent lighting them, the DP is not given any real prep time for a location, he and the director often figure out how to shoot them when they arrive on the set that day, etc.

Otherwise, I'd say that some shows do look very cinematic and have feature-like production values (the CSI series come to mind). So I wouldn't generalize too much. It's become more and more blurred, the dividing line.

 

[Brandon Fraley]

Otherwise, I'd say that some shows do look very cinematic and have feature-like production values (the CSI series come to mind). So I wouldn't generalize too much. It's become more and more blurred, the dividing line.

very true

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I have Dish Network (satellite TV), and the quality of many channels is pretty mediocre, including TNT, so it's hard to make any judgments about how "Leverage" looked, it was so compressed and soft-looking on my TV set. If anyone has Dish Network, tell me if the HD channels are much better, or also suffer from excessive compression. I'm in the West LA area, so if there are better HD options, I'd consider switching my service...

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

From the previews i've seen of Leverage, it looks as good as "Boston Legal" which i'm pretty sure is shot with 35mm?

http://www.tnt.tv/dramavision/?cid=44213 They've got a few episodes on-line for free, and watching it, it looks a bit soft, and a little low-contrast, although I don't know if it's the player that is making it look washed out, or if they naturally de-saturate it.

But it still looks pretty good, very cinematic in some places, but it still has a TV look, although less so than Sanctuary.

 

[Charles Angus]

Sharpening and detail are the main culprits to my taste. Take some 35mm film and oversharpen it a bit, bam - coulda been shot on a Betacam for cable news.

Exaggerating a little, but you get my drift.

 

[REDneck]

I have Dish Network (satellite TV), and the quality of many channels is pretty mediocre, including TNT, so it's hard to make any judgments about how "Leverage" looked, it was so compressed and soft-looking on my TV set. If anyone has Dish Network, tell me if the HD channels are much better, or also suffer from excessive compression. I'm in the West LA area, so if there are better HD options, I'd consider switching my service...

apparently if you use a regular antenna to receive HD channels, you're getting a nearly uncompressed stream. try it out.

 

[Adam Glick]

All digital television broadcasts are sent to viewers using one of two transmission specifications - DVB or ATSC.

Both of these standards support a maximum data rate of 19.2Mbps for any single transport stream (a single channel).

This means that all broadcast HD is highly compressed.

The sad part is that HD channels are more likely to be broadcast at between 5 to 12 Mbps.

They do this to fit more channels through satellite transponders and terrestrial (optical) network feeds and broadcast operations plants. The upside of this is that now the operators can squeeze three (or more) television channels into the bandwidth originally designed for just one.

The downside is that consumers must live with crap-quality HD that's been stomped on for the sake of revenue for your signal provider.

Local HD television -especially locally-produced television that didn't originate from a national network source- often looks better than your satellite or cable HD because the local stations have more bandwidth to play with and aren't as pressed to deliver lots of channels over the same "circuts". Local HD simply doesn't have to use as much compression - which obviously improves image quality.

 

[Daniel Browning]

Blu-ray.

Blu-ray.

I have Dish Network (satellite TV), and the quality of many channels is pretty mediocre...if there are better HD options, I'd consider switching my service...

When you hear about a great show, just write the name down on a piece of paper, wait for it to come out, then rent it on Blu-ray.

If a show is worth watching, it's worth watching *right*, with the highest quality, no compression artifacts, no pull down, full 1080p, cast commentary, special features, no interruptions, etc.

In contrast, every Blu-Ray disc I've seen so far (knock on wood) has been mastered with care.

The hard part, of course, is having the patience to wait 12+ months (if ever) to see the show you want.

TV is exactly like cinema, but in the opposite order.

With Cinema, you pay now to see a high quality version (2K), then wait months to see a cheaper low quality rental (Blu-ray) and pay almost nothing.

With TV, you pay almost nothing to see a low quality broadcast, then wait months to pay for a high quality rental (Blu-ray).

 

[Ramesh Jai]

Sharpening and detail are the main culprits to my taste. Take some 35mm film and oversharpen it a bit, bam - coulda been shot on a Betacam for cable news.

Exaggerating a little, but you get my drift.

Totally agree with you. After shooting with RED One I actually render out details set to low and sharpen at 0.

 

[conrad gaunt]

50i or 60i is such a different animal than 24p, at whatever resolution.

I always feel like I have less control over audio sync. when using 50i, as apposed to a 24p project. Its like the high field count gives me less room to maneuvre creatively, which tends to make me move things about a little less. Whether its grain or audio sync., a little imperfection seperates films sometimes from high end tv IMO

Someone on another thread said some live award show was broadcast using progressive footage, but that this made people think it was a pre-recorded show, and viewing numbers were consequently low, so they went back to interlaced footage.
I can certainly believe that, many of us have grown up with interlaced hyper-reality pumped into our goggle boxes.

I think some of my dreams are still interlaced, and I'll never believe World War I actually happened in colour, because my baby brain watched saw too many clips in monochrome

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

IMHO, its all about time. TV shows are produced much faster than movies. Often I feel like TV looks "over lit" (or lighted, whatever, get off my back) because they just don't have the time to finesse it like most feature films. Same goes for the DI. More and more TV shows go through some kind of digital grading process, but they don't have the same amount of time as theatrical releases.

Although, I think the real thing is more subliminal. I think TV feels different than movies, it's pushed along faster, often the music is more pasted on, and of course your writing and editing around commercial breaks. I think that "feeling" spills over to your (or at least my) interpretation of the look.

Example: The office is shot in a documentary style, seemingly mostly with built in lighting, and yet to me personally, it feels much more movie-ish than other TV shows. And I think the reason is that they use no music. The fact that there is no score make it feel much more realistic, and also feel much more specifically paced. Thereby somehow convincing my eyes that it actually "looks" more cinematic.

Anyway, just my observations.

I think you are very right, and especially the 'overlit' thing, I can notice a lot. That being said, some series really push the boundaries if it comes to a cinematic feeling (The X-Files, Lost, Battlestar Gallactica, ...)

 

[Craig Ryan]

I don't know if HBO series count in this discussion, but I've always found their shows, Sopranos, for instance, to look the most cinematic. They all definitely retain a definitive style (overhead lighting for Sopranos) which we probably begin to associate with TV I guess. Same goes for Prime time shows like 24 which to my eye is lit low key for the most part, in contrast (no pun intended) to sci fi shows which IMO have Generally gone to a more high key, colorful approach. Exceptions of course.

 

[Benjamin Rowland]

I have Dish Network (satellite TV), and the quality of many channels is pretty mediocre, including TNT, so it's hard to make any judgments about how "Leverage" looked, it was so compressed and soft-looking on my TV set. If anyone has Dish Network, tell me if the HD channels are much better, or also suffer from excessive compression. I'm in the West LA area, so if there are better HD options, I'd consider switching my service...

I have Dish HD, and TNT's Leverage looked great on my Panasonic plasma. I think Dish HD looks better than DirectTV HD, which we have at the office. I've been very happy with the quality of Dish HD overall. I've also had Comcast HD, that's pretty nice in Atlanta too (can't speak for service in LA).

 

[DRappazzo]

I have always pondered this same question, I mean most of the time even of you watch a made for television movie it still has that same television feel to it. I think it is a combination of factors, both technicial and theoretical. Aesthetically you can always tell the difference between something shot for television and something shot for a theatrical or even direct to dvd release. Acting, lighting, editing, framing, format, etc... I think all these factors and a kind of sub-conscious thing are happening all at the same time creating a almost imperceptable difference. But what do I know, interesting discussion though with some great posts.

 

[Ed Watkins]

Just to jump in briefly on why Sanctuary looks TV'ish.

The main reason is that it is all shot on greenscreen, so pretty much all the depth of field is added in post, and so are the backdrops. Lighting for greenscreen will make the ligting look less real, and so:

Low budget greenscreen/CGI = TV look.

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

Just to jump in briefly on why Sanctuary looks TV'ish.

The main reason is that it is all shot on greenscreen, so pretty much all the depth of field is added in post, and so are the backdrops. Lighting for greenscreen will make the ligting look less real, and so:

Low budget greenscreen/CGI = TV look.

Yes, but Sky Captain, Sin City, and Casshern all looked very "Movie-ish" to me, and they were all on Green Screen.

But I guess the lighting they use for it does add to it, and they probably don't have nearly as much time to process and grade the footage as the above films did.

I mean, they have what? Less than a month to shoot a half an hour? While most of those movies took a year or more to do an hour and a half. So I guess that affects it too.

 

[Jaime Vallés]

In my opinion, the composition of the framing within every shot is the biggest difference. Movies are shot with the intent of being seen on a large screen, sometimes as big as 50 or 60 feet. Television shows are, on average, meant to be seen on screens from 19 to 50 inches. One composes images differently for each scenario.

TV shows are almost always medium close-ups, with maybe one or two wide establishing shots. Close-ups work well for TV, because it's how you can see people's faces clearly. In movies, you often have entire dialogue scenes in wide shots, which works great on a big screen. Also, the actual shot angles are better thought out, because of the time issues mentioned in some of the posts above.

For me, the difference is framing and composition, much more so than lighting or sets or costumes, or even budget.

 

[Daniel Browning]

Pan and scan!

Pan and scan!

Close-ups work well for TV, because it's how you can see people's faces clearly. In movies, you often have entire dialogue scenes in wide shots, which works great on a big screen.

Why not have the best of both worlds: 4:3 Pan and Scan!

Watching movies in 2K at the theater or on a nice Blu-ray home theater setup gets pretty boring after a while. Where's the mystery and excitement? I have yet to see even *one* Blu-ray disc authored with this excellent 4:3 telecine technique.

In the good old days, watching VHS pan-and-scan, only a tiny fraction of the image was revealed to the audience, leaving you to wonder what was going on in the rest of the frame, especially in 2.39. If only today's movies could have such intrigue.

That's why I invented the "4:3 Pan-scan-o-matic" headset:

With this device you can *finally* experience cinema at home as it should be, not the misguided effort of some DOP.