I admit I'm flabbergasted when I hear of a new programme being produced in SD. The Americans stopped making SD dramas and sitcoms in the early 2000s. Scrubs was still in SD until 2008, but all other programmes made the switch except Friends. Even long-running shows like Frasier and Will & Grace were in HD for the last couple of years of their run.QUOTE]
Oh well if The USA has been doing it then we had all best jump on the bandwagon:p
I admit I'm flabbergasted when I hear of a new programme being produced in SD. The Americans stopped making SD dramas and sitcoms in the early 2000s. Scrubs was still in SD until 2008, but all other programmes made the switch except Friends. Even long-running shows like Frasier and Will & Grace were in HD for the last couple of years of their run.
All new commissions, especially those that are based in location, are HD now. SD only when they have fixed sets and studios that aren't upgraded.
For Doctor Who, a show with proven long-term appeal for disc sales and rebroadcast, it was a really short-sighted decision.
The nature of Doctor Who means that nearly every set is disposable so there is no reason to make them to HD standard. The only exception is the TARDIS itself.
The new series started in 2005 when HD was still prohibitively expensive (remember this is the BBC) and the plans for the TARDIS had already been scaled back for cost reasons.
The last series was in 2008 when HD was becoming affordable and a move the HD becoming inevitable so the TARDIS was "destroyed" in the last special and a new one created for 2010 to HD standard.
Now, looking at the timeline of the series from 2005, I can't see any earlier point where they could have switched to HD.
The nature of Doctor Who means that nearly every set is disposable so there is no reason to make them to HD standard. The only exception is the TARDIS itself.
There are very few "sets" on Who, most of it is done on location. There are a few exceptions but generally it isn't set based.
Now, looking at the timeline of the series from 2005, I can't see any earlier point where they could have switched to HD.
Ditto. The change over now is the perfect break. Using the specials to gauge the work needed for CGI and set work also, was excellent.
The nature of Doctor Who means that nearly every set is disposable so there is no reason to make them to HD standard. The only exception is the TARDIS itself.
The new series started in 2005 when HD was still prohibitively expensive (remember this is the BBC) and the plans for the TARDIS had already been scaled back for cost reasons.
The last series was in 2008 when HD was becoming affordable and a move the HD becoming inevitable so the TARDIS was "destroyed" in the last special and a new one created for 2010 to HD standard.
Now, looking at the timeline of the series from 2005, I can't see any earlier point where they could have switched to HD.
Well the BBC is quite generously funded compared to Canada's CBC which had already switched over by the time Doctor Who came along. Every single American and Canadian production (except Friends) managed to switch over without taking any kind of production break aside from the normal one between series. Of course few of them had to rebuild their sets because they didn't choose to make them out of materials that wouldn't stand up to HD.
It really was a short-sighted decision similar to (but not 1/1000th as disastrous, of course) wiping the videotapes because they thought there'd be no future value in them.
Stateofgameplay has addressed the lack of sets issue. Generally, the only sets used are recurring sets, like Jackie Tyler's flat. Sets of that nature, being made of real everyday things (painted walls, furniture, etc.) are inherently HD-ready anyway. It's only when you're using fake things that you run into problems. A brick wall is fine. Fake brick wallpaper will show as fake.
Yes - but if they'd built the set to HD standards they could have made the HD transition more easily when effects were more economical.
I admit I'm flabbergasted when I hear of a new programme being produced in SD. The Americans stopped making SD dramas and sitcoms in the early 2000s. Scrubs was still in SD until 2008, but all other programmes made the switch except Friends. Even long-running shows like Frasier and Will & Grace were in HD for the last couple of years of their run.
For Doctor Who, a show with proven long-term appeal for disc sales and rebroadcast, it was a really short-sighted decision.
Almost all American shows have been shot in HD going right back to the 50s. That's because most American shows have the money to shoot on 35mm film whereas Brit shows are limited to videotape, 16mm or occasionally super16 mm.
/ Friends is among those shot in HD. And that's every episode too.
Almost all American shows have been shot in HD going right back to the 50s. That's because most American shows have the money to shoot on 35mm film whereas Brit shows are limited to videotape, 16mm or occasionally super16 mm.
/ Friends is among those shot in HD. And that's every episode too.
Lots of sitcoms were shot on video and continue to be, although now HD video.
It is incorrect to refer to programmes shot on 35mm film as "shot in HD." Shot on a medium that's compatible with HD yes. But it was never shot in a 16:9 format and it was edited and mastered on NTSC videotape (720x480 resolution).
Unlike virtually every other American sitcom and drama in production during during Friends' final years, it never transitioned to HD mastering or transmission. In order to make an HD version they would have to, as they did with Seinfeld, go back to the original film negatives and re-edit the show. It will likely happen some day, but as of now no one, not even the producers, directors or editors, has ever seen an episode of Friends in HD, while anyone in North America with an HD set got to watch Frasier and Will & Grace in HD.
You can get the original series of Star Trek - which was shot on 35mm film - on Blu-ray. Looks amazing for a show made in the same decade as Dr Who. 1960s Doctor Who looks ancient - picture wise - compared to Blu-ray 1960s Star Trek. You wouldn't believe the two shows were made in the same decade such is the difference in picture quality. In those days the BBC was a long way behind American tv in using the best film or tv stock to record shows.
Lots of sitcoms were shot on video and continue to be, although now HD video.
It is incorrect to refer to programmes shot on 35mm film as "shot in HD." Shot on a medium that's compatible with HD yes. But it was never shot in a 16:9 format and it was edited and mastered on NTSC videotape (720x480 resolution).
Unlike virtually every other American sitcom and drama in production during during Friends' final years, it never transitioned to HD mastering or transmission. In order to make an HD version they would have to, as they did with Seinfeld, go back to the original film negatives and re-edit the show. It will likely happen some day, but as of now no one, not even the producers, directors or editors, has ever seen an episode of Friends in HD, while anyone in North America with an HD set got to watch Frasier and Will & Grace in HD.
For older stuff the resolution is unimportant, as long as the definition is up to standard, it's HD. The rest is true but it doesn't make me wrong. On shows like Fraiser they were shooting in HD so actually broadcasting in HD entailed only minor changes to post-production. On Fraiser they didn't even have to upgrade the sets as they were already of such a high quality.
Going over to HD for the BBC entails upgrading each & every studio, all the post-production suites, buying in brand new cameras and equipment, upgrading or replacing the sets on long running shows. And all that's without the resources that comes with being a major Hollywood studio. The same studios that sometimes spend up to a tenth of the Beeb's total budget on one movie! It's amazing the Beeb does what it does.
As someone who has an old analogue TV with no add-ons as I hardly use it anyway except to watch DVDs and videos (though well aware I'll have to get a digital one sometime soon) am I the only one who has very little idea what everyone's on about and isn't bothered as long as I can watch something and enjoy it?
Comments
All new commissions, especially those that are based in location, are HD now. SD only when they have fixed sets and studios that aren't upgraded.
The new series started in 2005 when HD was still prohibitively expensive (remember this is the BBC) and the plans for the TARDIS had already been scaled back for cost reasons.
The last series was in 2008 when HD was becoming affordable and a move the HD becoming inevitable so the TARDIS was "destroyed" in the last special and a new one created for 2010 to HD standard.
Now, looking at the timeline of the series from 2005, I can't see any earlier point where they could have switched to HD.
There are very few "sets" on Who, most of it is done on location. There are a few exceptions but generally it isn't set based.
Ditto. The change over now is the perfect break. Using the specials to gauge the work needed for CGI and set work also, was excellent.
Well the BBC is quite generously funded compared to Canada's CBC which had already switched over by the time Doctor Who came along. Every single American and Canadian production (except Friends) managed to switch over without taking any kind of production break aside from the normal one between series. Of course few of them had to rebuild their sets because they didn't choose to make them out of materials that wouldn't stand up to HD.
It really was a short-sighted decision similar to (but not 1/1000th as disastrous, of course) wiping the videotapes because they thought there'd be no future value in them.
Stateofgameplay has addressed the lack of sets issue. Generally, the only sets used are recurring sets, like Jackie Tyler's flat. Sets of that nature, being made of real everyday things (painted walls, furniture, etc.) are inherently HD-ready anyway. It's only when you're using fake things that you run into problems. A brick wall is fine. Fake brick wallpaper will show as fake.
Almost all American shows have been shot in HD going right back to the 50s. That's because most American shows have the money to shoot on 35mm film whereas Brit shows are limited to videotape, 16mm or occasionally super16 mm.
/ Friends is among those shot in HD. And that's every episode too.
Lots of sitcoms were shot on video and continue to be, although now HD video.
It is incorrect to refer to programmes shot on 35mm film as "shot in HD." Shot on a medium that's compatible with HD yes. But it was never shot in a 16:9 format and it was edited and mastered on NTSC videotape (720x480 resolution).
Unlike virtually every other American sitcom and drama in production during during Friends' final years, it never transitioned to HD mastering or transmission. In order to make an HD version they would have to, as they did with Seinfeld, go back to the original film negatives and re-edit the show. It will likely happen some day, but as of now no one, not even the producers, directors or editors, has ever seen an episode of Friends in HD, while anyone in North America with an HD set got to watch Frasier and Will & Grace in HD.
For older stuff the resolution is unimportant, as long as the definition is up to standard, it's HD. The rest is true but it doesn't make me wrong. On shows like Fraiser they were shooting in HD so actually broadcasting in HD entailed only minor changes to post-production. On Fraiser they didn't even have to upgrade the sets as they were already of such a high quality.
Going over to HD for the BBC entails upgrading each & every studio, all the post-production suites, buying in brand new cameras and equipment, upgrading or replacing the sets on long running shows. And all that's without the resources that comes with being a major Hollywood studio. The same studios that sometimes spend up to a tenth of the Beeb's total budget on one movie! It's amazing the Beeb does what it does.