Re: Morecambe and wise 1971 Christmas show

In article <e496a846-1408-48a5-aea0-
f22493861f36@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jamie_p84@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I've noticed that a lot of programmes made prior to the mid 80s have
very "strong" studio lighting, with no object left in the shadows. I
presume this was done to compensate for the cameras of that era, which
had poor light sensitivity?

Generally higher lighting levels would have been used for that reason.
The reduction in contrast range by "filling in the shadows" would be
partly for the same reason (avoidance of noise in the shadows), and
partly a matter of style, light entertainmemt programmes usually being
expected to look more bright and colourful than moody dramas.

Even the moody dramas of that era tended to be better lit than many of
today's efforts though, some of which can include shadow areas that are
so crushed they are completely black with no picture details at all,
something I have never seen in real life so I don't understood how
anybody can think it looks realistic.

In any event, I think these lighting
conditions would also be useful in today's MPEG environment, where the
details originally present in dark portions of an image are often
discarded during the compression sequence.

Better lighting would improve it a lot. The way modern bit-rate-reduced
digital processing reacts to excessive contrast is quite different from
the way analogue noise affects it, and is to my eyes a lot more
disconcerting. Parts of a picture that have very different brightness
levels can move independently of each other, as if they were tectonic
plates stuck on a background of jelly. The slight wobbles produced by
the all too popular use of hand-held cameras can emphasise this, but it
is often enough for an actor just to move their head slightly, and if
their face is lit strongly from one side leaving the other in deep
shadow, the two sides of the face can part company. I wonder how many
lighting directors ever watch their own efforts at home?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How to do studio photo of butterfly w/ no shadows?
    ... source reflecting in the plex. ... there were shadows showing where the wings were ... I didn't think about them going transparent when lighting them from underneath. ...
    (comp.graphics.apps.photoshop)
  • Re: Lower to Upper Desert Wash Dirt Road Trail
    ... The lighting is very even. ... When I go out to a real desert, some parts are very bright, and tend to hurt your eyes, and seem washed out. ... It seems like it would be hard to calibrate a real camera to be able to capture so much detail in the sky, the directly lit sand, and also in the shadows simultaneously. ... Well, I don't need to do that, as they let you just use the clouds in the sky for those sorts of things. ...
    (comp.graphics.apps.lightwave)
  • Re: Flourescnt Ballast Failure?
    ... Perhaps the needed to hire a lighting ... The flourescent fixtures that held the old long bulbs, ... lights the kitchen remarkably well but with shadows. ... My four bulb box fixture is probably over engineered for the space. ...
    (rec.food.cooking)
  • Re: Inquiry: Emulating "Gattaca Look" in PS?
    ... >(you can click to enlarge the image) ... Based on that image, I'd shoot about 4:1 lighting, with a medium-hard strip ... the shadows, and run a few Blur passes to obtain the glow that I think I see. ... The colors lean toward the cool side, ...
    (comp.graphics.apps.photoshop)
  • Re: Shooting shadows at daytime
    ... which contained light shadows. ... Film doesn't have as much dynamic range as our eyes, and cameras aren't ... Faster film won't help. ... Longer exposure will expose properly for the ...
    (alt.photography)