How was Star Trek edited back in the '60s?

[Shalashaska]

If I haven't been misled, TOS was originally shot on 35mm film, live-action shots and special effects included, right? That's what made the HD remaster so easy compared to TNG (outside of the new CGI effects that were added).

But other than that, I have little to no knowledge of how shows back in the 60s were put together without computers, how special effects were added on film as opposed to being edited on video (à la TNG, DS9 and VOY), so on, so forth.

Any videos/articles/person that can help? I'm very curious.

 

[Kor]

Film editing was non-linear. Then video editing was linear.

Now with fancier digital technology, it's non-linear again. But you don't have to physically cut up strips of film with this type of system.

Kor

 

[The Old Mixer]

I'm no expert on the subject, but I know that they used to use machines that would literally cut the film to remove lengths of frames that they didn't want. Hence the term that something "ended up on the cutting room floor".

Effects shots were composited together through optical means, I believe.

 

[Maurice]

About flatbed film editors (link).

Editors do not sit around waiting for the effects. The show is assembled and edited without them. For a live action show awaiting an optical effect, they will insert the raw element minus the effect. In some instances, such as when a phaser beam is to be added coming off Kirk's phaser, the editor will scratch the film emulsion over a series of frames to indicate where the beam will be and its duration. A print of this might be sent to the optical house as a reference.

For any shot which is entirely a visual effect (or something which requires shots not taken during principle photography) made , the editor typically inserts a stock shot of a black card with the text SCENE MISSING cut to the anticipated length of the shot.

An "optical effect" is a "visual effect" (VFX), as in something that is created via optical processing and not filmed live (an explosion on set is a practical effect, as is a hanging miniature). Optical printing means to project the image of one piece of film onto another. Do this multiple times with multiple exposures and possibly mattes (which block selected sections of the source film from being exposed on the destination film so that your starfield doesn't show through your ship) and you have an optical effect.

Once the VFX are printed, they are edited into the assembled episode. This is typically one of the last things that happens, often weeks or months after the edit has otherwise been locked.

Hope that helps.

 

[Shalashaska]

Makes sense. How were phaser blasts and stuff like that added to the film reels without computers though?

And why were the later shows edited on video when they could have just done it on film like TOS? Was it to cut costs?

Effects shots were composited together through optical means, I believe.

I believe you may be answering my second question here, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

 

[Kor]

Effects were done with the trusty ol' optical printer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_printer

Kor

 

[Shalashaska]

Effects were done with the trusty ol' optical printer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_printer

Kor

Ah, thank you.

Were these more expensive/harder to use than linear video editing suites? I'm still not sure why TNG/DS9/VOY decided to edit on video rather than film.

 

[Maurice]

Look upthread at my previous post. I accidentally saved it while writing and it was just the first line. I've summarized the process re editing and VFX.

Editing actual film is rather a different animal than video editing in the old videotape era, easier is some ways, harder in others (especially where VFX are concetned). NLE (Non-Linear Editing) systems work with digital video and are easier than both film and videotape.

 

[scotpens]

You might want to check out the Wiki articles on Compositing and Matte, though they're a bit long-winded. If you can get hold of a copy of The Making of Star Trek, it has a section on how some of Trek TOS's standard optical effects were done -- the Enterprise flybys, the transporter glitter effect, phaser beams, etc.

Makes sense. How were phaser blasts and stuff like that added to the film reels without computers though?

Phaser beams were done with hand-drawn cell animation.

 

[Shalashaska]

You've all been very helpful. Thanks!

 

[Maurice]

Phaser beams were done with hand-drawn cell animation.

Yeah, actually, not really. Cel animation is a very specific thing: elements painted or affixed to sheet of clear acetate (once upon a time CELluloid, hence the term cel). But many times beams and the like are actually drawn in black on white cards or in white on back cards and used as a matte to allow a light through a colored filter to be exposed onto the shot to create the beam.

Shalashaska: Here's some info on the Trek effects courtesy Star Trek History. Click through the photos for an education.

 

[scotpens]

Yeah, actually, not really. Cel animation is a very specific thing: elements painted or affixed to sheet of clear acetate (once upon a time CELluloid, hence the term cel). But many times beams and the like are actually drawn in black on white cards or in white on back cards and used as a matte to allow a light through a colored filter to be exposed onto the shot to create the beam.

Ah, I stand corrected, then. Guess I'll have to forfeit my geek badges.

 

[Christopher]

If you can get hold of a copy of The Making of Star Trek, it has a section on how some of Trek TOS's standard optical effects were done -- the Enterprise flybys, the transporter glitter effect, phaser beams, etc.

Yes. Just in general, The Making of Star Trek is a fantastic reference source for information about the creative process behind Star Trek, and behind TV production in general, at least how it was done in the '60s. It's a must-have book for any serious Trek fan.

 

[The Old Mixer]

PLUS, IT HAS PAGES AND PAGES OF GENE SPEAKING IN ALL CAPS!!!

 

[FormerLurker]

That was their version of the Voice of God in some Bibles being printed in red. It was done so the reader would make no mistake about which were things GR said and which weren't.

 

[Maurice]

I should add that I have not seen specific documentation about how the phaser beams were animated, but that the technique I described is a fairly standard one.

 

[diankra]

Yeah, actually, not really. Cel animation is a very specific thing: elements painted or affixed to sheet of clear acetate (once upon a time CELluloid, hence the term cel). But many times beams and the like are actually drawn in black on white cards or in white on back cards and used as a matte to allow a light through a colored filter to be exposed onto the shot to create the beam.

Shalashaska: Here's some info on the Trek effects courtesy Star Trek History. Click through the photos for an education.

Not quite the same thing, but a similar technique: at the Uni TV station in the late 80s we could composite shots by pointing a third camera at a black/white board to select which of the other two cameras to put on-screen.
Draw a white chalk ray beam (of varying intensity) on the black, and you could put a laser that flares and fades onto the screen by changing the sensitivity of the overlay camera.
This is video, but the same rough analogue techniques that were used on film.

 

[Maurice]

^^^That's a lumakey as opposed to a chromakey. The white and black act like a matte/mask.

 

[Metryq]

Shalashaska, there's a wealth of books available on special effects in general, or about a particular production. The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography by Raymond Fielding is probably more than you want to know, and the last edition was updated just as ILM and Star Wars era films were changing the technical landscape.

Likewise, there are many books on editing, old and new. Droidmaker: George Lucas and the Digital Revolution describes the transition from older editing techniques to the all digital pipeline known today. To answer your question regarding mixed media productions like TNG: yes, video post production is faster and cheaper. Without looking into TNG specifically, I'd say they shot in film, then edited with video, which resulted in an EDL (edit decision list) of time code numbers. An EDL allowed a film version of the video edit to be created. TNG may have resulted in an all-film master (I don't know).

As technology improved, the task of ping-ponging back and forth between film and video evolved into a purely digital workflow. Some directors still like to shoot with film, but I doubt anyone edits with it anymore.

As someone else noted above, phasers and transporters are essentially double-exposures, or maybe matte-controlled composites. A matte is nothing more than a mask to allow exposure of just one portion of the film frame at a time (thus avoiding the ghost-like transparency of double-exposure). I've written a little about this subject before.

 

[urbandefault]

Here's a documentary about matte painting. (The one I was looking for was from the 80s, but this one probably covers the same material.)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies