Were TV shows in the '50s and '60s filmed in high defintion?

[PhoenixAcres]

I read that in that era most shows were filmed by cameras recording on 35 mm film like a movie. That film itself is ultra-HD by modern standards but back then TVs didn't have a resolution high enough to handle it so I guess the editors converted it somehow. Also they would have had to lop off the sides of the image to make it 4:3 since the cameras would natively record in widescreen. If all this is true, I would think someone in the industry would devote some time to hunt down and remaster the original films of these shows to fit better on modern TVs, instead of stretching the image like MeTV apparently does. If the information is out there somewhere, it would make sense to take advantage of it at least for the curiosity factor.

[Mace Dolex]

I don't know if back on those days people would foresee a day of such advancements in picture quality.

[um]

This is interesting stuff

[Babalu]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAcres

I read that in that era most shows were filmed by cameras recording on 35 mm film like a movie. That film itself is ultra-HD by modern standards but back then TVs didn't have a resolution high enough to handle it so I guess the editors converted it somehow. Also they would have had to lop off the sides of the image to make it 4:3 since the cameras would natively record in widescreen. If all this is true, I would think someone in the industry would devote some time to hunt down and remaster the original films of these shows to fit better on modern TVs, instead of stretching the image like MeTV apparently does. If the information is out there somewhere, it would make sense to take advantage of it at least for the curiosity factor.

The shows may or may not have been recorded on 35 mm film but that doesn't mean they were filmed in wide screen. It depends what the size of the gate was. They very well could have been filmed in 4:3 and even if they weren't, they could have been transferred and the original film destroyed. If they were filmed wide and then cropped you could have grip stands or flags in the full frame which would make it impossible to show even if it still exists, which I doubt it does.

[PhoenixAcres]

Originally Posted by Babalu

The shows may or may not have been recorded on 35 mm film but that doesn't mean they were filmed in wide screen. It depends what the size of the gate was. They very well could have been filmed in 4:3 and even if they weren't, they could have been transferred and the original film destroyed. If they were filmed wide and then cropped you could have grip stands or flags in the full frame which would make it impossible to show even if it still exists, which I doubt it does.

That's a good point I didn't think of. With the wider shot the camera was probably picking up a ton of production crew stuff because the director knew it wouldn't matter. And I agree, the chances are most editors would destroy the original film after making the transfer, no second thoughts about it back then, but it would've made an amazing find today.

And I do think the shows are fine the way they exist now, I just thought it was interesting there might be long-lost additional footage out there somewhere.

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by um

This is interesting stuff

Yes analogue is beautiful and thats what they were using then...

[biffbronson]

It's probably pretty rare indeed for negatives to still be around for older filmed televised material -- and for shows like Mr. Peepers, at times even no prints could be located (thankfully later found in that case) or even kinescopes. Having the negatives is a dream as far as original materials.

Then there is the issue of videotape "wiping" which went on for decades -- so much taped material has been lost forever, especially in the case of US daytime. Makes me very thankful for the older filming practices by Desilu and others. Another issue is preservation, like the quality of existing material for older soaps -- there was an example of one series that had existing film or tape (I forget which) for the early years that was so dark, the visual quality was close to zero.

One problem that's popped up with much older animated cartoons sometimes is that all known prints have a significant edit, cut from the negative -- for example, for the original Warner Bros. cartoon of Horton Hatches the Egg (early '40s), apparently all of the prints have lost the original open (a yellow title card background), replaced with the "Blue Ribbon" opening. I've seen a small image of the original, so we do know what it looked like - but unfortunately, as far as I know, none of the existing prints still have it, and likely it can't be restored properly.

[Spiny Norman]

For F sake, 35mm is NOT widescreen, it's exactly 4:3. A lot of tricks are/were needed to make films widescreen (or 'scope which is even wider) in cinemas, including chopping off the top & bottom. In fact the reverse is even true: Sometimes movies get a bit of extra on top and bottom to make them fit a bit better on TV so that the black bars can be a bit lower.

There is no real reason why a wider picture should be better. Anyway I'd prefer to watch it the way it was designed - shots are composed for a certain aspect so why change that.
I've seen an excellent example of Buffy running through a hallway. Used to be 4:3. But a new widescreen version now shows... just a bit more empty hallway left and right. So, the point is, that there was no point. Nothing gained.

[um]

Originally Posted by Spiny Norman

For F sake, 35mm is NOT widescreen, it's exactly 4:3. A lot of tricks are/were needed to make films widescreen (or 'scope which is even wider) in cinemas, including chopping off the top & bottom. In fact the reverse is even true: Sometimes movies get a bit of extra on top and bottom to make them fit a bit better on TV so that the black bars can be a bit lower.

There is no real reason why a wider picture should be better. Anyway I'd prefer to watch it the way it was designed - shots are composed for a certain aspect so why change that.
I've seen an excellent example of Buffy running through a hallway. Used to be 4:3. But a new widescreen version now shows... just a bit more empty hallway left and right. So, the point is, that there was no point. Nothing gained.

Very informative, but please don't curse

[Dude111]

I dont care for HIGH DEF @ all.....

Everyone here knows I love analogue right????? -- Well Woodstock 94 was 100% analog (IF WATCHING ON ANALOGUE CABLE) but it was shot in 'HIGH DEF' ANALOGUE and to me looks like crap!! (I have a big part of it on VHS)

It would be much better looking if it were standard def analogue!!!!! (Like my U2 and Phil collins concerts are I have on VHS)

[TV Guy]

Some people are mixing up aspect ratio with HD. They are two separate characteristics.

Anything that was filmed with 35 mm film can be shown in HD, regardless of aspect ratio (4:3 vs 16:9). Aspect ratio is size of the picture; HD has to do with picture resolution.

[stevea]

I really get sick of all these black bars. Sometimes on the top and bottom, sometimes on either side (those are the worst). MeTV shows differently depending on which cable box I'm using...on one, the picture looks kind of normal, but squashed from the sides; on the other, it's blown up, like it's too big for the screen. I think it's supposed to be in widescreen, but the local channel doesn't show it that way.

Then they try to put videotaped 70s and 80s shows into HD, and that supposedly doesn't work, since videotape (at least, from that era) doesn't have enough resolution.

At least Antenna TV still looks normal.

[BigManMike]

Decades has black bars on the side, which I’m not a fan of, but I can live with it. Nowhere near as bad as that credit crunch on Antenna.

[Spiny Norman]

Originally Posted by um

Very informative, but please don't curse

The F is for Frog actually. Kermit doesn't mind if I invoke him now and then.