What are the main differences between television acting, theatre acting and film acting?

there difference , respect other answers haven't addressed question. michael caine once said theatre work surgeon using scalpel, , film work using laser. let's take film first, although tv made "on" film stock, or film effect stock, presume mean movie acting opposed tv acting. start, film or film effect more "honest" version - can show lot more detail video stock, bit softer , these days looks cheap. filming pretty entirely digital these days, it's no longer expensive use film effect gets used lot more, because it's seen better, classier, clearer, etc. now, have sharp picture, of bcu (big close up) of actor's face projected onto screen size of small bungalow! therefore acting must alter. in theatre, tiny gesture or flick of eye lost. on film screen, if blink or twitch incredibly noticeable , can laughable bad cgi. actor has totally aware of they're doing , can't rely on physical performance, because body may not in shot , if move radically, jerky , comic. learning act tv or film can take years perfect. example, actors expected hit mark - means, come room, , stop @ precise point (to keep them in focus or director wants). actors have practice sort of skill in own time until better @ (it's harder think) , putting tiny matchstick or mark on floor and, without drawing attention it, see out of peripheral vision, stop naturally @ right point, maybe delivering lines @ same time, , exact precision on , on again. in theatre may have marks, doesn't ruin play if aren't exact , can adjust position during scene if realise not in quite right position.

tv film these days, quality of stock used, , because tv's getting bigger (and audience sit closer).

contrary film , tv being easier because can redo scenes, wrong. filming incredibly expensive. actors, on tv, rehearse-record acting. in tv , film, unless you're massive star, directors control everything. process less actors. there may not readthrough turn on set lines lerned, no rehearsal, not knowing of people. getting wrong annoys , can fired if you're bad. quick run on lines , being told stand, , you're off. many takes may happen, director have choice, not because actor got wrong. lot of pressure. , it's quite boring doing 1 thing on , on again because director isn't totally happy light, or plane goes overhead or equally nothing process of acting!!!

in theatre, apart being able express more physically, , adapting voice projection (not needed on film , tv because have microphone shoved in face), actor has more control cos 1 out there doing it. director may stay involved , want change things during run, generally, director there guide actor during rehearsals. again, having rehearsals luxury, in theatre time develop performance - it's acting, not 1 of 50 other people standing around behind camera. film , theatre feels fake because there lots of people standing about, , have holding microphone out of show, people doing jobs while you're trying give best performance, etc. that's why many actors prefer theatre, because feel you're doing real acting , can totally without distractions. tv , film money of course!

hope has given clearer insight.

i know theatre harder have right first time, there other differences? why many television actors prefer theatre? have thought television more relaxed can film again if wrong.

Arts & Humanities Theater & Acting Next