Posted by jks on
URL: https://www.shado-forum.com/UFO-on-Family-Room-HD-tp1510555p1510598.html

Rob wrote:
".....UFO was no different to most
British TV shows of that period, in that the film stock used was
pretty cheap and cheerful, and certainly not of the same standard as
feature film material of the same era, such as EastmanColor or
Technicolor. For one, the grain was much more prominent, as it was
less light sensitive, and the general colour saturation was poorer...."


Sorry, but I can't agree with the above post...

In the UK in the late 1960s there were various colour film stocks
generally available from Eastman Kodak, Agfa, and Fuji (Ilford made B/W
only). All the 35mm stocks were made to the highest standard. There were
NO "cheap and cheerful" 35mm stocks made for TV use. Feature films were
made on the same range of stocks as the (relatively few) UK series shot
on 35mm. While the odd Eastern European stock, like Orwo, was available
to a certain extent it wasn't used on major professional productions.

No one would want to use a cheap stock which was less sensitive to
light, especially on a show which had more interior shots than most
films. The extra cost of lighting and electricity would more than
outweigh any savings on the stock - apart from making the set hellishly
hot to work in.

Less sensitive (slower) stocks are and always were LESS grainy than more
sensitive (faster) stocks - it is the usual trade-off, speed vs. grain.

The grainier but more sensitive stock would normally be MORE expensive
than the slower stock.

Don't forget that UFO had a far higher proportion of interior shots than
most films. UFO would therefore have been mainly shot on one of the
more sensitive (and hence grainier) stocks from the major manufacturors
BUT this was standard practice on feature film interiors (and model
shots where the faster stock helps to gain much-needed Depth of Field) -
using exactly the same stock.
This was entirely consistent with the feature film norms of the time.

Certainly no corners were cut with the processing and printing of UFO as
it was carried out at Rank Film Labs, easily one of the top three labs
in the country at the time and used by many major feature films.

Re: "EastmanColor or Technicolor" and the implication that anything else
was sub-standard...

I think Rob is a little confused over these labels. "EastmanColor" was
simply a marketing label applied to films shot on stocks made by Easman
Kodak and processed and printed in an entirely standard way by any
normal film lab. Films shot on Fuji or Agfa stock were processed in
exactly the same way and the stocks themselves (apart from producing
slight aesthetic differences) were much the same technically.
Eastman had an extra kudos (Coke vs Pepsi if you like) but it would have
been perfectly acceptable professionally to use any of these three
stocks and any marginal differences could be difficult to detect even by
a professional. There might have been slight price differences but a
deal could usually be struck for a better price given the amount of
stock that a TV series would use.

The "Technicolor" has meant several very different things over the years.
Long story short-ish...
Nowadays, the label Technicolor simply means that the film was shot on
Eastman or Fuji film and processed and/or printed in a Technicolor-owned
laboratory in exactly the same way as it would be at any other lab.
It began however as a unique system which used first 2 and then 3 strips
of b/w film in a specially adapted camera to record different primary
colours. After processing, each colour was dyed onto the final print
producing a vibrant print. At this point it was a system with a distinct
look and quality.
By the 1950s the first part of this process was dead in mainstream
filming. The post-shooting dye process survived a little longer but the
matrices which printed the dye were produced from standard film shot
with a standard camera. Only the biggest feature films used this process
for a limited number of prestige prints as it was very expensive.
This was the state of play when UFO was made. The average feature film
wouldn't be printed using the dye process - it would be absurd for a TV
series (where the viewers aren't seeing a print projected anyway) to use it.

I'm sorry, but to suggest that 35mm TV series in general, or UFO in
particular, were using substandard film stock or that they were remiss
in not using "EastmanColor or Technicolor" simply makes no sense. They
were using the normal film industry standards of the time

Regards
John.