The Evils of Time-Compression (Sped-up Shows)

Very nice piece on Slate about how bad time-compression is for syndicated TV shows. The basic deal is, if you have a normal half-hour network show, it should "theoretically" run about 23 minutes without commercials. But if you run it -- say -- 10% faster, you can get in two solid minutes more commercials, since the show is now only 21 minutes.

The problem with time-compression (literally speeding up the show) is that it drastically alters the timing and pacing of the show, making the cameras move much too quickly, ruining the specific timing of the jokes and the scene cuts, and badly changing the intended effect of every scene. I also believe it affects resolution and introduces motion artifacts, just because of the nature of having to stitch together multiple frames and fields while dropping out the fields and frames you don't want.



This is an abominable, evil practice all done in the name of greed. It also insults and diminishes the work of the artists and craftsman that created the work, whether it's a movie or a TV show. Me, I say show fewer commercials and charge more money for them, and you'll make the same profit.

The article is here:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...r_ads_can_you_tell_the_difference_a_quiz.html

 

One of the many reasons I never watch anything on TV...I think the last time I actually watched a show when it was broadcast was the Academy Awards. In the past year, I've used my TV tuner only that one time.

 

Haven't noticed it here.

 

Interesting article.
I enjoy reading a lot of your insights in all things related to movies and tv vidiot.But for me, it isn't so much the resolution or motion artifacts that I notice first,its the change in pitch of the voices.Before you know it they'll all sound like Alvin and the Chipmunks. Its also easier for me to understand the dialogue at the 'regular' speed but that could just be me getting old.

 

I remember back in the early 90s that TNT would sometimes put the disclaimer "Time compressed" as a warning before the show and/or movie started.

 

I can always tell when films and TV shows are sped up. The alteration in vocal pitch and artifacts make it clear. I refuse to watch programs that are sped up. It's obscene. It runs comedy and robs drama of its power.

 

In relation to "Seinfeld", I hate the new faux HD aspect just as much. They could do the same reframing thing to every older filmed show, right? I would like to see the "outlarged" original film full frame 4:3 in HD, at the correct speed, uncut.

 

So the people (the artists) who make and perform either don't know or don't care about this practice? Take your example for example, is this up to Sony or Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld or all of them or none of them?

 

I've posted previously about watching Rambo: First Blood on AMC. Everyone sounded like chipmonks.

jerol

 

Well there is one thing worse than time-compression. Editing.

 

I've also previously posted about the many offerings on METV, they are notorious for this practice...

 

I don't notice it too often, but when I do it's unwatchable. I don't know which stations, but I've definitely seen it on Friends and Law and Order reruns. I agree - both abominable and insulting!

 

I've noticed this on occasion on TV (don't watch sitcom reruns too often these days), and sometimes it's comically ridiculous. Especially in a show where people already kind of talk at a fast pace and make quick gestures and whatnot, then it seems even more ridiculous.

So in cases where they're doing this, have they also already edited actual footage out as well as per the normal syndication practice? That would be hilarious if they are cutting footage out *and* speeding it up too.

 

You're applying logic to an industry where logic is largely ignored in its products.

 

Oh, there's a story there. I did all the animation mastering for Ruby-Spears animation from about 1984-1987, and I worked on Chipmunks for quite a few years. Starting with the '85 season, the producer came in looking glum, and I said, "what's up?" And he said, "the network just told us they need another :30 seconds for promos, so we have to speed up the show!"

I slumped down and hit my head on the console. Can you think of a worse show to speed up than Alvin & The Chipmunks? But we did it. Couldn't understand an F'in' word those little monkeys said... and yet it was the #1 cartoon show on TV for quite a long time.

I hate time-compression.

Yep, they have definitely done that. I know of cases where the studios have very deliberately and carefully pruned and edited a show for syndication to get it down to a desired run time... and then the local station speeds it up 10% in order to cram in another 1-minute commercial break! Unfortunately, there's technically no rule to stop them. As long as they pay the license fee, they can rewind it back and forth, show it backwards, even show it upside down... as long as they air it on the scheduled date and the check clears.

Totally out of their hands. There are a small number of film directors who specifically write in "no editorial or creative changes" rules to their contracts, so that would mean the A-list guys like Spielberg and Woody Allen will not allow their films to be "significantly altered." That would include time-compression, editing without permission, and stuff like that. But even then, I still see stations get to the end credits, then squeeze the size of the credits down and run promos. "Coming up next... another movie that's cut to ribbons and sped up like The Chipmunks! Right here on TBS!"

 

One of the most egregious examples of time compression I ever experienced wasn't even on commercial TV...it was on Warner's original commercially-produced authorized videocassette of "Superman-The Movie"...the audio artifacts of speeding up a 2 hour 25 minute movie and compressing it by 20 minutes were atrociously bad!!!

 

I remember seeing "Edited For Time", "Edited For Content" and "Time Compressed" disclaimers all in front of
a single program on TNT, and immediately thinking "Why bother?" and deciding to watch something else.

The worst case of this I ever saw was when TNN was running ALICE. I hadn't seen the show in years and was excited
to watch it again, but the time compression was so heavy and obvious, all the voices were clipped and everyone looked like
I'd hit "x2" on my DVD remote. Just awful.

 

I definitely notice the odd flanging effect on any applause - its weird....

 

I've seen that done, and to shows where it's going to be worse than normal because of music - "The Monkees" and "The Partridge Family."

The people I know in TV haven't done time compression for a few years now, but based on an article I saw in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago, it's still a tool in other broadcast facilities.

 

One of the odder ones I've seen is whatever they're doing to Roseanne when it's broadcast on WE-TV. It's like they're just dropping frames wholesale sometimes more than speeding up, and it's very noticeable, with herky-jerky motion so obvious that you could scarcely even call it an "artifact" anymore. Not every scene is like this, it doesn't tend to happen in "important" scenes, mainly just throughout every other scene it takes to get to those scenes.

 

Nine out of nine!

You can really tell in the rhythm of the voices. It sounds unnatural.

 

Alice on TNN was the first time I really noticed this.

 

NPR addressed this issue a few months back. It's a short piece but well worth the listen, the examples of this butchering on a 'Friends' episode really drive it home.
http://www.npr.org/2015/02/24/38879...networks-speed-up-reruns-to-make-room-for-ads

The upside is this is just another annoyance that'll eventually drive more viewers to Netflix and other outlets. There really is no reason why viewers have to put up with this these days.

dan c

 

Also, does anyone else think it's odd that people seem to only be becoming aware of this problem now? Like Vidiot and some others said, this has been done for years and years, but it seems like only recently because of a few media stories has anyone noticed. Therefore, I guess it has the intended effect - most people never know anything's "wrong" until it's pointed out.

I do have to say, it's typically done pretty well - I've only ever actively noticed it happening a handful of times, especially when it comes to TV shows (though it does seem more noticeable when it's applied to movies for whatever reason). I hate it, but I'd almost prefer this method over cutting material out entirely to make room.

 

Oh, we've been speeding up TV shows since the Rank-Cintel Mark IIIC with varispeed came out around 1982. What's funny is that it goes the other way, too: about half the episodes of Miami Vice that I did for the 1988-89 season came in short, so we had to time-expand the shows by about 2-3%. As a result, instead of saying, "STOP, or I'll shoot!" it would be "STOOPPPPPP, orrr I'llll shooooot!" Really screwed with the pace of the show. But it didn't affect the ratings at all and we received zero complaints about it. When the shows were redone for syndication, we went back to 24fps.

I hate both editing and time-compression. They should simply be less greedy and either show fewer commercials, or show the films & TV shows in longer time slots. Nobody would give a crap if a 1-hour show aired in a 65-minute time slot on cable.