I don't have first hand experience, and we may get someone with such experience to chime in, but until they do, I'd give my own thoughts. I guess the primary reasons are money and time.

TV shows (especially sitcoms, to which you are referring) are shot substantially differently from feature films. Especially if it is shot for SD TV (rather than HDTV). TV sitcoms (in US) are shot on a sound stage, in front of a live audience, with multiple cameras. The stage is very much like a theatrical stage, with a 'fourth wall'. Most importantly, lighting must be significantly softer, since SD video could not take as much latitude as film, so you get plenty of fill light from everywhere. So, even if it was to be shot on 35mm film, it was still shot for TV, awash in diffused light. Everything has to be done very quickly, and shooting is usually done in one evening, with some pick-up work after audience leaves. Essentially, an equivalent of 22 pages of script is shot in a single afternoon/evening.

As for shooting on film, many American sitcoms were shot on video. The ones that come to mind are "Home Improvement", "Married, With Children", "The Cosby Show", "Family Ties", "All in the Family", and many others.

Prime time dramas ("ER", "Law and Order" franchise, "House, M.D.", "CSI" franchise, etc) were almost NEVER shot on video, since most involve a lot of location shooting. Film gives greater autonomy, not to mention issues regarding proper lighting for video on location.

With the switch to HD, the gap in image quality between video and film has shrunk considerably. Most sitcoms are now shot digitally, but many dramas are still shot on 35mm film, as a result of an established, efficient workflow. Depending on the creative decisions of production team, new shows may choose the all-digital workflow, so the shows will be shot on video (HD).

Before HD, shooting in studio on video was just much cheaper and allowed for faster workflow, but the resulting production quality was not as good as shooting on film. This is why prime time, high-budget, top-rated sitcoms ("Cheers", "Seinfeld", "Friends", "Frasier"...) shot on film -- they could afford it, and the result was better. Since HD, we've been seeing gradual move away from film. You may have seen in the news that this year's season finale of 'House, M.D.' was shot entirely on Canon 5D Mark II (not even a video camera!). The interview with the creative team revealed that they were very happy with the results and with the workflow.

Feature films are pretty much ALWAYS shoot with a single camera (and only occasionally, additional cameras are used for better coverage of expensive scenes). Each scene is carefully lit, each shot carefully framed and shot. Most importantly, post-production involves much more extensive work than for a sitcom.

As I said, it's pretty much all about time and money.

quote:

---

Originally posted by psychoangus
If the US tv programme and movie are both using film, why does cheers/early friends look like this, but the movies don't?

---

Welcome to filmmaking,net, psychoangus.

The reason is because there are different film stocks
that offer different looks. There is also the time frame
and the talent and choices of the DP. Lighting and
lenses also have diffirent effects of different film stocks.
As Vasic already said, Cheers/early Friends look
different than feature films because the set is lit like
a stage - because it is a stage with an open forth wall
and an audience - while movies (even those shot on
sound stages) are lit differently.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

The push for on-site shooting and on-site post-production has considerably helped with the process of getting tv sitcoms out of the stage setting, giving it a more feature film look. And if you think about the advancement of tv sitcoms through the decades, fewer and fewer shows are shooting episodically. In fact, each episode seems to be more like a segment of an entire motion picture, with the season finales acting as climaxes and the series finale acting as the resolution of the entire sitcom. More and more studios now, as opposed to late 80s and early 90s, are recognizing the value of a DP and good gaffers and grips for tv sitcoms and not just feature films.

One thing I did not agree with was the statement that most feature films are being shot with a single camera, only using multiple angles for extensive scene sequences. As a filmmaker myself, I can tell you that that is not the case. Even a simple conversation between 2 people seated at a table can call for 3-5 different camera angles. So unless you plan on shooting the same scene 3-5 times with several takes in between, for the sake of time and financial efficiency, as well as talent and crew sanity, several cameras are needed to shoot almost any scene in any film these days. It's always better to have too much and take away than not have enough and have to settle.

Director/Producer/Editor
Ah Nuts! Productions
www.ahnutsproductions.com

A lot of television is shot on video (Cheers, most sitcoms). If there are going to be a lot of exteriors film is used (M*A*S*H, Malcom in the MIddle).

The real difference between US and UK that I can tell is the lighting. I could be wrong but film normally has the lighting changed for each shot and video usually has the lighting set once, often with a set overlit, so things can be shot quickly.

Black Adder and Red Dwarf and a few others I've watched appears to me to be shot on film but without the frequent lighting adjustments creating a sort of cross-breed look. Of course I could be totally wrong and the DVD transfers might be giving me a different image than the UK viewers initially had screwing up any meaningful analysis.

RJSchwarz

The British and American TV productions used to look different, though I never understood why.

I understand from my research that many post-production projects are moving offshore, to cheaper locales. That said, if cheapness was the only factor, they'll soon be moving back, because you will be getting what you pay for.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rjschwarz
A lot of television is shot on video (Cheers, most sitcoms).

---

Not quite true. Cheers was shot on film. Today, practically everything in the US is shot in HD, and increasing amount digitally (i.e. not on film). During the Standard Def days, virtually all prime time one-hour shows (dramas) were shot on film, and majority of prime-time sitcoms (especially the ones on ABC, NBC, CBS) were also shot on film.

BBC, meanwhile, tends to shoot majority of their TV programming (dramas, as well as sitcoms) on video.

Most feature films are shot with one camera. Most
scenes are shot over and over and over. Many scenes
- even a simple conversation can have more than
three to five angles. A simple conversation may be
covered from as many as eight to ten different angles.

All actors and crew are accustom to this method so it
does not test their sanity. In fact, it is considerable less
expensive to have one camera (and crew) than it is to
have three to five cameras and camera crews.

Sure, some of the bigger budget shows use two cameras
(and crews) occasionally but nearly all the standard and lower
budget films use only one camera. Even studio films.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

quote:

---

Originally posted by eaglescout4evr
...Even a simple conversation between 2 people seated at a table can call for 3-5 different camera angles. So unless you plan on shooting the same scene 3-5 times with several takes in between, for the sake of time and financial efficiency, as well as talent and crew sanity, several cameras are needed to shoot almost any scene in any film these days.

---

Well, I'm not sure I would agree with that. Even with a simple table scene, it is very challenging to place additional cameras in such a way so they don't cast shadows or get into each other's field of view, without sacrificing some creative choices. Based on my own experience (observing some big productions), vast majority of scenes of any given film are shot with a single 'main' camera, with occasional 'B' roll cameras, where coverage could provide additional flexibility in editing.

I'm pretty sure, actually, that simple 'table' scenes are rather difficult to film well with two or more cameras; you can either get a great angle (but only have one camera at a time), or not so great an angle, but have several cameras, out of the way of each other. Not to mentions that it is often necessary to slightly change the positioning of talent, props and elements of set, from one angle to the next, in order to get proper framing of shots (they call it 'cheating'). A 'B' camera that shoots a wide shot of the scene (without getting the main camera in the shot) can sometimes contribute some valuable coverage when something happens with primary shots which makes them unusable. In general, though, those 'B' angles are usually pressed for service when salvaging is needed.

In the end, though, it mostly depends on the style of the director/DP team.

I guess I'll have to agree that it depends on the style of the director and DP team. Every set I have been on or directed has involved a minimum of 2 cameras per scene and usually closer to 3 or 4. But I will agree that B cameras are primarily around for the aesthetics of post-production while the main camera is used to shoot different angles for different takes.

I will say though that the talent that I have worked with and around never seems to have the attention span to do more than a few takes per scene, especially in television where everything is very "cut and go".

Director/Producer/Editor
Ah Nuts! Productions
www.ahnutsproductions.com

It also depends on the budget.

You've directed movies with a big enough budget for
three or four cameras and crews. I never have. I have
never directed a movie where we could afford that
except for action sequences and scenes that could
only be done one time like car stunts or explosions .

I have worked on over 100 movies and TV episodes.
I have never run into cast or crew with such a short
attention span that only a few takes are done or
many cameras are needed.

But I can see why you say that most movies are shot
with several cameras if that has been your only experience.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eaglescout4evrI will say though that the talent that I have worked with and around never seems to have the attention span to do more than a few takes per scene, especially in television where everything is very "cut and go"

---

I think there's the difference exactly -- film (especially big budget film) and TV work differently. TV crews do fewer takes with as many cameras as they can comfortably squeeze onto a set, without seeing each other, or looking directly into some light. Which explains the original poster's question (in a way). Less money and time means less elaborate sets, with more generic lighting, which allows for more simultaneous camera angles, getting more coverage, to cover up any goofs or slip-ups (cut & go, as you said it).