The technical qualities of ITV programmes (Buzby required pls)

[Non Stop Dancer]

Without fail, every time we watch something on ITV, me and the wife remark that it looks like an ITV show. This is more often than not in reference to a drama, but it's an equally valid observation of their studio based stuff.

I can't really explain it other than it just looks cheaper. Is that literally it, that the Beeb have got fancier equipment? Please tell me you've noticed it too. It's not quite as pronounced as the difference between US and UK shows used to be due to the 50/60hz thing, but once you see it you can't unsee it.

[Dex Sawash]

Happy to help

[beanheadmcginty]

I'm betting a fiver that it's got something to do with bitrates.

[Endicott]

buzby is going to need more information.

Is it on HD or SD channels?

Is it on Freeview, or satellite, or cable? If it's satellite or cable, which provider?

By the way I've personally not noticed whatever it is you think you can see.

I'm betting a fiver that it's got something to do with bitrates.

Most likely an easy win for you I reckon.

[ToneLa]

It is because ITV is crap

[Norton Canes]

Some useful info: BBC vs ITV - Picture Quality?

[Non Stop Dancer]

Sorry, I didn't really explain this properly (and I think I'm about to make things worse). It's not the technical quality per se, like a lower bitrate or an image that's less than 1080p or whatever. It's more the aesthetic quality of it, but I don't mean in terms of stylistic choices, the quality of the art direction etc.

It's potentially something to do with the smoothness of the image as well, almost like the difference between film and video, but not so pronounced.

To give you a really mundane example, think of the difference, if you can be bothered, between Saturday Kitchen on BBC1 and the show James Martin does on ITV of a Saturday morning. It's just fucking shitter to look at isn't it.

[gilbertharding]

To give you a really mundane example, think of the difference, if you can be bothered, between Saturday Kitchen on BBC1 and the show James Martin does on ITV of a Saturday morning. It's just fucking shitter to look at isn't it.

I know you said this isn't what you meant, but your example struck a chord.

If you watch Saturday Kitchen Best Bites on a Sunday (instead of the fuckawful Dim Lovejoy analogue on Channel 4), you sometimes see the OLD Saturday Kitchen studio when James Martin was on it, and (importantly) there is a view out of the windows to an obviously fake garden, and the table the guests sit around has been cobbled together by some kitchen fitters to look like the lost property counter at the Millennium Dome.

[steveh]

I made a similar observation about Sky productions a while back. A friend of a friend who works in BBC TV reckoned that paying for a good lightning director and having the time / budget to spend on getting the lighting right rather than just using standard / quick lighting rig configurations was possibly the main factor these days. There used to be differences in cameras used by the main broadcasters but with the decline in dedicated studios and these days productions just leasing wherever that is less likely to be the case, although a cheap studio of course won't have the best or latest kit.

[buzby]

I made a similar observation about Sky productions a while back. A friend of a friend who works in BBC TV reckoned that paying for a good lightning director and having the time / budget to spend on getting the lighting right rather than just using standard / quick lighting rig configurations was possibly the main factor these days. There used to be differences in cameras used by the main broadcasters but with the decline in dedicated studios and these days productions just leasing wherever that is less likely to be the case, although a cheap studio of course won't have the best or latest kit.

I think tha'ts got a lot to do with it. The BBC have always had in-house standards on things like cameras, sound, recording systems, studio facilities, lighting and so on for their own productions, and these are supplied to outside production companies too, meaning you get a uniform 'look' to their output. The bigger ITV regions had similar standards (Granada, for instance), but by the looks of it the current ITV don't really give a toss about anything I think. Their studio productions tend to be very over-lit, which always makes things look cheap and nasty.

You are right that different TV companies used to use different cameras (though the BBC had a number of different types too across their studios, even within TVC in the old days) but after CCD-based cameras came along the make of the camera made less of a difference.

[grainger]

Not the same thing, I know, but this thread brought it to mind...

I always (and we are going back a long way now) used to think there was a marked difference between the quality of the design choices made by the BBC and ITV. The best example that springs to mind is when they introduced animated ad caps (back when we used to get ad caps; I said a long way back) which consisted of a pointless very brief clip of the show/movie, and then a freeze-frame, often with the star caught between facial expressions, looking utterly gormless. I found it inexplicable how they'd pay for a show or movie, a major element of the value being a degree of "star factor", then casually damage that with lazy editing; it was definitely not something I could imagine the BBC doing, if they'd ad ad caps.

I've got no idea if this holds true today, as I don't watch broadcast TV any more.

[Non Stop Dancer]

Yes! I honestly meant to say something about the lighting in my opening post but forgot. We're always saying that ITV (and yes, Sky too) just seems somehow brighter, and as Buzby says, the studio stuff in particular just looks as though they've whacked all the house lights to the "on" position. I'm guessing the absence of quality lighting direction just isn't something the average punter cares about or notices enough to warrant spending the money on. I'm certainly not changing the channel because of it, I suppose.

[Thomas]

As a layviewer, I was going to suggest that it might be down to lighting. It appears to my lay-eyes that a small difference in lighting can massively cheapen the look of production. To be incredibly specific, the outdoor lighting for night-time scenes in series 4 of Doctor Who, for example, was odd. Look at this clip; it has the visual quality of reality TV, a special live episode, or a news report (or perhaps one of the ITV shows you're talking about). Doctor Who is BBC, of course, but that clip is ten years old - it seemed to improve after that, coinciding with a switch to HD. BBC dramas (including the latest Doctor Who) tend to look very cinematic now (ramping up their orange-and-teal colour grading also helps them conform to current upmarket movie aesthetics. Every single item of clothing in The Bodyguard seemed to be some shade of orange or blue).

There is a sense of high saturation and brightness whenever I catch a glimpse of the chatshows and studio-based bants churned out by commercial channels. They have to produce soaps at breakneck speed, too. I suppose it's a faff committing to perfect lighting when you've so many episodes to generate all year round - but it does often leave the finished product looking somehow artificial and thin. I wonder how EastEnders fares next to Corrie.

To give you a really mundane example, think of the difference, if you can be bothered, between Saturday Kitchen on BBC1 and the show James Martin does on ITV of a Saturday morning. It's just fucking shitter to look at isn't it.

I've recently, accidentally, against all my instincts, become a fan of The Great British Bake Off. Even the early episodes, dating back to 2010, are so much nicer to look at than the hordes of shit cooking shows provided by Netflix. It's probably a combination of careful lighting and colour palettes. Some of these shows seem to think that the brighter a colour is, and the more jarring its companions on the palette, the better it must look.

[Beep Cleep Chimney]

Back in the day, I always found LWT studio programmes looked and sounded different to studio shows made by other regions.

I can't really describe it, but they just looked...a bit brighter I guess, and things like studio audience laughter and applause on LWT sitcoms and game shows always sounded much higher in the mix or more compressed or something than, say, a Granada or Yorkshire Television show.

I know the Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch about LWT's 'Game For A Laugh' made a joke about the deafening gales of over-the-top audience laughter on that show (with the bloke holding up "SHRIEK AS IF IN PAIN" /"SQUAWK LIKE BUZZARDS" cards) but it was definitely there on other shows of theirs.