I often wonder why there wasn't more color episodes. After the 60's there were more color tv's. I think it would have been more interesting if there were. Of course people I guess were used black and white in some instances.
shareColor became cheaper to film and the demand for color shows reached a strong peak in 1966. For the fall 1966 season, prime time shows were filmed in color...some shows were cancelled rather than moving them to color. However, many shows converted (F Troop, Lost in Space, Bewitched, Gunsmoke, etc.) 1965 was also the last year that main stream movies were filmed in B&W. Hollywood also converted in 1966...with British movies converting a year later.
shareWell that doesn't seem fair. I think the color would have brought out out more of the action better. The black and white made everything look dirty and muddy. Iwas in that era in the 50's We a black and tv.We didn't pay that much attention to color. but it made it look better.
shareMost people had black and white sets then...until there was a great demand...they didn't want to spend the extra money. People were used to it. In addition, there was a Film Noir quality that is also considered an artistic choice. However, this was really about money. No demand, why raise the budget. Also, when these were first broadcast, they didn't look as "black" as they do now, after 50+ years. Everyone's set had a different adjustment anyway and it never looked the same from house to house. Also, color then....on those old round RCA picture tubes...looked like crap compared to today's color. The Japanese brought in the rectangular picture tubes. It was exciting to watch color...but that was more pertinent to Bonanza and outdoor shows that had scenery. By 1966. there were enough color sets in people's homes to warrant the change. That is, oh, I have a color set...I'll watch this show since it is in color...rather than the other show which is in black and white. It was that simple.
shareRight tell me about it. That often told me that. We have had our first tv in 50's. I had often what it would look in color. I don't think we had a color tv till 1970. But they had color in 1962 but I saw a store that had them. Although some shows were in color I didn't see that much. Good thing that they colorize some of show that were black and white.
share[deleted]
>>I think the color would have brought out out more of the action better.<<
On the DVD's of the show, the Head Producer put it simply....
PM was the number one show on TV. With the most ad revenue. Color production was 3 times the cost of B&W. For him, unless they were losing audience to another show in the same time slot that was in 'Color', there was never a compelling argument.
Follow the Money.
Now, an interesting counter-point....
For reasons that I don't believe were ever explained, the Superman Series with George Reeves was shot on Color Wet Film in the early 1950's, even though it was only on B&W TV. That gave it a HUGE boost in later Syndication. By PM's time, everyone knew the Goldmine that Syndication could be, because of I Love Lucy. That could have been a separate argument for PM shot in Color.
Maybe with Superman, they always saw a separate market for weekend short films. There used to be Saturday Morning Matinees for Kids all over the Country. I went to them....For a buck you could have 3 movies, Popcorn and Candy, and be out of your Mother's Hair for most of the day.<g>
I am glad superman was it more vibrant in color.
shareBut not as good a program.
I've been an amateur photographer for almost 50 years. There is no way that the production cost of Perry Mason -- or any other series -- would be three times as much for color as for B&W.
The cost of color film stock and its processing might -- might -- be three times as much -- but that expense is hardly a series' principal expense.
Three-strip Technicolor was the most-expensive color process, and it certainly didn't triple the cost of theatrical films. I have a book on the history of Technicolor. Three-strip Technicolor added something like 25% to production costs.
They colorized one episode. I thought it looked pretty good. I wished they would use the colorizing process to colorize some of them. Sometimes to it is hard on the eye to see all that black and white. I wish they would make tv's to where they would color black and white shows.
shareWhat is "Color Wet film"?
share>>"Color Wet film"<<
Celluloid Film used in movies. Chemically developed, hence the term 'Wet'.
In early TV, most was recorded using Kinescope. Analog and very rough. No provision at all for multiple cameras, and by extension, true editing. But...you could go from Kinescope to 16mm film. And that was done by the networks.
Some shows...most notably I Love Lucy, were recorded on movie film with more than one camera. In that case, it was because Lucille Ball was a Movie Star. She was used to film and dual cameras. And since she owned the production company (Desilu), she could insist on that, over CBS reservations.
Doing film recording, you were obliged to use the Film Unions. And networks were trying to avoid that. Frankly, the Movie Studios had the Power to freeze TV out, by tying up all the Unions.
With Wet Film, you could use Kinescope to record the Playback of the edited film. Much more of a movie-like quality. And that's what the Public wanted. Because that's what they were used to.
Early TV was much more like Radio. Usually recorded Live. And much like today, Stand Up/Vaudeville actors fared better. (Gleason, Burns and Allen, Milton Berle, Phil Silvers)
@gregmays... Much of what you say is inaccurate or incorrect. (And might I point out that we do not live in Germany. Americans do not capitalize common nouns.)
I have never heard the term "wet film" applied to any photographic process. (There is no complementary "dry film" photography I'm aware of.) "Wet gate", yes.
Dual cameras are rarely used in making motion pictures, mostly because of higher film costs. Howard Hawks was a notable exception, often using two (or even three) cameras, because he hated mismatched continuity when switching from one take to another. (It annoys me, too.)
Early television was either live, or a motion picture. (I've been unable to determine the first filmed US series.) Live TV shows were lost, unless recorded. Until 1956 (when Ampex introduced its rotary-head video recorder), the only way to record them was as a kinescope -- a 16mm movie camera sitting in front of a high-quality video monitor. A kinescope cost money. No money in the budget -- no kinescope. *
DuMont had a high-quality kinescope system called Electronicam. It allowed multiple cameras, which could be switched among in real time. If the performers didn't flub their lines, the result was a single strip of film preserving the entire show. Jackie Gleason used Electronicam for many episodes of The Honeymooners.
A kinescope does not look like a movie. Surprisingly, it looks like slightly degraded video, because it largely preserves video's distinctive visual characteristics.
In double-checking my facts, I found some unbelievably idiotic material. A book called Laughter in the Living Room (Michael Tueth) states that I Love Lucy was one of the first American sitcoms to be broadcast live! It was, of course, filmed in 35mm with multiple cameras.
WHOOPS! I've checked, and my "common sense" description of Electronicam is quite incorrect. Sorry.
* In addition to preserving a performance, kinescopes were used to provide "prime time" programming to the Mountain and Pacific time zones. The film had to be developed and dried, which might explain why the Eastern and Central time zones have traditionally been treated as a single zone. This put Mountain time one hour behind the end of the live broadcast, sufficient time for processing.
I read the posts here and there is a lot of misinformation. My family had an RCA color set in 1959. My mother worked for RCA at the time. A man came and spent a couple of hours setting the thing up. (there was no smearing of the color, it looked pretty good, and I was fascinated by all of the tubes, or valves as the British say.) Rabbit ears were out of the question. we had a rooftop antenna. There wasn't much color programming then. I remember Bonanza, Disney's World of Color and some cartoons in color. When we watched TV on Sunday nights, the neighbor kids would peep in our windows at the color programming. Mom invited them in once and made popcorn and Kool-Aide. Initially it seemed like all of the color shows were on NBC, except for some cartoons on ABC.
I've read extensively about the slow switch to color. In the 50's some producers saw the coming of color, and some syndicated shows (The Cisco Kid, Superman) began filming in color. They were never broadcast in color until much later. I watched repeats of Superman on the color set, but they were in B&W. The producers of Superman cut the number of episodes from 26 to 13 a year when they began filming in color. It cost much more to film in color. In addition to expense of film, color required new lighting, (Color film was not as light sensitive and the lights were very hot)) sometimes new camera lenses, new costumes and sets (sets and costumes for B&W film were created to look good in B&W). There was a lot more involved than just using color film.
In those days (early 60's) we were used to seeing TV in B&W and color seemed reserved for just a few shows and "specials". I'm told young people today won't watch TV shows in B&W. None of my favorite shows in those days were broadcast in color. (Superman, The Mickey Mouse Club, American Bandstand.)
I've read that the first couple of seasons of Bonanza got terrible ratings, but NBC kept in on the air to promote the sales of color sets.
By the mid-sixties, there was more color programming, and the networks began using color as a selling point. (Tonight..in color! Batman!) but if a show was well liked it didn't matter. Perry Mason is a good example. Before that, I think there weren't enough color sets in use to justify the expense of switching to color. Even by 1969, there were still families that only had B&W sets.
Regarding Kinescopes...until 1956 it was the only way to preserve a live broadcast. They looked bad, with poor contrast. DuMont's Electronicam system, used for The Honeymooners was an attempt to get around this. It was both a live TV camera and a film camera. (I believe it was accomplished with mirrors). There is a what's My Line with mystery guest Audrey Meadows. She is asked if she is a regular on a TV program. She replies yes. She is then asked if the program is live or on film. She's not sure how to answer as The Honeymoners was both live and filmed using the Electronicam process. It was made obsolete by videotape. Still, many live programs (soap operas) were Kinescoped into the 60's, more as a way to have a record for advertisers and producers. Today, we can use computers to enhance the Kinescopes so they have a little more contrast. What's My Line was usually live (though occasionally on videotape after 56) and Kinescopes were made. These have been enhanced and presently are shown on the Buzzr network.
Color in a Perry Mason episode would add nothing. These episodes rely on content -
casting. There is no object in any episode that would be enhanced by "color".
The color episode I saw was pretty neat. I think it gave more life to. They needed to get out of dark ages if catch my drift. but if that's what they wanted It has been 50 years.
shareThe Perry Mason episodes were a product of the 1957 - 1966 era. There was no
color episode produced during this period.
There was one I saw it on MEtv . and there was a special on one of the networks that had a marathon and Barbarb Hale it was the one in color. She said it was the time when they were experimenting with color. Guess you haven't seen it yet. It look pretty good. I forgot the case.
shareThe color episode number can be found on the main PM page under Technical Specs. It's episode 9.21
shareI there had been more color, I hate all that grey and white.
shareYou obviously have never seen good B&W. I can give examples ranging from Gunsmoke to Purple Rain. And let's not forget film noir.
shareYeah i have seen it . I was born 1953. I saw all those old black and white sets. We even had one.
shareA B&W CRT TV is not the best way to watch a B&W film. You need to see it either in a theater, or on a large flat-panel disply.
shareWell now I have a high definition tv. It looks ok but I still prefere color as to black and white although Perry Mason in most episode are in black and white, He comes on Me tv at 8:00am central time. depending on your time zone.
sharei have a high def now 52 inch
sharemaybe it's bc i grew up with it but I like it B&W and glad almost all the shows were B&W. I think had it started in color I would have preferred color, but it's one of about 5 shows I can watch in B&W and be happy it's not color.
shareBlack and white were ok for it's time . I used to watch Captain kangaroo when I was kid in 1956. I liked MR. green jeans. I like the theme song. I didn't know they were using color until later. I was glad they started using color. I loved Jackie gleason. The one of perry mason in color kind looked Ironside, but he was already turning grey. Trouble about the grey and white episode look dirty, I had rather the color of things. but have to see it the way it was filmed
shareyes I did, but I still had rather have color.
shareI don't think it would have been any better in color. Perry Mason was a B&W kind of show.
share