>Field-removed video (FRV) is when a programme shot on normal videotape is 'enhanced' to make it look vaguely like film. The grim practice has been employed on recent sitcoms such as Beast, Spaced, Perfect World, The League Of Gentlemen, and this new thing Coupling.

And in the digitally enhanced Red Dwarf tapes they did a while back. Not only that, but they decided to augment the picture with poorly-added distractions and for some reason crop the picture to 14:9

>Field-removed video (FRV) is when a programme shot on normal videotape is 'enhanced' to make it look vaguely like film. The grim practice has been employed on recent sitcoms such as Beast, Spaced, Perfect World, The League Of Gentlemen, and this new thing Coupling.
>
>FRV always looks like shit, but it's particularly inappropriate for sitcoms. The lighting isn't suited to it. It looks tacky.
>
>For some reason, however, it's very trendy to use it - why? Could it be the misguided idea that it makes sitcoms look more 'American'? Are they embarrassed by the 'look' of traditional British sitcoms with their garish studio sets?
>
>It's all part of this idea of producers 'distancing' themselves from the material - creating an air of 'we're not really doing something as naff as a sitcom, we're doing something much more interesting'. Why is this?
>
>FRV is an unfortunate by-product of the digital age. Just say no.
>

Couldn't agree more. I have a particularly strong personal reason for hating this process, also known as "drop-framing", from my days on Bournemouth University's Media Production degree (1991-94). Our course didn't adopt Beta SP as a shooting format until our 3rd and final year, meaning that all our previous work was on formats ranging from Hi-8 to Low-Band Umatic. A fellow student, Scott Fairweather from Arbroath, hated the way these looked, and always wanted to improve the image quality of his productions. One day, while playing around with the strobe controls on the vision mixer in our on-line 3-machine suite, a Panasonic MX50 (God how primitive!), he noticed that editing with the strobe set to it's finest setting effectively dropped every other frame from his material. He used it for everything he ever did - and possibly continues to do so, for he is now an Avid editor - and constantly praised "the wee fine strobe" in a manic Arbroathian accent. A few of us dabbled, and, in exceptional circumstances found it of use. But, like all DVE's, overuse and inappropriate use of the "wee fine strobe" was often quite risible.

So, ever since Scott Fairweather's Wee Fine Strobe, I have hated the practice. It's a kind of snobbery about video over film, that using it enhances the end product, and makes it look better than "plain old boring video". But it NEVER does.

Anyone trying to disguise the use of video in television or video production, be it Digi Beta, SP, or DV - which I use constantly, and never cease to be amazed by - is in the wrong game. Stop living a lie! (Or hire a top-drawer D.O.P)

I never knew what that process was called, but you are right, it is crap. I've always thought it just makes the programme look not quite right. Have you noticed that a lot of war footage on the news is like this as well, and looks like it isn't real as a result? Is that done deliberately as well, or is it just the standards conversion? Why would a producer want to make a programme that looks like it's being transmitted live from the Balkans??

FRV evil? good grief, I suppose we'll be claiming on screen logos to be a bad idea next. :-)

The first time I experienced this rubbish idea was in the ITV comedy (remember those) 'Faith in the Future' and it was virtually unwatchable, I expected some sort of apology at the end of the epsiode. They did the same for the second series of 'The 10%ers' and it was very hard on the eyes, a bit like trying to watch a show while completely drunk.

TV studio comedies look absolutely wrong with the process although it doesn't look so bad on shows shot on location like 'The League of Gentlemen' though I'd much prefer to see it untampered with.

I thought the practice was about to die out after Red Dwarf wisely dropped the idea but it all seems to be coming back with a new wave of comedy productions thinking it looks trendy.

So does someone with power actually thinks it looks good?

David

I remember Casualty (two or three years back) seemed to use this system for a while and looked so awful they went back to proper VT. Can anyone confirm this system was actually used, or did they really try out film?

>I remember Casualty (two or three years back) seemed to use this system for a while and looked so awful they went back to proper VT. Can anyone confirm this system was actually used, or did they really try out film?

It was normal VT 'converted' using field removed. The main problem was that it wasn't even shot with field removed in mind, so all the lighting made it look worse. They quickly changed back to normal VT...

anyone who's ever copied stuff shot on long play VHS *shudder* to U-matic directly will notice a similar effect cropping up (as well as the trully lousy picture).

you also get frames every so often that almost invert. - the botton third of the picture appears at the top - I have never been able to correct for this, and it remains an artefact of recording long play VHS to U-matic.

(I always tell people not to use it, but they keep doing it)
"It makes the tapes last longer..."
VHS is a crap enough format as it is - you don't want to compound that by reducing the tape speed by half - it's already slow enough as it is.

I have become more reluctant to edit something shot on VHS now - the very worst stuff being people's birthday parties and weddings - the camera is never still for a second.

Beta, DV and U-matic stuff is a joy after things like that - especially on the m100 (as long as it doesn't crash)

Or as long as you haven't been at my vodka, eh Joe : - )

Evil lady. :)

that stuff is more than just "vodka".

methinks someone should check sui's basement for a chemistry set..

It's drycleaning fluid.


...what's a timebase?

she told me that.

customs class it as drycleaning fluid cos of the level of alcohol..

timebase. hmm.

well, hard to explain simply... it's the frame rate of the video. standard timebases are 25fps and 29.97fps (PAL and NTSC).

wha?

who? where?

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm drycleaaaaning fluuuuid.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, media 100.

>I never knew what that process was called, but you are right, it is crap. I've always thought it just makes the programme look not quite right. Have you noticed that a lot of war footage on the news is like this as well, and looks like it isn't real as a result? Is that done deliberately as well, or is it just the standards conversion? Why would a producer want to make a programme that looks like it's being transmitted live from the Balkans??

I've never worked in news, but I think it's because the picture is compressed heavily in order for it to be sent via ISDN rather than satellite. (A bit like converting video to Real Video Format) Assuming the weather was OK, satellite would offer you a standard VT picture, while the latter strips away as much info as possible to make the file small enough to be sent over phone/ISDN lines from remote locations, such as war zones or Princess Di's minefields.... No-one drop-frames news VT, it's news - the effect comes about by accident rather than design.

>Have you noticed that a lot of war footage on the news is like this as well, and looks like it isn't real as a result? Is that done deliberately as well, or is it just the standards conversion?

It is because the video is highly compressed so it can be sent down a phone line.

I suspected that actually. So these producers want their programmes to look as if they're downloaded over the net? Maybe they're all trying to get us used to it...

Well, er, how else would you transfer footage through a war zone?

Post it?

Cardinal "lucky wite suit...



...lucky white suit with red spots" Biggles

Sorry mate, misunderstanding here. What I meant was do the comedy producers want their programmes to look like blah blah, can't be bothered to repeat meself...

Oh, right.

Well, I suppose focusing on the ruddy quality would somehow take the mind off the canned laughter and apalling writing.

Does in 'merica, anyway. *coughs to herself*

Cardinal "the sky laid out... like a patient etherised on a table" Biggles

it seems like a gimmick really.

I try my best to remove all my black frames and other annoying glitches.

I wouldn't do something to it that would make it look like some of that stuff.

What, like actually editing it?

Heaven forbid. ;)

Cardinal "make my way back home. in the dark. By TOUCH alone!" Biggles

edit?

me edit?

well yes - but i hate editing stuff I haven't shot myself - although M100 makes it a breeze.

Tch, you cocky little bint.

*laughs*

ask anyone who edits. - it's just not the same when it's someone else's footage.

What if it's their armage?