Moaning about field-removed video? Isn’t this just some nerdy gripe about an obscure technical procedure that nobody except you notices?

No. Field-removed video is the curse of all that is holy in television. It is an abomination that must be stopped. And it will.

What is it then?

Well, you know the difference between something shot ‘on videotape’ and something shot ‘on film’, right?

Yes. But I’ll pretend to be a simpleton if you think it’ll help.

Thank you. You see, since the inception of colour broadcasting in the late 60s, television programmes have been recorded on two basic formats: videotape or film. They both give recorded sequences their distinct atmosphere and ‘look’.

How do you mean?

Well, take EastEnders, for example. All shot on videotape, right?

Right.

As is more or less anything recorded in a studio, from Newsnight to Call My Bluff, from Changing Rooms to Fawlty Towers.

Ah yes, but wasn’t Fawlty Towers partly shot on film?

Well spotted. In Fawlty Towers, the interior scenes were shot on videotape, while the outdoor sequences were shot on film - in common with most sitcoms of the time. Exclusive use of film, however, has traditionally been reserved for serious dramas, for adverts, for documentaries, and - obviously - for cinema movies.

So what’s the actual difference between videotape and film?

The technical difference is that film runs at 25 frames a second, whereas videotape - which isn’t made up of ‘frames’ in the true sense - is still divisible by 25 for every second, with each of these so-called frames comprising of two ‘fields’. With videotape, therefore, you get 50 separate images per second; with film, you get half this number.

And the aesthetic difference?

Well, the entire texture of the picture is changed depending on what format you use. With film, action looks a bit poncier - as if it’s moving at a more deliberated, self-conscious rate. The picture itself looks richer, deeper, grander, more atmospheric. Videotape, meanwhile, is more no-nonsense; it captures images pretty much as they naturally appear.

I think I remember Jools Holland demonstrating the difference on The Tube once, using two cameras.

Yes, you need to see the formats, really - it’s a notoriously difficult thing to describe. Suffice to say, you’d immediately notice the difference if they were swapped around - as indeed viewers of Casualty did a few years back. But that wasn’t real film, it was a technique called ‘field-removed video’.

Which is what?

Well, field-removed video (FRV) is when a television picture which was shot on videotape is ‘enhanced’ to make it appear like it was shot on film. They do this by removing one field from each ‘frame’ of the video sequence.

What’s the point in that? Why can’t they just use real film?

Because real film is very cumbersome and expensive, on account of it not being a reusable resource. Also, FRV is a by-product of the digital age - the ‘whoo look, I’ve found the button that does this’ mentality. A picture can be converted from videotape to film and back again at the click of a mouse.

Sounds great!

Yes, but it doesn’t look great. You see, all FRV does is take an honest, decent videotape picture and turn it into something ugly. All to often, it’s akin to viewing a video picture through a very fine strobe light. In fact, that’s essentially what the process is.

Can’t be very popular among TV people then?

On the contrary, producers love it. Mainly because they’re lazy, and can’t be bothered learning editing as a hands-on trade. They’re using it more and more, even on programmes where they wouldn’t ordinarily be using film anyway.

Such as?

Sitcoms mainly - My Family, for example.

Ah yes. But that’s rubbish anyway, surely?

Well, that’s the point - underneath it all there’s an inoffensive little show trying to get out, but the FRV puts you off from the outset. It certainly wouldn’t look nearly so bad if it remained on normal videotape. Beast is another one. And Black Books. OK-ish sitcoms completely stifled by the clammy atmosphere that FRV forces on them.

So why is it so popular?

Well, with sitcoms, the answer is easy - they want to sell the shows to America.

Oh fuck.

Oh fuck indeed. Out of technical necessity, American sitcoms have employed FRV for the past ten years - Friends, Frasier and Seinfeld are all shot on it.

They don’t look so bad though.

No, for two reasons. One, because they have better equipment and can make their FRV almost resemble real film...or at least something that’s quite easy on the eye. And two, because the humour of American sitcoms is conducive to the slickness of FRV anyway.

Which our sitcoms aren’t?

No, the atmosphere of British sitcoms is best served by videotape - all the greats, from Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads? to The Young Ones, from Steptoe and Son to Father Ted, have all had their interior scenes (which account for 90% of the action) shot on videotape. The problem is that TV producers think that, by flicking the FRV button, they can turn an average British sitcom into a yank-friendly money-spinner.

They’re not that shallow are they?

Yes they are. All sitcom-makers have the eyes on America. Why do so many sitcoms have stings of the theme music played between each scene? It’s all part of their plan to make our comedy ‘look American’.

But hang on, the Americans don’t put those stings in - they’re only in our edits, because that’s where we cut out the ad-break bumpers.

I know, I know. Thick as shit, people in TV. The thing is, they reckon it’ll fool the British public as well as the American buyers.

Our sitcoms would never fit their time-slots anyway.

Yes, they would. Over the past few years, nearly all sitcoms on commercial television have had their running times docked from 24 minutes to 22 precisely for that reason.

Oh, for fuck’s sake.

And FRV is at the heart of this problem. It’s an attitude thing - it says ‘We do television this way because we’ve got our eyes on something better’.

What could possibly be better than doing a comedy show?

I know. Twats, the lot of them.

So does anybody use real film anymore?

It’s more or less completely obsolete now. Even cinema films are shot on a form of FRV - although, as with American sitcoms, it is a high-quality version of it. Also, it doesn’t look so bad if the movie is shot directly onto FRV, rather than converted in the editing suite. It still looks a bit rubbish though. You’ll notice that an FRV film like Trainspotting still has that slightly ‘plastic’ look to it.

So what should TV producers be using as an alternative?

Well, limit FRV to exterior scenes only. That’s all we ask. The outside scenes in sitcoms are always rubbish anyway, and don’t last long. But if you really want to be fantastic, shoot the exteriors on video too. It’s been an option for about thirty years - it was actually used, amazingly enough, as early as 1969, in Doctor In The House, but it didn’t become popular until the early 80s when the equipment became more portable.

And the interiors?

Videotape, videotape, glorious videotape! All of them.

Just on sitcoms?

No, on all TV shows, including drama.

Drama?

Yeah, imagine how much better something like Attachments or This Life would be if they were shot on videotape in a studio set, in a manner resembling an old Wednesday Play.

But that would mean everyone would notice how bad the scripts are?

Frightening, isn’t it? But that’s what they’re scared of. They want all television to resemble the bland wank-fantasies of teenage movie-directors, where everything is edited like a fucking rock video to disguise the lack of grass-roots creativity. They can’t handle the simplicity that videotape gives - the importance it places on facial expressions, on sets, on dialogue itself.

Which brings us back to Spaced.

Marry me.

Actually, that reminds me - the reason why we don’t get one-off plays any more is because the BBC are putting all their money into developing their fucking cinema business - producing shit like Billy Elliott, so they can have the ‘BBC Films’ logo on American billboards.

Glad you got that one in.

Well, you’ve convinced me. I hate FRV, and I want it banned.

Nice one. You can join the campaign against all things field-removed by e-mailing us on the ‘Contact’ page. Or, if you’re 'Jon', you can slurp your coffee and make a joke about combine harvesters.

Right, I’m off. Oh, and that reminds me - I got you a present, to thank you for explaining all the above to me.

Oh, that’s very kind. What is it?

It’s what you’ve always wanted - a complete set of Red Dwarf Remastered videos!

What a good punchline!

The Kinder Surprise Column