American cinematographer (Jan-Dec 1952)

Television CINEMATOGRAPHY WHEN prints of good quality are being televised, there should be no need for monitors to alter density controls. Uniformity of density and shading is inherent in the film itself. THERE STILL is wide variation in standards of individual TV stations. Research is continuing which ultimately will insure transmission quality that filmed programs deserve. SURVEY shows that no two TV stations achieve like results in telecasting films. This suggests the need for standardization of film equipment and transmission methods. Normal Cinematography Best For Television Films Lack of standards and too much knob twisting by station monitors, not inferior photography, responsible for poor transmission quality of television films, survey shows. By ARTHUR The first comprehensive survey of the technical requirements of motion pictures for television has been com¬ pleted in Hollywood by a special re¬ search committee of the IATSE Studio Photogr aphers’ Local 659. Purpose of the report besides that of supplying answers to many problems besetting TV stations and pro¬ ducers of video films alike, was to de¬ termine if TV films require a lighting and photographic technique different from that employed in making theatrical films. The result was a long and interest¬ ing study of television over a three-year period. As chairman of the committee, I became perhaps the most avid watcher of TV programs in Hollywood with MILLER, A. S. C. probably the highest score in “air time” of any video viewer. This was neces¬ sary, of course, in order to study the quality of TV films as they came over the air, the type of films generally being televised, and to observe which lighting formulas and camera techniques pro¬ duced the best results for television films. A most interesting thing happened about the time the survey had been in progress six months. After having ob¬ served on my home receiver countless “westerns” and other “old Hollywood films” — the quality of which was du¬ bious, to say the least — one evening there came over the air a feature-length motion picture which was remarkable by comparison. It was “Tomorrow Is Forever,” produced by R.K.O. in 1945 and photographed by the late Joseph Valentine. It was clear and sharp, vir¬ tually as good as any picture one would see on a motion picture screen. The question naturally followed: “How come this old picture came over television with such fidelity?” It re¬ sulted in an important discovery in our survey: that much of the poor quality of video films as observed on home re¬ ceivers is due to faulty electronic sys¬ tems of the telecaster, to poor judgment of the engineer handling the monitor controls in the station, or both. Further study revealed that a given film tele¬ vised by one network station appeared differently on home receivers than when televised by another station. The differ¬ ence lies in the difference in equipment, in the difference in the standards estab¬ lished by each station’s engineers. In short, much of the trouble still exists because of the lack of standardization in the television industry Perhaps the strongest point here is the fact that a new factor enters into the telecasting of motion pictures — the privilege vested in the network’s en¬ gineering staff to control contrast and shading as TV films are being broad¬ cast. As long as this condition exists, there can be no fancy lighting of TV films. The producer of television films must recognize the fact that lighting effects on a small screen should be kept to the minimum. The survey further revealed that some TV stations have improved their equip¬ ment to the point where reproduction quality of TV films is identical with the photography. These stations for reasons of their own do not share their tech¬ nical secrets with other stations, which are lagging in the telecasting quality of films. This at once suggests that the photo¬ graphic quality transmited by some TV stations does not represent a true repro ARTHUR MILLER A.S.C. 208 American Cinematographer May, 1952