Re: What Did You Watch? 2024-03-09 (Saturday)

Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:

On 3/12/24 6:37 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:

On 3/12/24 11:12 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:

Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:

. . .

Because SD looks like s**t on an 4k TV.
IOW, not just the "FX", but *everything*!!

I would have figured by 2002 that most everything was filming in HD -
"...Jules Verne" had done so 3 years prior, and even shows on The WB,
like "Babes of Prey" from the year previous, were filmed in HD.

But I guess it took until c.2005 before everything, even stuff like
"Tracker", was filmed in HD.

Huh?

IOW, even through 2005, a lot of stuff was still filmed in SD. It wasn't
until 2005 that even low-rent stuff like "Tracker" was filmed in HD.

Filmed in SD? That's not how it works. That's not how any of it works.

The premiere color Western television series for the late 1950s and
early 1960s were filmed on 35 mm film, just like movies. Some were in
Technicolor. Even b&w filmed tv series were filmed on 35 mm movie film.

 

By the mid to late '60s, they were using cheaper Eastman Color, which
faded after three years or so.

I just looked up Tracker: Super 16 mm Arriflex system. That's why it
looked like crap.

That's a method of television production that got worse.

I'm not sure what we count as the first tv series videoed, not filmed,
that didn't look like crap. Not The Secret Life of Jules Verne.

"CSI"?

CSI was filmed for 16:9, I think from the beginning.

Various Panavision cameras, 35 mm film

"Babes of Prey"?

4:3

Arricam ST and Arricam 435. Both are 35 mm film systems.

I doubt either were "filmed", but both were HD.

Both were filmed. Ian, you're not listening.