WEBVTT Kind: captions Language: en-US 00:00:06.400 --> 00:00:09.600 So there’s this music video floating around the Interwebs. 00:00:09.600 --> 00:00:12.640 Something about giving your cardiac muscle as a Christmas gift, 00:00:12.640 --> 00:00:15.720 and being distraught upon its subsequent re-gifting? 00:00:15.720 --> 00:00:18.100 Anyway, I checked it out, and people are just 00:00:18.100 --> 00:00:18.920 FREAKING OUT 00:00:18.920 --> 00:00:20.640 about how good the video looks. 00:00:20.640 --> 00:00:25.780 “The quality is so good, looks like people in 2019 trying to dress like people in the ‘80s!” 00:00:25.780 --> 00:00:29.860 “Why is nobody talking about how amazing this 4K transfer is” 00:00:29.860 --> 00:00:34.879 Well, I am, and in fact so many people are that it’s getting news coverage. 00:00:34.880 --> 00:00:38.920 And some people are left wondering how they managed to do it. 00:00:38.920 --> 00:00:44.160 Well, the answer is simple. The music video was shot on film, and somebody had the master 00:00:44.160 --> 00:00:46.900 (or a very good print) transferred in 4K. 00:00:46.900 --> 00:00:51.720 But wait, you say, "I was alive in the ‘80s, and everything looked all fuzzy all the time. 00:00:51.720 --> 00:00:56.260 There’s no way my favorite hits from MTV would survive into the 2020’s!" 00:00:56.260 --> 00:00:57.140 You’re right! 00:00:57.140 --> 00:00:57.820 But also. 00:00:57.820 --> 00:00:58.780 You’re wrong! 00:00:58.780 --> 00:01:02.340 It all depends on how the material you’re watching has been produced. 00:01:02.340 --> 00:01:04.000 Was it shot on film? 00:01:04.000 --> 00:01:06.060 Or was it shot on tape? 00:01:06.060 --> 00:01:11.280 And while there was never a clear rule-of-thumb for what technology was used under what circumstances, 00:01:11.280 --> 00:01:14.360 there are a few tell-tales which will reveal which is which. 00:01:14.360 --> 00:01:19.500 So let’s talk about those, as well as what the difference is between film and tape. 00:01:19.500 --> 00:01:22.780 Just as a note, this discussion takes place prior to the advent of 00:01:22.780 --> 00:01:25.320 digital video and high definition television. 00:01:25.320 --> 00:01:29.540 So, for the most part, we’re talking about stuff made in the 1990’s or earlier, 00:01:29.540 --> 00:01:32.280 with a hint of the early 2000’s peppered in. 00:01:32.280 --> 00:01:36.950 Photography may seem like a trivial thing today, but it wasn’t so easy for the vast 00:01:36.950 --> 00:01:38.600 majority of its history. 00:01:38.600 --> 00:01:42.380 The goal of this video isn’t to go through the entire history of photography, 00:01:42.380 --> 00:01:47.360 so we’re gonna fast forward to about 1900 when we’ve settled on this film stuff. 00:01:47.360 --> 00:01:51.429 Photographic film consists of a substrate covered in a photosensitive goop 00:01:51.429 --> 00:01:52.960 called the emulsion. 00:01:52.960 --> 00:01:56.340 Silver halide crystals in this goop will undergo a chemical change 00:01:56.340 --> 00:01:58.140 when they are hit with photons. 00:01:58.140 --> 00:02:01.390 Specifically, tiny seed particles of metallic silver will 00:02:01.390 --> 00:02:05.970 form on the surface of these crystals when incoming photons liberate an electron from 00:02:05.970 --> 00:02:08.590 individual atoms on the halide crystals. 00:02:08.590 --> 00:02:13.470 If you focus light onto the film with a lens and expose it briefly with the aid of a shutter, 00:02:13.470 --> 00:02:16.860 the incoming photons will forms what’s called the latent image. 00:02:16.860 --> 00:02:19.140 Wherever the film has been exposed to light, 00:02:19.140 --> 00:02:22.880 some of those crystals will now have trace amounts of metallic silver 00:02:22.880 --> 00:02:24.400 hanging out on the surface. 00:02:24.400 --> 00:02:28.030 To obtain a usable image, a chemical process called development 00:02:28.030 --> 00:02:32.970 will cause the metallic silver in the exposed halide crystals to spread and turn the entire 00:02:32.970 --> 00:02:35.340 crystal into solid silver. 00:02:35.340 --> 00:02:38.710 The metallic silver then blocks light from going through the film, 00:02:38.710 --> 00:02:43.250 and the result is that areas exposed with light become dark, and a negative image is 00:02:43.250 --> 00:02:45.360 now captured on the film. 00:02:45.360 --> 00:02:47.500 This is what film negatives look like. 00:02:47.500 --> 00:02:49.480 You can see the images quite clearly, 00:02:49.480 --> 00:02:53.120 and if we use magnification we can see the individual silver crystals. 00:02:53.120 --> 00:02:57.000 This is known as the film’s grain, and depending on the properties of the film, 00:02:57.000 --> 00:03:00.580 these grains may be larger, smaller, or even differently shaped. 00:03:00.580 --> 00:03:03.520 The grain of the film is what defines the image. 00:03:03.520 --> 00:03:08.260 While these certainly can’t be called pixels, at least not in the way we use that term today, 00:03:08.260 --> 00:03:11.940 they represent the smallest amount of detail that the film can capture. 00:03:11.940 --> 00:03:14.840 However, because the grains are distributed randomly, 00:03:14.840 --> 00:03:18.480 and since they are themselves found in all sorts of shapes and sizes, 00:03:18.480 --> 00:03:22.860 we can’t exactly define the resolution in any numerical terms other than 00:03:22.860 --> 00:03:26.020 “X number of grains per millimeter on average”. 00:03:26.020 --> 00:03:29.980 Over the course of film’s development, and I mean technological development, we created 00:03:29.980 --> 00:03:32.040 better film that was more sensitive to light 00:03:32.040 --> 00:03:33.940 (sometimes known as faster film), 00:03:33.940 --> 00:03:35.540 we created color films, 00:03:35.540 --> 00:03:37.280 we created sharper films, 00:03:37.280 --> 00:03:42.860 and we created safer film that wouldn’t burst into flames if the nitrate substrate were to get too hot. 00:03:42.860 --> 00:03:48.060 But throughout the entire history of film, into present day, the basics are the same. 00:03:48.060 --> 00:03:53.800 Tiny grains of silver halides react to light, and these form the base of the image after development. 00:03:53.800 --> 00:03:57.640 In color films the silver halides are used as a sort of intermediary 00:03:57.640 --> 00:04:00.940 and are replaced with color dyes in the development process, 00:04:00.940 --> 00:04:04.480 but the original grain structure remains intact and visible. 00:04:04.480 --> 00:04:08.600 Of course, where’s there’s photography, motion pictures are soon to follow! 00:04:08.600 --> 00:04:13.080 The motion picture cameras used in Hollywood would typically use film just like this, 00:04:13.080 --> 00:04:16.720 though instead of being run horizontally through a camera like these have been, 00:04:16.720 --> 00:04:20.860 it would be run vertically, using a smaller portion of the film with each exposure. 00:04:20.860 --> 00:04:24.240 This film is 35mm across which gave it the name 00:04:24.240 --> 00:04:25.640 35mm. (shocker) 00:04:25.700 --> 00:04:29.860 A typical motion picture camera would expose the film 24 times in a second, 00:04:29.860 --> 00:04:32.900 creating a frame rate of 24 frames per second. 00:04:32.900 --> 00:04:36.040 And if you create a positive print from these original negatives, 00:04:36.040 --> 00:04:40.520 then run it through a projector which will shine light through it and project it onto a surface, 00:04:40.520 --> 00:04:44.200 you’ll be able to recreate the illusion of movement! 00:04:44.200 --> 00:04:49.480 This was the only way we knew how to make moving pictures happen for a long while. 00:04:49.480 --> 00:04:54.180 We took the technology of the photograph, sped it up, and projected it. 00:04:54.180 --> 00:04:57.960 Each individual film frame was itself just a photograph, 00:04:57.960 --> 00:04:59.960 made up of those tiny silver grains, 00:04:59.960 --> 00:05:02.920 and with surprisingly high visual fidelity. 00:05:02.920 --> 00:05:06.300 And we were all having fun watching these amazing movies at the cinema, 00:05:06.300 --> 00:05:10.120 enjoying our popcorn, socializing with the neighbors, and then a little thing happened 00:05:10.120 --> 00:05:11.440 called television. 00:05:11.440 --> 00:05:12.280 Television. 00:05:12.280 --> 00:05:14.380 An invention with limitless potential. 00:05:14.380 --> 00:05:15.700 When it works. 00:05:15.700 --> 00:05:20.880 One day, I predict millions of people might learn Latin and Greek sitting in front of their TV sets. 00:05:20.880 --> 00:05:24.920 Anyway, with television, we were building images in a whole new way. 00:05:24.920 --> 00:05:26.920 With ELECTRONICS. 00:05:26.920 --> 00:05:30.637 Analog television is some fascinating stuff, and I’ve made a number of videos about it, 00:05:30.637 --> 00:05:33.380 which you can check out in this playlist. 00:05:33.380 --> 00:05:34.590 But here’s the gist. 00:05:34.590 --> 00:05:39.180 A scanning electron beam creates a pattern of light on the face of a cathode ray tube (CRT) 00:05:39.180 --> 00:05:40.440 called a raster. 00:05:40.440 --> 00:05:43.180 This raster is a series of horizontal lines. 00:05:43.180 --> 00:05:48.660 Variations in the intensity of the beam will create variations in brightness as the line is drawn. 00:05:48.660 --> 00:05:54.140 By synchronizing the scanned raster of the television with the scanning raster of a television camera, 00:05:54.140 --> 00:05:57.540 we can instantly transmit moving images across the globe. 00:05:57.540 --> 00:06:01.360 All it takes is a television set and favorable receiving conditions. 00:06:01.360 --> 00:06:04.965 In the earliest days of television, all television was produced live. 00:06:04.965 --> 00:06:09.200 We didn’t have a way to store television signals to be rebroadcast later. 00:06:09.200 --> 00:06:13.740 Eventually, we found that we could just adapt motion picture film for use in television 00:06:13.740 --> 00:06:16.620 using devices called telecines and kinescopes. 00:06:16.620 --> 00:06:21.340 While perhaps a primitive and brute-force way to go about it, these worked. 00:06:21.340 --> 00:06:25.480 All you needed to do was to film a television screen to capture it on film. 00:06:25.480 --> 00:06:30.360 And to rebroadcast it, you point a television camera at a movie screen and tada! 00:06:30.360 --> 00:06:35.080 Now, to be clear it was a little less janky than that, but indeed the principle was 00:06:35.080 --> 00:06:36.140 “film a TV” 00:06:36.140 --> 00:06:38.100 and “Broadcast a movie” 00:06:38.110 --> 00:06:42.870 But this was kind of annoying. For one thing, television was created using interlaced video, 00:06:42.870 --> 00:06:46.320 meaning we had a refresh rate of 60 hz in the US. 00:06:46.320 --> 00:06:50.500 Typically, when stored on film, the frame rate would be cut in half to 30 frames per second, 00:06:50.500 --> 00:06:54.240 if not lower to 24, reducing the fluidity of motion. 00:06:54.240 --> 00:06:58.160 But the most annoying thing was that film is expensive! 00:06:58.160 --> 00:07:01.700 You can’t re-use it, it takes time and effort to develop it, 00:07:01.700 --> 00:07:05.500 and in general it presented a limitation to television production. 00:07:05.500 --> 00:07:07.620 Enter, videotape! 00:07:07.620 --> 00:07:12.500 The Quadruplex recorder by Ampex was the first real success in this field. 00:07:12.500 --> 00:07:16.200 Suddenly, we had a way to store the electronic signals of television… 00:07:16.200 --> 00:07:17.699 electronically. 00:07:17.699 --> 00:07:22.590 By writing them directly onto tape, we’d have the full 60 hz refresh rate, in fact 00:07:22.590 --> 00:07:27.389 we’d have a literal television signal ready to be re-transmitted at any time, and most 00:07:27.389 --> 00:07:30.200 importantly, the tape could be re-used. 00:07:30.200 --> 00:07:34.640 Now television could be recorded earlier in the day, broadcast later that evening, 00:07:34.640 --> 00:07:37.490 and the same tape could be re-used for the next day. 00:07:37.490 --> 00:07:39.100 Much to the chagrin or archivists. 00:07:39.100 --> 00:07:40.090 But anyway... 00:07:40.090 --> 00:07:41.900 Here’s the key thing. 00:07:41.900 --> 00:07:45.360 Videotape is simply storing a television signal. 00:07:45.360 --> 00:07:50.320 And that television signal, unlike our friend Film, is not a physical object 00:07:50.320 --> 00:07:54.740 made of microscopic silver crystals that we can see with our own eyes. 00:07:54.740 --> 00:07:57.840 Granted, the tape is made of microscopic particles, 00:07:57.840 --> 00:08:02.520 but they don’t hold an image. It’s just the television raster frozen in time, which 00:08:02.521 --> 00:08:06.600 means it does have a limited and defined resolution. 00:08:06.600 --> 00:08:07.740 That raster? 00:08:07.740 --> 00:08:11.780 That’s as much resolution as you can ever have, and for NTSC televisions, 00:08:11.780 --> 00:08:15.020 like this one, that’s only 480 lines. 00:08:15.020 --> 00:08:17.800 PAL countries got closer to 600 lines, but still. 00:08:17.800 --> 00:08:19.080 That’s it. 00:08:19.080 --> 00:08:22.700 I’m gonna stick to NTSC numbers from now on, so back to 480. 00:08:22.700 --> 00:08:27.480 Those 480 lines are sort of like the speed limit of analog television. 00:08:27.480 --> 00:08:29.900 Television is a technical standard, after all. 00:08:29.900 --> 00:08:36.600 You can’t exceed 480 lines of resolution or else you’ve made something that no television set can display. 00:08:36.600 --> 00:08:41.300 So if you’re using a television camera, you’ve got those 480 lines. 00:08:41.300 --> 00:08:42.220 No more. 00:08:42.220 --> 00:08:43.240 No less. 00:08:43.240 --> 00:08:48.880 The best videotape will record the television signal almost verbatim, but that’s still just… 00:08:48.880 --> 00:08:49.840 are you ready? 00:08:49.840 --> 00:08:51.680 480 lines. 00:08:51.680 --> 00:08:54.240 Which today we call Standard Definition. 00:08:54.240 --> 00:09:01.149 So, anything that was mastered on tape will forever be limited to those 480 lines of resolution. 00:09:01.149 --> 00:09:05.960 We can’t get any more detail out of it unless we start doing some goofy AI stuff. 00:09:05.960 --> 00:09:07.400 But film? 00:09:07.400 --> 00:09:09.740 That’s an entirely different story. 00:09:09.740 --> 00:09:12.680 Film isn’t an electronic signal following a technical standard. 00:09:12.680 --> 00:09:15.260 It’s just a bunch of microscopic silver crystals! 00:09:15.260 --> 00:09:18.920 So even though we might have used film to make something for TV, 00:09:18.920 --> 00:09:21.800 if we still have the film we can go back, 00:09:21.800 --> 00:09:24.140 transfer the film with modern technology, 00:09:24.140 --> 00:09:28.029 and suddenly have the same thing in MUCH higher quality. 00:09:28.029 --> 00:09:32.110 When shooting with film, the result will be as sharp as the person could focus and as 00:09:32.110 --> 00:09:34.579 fine as the grain of film is. 00:09:34.579 --> 00:09:37.980 This is why some older television shows, like Star Trek the Next Generation, 00:09:37.980 --> 00:09:40.500 are looking great into the 2020’s. 00:09:40.500 --> 00:09:44.080 The producers of TNG had decided to shoot on film. 00:09:44.080 --> 00:09:48.740 Why might they do that? Well, while it would make the production more expensive, it also gave them 00:09:48.740 --> 00:09:51.500 tons of flexibility in the editing. 00:09:51.500 --> 00:09:56.740 Because film has a high level of detail, you can crop the frame without impacting the quality 00:09:56.740 --> 00:09:58.720 as it appears on-screen. 00:09:58.720 --> 00:10:01.820 But best of all, this decision paid future dividends. 00:10:01.820 --> 00:10:06.480 Thanks to shooting on film, we aren’t stuck with a bunch of tapes in standard definition. 00:10:06.480 --> 00:10:08.649 We have the original film negatives that we can 00:10:08.649 --> 00:10:13.310 scan at modern resolutions and enjoy in the highest quality possible. 00:10:13.310 --> 00:10:16.220 But lots of television shows didn’t go that route. 00:10:16.220 --> 00:10:17.620 It’s easy to argue that, 00:10:17.620 --> 00:10:21.320 "well if we’re making this for TV, why would we use film? 00:10:21.320 --> 00:10:25.080 If everyone’s watching this on a standard definition television, 00:10:25.080 --> 00:10:28.680 what’s the benefit of exceeding that quality aside from, maybe, 00:10:28.680 --> 00:10:30.700 some freedom in the edit bay?" 00:10:30.700 --> 00:10:35.440 And so, other shows like Star Trek Voyager, shot directly to tape. 00:10:35.440 --> 00:10:37.760 Quick correction / clarification. 00:10:37.760 --> 00:10:40.660 The actual live-action was shot on film, which 00:10:40.660 --> 00:10:46.600 in hindsight seems pretty obvious considering the refresh rate is definitely NOT 60 Hz... 00:10:46.600 --> 00:10:51.113 I haven’t actually seen any of Voyager until now… forgive me. 00:10:51.113 --> 00:10:52.740 The catch with Voyager 00:10:52.749 --> 00:10:56.140 was that the film was immediately transferred onto videotape, 00:10:56.140 --> 00:11:03.089 and all of the editing and special effects --so basically the entirety of post-production-- were done on tape at 00:11:03.089 --> 00:11:05.739 NTSC resolution. Anyway... 00:11:05.739 --> 00:11:09.500 Which in fairness didn’t matter at all back in the day since it was only seen on the tube 00:11:09.500 --> 00:11:11.360 TVs of the day. 00:11:11.360 --> 00:11:16.140 In fact you might argue itwas better than film since you had a true 60Hz refresh rate again. 00:11:16.140 --> 00:11:17.839 If you like that sort of thing. 00:11:17.840 --> 00:11:22.840 But that decision means we cannot improve the quality beyond how it was in 1995. 00:11:22.840 --> 00:11:24.800 It’s stuck that way forever. 00:11:24.800 --> 00:11:28.559 The video is hard-coded onto magnetic tape, either in the analog domain 00:11:28.559 --> 00:11:30.900 or (in later years) in the digital domain, 00:11:30.900 --> 00:11:33.660 and there’s literally no room for improvement. 00:11:33.660 --> 00:11:38.769 If it was shot in standard definition, standard definition it shall forever be. 00:11:38.769 --> 00:11:40.580 And so, that music video? 00:11:40.580 --> 00:11:42.920 It was simply shot on this stuff! 00:11:42.920 --> 00:11:47.200 While nobody saw it on film back in the ‘80s, at least aside from the people doing the editing, 00:11:47.200 --> 00:11:49.740 that film was always there in storage somewhere, 00:11:49.740 --> 00:11:53.600 ready to be transferred a second time using today’s technology. 00:11:53.600 --> 00:11:56.680 And now that’s it’s been done, it’s blowing everybody’s mind. 00:11:56.680 --> 00:12:00.760 So. How can you tell if something’s been shot on film vs. tape? 00:12:00.760 --> 00:12:05.260 Well, first of all, it it wasn’t produced for television, as in, if it’s a movie, 00:12:05.260 --> 00:12:06.500 it was shot on film. 00:12:06.500 --> 00:12:10.660 Digital cinema wasn’t viable until the 21st century, so if it’s a movie from the 00:12:10.660 --> 00:12:12.780 ‘90s or earlier, that’s film. 00:12:12.780 --> 00:12:17.500 And this is why so many old movies have been reissued on Blu-Ray with great results. 00:12:17.500 --> 00:12:21.480 We have the film prints to scan in HD, or even 4K. 00:12:21.480 --> 00:12:23.610 Unless of course they’ve been lost. 00:12:23.610 --> 00:12:28.420 Now if it was produced for television, the easiest thing to look for is the soap opera effect. 00:12:28.420 --> 00:12:32.519 This is the name given for the oddly smooth motion commonly seen in soap operas 00:12:32.519 --> 00:12:36.420 which were, I believe without exception, always shot to tape. 00:12:36.420 --> 00:12:40.380 Television programming that was shot on tape will be just as smooth as that, 00:12:40.380 --> 00:12:43.600 because the temporal resolution of 60 Hz is maintained. 00:12:43.600 --> 00:12:48.490 In contrast, film is usually at 24 frames per second, even when used for television, 00:12:48.490 --> 00:12:51.020 so the motion won’t be nearly as smooth. 00:12:51.020 --> 00:12:53.660 If you see a so-called “cinematic” framerate 00:12:53.660 --> 00:12:56.740 for television programming, odds are that was shot on film. 00:12:56.740 --> 00:13:00.060 You might on rare occasion see something filmed at 30 frames per second, 00:13:00.060 --> 00:13:05.640 which is the frame rate I’m using with this camera, but I can’t see much evidence of this being a thing. 00:13:05.640 --> 00:13:10.400 In the US, anyway, most TV that was shot on film was done at 24 frames per second, 00:13:10.400 --> 00:13:14.740 and 3:2 pulldown was used to fit the 60 hz refresh rate of television. 00:13:14.740 --> 00:13:17.600 Now the refresh rate may not tell you the whole story. 00:13:17.600 --> 00:13:23.320 For instance, lots of times you’ll find something online that was originally recorded in 60 hz interlaced, 00:13:23.320 --> 00:13:26.620 but now exists as 30 frames per second progressive. 00:13:26.620 --> 00:13:28.940 So that can be hard to tell. 00:13:28.940 --> 00:13:35.760 But if you ever see the buttery smooth motion of true analog video, that’s for sure on tape. 00:13:35.760 --> 00:13:37.540 Again. We’re talking old stuff. 00:13:37.540 --> 00:13:41.700 People seem to increasingly like 60hz video these days which… 00:13:41.700 --> 00:13:43.180 yeah sure whatever floats your boat. 00:13:43.180 --> 00:13:46.540 Another thing to look for are actual film artifacts. 00:13:46.540 --> 00:13:48.640 If you see specks or scratches, 00:13:48.649 --> 00:13:50.360 odds are that’s film. 00:13:50.360 --> 00:13:53.580 Those sorts of things just don’t happen on videotape. 00:13:53.580 --> 00:13:58.689 It’s not like there aren’t any artifacts at all with tape, but they’re usually very minor and 00:13:58.689 --> 00:14:02.560 incredibly brief. At least on anything recorded professionally. 00:14:02.560 --> 00:14:06.120 And if you see any sort of grain in the image… that’s film. 00:14:06.120 --> 00:14:11.260 Something recorded from tape wouldn’t have grain to begin with, so whenever it’s visible, that footage was 00:14:11.260 --> 00:14:13.780 (at some point anyway) on film. 00:14:13.780 --> 00:14:18.199 Note that digital noise can look sorta like grain, but you’re not likely to see that 00:14:18.199 --> 00:14:20.760 on things produced professionally for television. 00:14:20.760 --> 00:14:24.300 Other caveat, dot crawl on analog video tape 00:14:24.300 --> 00:14:27.500 kinda looks like grain, but it’s not that random. 00:14:27.509 --> 00:14:31.720 One of the easiest film artifacts to spot is known as gate weave. 00:14:31.720 --> 00:14:35.320 Because film traveling through a camera is a mechanical affair, 00:14:35.320 --> 00:14:39.160 the frame can’t ever be perfectly aligned with each exposure. 00:14:39.160 --> 00:14:43.780 Slight misalignments in the camera’s gate with the film from one frame to the next 00:14:43.780 --> 00:14:49.360 create a slight shakiness to the end result, so if the frame ever seems slightly unstable, 00:14:49.360 --> 00:14:52.240 there’s a pretty good chance that was on film. 00:14:52.240 --> 00:14:56.480 A lot of modern film restorations have removed gate weave digitally, so 00:14:56.480 --> 00:15:00.880 this can’t be entirely relied upon as a means to spot a film source. 00:15:00.880 --> 00:15:02.380 What do you mean this sounds dubbed in? 00:15:02.380 --> 00:15:04.679 This was totally recorded at the same time as everything el -- 00:15:04.679 --> 00:15:09.920 A lot of television programming in the ‘60s, ‘70’s, and ‘80s would use a mix of film and tape. 00:15:09.920 --> 00:15:14.920 Often you’d see tape being used in the studio, and film being used for location shoots. 00:15:14.920 --> 00:15:18.120 One particular example is Monty Python’s Flying Circus. 00:15:18.120 --> 00:15:23.020 Here, tape is clearly used whenever on-set, and film is used whenever on-location. 00:15:23.020 --> 00:15:27.460 A large part of this is simply down to the fact that video equipment was for many years 00:15:27.460 --> 00:15:31.320 huge, monstrous stuff that wasn’t particularly portable, 00:15:31.320 --> 00:15:36.980 so for location shoots, a much less bulky, all-in-one 16mm film camera 00:15:36.980 --> 00:15:38.680 (and a sound guy on the side) 00:15:38.680 --> 00:15:40.520 will fit the bill just fine. 00:15:40.520 --> 00:15:46.420 In this case, it’s easier to notice film artifacts because they used 16mm film, and not 35mm, 00:15:46.420 --> 00:15:51.419 but even just looking for the difference in motion between studio sketches and location sketches 00:15:51.420 --> 00:15:53.220 will help you spot the difference. 00:15:53.220 --> 00:15:56.600 But the number one sign of something shot on tape is… 00:15:56.600 --> 00:15:59.640 it looks like it was shot on tape. 00:15:59.640 --> 00:16:04.960 OK, this isn’t helpful, I know, but honestly you sorta get a feel for this after a while. 00:16:04.960 --> 00:16:09.440 Analog video is just kinda smooth and soft and fuzzy, and film just… 00:16:09.440 --> 00:16:11.109 isn’t. 00:16:11.109 --> 00:16:14.639 If you’ve seen a tape of something that was originally on film, like for instance 00:16:14.639 --> 00:16:19.840 a VHS tape of pretty much any movie, you’ll get that smooth look, sure. 00:16:19.840 --> 00:16:21.209 But even there… 00:16:21.209 --> 00:16:24.220 you can often tell a film source from a tape source. 00:16:24.220 --> 00:16:27.560 It just has a… look to it. 00:16:27.560 --> 00:16:28.920 Yeah that’s not helpful. 00:16:28.920 --> 00:16:30.980 Well, here, let’s look at another example. 00:16:30.980 --> 00:16:31.940 Cosmos. 00:16:31.940 --> 00:16:33.780 Just like Monty Python, Carl Sagan 00:16:33.790 --> 00:16:38.040 was being shot on tape in the studio, and on film when on location. 00:16:38.040 --> 00:16:43.060 Even though this is just from a VHS copy, you can definitely see a difference between the studio’s video 00:16:43.060 --> 00:16:45.419 cameras and the film cameras. 00:16:45.419 --> 00:16:50.519 The huge asterisk on this video, of course, is that digital video in standard definition 00:16:50.519 --> 00:16:51.420 exists. 00:16:51.420 --> 00:16:52.900 Ever heard of DVDs? 00:16:52.900 --> 00:16:57.880 Those aren’t analog, but they are still capped at the 480 lines that this thing uses. 00:16:57.880 --> 00:17:01.220 But now we have each of those lines subdivided digitally into 00:17:01.220 --> 00:17:03.120 720 pixels. 00:17:03.120 --> 00:17:06.750 And in the professional realm, there were plenty of digital recording formats 00:17:06.750 --> 00:17:09.960 being used in the latter part of the standard definition era. 00:17:09.960 --> 00:17:15.050 So the “tape look” isn’t everything, but the same limitations apply. 00:17:15.050 --> 00:17:19.060 So what sort of detail can we get out of something shot on film? 00:17:19.060 --> 00:17:23.680 Well, this depends on a whole bunch of factors, mainly to do with film stock. 00:17:23.680 --> 00:17:27.820 Just as consumers used to be able to pick between their Kodak Golds, their Fujichromes, 00:17:27.820 --> 00:17:29.560 and their dollar store brands, 00:17:29.560 --> 00:17:33.260 different qualities of film stocks were offered for use in motion pictures. 00:17:33.260 --> 00:17:34.640 Some were great. 00:17:34.640 --> 00:17:36.920 Others not so much. 00:17:36.920 --> 00:17:41.440 Another thing about film that sorta hangs around even to this day is that faster films, 00:17:41.440 --> 00:17:46.320 meaning those more sensitive to light, tended to have physically larger film grains. 00:17:46.320 --> 00:17:51.050 So films used in low-light scenes would have a grainier image, just like your camera today 00:17:51.050 --> 00:17:54.700 looks like crap when you turn the ISO up to 12,800. 00:17:54.700 --> 00:18:01.040 Which, by the way, that ISO is literally the same thing as the film speed you see on a film cartridge. 00:18:01.040 --> 00:18:03.260 Ain’t that some fun history for ya? 00:18:03.260 --> 00:18:07.980 But if you want to come up with an average, you could argue that many 35mm motion picture 00:18:07.980 --> 00:18:12.160 films have an image roughly equivalent to today’s 4K. 00:18:12.160 --> 00:18:14.980 But, see, it gets tricky to even say that. 00:18:14.980 --> 00:18:19.000 Because the grain is random, if you want to digitize film and capture all 00:18:19.000 --> 00:18:22.750 its quality, you need to basically just increase the resolution until it doesn’t seem to 00:18:22.750 --> 00:18:24.140 make a difference anymore. 00:18:24.140 --> 00:18:28.640 And at that point, you can say “well the resolution is roughly this”. 00:18:28.640 --> 00:18:33.050 But I think it’s safe to say that only the WORST film stocks would be incapable 00:18:33.050 --> 00:18:38.220 of producing an image that today we’d call “Full HD” with 35mm film. 00:18:38.220 --> 00:18:43.520 If I were in charge, I’d say all film transfers should be done in 4K so that the best of the best 00:18:43.530 --> 00:18:46.010 can be seen to their full potential. 00:18:46.010 --> 00:18:50.790 And then of course, there’s other film formats like 16mm, which would probably rarely benefit 00:18:50.790 --> 00:18:52.740 from anything over 720P. 00:18:52.740 --> 00:18:56.320 Or 70mm. Which you should probably scan in 8k. 00:18:56.320 --> 00:18:59.000 Or IMAX, which you should just give up trying. 00:18:59.000 --> 00:19:01.930 Film can hold incredible detail, and while that’s certainly 00:19:01.930 --> 00:19:06.990 not always the case, I’d argue it’s better to go a little overkill and capture more data 00:19:06.990 --> 00:19:10.840 than you need than to have to keep scanning the print every decade or so. 00:19:10.840 --> 00:19:16.460 That’s the thing. Old film won’t change unless, you know, it degrades really badly. 00:19:16.460 --> 00:19:20.360 But our scanning techniques have, and will continue to do so. 00:19:20.360 --> 00:19:24.820 One day we’ll be able to get all the quality that we possibly can out of it. 00:19:24.820 --> 00:19:26.540 Perhaps we already have. 00:19:26.540 --> 00:19:30.500 But electronic signals on tape for television are just that. 00:19:30.500 --> 00:19:36.820 They’re built to draw 480 lines on a CRT, to a standard that was set in the 1940’s. 00:19:36.820 --> 00:19:40.680 And so long as that’s the standard we’re working in, that’s what we’re stuck with, 00:19:40.680 --> 00:19:42.670 and that’s as good as it’s gonna get. 00:19:42.670 --> 00:19:46.540 But of course, here in the 21st century, we have the luxury of digital video. 00:19:46.540 --> 00:19:47.940 Which is always perfect. 00:19:47.940 --> 00:19:48.960 [camera beeps] 00:19:50.160 --> 00:19:51.200 [laughter] 00:19:52.360 --> 00:19:54.960 ♫ analogly smooth jazz ♫ 00:19:56.700 --> 00:20:01.380 Hey, so while discussing this topic on Twitter, I realized I should have added a little something 00:20:01.380 --> 00:20:07.040 to the script, which… well I forgot to do so here’s me with a helpful post script! 00:20:07.040 --> 00:20:09.540 Huh. A literal PS. 00:20:09.540 --> 00:20:10.720 Go figure. 00:20:10.720 --> 00:20:14.640 Anyway this whole “lots of TV was shot on film” thing 00:20:14.640 --> 00:20:19.440 is the reason why often times a Blu-Ray re-release of something that was made for television 00:20:19.440 --> 00:20:20.900 actually makes sense. 00:20:20.900 --> 00:20:24.690 If you thought there was no point to something like that, well you might be wrong. 00:20:24.690 --> 00:20:29.390 So long as the show was mastered to film before being transferred to tape, and those negatives 00:20:29.390 --> 00:20:34.190 (or prints) are somewhere in storage, a true high definition remaster is possible. In the 00:20:34.190 --> 00:20:39.850 case of Star Trek Voyager, and shows like it, in theory there could be an HD re-release, 00:20:39.850 --> 00:20:44.311 however it would require duplicating essentially all of the post-production work, so it’s 00:20:44.311 --> 00:20:46.320 a fair bet that won’t happen. 00:20:46.320 --> 00:20:48.840 Plus, we don’t even know if those negatives were kept. 00:20:49.640 --> 00:20:53.640 ...something about giving your cardiac muscle as a Christmas gift and being distraught upon 00:20:53.640 --> 00:20:55.000 its subseq… nope. 00:20:56.340 --> 00:20:57.710 Already messed it up! 00:20:57.710 --> 00:20:59.440 *sigh* why did I keep going? 00:20:59.440 --> 00:21:01.330 There was a… I made a mistake. 00:21:01.330 --> 00:21:03.380 This was the only way… eugh. 00:21:03.380 --> 00:21:06.420 This was the only way we… stop it! 00:21:06.420 --> 00:21:09.720 They worked. All you needed to do… eugh blebi buh 00:21:09.720 --> 00:21:10.800 Those four hun… 00:21:10.800 --> 00:21:12.480 Those four hundred eighty line… 00:21:12.480 --> 00:21:14.480 those four hundred eighty lines…. 00:21:14.480 --> 00:21:15.380 Four hundred eighty. 00:21:15.720 --> 00:21:17.080 Four hundred eighty. 00:21:17.080 --> 00:21:19.480 The best videotape… yeah no no no. 00:21:19.480 --> 00:21:21.400 The emPHAsis is all wrong. 00:21:22.480 --> 00:21:26.380 Join us next week as the adventures of Freddy the Feces continue! 00:21:27.540 --> 00:21:30.300 Actually, I take that back. 00:21:30.700 --> 00:21:33.320 It's Freddie the Feces 00:21:34.720 --> 00:21:36.000 Like it always was.