Technical question about older TV shows

[Orlong]

When you watch on episode of an older TV show (typically sitcoms from the 70s), why does the camera quality in the opening sequence where they typically pan the city where it takes place look like it was shot 20 years before the TV show. The intros are all grainy and fuzzy, and the actual show is crisp and clear (for its time period). Im talking about the sequences like you would see in Chico and The Man, What's Happening, All in the Family, Sanford and Son, and Good Times, and even some shows in the 80s like Diffrent Strokes, Taxi, and The Jeffersons. Here are some examples:








Why didnt they use the same camera quality for both the title intro/credits and the shows

[Joey Ray III]

heh, never thought about that tbh. it's not just the intros though no? notice how sometimes them sitcoms have outdoor scenes and those look worse then the usual 'on set' scenes as well.

maybe it was too expensive to set up proper equipment outdoors and they just didn't bother with it? dunno.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

When you watch on episode of an older TV show (typically sitcoms from the 70s), why does the camera quality in the opening sequence where they typically pan the city where it takes place look like it was shot 20 years before the TV show. The intros are all grainy and fuzzy, and the actual show is crisp and clear (for its time period). Im talking about the sequences like you would see in Chico and The Man, What's Happening, All in the Family, Sanford and Son, and Good Times, and even some shows in the 80s like Diffrent Strokes, Taxi, and The Jeffersons. Here are some examples:

Why didnt they use the same camera quality for both the title intro/credits and the shows

Because it is stock footage, to save money. TV and movie studios have stores of footage that show directors can browse and pick out shots to save money.

[Ghostile]

I think it might be the amount of editing it has seen, that has taken down the quality.
I can be completely off tho.

[Orlong]

Because it is stock footage, to save money. TV and movie studios have stores of footage that show directors can browse and pick out shots to save money.

That would be a good reason if some of the shows didnt use footage with characters from the show in them like for instance, What's Happening

[Kalis]

maybe it was too expensive to set up proper equipment outdoors and they just didn't bother with it? dunno.

Probably this.

Even today mobile equipment isn't up to the standard of studio equipment, but it's less noticeable due to the quality of modern mobile equipment.

[Grummgug]

Outdoor footage always looks different than footage shot on set. They might be using different cameras. The lighting is different.

[Orlong]

Probably this.

Even today mobile equipment isn't up to the standard of studio equipment, but it's less noticeable due to the quality of modern mobile equipment.

But other shows from the same time period who had lots of outdoor scenes like CHIPS, MASH, Emergency!, Adam 12, Incredible Hulk, and many others, had great looking outdoor footage, and these shows had to shoot new material for every episode, whereas the sitcoms only had to shoot the intro one time and it gets used for years, so they shouldve used more quality

[odoylerules]

It definitely has to do with the degradation of film over time. The opening sequence would have been shot before the show went to air, and in many cases, before it was known IF the show would get picked up, meaning that likely less money was spent on the quality of film stock, as well as the shooting equipment itself.

Once that original opening sequence is made, it then becomes the source from which the opener is copied from for future episodes. This causes degradation over time. An interesting experiment would be to see if the quality of the opening sequence is better in early seasons than later seasons.

The other possibility is that while these opening sequences are shot on film, the show itself may have been shot on video, producing a very different look.

[Reg]

From a technical aspect, I would say it would have to do with the equipment. Television shows with primarily indoor settings had cameras that were very large and not very portable. So when they needed an outdoor scene, they would switch their cameras to to film with lower quality and easier portability.

[Orlong]

It definitely has to do with the degradation of film over time. The opening sequence would have been shot before the show went to air, and in many cases, before it was known IF the show would get picked up, meaning that likely less money was spent on the quality of film stock, as well as the shooting equipment itself.

Once that original opening sequence is made, it then becomes the source from which the opener is copied from for future episodes. This causes degradation over time. An interesting experiment would be to see if the quality of the opening sequence is better in early seasons than later seasons.

The other possibility is that while these opening sequences are shot on film, the show itself may have been shot on video, producing a very different look.

That actually makes a lot of sense. Ill have to track down pilot episodes for some of these shows and series finales and compare them. Not sure about them using film for the intro and video for the show. Did they even have anything other than film in the 70s and 80s to record to?

[Reg]

That actually makes a lot of sense. Ill have to track down pilot episodes for some of these shows and series finales and compare them. Not sure about them using film for the intro and video for the show. Did they even have anything other than film in the 70s and 80s to record to?

Video inside, film outside. Post-1958 that is.

[Orlong]

So how would they film the intro on film, and then splice it to the show which was shot on video. Do they not need 2 different types of machines to play back (film needing a projector or light source, and video needing a magnetic head) ? How would the TV stations air it? Did they play the intro on film, and then switch to the show after commercial on video?

[Reg]

So how would they film the intro on film, and then splice it to the show which was shot on video. Do they not need 2 different types of machines to play back (film needing a projector or light source, and video needing a magnetic head) ? How would the TV stations air it? Did they play the intro on film, and then switch to the show after commercial on video?

The intro would be filmed on (usually 16mm) film and then in post production/editing, transferred to video.

[lockedout]

The intro would be filmed on (usually 16mm) film and then in post production/editing, transferred to video.

I want to also through in the fact the soundtrack was usually playing during intro/credits.

[Gheld]

As a photography hobbyist myself I can actually come up with quite a few ways that film equipment between an outdoor and indoor setting vary and how it would effect shots.

#1. image stabilization wasn't a thing back then. Now a-days even a cheap camcorder will often have an image stabilization system (which consists of a motion detector and an optical coupling that moves to compensate for camera jerking). Like if you watch homemade porn, you can sometimes hear some weird clicking noise coming from the camera, that is the image stabilizer.

And when you are outdoors there are a variety of factors that make a lack of image stabilization apparent such as the wind.

#2. Lens aperture: When shooting indoors you want as wide a camera aperture as possible. Studio cameras typically have lenses with a 50mm focal length and an aperture ratio of 0.95:1 (a lower aperture ratio makes for a brighter image, and a narrower depth of field (i.e. in focus area).

When shooting outdoors a ratio of 0.95:1 (or f0.95) would be asbolutely ridiculous. In daylight, to avoid overexposure with an aperture that wide your camera would have to be filming at 12,800+ frames per second, which is absolutely absurd. So chances are they use a lens with a much narrower aperture. As a result you loose out on some of that background blur that you would get in an indoor scene, and a busy outdoor scene with a fully focused background would just be some kind of ADHD bullshit.

In order to compensate for this and soften up the focus on the background they likely use a telephoto lens. Because the focal length of the lens also determines the depth of field (a longer focal length also makes for a narrower depth of field). But because a telephoto lens is in essence stretching out the light that comes into it the overall image quality suffers some loss and because of the longer focal length camera shake is also magnified.

Another consequence of shooting with a narrower aperture is that the image loses contrast. And because post production enhancement wasn't quite were it is today back then that's the rub. Indoor scenes are soft with vibrant colours, outdoor scenes are shaky and ADHD agitating with dull colours.

I wouldn't be surprised if shows that had a lot of outdoor scenes had different wardrobes with duller colours for indoor scenes and brighter colours for outdoor scenes just to make it look more consistent.

[Deleted]

Why do you think they make TV shows in a studio. ?
Even now outside broadcast footage is crap compared to studio shot.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Why do you think they make TV shows in a studio. ?
Even now outside broadcast footage is crap compared to studio shot.

And a lot of "outside" is now green-screen too.

[apepi]

Like if you watch homemade porn, you can sometimes hear some weird clicking noise coming from the camera, that is the image stabilizer.

I am going to test this... for science.

[Orlong]

Why do you think they make TV shows in a studio. ?
Even now outside broadcast footage is crap compared to studio shot.

I dont notice any difference between indoor and outdoor footage in this day in age when I watch a show like Bones, The Strain, The Last Ship, The Walking Dead, or Haven. Even daily shows like the Today Show, Good Morning America, or cable news channels look no different whether they are inside or outside