View source for Film or Videotape

{{article
| publication = Television
| file = 1996-06 Television.jpg
| px = 450
| height = 
| width = 
| date = 1996-06-01
| display date = June 1996 
| author = 
| pages = 588
| language = English 
| type = 
| description = 
| categories = letters to the editor
| moreTitles = 
| morePublications = 
| moreDates = 
| text = 
I was most interested to read Alan Pemberton's explanation (letters, March) of 'film-like' videotape dramas. Like others, I wondered where the specks of dust had gone! If tape has to be used, I would prefer to see this 'film-like' technique adopted than to have our screens dominated by 'soap-opera style' clean videotape dramas. Film/film-like productions look more professional, the 'degrading' method being highly effective — at least to these eyes. I was certainly fooled!

Perhaps for different reasons, 'degrading' the image isn't a new idea. Many Wednesday Play dramas from the Sixties for example were made from telerecorded studio material and external film stock. Telerecording was even listed in the end credits, together with the film editor! As 35mm film was easier to edit than tape, some episodes of Doctor Who, as another example, were directly telerecorded for ease of editing (a good example is [[broadwcast:The Krotons|The Krotons]], episode one). Videotaped material was of course telerecorded for world wide sales, in variable quality.

US NTSC conversions have always looked terrible, often unwatchable unless you don't find the smears and jerky movements distracting. This is certainly a disturbing trend, as no doubt our own productions must look awful over there. As videotape is generally used nowadays, with all telecine material transferred to tape for transmission, some older US programmes — such as the current reruns of the original Star Trek series — come as NTSC conversions and not the clean, crisp and colourful film stock seen on our screen ten years ago. 

Brian Renforth,

Sandyford, Newcastle.

}}