SCREEN-L Archives

April 1991


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
82 Malcolm Dean 213-5-5676 <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 15 Apr 91 10:31:00 PDT
text/plain (25 lines)
I think lots of people noticed. There's a difference between
noticing and actively disliking or protesting. This example has
been raised many times as a characteristic of British
productions. It only works because of the change from "inside"
to "outside," and because the sound is constant in quality.
You cannot, however, compare today's television with, say, Cinema
Digital Sound. So, I don't believe the example of British productions
yields more than an interesting sociological observation.
> Another interesting associative distinction between film and video arises
> from the fact that for a long time video was used only for studio-shot
> sequences, while location work was entirely on film. Old BBC series like _Z
> -Cars_ and _Softly, Softly_, familiar to British tele viewer in the '60s
> and '70s, cut unabashedly from videod interiors to filmed exteriors.
> As the character exited and emerged into the street, the image definition
> and sound quality changed radically. The interiors were always clearly sets
> ; while the exteriors were shot in the mean streets of Birmingham or
> Stepney. Oddly, no one noticed.
> Andrew Horn
> Chair, Department of Literature and Language
> The University of the South Pacific
> Suva