Cinematography On Doctor Who
Iqbal_M
Posts: 4,092 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Having watched the trailer for series 9 the one thing that struck me is the quality of cinematography. In short, its amazing!:o:) I just recently re-watched series 1 and it feels like two totally different shows from a cinematography point of view. (I just wanted to add my 2 pence worth)
0
Comments
When the original CinemaScope arrived in the cinemas in 1953, it brought with it quantum leap forward in the standard of cinematography because the wider image offered so much more creatively. I suspect the Beeb sees it that way. The popularity of DVDs, Blurays and downloads, all in 2,35:1 aspect ratios suggests that the audience, by and large, is happy with the black bars, so why not?
What a very good post and I agree with you.
I think its likely that its just for the trailer but I wouldn't mind if it is actually suppose to be that way as it would have been filmed with 2.40:1 in mind.
I thought it was noticeably a step up, and not just from a few years ago but from the last series (though a lot of deep breath looked this good too) I did wonder for a second if they have had a budget increase but with what's going on at the BBC that's (likely) a big no. Probably they are just getting better at getting the most out of what they have, improving the craft, and of course trailers will show the most impressive shots from the series.
On the technical front I believe TV makers are still supposed to frame shots with the 4:3 aspect ratio in mind, though they may have relaxed the original "must be 4:3 "safe"" rule from when widescreen (16:9) broadcasts were introduced.
I don't know what %age of 4:3 TVs still remain in use out there. They have to preserve a usable service for those who can't or won't switch until the numbers using it become insignificant. It took decades to switch off old 405 line VHF TV, but a much shorter time to switch from analogue 625 line UHF to digital. Of course, framing shots for an old aspect ratio is somewhat less dramatic in its impact than a complete switch off.
These days, the cameras they shoot Doctor Who (and other shows) with have a greater resolution than broadcast HD, which gives them some flexibility in post production for choosing the exact best framing for a shot. They could produce two different versions, framed for different aspect ratios and not just crop the left and right sides for 4:3.
I like to crop some of my 16:9 holiday camcorder video to 2.35:1 when I want more of a cinematic feel.
I don't know what %age of 4:3 TVs still remain in use out there. They have to preserve a usable service for those who can't or won't switch until the numbers using it become insignificant. It took decades to switch off old 405 line VHF TV, but a much shorter time to switch from analogue 625 line UHF to digital. Of course, framing shots for an old aspect ratio is somewhat less dramatic in its impact than a complete switch off.
I heard a nice story, which is apparently true, about how a few years after BBC 1 and ITV went UHF and colour, they had to shut down the old black and white VHF service at Pontop Pike transmitter for a couple of days for long overdue maintenance. They did not receive a single complaint, so they never switched it back on again.
It seems that the mass drive to take up colour TVs took a lot less time than the government of the day thought it would. I suspect that the same is true now. I doubt that there are many 4 x 3 sets still serving as the main TV in the house, although there could be a fair few portables in bedrooms.
The public back then expected things like TVs to last until they wore out. Things were designed to be repairable (and not so much reliable!). The pace of technological change these days has made people much more inclined to upgrade long before that happens and so helps keeps the economy on track (if not so friendly to the environment). Think mobile phones. Not everyone can afford or wants to enjoy the benefits of new technology.
These days votes can be lost if a government fails to enable a new technology to come in quickly enough. Think broadband and superfast broadband.
Personally, I can't wait for 4K and beyond and I'm itching to replace my 9 year old full HD LCD flat panel TV!
How visual styles have changed.
I think the rule is 14:9 not 4:3, but it should be frame as you like for the director now and the broadcasters should throw out 4:3 and 14:9 safe entirely now and ignore complaints.
I am enjoying the way Doctor Who has now progressed to become a film like experience, it's a great new dimension.
Its almost like a movie every week whilst the series is on!
True story: Just a couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine asked me about replacing his telly. He knows I'm a bit of an AV geek. This was a telly he'd bought second hand for fifty quid about 10 years ago. He and his wife had been putting up with a blurry picture for months and now it had finally stopped working completely.
He was pleasantly surprised to learn he didn't have to spend £1000 or more to get a decent new TV. A decent set can be had for much, much less (provided you don't want a 55", 65" + monster screen). He ended up with a good 32" full HD flat panel set for a couple of hundred quid and is now a happy chappie.
That's near enough what happened to my Grandparents last year they are now quite happy too, although their freeview pvr broke so they are considering their opinions for that!
To be honest, the moment Top Gear came to an abrupt financial halt for the Corporation, I was worried about the burden now carried by Dr Who as the #1 global show.
Well you don't have to worry your pretty little head about it do you? The cataclysmic overnights will ensure you get your way and Doctor Who is cancelled well before any 8 year masterplan comes to fruition...
Doctor Who has continually stepped up its game and never failed to impress in the visuals department. I remember seeing a TV awards show presented by Trevor McDonald many years ago now, and a clip of The Parting of the Ways was used to represent Doctor Who. The scene in question was when the Daleks arrive at Sattelite Five, and I remember even back then how visually stunning everything was.
It all just grew from there. I remember actually thinking how brilliantly eerie Utopia was - the lighting on the Tardis in the background of that is unrivalled, and it looks brilliant. Series 4 did a better job than any series before or since at convincing me I was travelling all over the place, and that was largely down to the cinematography - from a ringed planet in the sky above the Ood-Sphere, to the vibrant Adipose spaceship, to the classic car coming down a sun-glistened country road in The Unicorn and the Wasp - a mix of establishing shots and just a generally good eye for things meant it wasn't long before the show looked visually stunning from start to finish.
Now it's better than ever. Series 8 and Series 9 both seem to have a very distinct look about them, each a unique identity that stands out. It's bold, and it's confident, and it's not afraid to try new things. Series 8 was quite 'shadowy' but at the same time quite classy looking. Series 9 looks a bit dirtier, grungier... and not afraid to revel in a new look once again. It helps each series stand out as its own entity, makes it more memorable... cinematography is a powerful thing that can make or break a show. Whilst you truly need amazing actors and powerful plotlines delivered with a sufficient script, the image conveyed as well is just as important.
I am officially excited.
Stephen Moffat arrived as "show runner" just after the show had moved to HD. Only the last three of specials of the Russell T Davies era were shot in HD prior to Stephen's arrival. That might have helped the perception of "improved visuals".
That said, both technique and equipment improved greatly after HD became the norm. If you compare those specials and Torchwood season 1 (when directors and crews were still learning the capabilities of HD) with more recent series, the difference/improvement is massive.
I have to admit I cringe with the dreadfully pixelated flying Cybermen in Dark Water / Death in Heaven.
What the lighting guys are able to come up with is an art form in itself and it truly looks amazing.
Whats the beeb
Not that I'm knocking how beautiful it can look at times, but I'm not sure that you're crediting the right people.
I usually see it that cinematography is done in camera, and what people may be seeing could sometimes be art design using CGI and matte artistry.
For example, the Dalek city is CGI and art design.
I'm not being picky, it's just that sometimes CGI gets a bad rep and it would be nice to see the right people credited when appropriate. I'm bringing it up because some of the examples already given are CGI and art direction examples rather than cinematography.
Sometimes of course it can be a bit of both, and usually is. Sometimes the original camera shot can look quite boring and drab. But it can often be what's done to that shot afterwards in post production by adding CGI and compositing effects which can completely transform the original image.
You'd be amazed at what the BBC can do when they're creating a high production value drama. There are numerous examples on youtube of BBC productions with a typical shot employing CGI matte projection compared to the orignal shot and the results are astounding.
The B(eeb) BC
If you are taking about whether the black bars are matted in camera or in post for cinematography, its actually both and has been that way for years, with film and digital.
In fact any films shot on digital have to be matted either in camera or later, I think its normally done later though so studios can chose to release a 16:9 copy for TV if they want, not something I like as it can ruin the film, much better not to play around with it, eg if its framed for 2.35/2.40:1 then its supposed to be that way and vice versa if its framed for 16:9 ect.
CGI is a funny situation when aspect ratios come into it sometimes something designed for 2.35/2.40:1 will have CGI done of the full 16:9 frame but not always. For Doctor Who, which is designed to be seen in 16:9, the CGI will be done in 16:9, the matting is only done when using shots for trailers in this instance.
You're quite right about when and where matting is done to set up the aspect ratio of the final output. Sometimes shots are framed intentionally to accommodate multiple aspect ratios for the final output (e.g. 16:9 for TV and 2.35:1 for cinema). This can create a lot of confusion amongst cinefiles as to what the correct Original Aspect Ratio (OAR) should be. Sometimes it's correct in both aspect ratios. And when it's done incorrectly, it can lead to errors like boom microphones appearing in shots.
I think Alrightmate was referring to the matte techniques used for compositing shots (overlaying one visual element onto another) which go right back to old in-camera techniques for combining matte paintings on glass with live action with the camera position, zoom and focus locked down. Today matte paintings would be called "set extensions", and the camera wouldn't have to be locked down. The set extensions would be done as 3D models in CGI complete with motion tracking to match the actual camera movements.
To combine two filmed shots (say of a spaceship moving in front of a planet) without a double exposure effect (a see-through, ghostly spaceship) you had to mask off around the model to prepare a film with just the model and everything else transparent. The model would be filmed in front of a blue screen (later green screen) and the unwanted colour removed by a chemical process, leaving everything but the model transparent. You'd also prepare a reverse matte shot (with a transparent hole where the model was) from the same model shot to create a shot of the planet with a transparent hole where the spaceship would appear. Put those two strips of film together in an optical printer and you get the finished shot. The masked off areas are known as mattes.
This matches my understanding: the tools available within Who's budget have come along in leaps and bounds, allowing talented creative people to explore more avenues. The Red camera is only eight years old and DSLRs finally definitively displaced black and white film (popular because it's very light sensitive) for low/no-budget productions somewhere in the last five years. We're finally getting to a position where technical constraints aren't the main factor.