Lighting question

>"Hemmings, R.K." <[hidden email]>
wrote:
> BTW, as somebody mentioned on the
>old (fab-ufo) list a few years ago, UFO is one of the few
>series that has ceilings on its internal sets. Once somebody
>points this out to you, you can't help but notice how few
>other (especially sf) series have them. Must have been a bit
>of a b*gger trying to get the lighting sorted out.

Rob,
Thank you for sharing this information again, since I hadn't heard it
before. I can't tell you how many times I've been frustrated by the poor
lighting on the characters' faces in the series, and I couldn't figure out
why they didn't do the lighting any better than that. Does anyone know WHY
they went with ceilings? And such poorly lit ones at that? It seems to me
to have been a mistake, detracting from the overall stylishness of each
scene. It's about the only visual flaw I've ever found in the series. What
do you other film buffs think about it?
Denise


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

I'm curious Denise -- why do you think the lighting
is bad on UFO? I think it's excellent, so I'm wondering
if your comment is based on you having a poor quality
VHS copy (even the official tapes can be poor), or
whether you prefer to have everything bright & clear,
which I think as of being "boring lighting".

Marc

Perhaps the ceilings were to give the sets 'weight' - after all they were
supposed to be underground. Ceilings add to the claustrophobia?!



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

>[hidden email]
wrote:
>I'm curious Denise -- why do you think the lighting
>is bad on UFO? I think it's excellent, so I'm wondering
>if your comment is based on you having a poor quality
>VHS copy (even the official tapes can be poor), or
>whether you prefer to have everything bright & clear,
>which I think as of being "boring lighting".

No, my copies are great. But I watch faces, and in UFO there are many times
that the overhead lighting doesn't shine on their faces as they move about.
Now, some shadow I love. I wouldn't be a film noir buff if I didn't. But
when you can't even make out their features for several seconds at a time,
because they've moved out from under the direct lighting above them, it is
very frustrating. Everyone looks for something different in a show, so
maybe you just never noticed it before. I know that the scenes with the
machinery and models are always quite clear. But since I'm looking at their
face, rather than at their equipment, it was noticeable to me. And it
always struck me as odd in a show that paid so much attention to detail.
Does that answer your question?
Denise

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

At 09:51 PM 1/16/02 +0000, you wrote:

>Perhaps the ceilings were to give the sets 'weight' - after all they were
>supposed to be underground. Ceilings add to the claustrophobia?!

I seem to remember reading or watching (Maybe on the UFO Documentary) that
it was a big deal to have the ceilings in the show and perhaps this was to
add to Gerry Andersons reputation, having a show or maybe the first show on
TV that had ceilings built into the sets. I remember hearing about this is
some interview with GA himself, hmmm maybe it's in the Anderson biography?

At any rate, I never noticed the lighting was bad but I'm not much of film
student anyway. I did notice that in the first Star Trek movie and the
first episode of Star Trek TNG they made a big deal of showing the ceiling
on the bridge of the Enterprise, sort of like saying, "This ship is real,
see, there's no lights and microphones up there!"

I also remember seeing the ceilings in Space 1999 but I don't remember
ceilings in the puppet productions of Anderson. Since UFO was his first
live action series perhaps it was a way to get the industry to notice the
effort they were making, to make UFO the best put together SF TV series of
it's time?

Just some theories.

Well, I would think ceilings would make it more realistic. I never
noticed bad lighting, but then I never actually made a point of noticing
ceilings either. Guess I was too busy watching for wisps of chest hair
to peek out from under Foster's jacket <shrug>

-- Y

--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Yuchtar zantai-Klaan | [hidden email]
I am not a number! I am a FREE FAN!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"An apple a day keeps the, uh ....
No, never mind."
-- Doctor Who
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
http://yuchtar.users4.50megs.com/
http://nunzie.users2.50megs.com/

CONTENTS DELETED

At 09:51 PM 1/16/02 +0000, someone wrote:
> Perhaps the ceilings were to give the sets 'weight' - after all
> they were supposed to be underground. Ceilings add to the
> claustrophobia?!

If you were in SHADO headquarters in reality, you would know already
that there was a depth of earth overhead, and special decor would not
needed to tell you that. On a movie some sort of underground
atmosphere has to be put in to make it realistic. It is the same as
the way that the various aliens and alien worlds in SF mave to be
styled to give an impression which in a real world would have come
from automatically years of history and knowing about them.

>Yuchtar <[hidden email]>
wrote:
>Well, I would think ceilings would make it more realistic. I never
>noticed bad lighting, but then I never actually made a point of noticing
>ceilings either. Guess I was too busy watching for wisps of chest hair
>to peek out from under Foster's jacket <shrug>

Yuchtar,
I thought the ceilings added realism too. And like one of you guys posted,
it does add "weight" to the HQ sets, giving you that claustrophobic feel of
being underground. But the presence of ceilings on the sets would explain
some of the occasional scenes that had moments of really poor lighting,
where you could tell it wasn't a deliberate shot for establishing mood, but
rather a logistics problem working around those ceilings! I'll give you
what I consider the most classic example, because it's the one I remember
best. (But that may simply be because I, like you, Yuchtar, like to watch
Paul too, so that episode gets played more.) It's in Court Martial, in
Straker's office when he gets up from the desk to hand Alec the paper with
Foster's signature on it. There is a moment where he steps from normal
lighting into complete shadow, then back into normal lighting again. It is
so surprising to the eye, because no normal ceiling lighting does that, and
it takes you completely out of the moment of tension they're trying to
create and jolts you back into reality. I don't think every episode had
instances of this occurring, but it happened frequently enough for me to
wonder why I'd never run across this type of lighting problem before. It's
good to finally know why. BTW, Yuchtar. Don't you think it's sad that we
don't get a glimpse of Paul's chest hair in this episode? Surely they could
have thrown it in somewhere?
Denise

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Denise Felt wrote:

Hmmmmmmm, might have to watch that again and see - I don't remember that
...

> create and jolts you back into reality. I don't think every episode had
> instances of this occurring, but it happened frequently enough for me to
> wonder why I'd never run across this type of lighting problem before. It's
> good to finally know why. BTW, Yuchtar. Don't you think it's sad that we
> don't get a glimpse of Paul's chest hair in this episode? Surely they could
> have thrown it in somewhere?

LOL! Well, hey, we DO get a glimps of an ankle - LOL!

-- Y

--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Yuchtar zantai-Klaan | [hidden email]
I am not a number! I am a FREE FAN!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"An apple a day keeps the, uh ....
No, never mind."
-- Doctor Who
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
http://yuchtar.users4.50megs.com/
http://nunzie.users2.50megs.com/

----- Original Message -----
From: <[hidden email]>


> Anny mentioned a long time ago that in Question of Priorities, Straker's a
> lone figure on black and white hospital tile, suggesting a chess game that
he
> lost. I didn't catch that symbolism when I first saw QofP (good
> observation,Viking <g> )

I'd like to take the credit for that one, but since I didn't come up with
it, hey, let's give back to Ceasar whatever is his...

It was one of the guys...
<waving in the general direction of someone over there>
Can't remember which one, though...
Sorry....

>however the high shot makes me think it's
> intentional, that Straker was at the mercy of something bigger than he
was,
> or that the situation had dwarfed him. Even with the power he had at his
> disposal, on one night he gambles,plays chess, and loses all. Alien, wife
and
> son.

Sure was a nice touch and added a great dramatic moment to the ending of the
ep...

--Anny
aka Da Viking
;-)

I forgot to mention that I like Deborah's site new look!

It's neat and, I think, easier to navigate that way.

Congrats to our devoted Librarian!

--Anny
:-)