green beard ... when were different source materials combined?

[J. P. Gilliver]

I've just watched another episode of All Creatures... on Drama (FreeView
20).

I know we've discussed the different fading characteristics of the
outside and inside shots on that series before, but today was a prize
example - one character had a fine white beard, which was most
definitely green! And the white horse he was tending was more than a bit
green, too. Virtually all the outside shots were excellent on the green.
Very clear luma, but chroma had definitely seen better days ...

Got me thinking, though. This was MCMLXXVIII, 1978 (I think they're
starting the first series again). When would it have been converted to
videotape, for general convenience of programming? Presumably once that
was done, any discrepancy between film for outdoor and tape for indoor
shots would be frozen, rather than continuing to deteriorate
differentially. Even if the indoor scenes were shot on film too, then
presumably that would have deteriorated similarly, so why the
discrepancy?

It occurred to me that maybe someone - showing real dedication - had
gone back to the original film sections, when preparing it for recent
re-showing (maybe scanning them in HD, which film would certainly
support), but (a) I doubt that would be the case for a small channel
like Drama, (b) if they had, surely they'd have tried to do something
about the colour too? [The other approach - as Channel 5 have done - is
to just redo the series - I can't really understand why: they've done a
fairly excellent job, but - apart from the different picture shape and
the absence of the startling colour changes! - the new series is to me
about equal in entertainment value, not enough to justify the presumably
quite high costs of such an exercise. OK, slight changes in storyline
emphasis.]

[NY]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I've just watched another episode of All Creatures... on Drama (FreeView
20).
I know we've discussed the different fading characteristics of the
outside and inside shots on that series before, but today was a prize
example - one character had a fine white beard, which was most
definitely green! And the white horse he was tending was more than a bit
green, too. Virtually all the outside shots were excellent on the green.
Very clear luma, but chroma had definitely seen better days ...
Got me thinking, though. This was MCMLXXVIII, 1978 (I think they're
starting the first series again). When would it have been converted to
videotape, for general convenience of programming? Presumably once that
was done, any discrepancy between film for outdoor and tape for indoor
shots would be frozen, rather than continuing to deteriorate
differentially. Even if the indoor scenes were shot on film too, then
presumably that would have deteriorated similarly, so why the discrepancy?
It occurred to me that maybe someone - showing real dedication - had
gone back to the original film sections, when preparing it for recent
re-showing (maybe scanning them in HD, which film would certainly
support), but (a) I doubt that would be the case for a small channel
like Drama, (b) if they had, surely they'd have tried to do something
about the colour too? [The other approach - as Channel 5 have done - is
to just redo the series - I can't really understand why: they've done a
fairly excellent job, but - apart from the different picture shape and
the absence of the startling colour changes! - the new series is to me
about equal in entertainment value, not enough to justify the presumably
quite high costs of such an exercise. OK, slight changes in storyline
emphasis.]

I would imagine that the studio interiors and the filmed exteriors
(usually filmed before the studio scenes) would be assembled into the
final master tape almost as soon as the studio work was finished. From
that moment on, no further fading of film is possible - you may get all
sorts of artefacts on archived VT, but fading of some shots or colour
bias (especially dominance of some colours even though there is no
overall bias) is not something that happens with VT.

I wonder whether the filmed inserts were kept (as rolls of film) and
therefore are available to be telecined again with more modern
equipment, even with some colour grading.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by NY

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I've just watched another episode of All Creatures... on Drama
(FreeView 20).
I know we've discussed the different fading characteristics of the
outside and inside shots on that series before, but today was a prize
example - one character had a fine white beard, which was most
definitely green! And the white horse he was tending was more than a
bit green, too. Virtually all the outside shots were excellent on the
green. Very clear luma, but chroma had definitely seen better days ...
Got me thinking, though. This was MCMLXXVIII, 1978 (I think they're
starting the first series again). When would it have been converted to
videotape, for general convenience of programming? Presumably once
that was done, any discrepancy between film for outdoor and tape for
indoor shots would be frozen, rather than continuing to deteriorate
differentially. Even if the indoor scenes were shot on film too, then
presumably that would have deteriorated similarly, so why the discrepancy?
It occurred to me that maybe someone - showing real dedication - had
gone back to the original film sections, when preparing it for recent
re-showing (maybe scanning them in HD, which film would certainly
support), but (a) I doubt that would be the case for a small channel
like Drama, (b) if they had, surely they'd have tried to do something
about the colour too? [The other approach - as Channel 5 have done -
is to just redo the series - I can't really understand why: they've
done a fairly excellent job, but - apart from the different picture
shape and the absence of the startling colour changes! - the new
series is to me about equal in entertainment value, not enough to
justify the presumably quite high costs of such an exercise. OK,
slight changes in storyline emphasis.]

I would imagine that the studio interiors and the filmed exteriors
(usually filmed before the studio scenes) would be assembled into the
final master tape almost as soon as the studio work was finished. From

That's what I would have thought ...

Post by NY
that moment on, no further fading of film is possible - you may get all
sorts of artefacts on archived VT, but fading of some shots or colour
bias (especially dominance of some colours even though there is no
overall bias) is not something that happens with VT.

... with the same conclusion.

Post by NY
I wonder whether the filmed inserts were kept (as rolls of film) and
therefore are available to be telecined again with more modern
equipment, even with some colour grading.

SOME! Look at today's episode (it's on Drama's website or something -
when I had a recent query about caption cropping [which turned out to be
my set], someone here found it): it's so green as to be highly amusing
to us, startling to the non-technically-minded! I did think of the
possibility of someone finding the film bits and re-scanning (maybe in
HD), but thought anyone willing to re-telecine the film bits would have
also applied some colour correction. Unless it's so far gone that they
thought it wasn't possible - which may be the case: I did think the
images were very _sharp_ (just very green!), so someone may have already
done it. But the indoor scenes - where the colours were fine - didn't
leap out at me as inferior in that respect.

[NY]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by NY
I wonder whether the filmed inserts were kept (as rolls of film) and
therefore are available to be telecined again with more modern
equipment, even with some colour grading.

SOME! Look at today's episode (it's on Drama's website or something -
when I had a recent query about caption cropping [which turned out to be
my set], someone here found it): it's so green as to be highly amusing
to us, startling to the non-technically-minded! I did think of the
possibility of someone finding the film bits and re-scanning (maybe in
HD), but thought anyone willing to re-telecine the film bits would have
also applied some colour correction. Unless it's so far gone that they
thought it wasn't possible - which may be the case: I did think the
images were very _sharp_ (just very green!), so someone may have already
done it. But the indoor scenes - where the colours were fine - didn't
leap out at me as inferior in that respect.

I see what you mean. It's all rather... verdant!

Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

The sky is green and Cliff's beard is green.

The actor is the wonderful Tony Sympson. I remember him in an episode of
The Sweeney in which Regan and Carter were undercover in a pub, and Tony
Sympson played an old man who discovered them and went blabbing "Old
Bill! All over the place!"

The green beard thing reminds me of a wonderful short story by Dorothy L
Sayers about a barber who reads in the paper about a murderer with a
bright red beard. And lo and behold, the very man comes into his shop,
wanting his beard shaving off and his hair dyeing a less conspicuous
colour. The barber decides to mark his man, so he mixes chemicals with a
delayed action - which turns the murder's hair and beard bright green.
It was dramatised as https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0592520/reference/
with the incomparable Hugh Griffith as the bearded murderer.

is a trailer for it - you
see the almost fluorescent red beard, but not the equally luminous green
after he has been marked... and sadly the Youtube account I downloaded
it from has been terminated. But here's a screenshot:
Loading Image...

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by NY

(maybe in HD), but thought anyone willing to re-telecine the film
bits would have also applied some colour correction. Unless it's so
far gone that they thought it wasn't possible - which may be the
case: I did think the images were very _sharp_ (just very green!), so
someone may have already done it. But the indoor scenes - where the
colours were fine - didn't leap out at me as inferior in that respect.

I see what you mean. It's all rather... verdant!

Yes, it's the most extreme one I've seen so far. (The titles are of
course the same piece of film throughout the series, so those remain
pretty green.)

Post by NY
https://i.postimg.cc/CM7z3ZRV/ACGAS-green-beard.png
https://i.postimg.cc/Wb4hT2Zq/ACGAS-green-sky.png
https://i.postimg.cc/qMZg79cb/ACGAS-titles.png
The sky is green and Cliff's beard is green.

But excellent resolution: in the middle one above, I almost feel I can
see every hair in the beard. So maybe someone has found the original
film rolls and re-scanned them in HD, but given up on the colour.
[]

Post by NY
The green beard thing reminds me of a wonderful short story by Dorothy
L Sayers about a barber who reads in the paper about a murderer with a
bright red beard. And lo and behold, the very man comes into his shop,
wanting his beard shaving off and his hair dyeing a less conspicuous
colour. The barber decides to mark his man, so he mixes chemicals with
a delayed action - which turns the murder's hair and beard bright
green. It was dramatised as
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0592520/reference/ with the incomparable
Hugh Griffith as the bearded murderer.
http://youtu.be/lwhtKHOvSL8 is a trailer for it - you
see the almost fluorescent red beard, but not the equally luminous
green after he has been marked... and sadly the Youtube account I
https://i.postimg.cc/cH5P3MDS/vlcsnap-2024-02-17-00h55m40s508.png

I can see why the ACG&S reminded you!

[Bill Posters]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I've just watched another episode of All Creatures... on Drama (FreeView
20).
Got me thinking, though. This was MCMLXXVIII, 1978 (I think they're
starting the first series again). When would it have been converted to
videotape, for general convenience of programming? Presumably once that
was done, any discrepancy between film for outdoor and tape for indoor
shots would be frozen, rather than continuing to deteriorate
differentially. Even if the indoor scenes were shot on film too, then
presumably that would have deteriorated similarly, so why the
discrepancy?

In 1978, the film would not have been TARIF'd into the studio by TK, but by the VO (and they ween't very good, and using a primitive control panel which didn't have continuously variable control). On rare occasions PTC might have been used, I suppose, but certainly not as standard

Post by J. P. Gilliver
It occurred to me that maybe someone - showing real dedication - had
gone back to the original film sections, when preparing it for recent
re-showing (maybe scanning them in HD, which film would certainly
support),

1978 era 16mm is somewhat worse than HD ... Super 16 was just about OK

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Bill Posters

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I've just watched another episode of All Creatures... on Drama (FreeView
20).
Got me thinking, though. This was MCMLXXVIII, 1978 (I think they're
starting the first series again). When would it have been converted to
videotape, for general convenience of programming? Presumably once that
was done, any discrepancy between film for outdoor and tape for indoor
shots would be frozen, rather than continuing to deteriorate
differentially. Even if the indoor scenes were shot on film too, then
presumably that would have deteriorated similarly, so why the
discrepancy?

In 1978, the film would not have been TARIF'd into the studio by TK,
but by the VO (and they ween't very good, and using a primitive control
panel which didn't have continuously variable control). On rare
occasions PTC might have been used, I suppose, but certainly not as
standard

But in 1978, the film wouldn't have gone green anyway, so surely the
studio master videotapes wouldn't have the colour differences between
indoor and outdoor scenes that are now so obvious.

Post by Bill Posters

Post by J. P. Gilliver
It occurred to me that maybe someone - showing real dedication - had
gone back to the original film sections, when preparing it for recent
re-showing (maybe scanning them in HD, which film would certainly
support),

1978 era 16mm is somewhat worse than HD ... Super 16 was just about OK

Really? I'm surprised; I'd have thought even 8mm film from that era - if
professionally shot and handled (which of course most 8mm isn't) - would
be capable of at least SD, and 16mm (which by its nature probably
_would_ be professionally shot and handled, certainly for a major drama
series) would be capable of significantly more than SD, even if not
quite HD.

But for whatever reason, re-scanning _now_ is the only reason I can
think of why the differential deterioration is so obvious. And I'm
wondering why, if someone _is_ re-scanning now, they're not
colour-correcting too.

[John Williamson]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Really? I'm surprised; I'd have thought even 8mm film from that era - if
professionally shot and handled (which of course most 8mm isn't) - would
be capable of at least SD, and 16mm (which by its nature probably
_would_ be professionally shot and handled, certainly for a major drama
series) would be capable of significantly more than SD, even if not
quite HD.

Depending on the camera lens quality, 100 ASA colour film can resolve
about 160 lines per mm at normal contrast levels, so 8mm film gives you
roughly the same definition as DVD quality video. 16 mm gives a touch
more than double that in each direction,so 2K is about the limit. The
latest 8K cameras are roughly equivalent to 70mm movie film.

For most amateur movies as used on You've Been Framed and the like, VCD
is about the best quality you can expect, though some digital
enhancement can be applied if required to make it seem better.

[NY]

Post by John Williamson

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Really? I'm surprised; I'd have thought even 8mm film from that era - if
professionally shot and handled (which of course most 8mm isn't) - would
be capable of at least SD, and 16mm (which by its nature probably
_would_ be professionally shot and handled, certainly for a major drama
series) would be capable of significantly more than SD, even if not
quite HD.

Depending on the camera lens quality, 100 ASA colour film can resolve
about 160 lines per mm at normal contrast levels, so 8mm film gives you
roughly the same definition as DVD quality video. 16 mm gives a touch more
than double that in each direction,so 2K is about the limit. The latest 8K
cameras are roughly equivalent to 70mm movie film.
For most amateur movies as used on You've Been Framed and the like, VCD is
about the best quality you can expect, though some digital enhancement can
be applied if required to make it seem better.

My experience of Standard and Super 8 home movies which we had telecined by
a company (ie we didn't do it at home) is that the picture quality is pretty
blurred. I do wonder whether my dad's Super 8 camera may have had a slight
focussing error because even at "infinity" it looks slightly unsharp (*),
whereas any film grain is sharp. Standard 8, despite having a slightly
smaller frame size, looks sharper on Dad's older films, but that may have
been because the grain on earlier film, magnified a bit more, subjectively
sharpened the image slightly - if you take a slightly blurred image and add
random noise, subjectively it looks sharper.


(*) I wonder if the "infinity" setting of the lens was focussing "beyond
infinity" or else slightly closer - which is difficult to determine during
filming if the focussing aid (split-screen) is not correctly adjusted to
match the focal plane of the film. This is an example of a frame from a
Super 8 film on Kodachrome - probably 25 ASA.
Loading Image... - the
slight film scratches in the sky to the left of the central tower show that
the TK was in focus. I chose a shot where the camera was static and not
weaving around. Probably a fairly wide-angle zoom. Kudos to anyone who
recognises the castle!

[John Williamson]

Post by NY

Post by John Williamson

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Really? I'm surprised; I'd have thought even 8mm film from that era - if
professionally shot and handled (which of course most 8mm isn't) - would
be capable of at least SD, and 16mm (which by its nature probably
_would_ be professionally shot and handled, certainly for a major drama
series) would be capable of significantly more than SD, even if not
quite HD.

Depending on the camera lens quality, 100 ASA colour film can resolve
about 160 lines per mm at normal contrast levels, so 8mm film gives
you roughly the same definition as DVD quality video. 16 mm gives a
touch more than double that in each direction,so 2K is about the
limit. The latest 8K cameras are roughly equivalent to 70mm movie film.
For most amateur movies as used on You've Been Framed and the like,
VCD is about the best quality you can expect, though some digital
enhancement can be applied if required to make it seem better.

My experience of Standard and Super 8 home movies which we had telecined
by a company (ie we didn't do it at home) is that the picture quality is
pretty blurred. I do wonder whether my dad's Super 8 camera may have had
a slight focussing error because even at "infinity" it looks slightly
unsharp (*), whereas any film grain is sharp. Standard 8, despite having
a slightly smaller frame size, looks sharper on Dad's older films, but
that may have been because the grain on earlier film, magnified a bit
more, subjectively sharpened the image slightly - if you take a slightly
blurred image and add random noise, subjectively it looks sharper.
(*) I wonder if the "infinity" setting of the lens was focussing "beyond
infinity" or else slightly closer - which is difficult to determine
during filming if the focussing aid (split-screen) is not correctly
adjusted to match the focal plane of the film. This is an example of a
frame from a Super 8 film on Kodachrome - probably 25 ASA.
https://i.postimg.cc/dVRj0M7X/vlcsnap-2024-02-19-10h29m58s67.png - the
slight film scratches in the sky to the left of the central tower show
that the TK was in focus. I chose a shot where the camera was static and
not weaving around. Probably a fairly wide-angle zoom. Kudos to anyone
who recognises the castle!

As I said, the definition depends to a large extent on the lens quality.
The scan is also severely compressed in the digital domain.

Many home movie cameras, especially the cheaper ones, had a fixed focus
lens, which was set to give acceptable results from a metre or so to
infinity, but which was only really sharp at or near the hyperfocal
distance of about ten metres. Then add in the way that not everybody
kept the lens clean, and you get the typical blur and flare on home
movies of the era.

Good lenses were a lot more expensive in real terms then than they are now.

[NY]

Post by Bill Posters

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I've just watched another episode of All Creatures... on Drama (FreeView
20).
Got me thinking, though. This was MCMLXXVIII, 1978 (I think they're
starting the first series again). When would it have been converted to
videotape, for general convenience of programming? Presumably once that
was done, any discrepancy between film for outdoor and tape for indoor
shots would be frozen, rather than continuing to deteriorate
differentially. Even if the indoor scenes were shot on film too, then
presumably that would have deteriorated similarly, so why the
discrepancy?

In 1978, the film would not have been TARIF'd into the studio by TK, but
by the VO (and they ween't very good, and using a primitive control panel
which didn't have continuously variable control). On rare occasions PTC
might have been used, I suppose, but certainly not as standard

Post by J. P. Gilliver
It occurred to me that maybe someone - showing real dedication - had
gone back to the original film sections, when preparing it for recent
re-showing (maybe scanning them in HD, which film would certainly
support),

1978 era 16mm is somewhat worse than HD ... Super 16 was just about OK

My subjective impression of 1978 era 16 mm was that it was grainy, muddy,
low in saturation, slightly blurred and somehow flickery - compared with
video.

I can understand all of those except flickery. I accept that in terms of
motion it is 25p rather 50i, in that when there is movement, you only see a
new full-res image every 1/25 second rather than with video where you see a
new half-res picture every 1/50 second which gives smoother motion. But that
doesn't explain why static shots on film look to flicker more than video.

I hadn't realised that the control panel for adjusting the colour,
brightness, contrast and gamma of film was so primitive and not continuously
variable. The only film control I've seen in action was on a demonstration
video at the Bradford Photographic Museum, back in the days when they had a
technical gallery with illustrations by Rex Garrod and Tim Hunkin (The
Secret Life of Machines). That showed a box with two joysticks that could be
moved towards R, G or B points at 120 degrees to each other, with a twist
control for brightness or contrast. One joystick controlled highlights and
the other controlled shadows. They showed someone altering the controls,
from shot to shot, as a film was being transmitted live - nothing seemed to
be prepared in advance with an automated list of timecodes and shot
settings. But maybe that was later technology.

Is/was film white-balanced at the point of shooting, where lighting changed
from shot to shot (eg tungsten to cloudy daylight to sunny)? Did the camera
operator include a shot of a white or 18% grey card lit as for the shot, so
the TK could white balance if there were variations, despite any amber or
blue correction filters that the cam op would have used?

I've noticed that slightly over-exposed skies on film often take on a
strange hue in made-on-film drama in the 1970s-2000. We've seen the green
skies - that was the whole film that seemed to have a green cast: green
skies, green beard, green horse. But I've also seen neutral shots (no
overall colour cast) with magenta skies.

Lest people think I'm film-bashing, the worst unrealistic skies I've ever
seen were on the 1981 (?) production of To Serve Them All My Days which was
almost entirely shot on video. There were shots when the protagonist met his
wife in a Welsh seaside resort, and also shots of them saying goodbye on a
railway station platform, and those tube video cameras really hated
over-exposure of skies, so we got unrealistic baby blue, canary yellow or
pale green skies. And it was too patchy (and not relevant to the plot) for
it to have been graduated filters for effect.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by NY

Post by Bill Posters

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I've just watched another episode of All Creatures... on Drama (FreeView
20).
Got me thinking, though. This was MCMLXXVIII, 1978 (I think they're
starting the first series again). When would it have been converted to
videotape, for general convenience of programming? Presumably once that
was done, any discrepancy between film for outdoor and tape for indoor
shots would be frozen, rather than continuing to deteriorate
differentially. Even if the indoor scenes were shot on film too, then
presumably that would have deteriorated similarly, so why the
discrepancy?

In 1978, the film would not have been TARIF'd into the studio by TK,
but by the VO (and they ween't very good, and using a primitive
control panel which didn't have continuously variable control). On
rare occasions PTC might have been used, I suppose, but certainly not
as standard

Post by J. P. Gilliver
It occurred to me that maybe someone - showing real dedication - had
gone back to the original film sections, when preparing it for recent
re-showing (maybe scanning them in HD, which film would certainly
support),

1978 era 16mm is somewhat worse than HD ... Super 16 was just about OK

My subjective impression of 1978 era 16 mm was that it was grainy,
muddy, low in saturation, slightly blurred and somehow flickery -
compared with video.
I can understand all of those except flickery. I accept that in terms
of motion it is 25p rather 50i, in that when there is movement, you
only see a new full-res image every 1/25 second rather than with video
where you see a new half-res picture every 1/50 second which gives
smoother motion. But that doesn't explain why static shots on film look
to flicker more than video.

It is my understanding that the shutter on most film _projectors_ - as
opposed to cameras, where it was not needed of course - interrupted the
light beam _twice_ per frame (only once being needed for the film
advance), to double the flicker rate. What are you looking at your film
static shots on? I presume a computer monitor, or modern TV, which will
have a much higher refresh rate anyway (and also the light source is not
the image), so I don't know why your impression is what it is!

Post by NY
I hadn't realised that the control panel for adjusting the colour,
brightness, contrast and gamma of film was so primitive and not
continuously variable. The only film control I've seen in action was on
a demonstration video at the Bradford Photographic Museum, back in the
days when they had a technical gallery with illustrations by Rex Garrod
and Tim Hunkin (The Secret Life of Machines). That showed a box with
two joysticks that could be moved towards R, G or B points at 120
degrees to each other, with a twist control for brightness or contrast.
One joystick controlled highlights and the other controlled shadows.
They showed someone altering the controls, from shot to shot, as a film
was being transmitted live - nothing seemed to be prepared in advance
with an automated list of timecodes and shot settings. But maybe that
was later technology.
Is/was film white-balanced at the point of shooting, where lighting
changed from shot to shot (eg tungsten to cloudy daylight to sunny)?

I think in most cases they used different film stock, though I think
mainly only two types (I don't think I've ever heard of "cloudy" or
"sunny" film, only outdoor and indoor. Usually expressed as a colour
temperature in professional circles?)

Post by NY
Did the camera operator include a shot of a white or 18% grey card lit
as for the shot, so the TK could white balance if there were
variations, despite any amber or blue correction filters that the cam
op would have used?
I've noticed that slightly over-exposed skies on film often take on a
strange hue in made-on-film drama in the 1970s-2000. We've seen the
green skies, green beard, green horse. But I've also seen neutral shots
(no overall colour cast) with magenta skies.

I think the green (especially on ACG&S) is due to film deterioration.
(Though I'm still puzzled why the difference if it was converted to
video at or shortly after shooting, when this wouldn't have happened.)
The colour cast on highlights - such as skies - in transitional period
material was, I understand, due to the increasing use of video cameras
rather than film, where one colour tube saturated but not the total
image, so wasn't noticed at the time (come to think of it, probably mono
viewfinders).

Post by NY
Lest people think I'm film-bashing, the worst unrealistic skies I've
ever seen were on the 1981 (?) production of To Serve Them All My Days
which was almost entirely shot on video. There were shots when the
protagonist met his wife in a Welsh seaside resort, and also shots of
them saying goodbye on a railway station platform, and those tube video
cameras really hated over-exposure of skies, so we got unrealistic baby
blue, canary yellow or pale green skies. And it was too patchy (and not
relevant to the plot) for it to have been graduated filters for effect.

Orange patches on faces too.

[John Williamson]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I think in most cases they used different film stock, though I think
mainly only two types (I don't think I've ever heard of "cloudy" or
"sunny" film, only outdoor and indoor. Usually expressed as a colour
temperature in professional circles?)

The norm when I was chatting to a friendly film processing guy at the
time, though I was not on the camera crew, was to use indoor film all
the time, and a colour temperature correction filter when outdoors on
the camera. The higher light levels meant they could afford to lose the
film speed, and it saved them having to stock and carry two different
film types. Exposure meters on set had a selectable filter over the
sensor for outdoor shoots.

Minor colour correction was done in processing, using filters when
converting form negative to positive. (The guy used to give me ends of
rolls and processed them for me and offered me the option of what
correction to use when printing the slides. The stock and processing
gave better results than the reversal stock I could buy in the shops as
slide film. The processing cost the lab nothing extra, as my 36 or so
exposures were spliced onto the end of an hour's worth of film.)

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by John Williamson

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I think in most cases they used different film stock, though I think
mainly only two types (I don't think I've ever heard of "cloudy" or
"sunny" film, only outdoor and indoor. Usually expressed as a colour
temperature in professional circles?)

The norm when I was chatting to a friendly film processing guy at the
time, though I was not on the camera crew, was to use indoor film all
the time, and a colour temperature correction filter when outdoors on
the camera. The higher light levels meant they could afford to lose the
film speed, and it saved them having to stock and carry two different

Ah, so exactly the same principle Kodak used for their Super 8 home
cameras/film!

Post by John Williamson
film types. Exposure meters on set had a selectable filter over the
sensor for outdoor shoots.
Minor colour correction was done in processing, using filters when
converting form negative to positive. (The guy used to give me ends of
rolls and processed them for me and offered me the option of what
correction to use when printing the slides. The stock and processing
gave better results than the reversal stock I could buy in the shops as
slide film. The processing cost the lab nothing extra, as my 36 or so
exposures were spliced onto the end of an hour's worth of film.)

Nice guy to know! Interesting, too, that IYO the results were better
than film "designed" for the purpose.