|
|
Post by BomberCommand on Apr 3, 2021 22:25:12 GMT
Going through the series again this Easter and I suddenly, at random thought, how would Catweazle have fared if it were made on video as opposed to film? For some reason that I can't explain, I've have for as long as I can remember and been aware of, preferred TV dramas on video. There's a certain intimacy and realism that appeals to me. Does anyone believe that if Catweazle had been made on video, it may not have survived or maybe lost a part of it's charm otherwise? Just curious if anybody out there has ever wondered on this particular subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alan Hayes on Apr 3, 2021 22:52:45 GMT
A good question.  It may well have survived. LWT sitcoms are pretty well represented in the archives, for instance, so maybe Catweazle would have been preserved. I think it'd have been quite a different series on video, though. I don't think that the high profile guest cast would have been possible on a (probably lower budget) videotaped series. And it would certainly have affected its atmosphere... I think the choice of film over video helps its air of fantasy. Also, had it have been made on videotape I guess it may not have sold so well overseas. |
|
|
|
Post by ChasWeazle on Apr 10, 2021 13:10:54 GMT
I may be wrong here, but didn't LWI film it on a certain mm film?
|
|
|
|
Post by Alan Hayes on Apr 10, 2021 15:26:20 GMT
I may be wrong here, but didn't LWI film it on a certain mm film? Yes, Catweazle was filmed on 16mm gauge film.
What BomberCommand was asking was essentially whether it would have been a very different series if made on videotape.
|
|
|
|
Post by simonwells61 on Apr 11, 2021 12:22:15 GMT
Going through the series again this Easter and I suddenly, at random thought, how would Catweazle have fared if it were made on video as opposed to film? For some reason that I can't explain, I've have for as long as I can remember and been aware of, preferred TV dramas on video. There's a certain intimacy and realism that appeals to me. Does anyone believe that if Catweazle had been made on video, it may not have survived or maybe lost a part of it's charm otherwise? Just curious if anybody out there has ever wondered on this particular subject. I don't think it would have worked. There's a certain magic with celluloid which cannot be replicated on video. Furthermore, given the unwieldy nature (and size) of video cameras back in 1969-70, there would be no way that shots from the top of Castle Saburac etc could have happened. The first series is shot SO well, I was amazed when I first heard it was captured on 16mm. The second series- well, it is a bit slapdash, but the care and attention to the quality of that first series is without exception (in my opinion). |
|
phelings
Catweazle's Apprentice
Posts: 41 
|
Post by phelings on Jul 11, 2021 18:50:08 GMT
If it had only been the odd shot here and there like the Saburac ones you refer to then it could have been possible as they could have used the Outside Broadcast equipment usually reserved for sport which is what Timeslip did for it's difficult to tape moments.
When Survivors switched to OB gear for exteriors partway through its first season IIRC it involved miles of cables and some production staff viewing from a good distance so not user friendly at all at the time. I expect the decision to shoot on 16mm was almost entirely down to the needs of the series locations.
I may be wrong but I don't think any of Catweazle was shot inside a studio (where they could have shot on tape). Even simple things like being in houses and rooms have all the appearances of being shot inside real homes and buildings such as Hexwood Farm rather than being in studios.
But the sheer amount of exteriors needed made tape a non starter if they wanted the show to last. Faking exteriors was no problem at all but it was obvious onscreen and there's no doubt that Catweazle would not stand up today like it does had they taken that route.
While VT material can offer an intimacy that film does not, a show like Catweazle benefited from being made on film.
Take a look at repeats on ITV3 and ITV4 or even places like Britbox. Bar half hour sitcoms and Upstairs Downstairs I challenge anyone to locate vintage ITV product made on tape - I'm not counting things like Wizadora and other tiny tots stuff on Britbox.
There's no doubt that had Catweazle been made on tape it would likely not been repeated later than the 70's let alone still being known today and possibly rightly so as a tape based series would have been totally different and like the majority of ITV kids shows made on tape be forgotten by all except the most die hard fans - certainly not by the masses
|
|
|
|
Post by Alan Hayes on Jul 11, 2021 23:51:57 GMT
I expect the decision to shoot on 16mm was almost entirely down to the needs of the series locations. It was because LWI wanted to sell internationally, and particularly to the USA (which they didn't ultimately manage). Videotape would not have been an option.
As far as I can tell, LWI were hoping to replicate the success and approach of the likes of ITC. So film would have been the recording medium from the start.
|
|
|
|
Post by BomberCommand on Dec 12, 2023 13:12:39 GMT
Going back to this thread, It reminded me of Alfred Burke discussing a possible feature length or another series of Public Eye. There were suggestions that Euston Films, subsidiary of Thames, wanted to do another but it would be on Film and not tape. Unfortunately, Alfred turned it down primarily for this reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alan Hayes on Dec 14, 2023 23:39:03 GMT
Yes, I remember that well. They revived Van Der Valk instead and that did indeed feel like quite a different series on film compared to its video years. Perhaps dear old Alfie was right. (I love Public Eye and would have been very grateful for a film series but I can see his point.)
|
|
|
|
Post by southernspirits on Dec 17, 2023 9:31:32 GMT
Hello Alan and BomberCommand. Would it not be the case that 16mm film fares better, and has better image capture quality than video, at least, up the limit ('vinegar syndrome') of cellulose base of the film stock?
I'm grateful that the series wasn't shot a year or two earlier, because I suspect that that would have meant that it was shot in B/W: 1969 seems to have been the first year that a lot of major television productions switched to colour in the UK if I'm not mistaken (off the back of at least one of the BBC channels doing so, I believe)? The popular survival of it was obviously massively aided by that happy circumstance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alan Hayes on Dec 17, 2023 10:07:13 GMT
Film does tend to last longer than videotape and is a High Definition source (even if the Catweazle prints can look a bit manky!), which means that there is the possibility for an HD restoration one day. There wouldn't be that possibility if it had been made on videotape.
As for the b/w / colour question, ITV moved to colour in November 1969 so LWT as one of its franchise holders would have taken their lead from that. Its early series of On the Buses and Please Sir were made in B/W (on videotape) and went to colour with their second series. Catweazle was to debut about three months after the first ITV colour transmissions so the team would have been aware of that and the case made for colour film. However, with the series being made by London Weekend International with an eye on international sales (particularly to the USA), B/W was no longer really an option for that. ITC had been making their adventure and children's puppet series in colour since Stingray (1964) and The Baron (1966).
|
|
phelings
Catweazle's Apprentice
Posts: 41
|
Post by phelings on Feb 29, 2024 23:44:53 GMT
Hello Alan and BomberCommand. Would it not be the case that 16mm film fares better, and has better image capture quality than video, at least, up the limit ('vinegar syndrome') of cellulose base of the film stock? I'm grateful that the series wasn't shot a year or two earlier, because I suspect that that would have meant that it was shot in B/W: 1969 seems to have been the first year that a lot of major television productions switched to colour in the UK if I'm not mistaken (off the back of at least one of the BBC channels doing so, I believe)? The popular survival of it was obviously massively aided by that happy circumstance. Film is certainly capable of better quality than tape even 16mm. In the early days of HD there was thinking that 16mm couldn't deliver HD well enough to make a Bluray worthwhile. However we've seen lots of restorations since then that show that is not the case. The Professionals must surely be the most astonishing upgrade to show what 16mm can do but unfortunately without restoration and modern cleanups shows like Catweazle may have got eventually had Network survived we're left with very messy pictures like we have on Britbox. Clearly new HD copies but looking like made from an off the shelf source with absolutely no attempt to restore , correct or improve. I felt the Britbox versions worthy enough to put on Bluray and a side by side comparison shows they are better but the improved resolution also highlights the dirt , dust and other imperfections that were not as visible on the dvd's. I've seen comments complaining about the HD Catweazle and those punters may well suggest a tape based version of the show without the imperfections of film like dirt dust etc would look better and initially it may have done but in reality it wasn't. As suggested earlier, international sales and varied locations shooting meant videotape was a non starter here |
|
|
|
Post by Alan Hayes on Mar 1, 2024 0:11:54 GMT
Film is certainly capable of better quality than tape even 16mm. In the early days of HD there was thinking that 16mm couldn't deliver HD well enough to make a Bluray worthwhile. However we've seen lots of restorations since then that show that is not the case. ...including one Richard Carpenter series, Robin of Sherwood, which brushed up beautifully well on Blu-ray (which of course you know!). |
|
