when comedy central do show it and if they choose to get the HD versions will it just be the 1st and 2nd season they will have in HD or will it be the whole lot???
id imagine WB hast even got all the seasons even done in HD yet would they ??
so comedy central will have 2seasons in hd and the rest in sd
kind of odd setup aint it?
Again, you are comparing a film DVD with a blu-ray. I was comparing an old TV show that is now being shown in HD.
.
Are you not aware that there is no difference whatsoever between a film from 1966 and a tv show from 1966 if they were both shot on 35mm film?
Star Trek and The Prisoner both look awesome on Bluray .
There are several examples of vintage showsn in HD on tv , but as you have no HD equipment you're not able to see them
SD: 640x480 (4:3) or 848x480 (16:9)
HD 720p: 1280x720
HD 1080p: 1980x1080
Lol, there's absolutely no difference between SD and HD. I'm not gonna be sucked in by this consumerist fad that's just trying to suck in idiots. Derp!
I don't think someone who posts such drivel and has never seen HD should really wate their time posting on here.
SD is the same whether its 4:3 or 16:9 .
The 16:9 image is simply a 4:3 image anamorphically compressed - there is no extra detail on a widescreen sd image .
Well they have all the series of Frasier in SD apart from the final 2 which are in HD, so not really. I imagine that their deal (if they are indeed getting the HD episodes) includes the HD versiosn of other series as and when they become available.
Well they have all the series of Frasier in SD apart from the final 2 which are in HD, so not really. I imagine that their deal (if they are indeed getting the HD episodes) includes the HD versiosn of other series as and when they become available.
I would say the last 2 seasons of Frasier were not edited on video which is why HD versions are available already but the first 9 seasons would have been so the additional work required for Friends would also need to be done on those seasons of Frasier.
I don't think someone who posts such drivel and has never seen HD should really wate their time posting on here.
SD is the same whether its 4:3 or 16:9 .
The 16:9 image is simply a 4:3 image anamorphically compressed - there is no extra detail on a widescreen sd image .
I was being sarcastic .
Yeah, sorry, it's usually 640x360 for Widescreen SD stuff. Sometimes you get 848x480 when it's downscaled from HD.
1st and 2nd seasons in HD are in the big online world now
and wow just watched some episodes from the 1st season in HD!!!
qualitys amazing especially since s1-3 of friends looks almost very 80s or something on dvd.
Again, you are comparing a film DVD with a blu-ray. I was comparing an old TV show that is now being shown in HD.
I never said I had a "magical" CRT, what I said, is that, in my opinion, my CRT is good enough for me to watch my programmes and that, for me, its not worth buying a HD TV.
Erm, how does that make a difference?? Dvd is SD, Bluray is HD, I even threw in a 50 year old film in there to show that age and film didn't have an effect on the vastness of difference between the formats. It is there regardless, images from an old tv show shot on film are still HD if restored and transfered to an HD medium. You are entirely missing the point still to justify your defence of a very old and obsolete tv. I know you need to rationalize your predicament, having a boulder monopolize space in your room, but it doesn't mean you have to make things up.
You didn't say that it was "good enough" for you, you said there was no difference. There is a vast difference, and when friends comes out on bluray and you get real screenshots, and not muddy ones from twice recompressed ones, you will see, there is a huge difference between SD and HD.
I know Friends has this insanely huge fanbase, so it's worth it for them to go back and re-edit all the episodes from Film again so they can sell HD Broadcast and Blu-ray versions, but I do wish the BBC bothered to do the same with Life On Mars Season 1 and 2! Instead all we got was upscaled Video because they didn't want to re-edit the show! The fact that it got released was a poor effort from the BBC, at least they got it right with the latest Series of Doctor Who, that Blu-ray looks amazing.
but I do wish the BBC bothered to do the same with Life On Mars Season 1 and 2! Instead all we got was upscaled Video because they didn't want to re-edit the show!
For a start, the BBC had nothing to do with the Life on Mars Blu-Rays. They didn't make the show or release them, that decision would have been down to Kudos and the DVD company. Plus Life On Mars was shot on Super 16 rather than 35mm film, and it's generally agreed that 16mm and Super 16 aren't really up to HD standards- the BBC did rescan and re-edit Pride & Prejudice from scratch in HD (in fact they did it twice, they made a widescreen re-edit in 2004, though I think it was only SD), and they decided the results weren't good enough to justify doing it for anything else made in 16mm- which is how the majority of film shot UK Television has been made, it was only really the ITC productions of the 60s and 70s that used 35mm.
For a start, the BBC had nothing to do with the Life on Mars Blu-Rays. They didn't make the show or release them, that decision would have been down to Kudos and the DVD company. Plus Life On Mars was shot on Super 16 rather than 35mm film, and it's generally agreed that 16mm and Super 16 aren't really up to HD standards- the BBC did rescan and re-edit Pride & Prejudice from scratch in HD (in fact they did it twice, they made a widescreen re-edit in 2004, though I think it was only SD), and they decided the results weren't good enough to justify doing it for anything else made in 16mm- which is how the majority of film shot UK Television has been made, it was only really the ITC productions of the 60s and 70s that used 35mm.
Super 16 can still look a hell of a lot better than SD though, which is what we got on the Blu-ray, the Blu-ray transfer was from Super 16, to Video Editing, back to 1080p.
Super 16 converts tend to be quite grain heavy but still contain a lot more detail than Video and any SD broadcast, there have been other films released that have Super 16 source and whilst they don't look as good as 35mm, they still tend to look a lot more decent.
The Life on Mars Blu-ray, whoever was responsible for that choice, should have just left the show on DVD if they wern't going to bother to do it proper, the picture on the Blu-ray just looks like the DVD version, upscaled and blurred.
Super 16 can still look a hell of a lot better than SD though, which is what we got on the Blu-ray, the Blu-ray transfer was from Super 16, to Video Editing, back to 1080p.
Super 16 converts tend to be quite grain heavy but still contain a lot more detail than Video and any SD broadcast, there have been other films released that have Super 16 source and whilst they don't look as good as 35mm, they still tend to look a lot more decent.
The Life on Mars Blu-ray, whoever was responsible for that choice, should have just left the show on DVD if they wern't going to bother to do it proper, the picture on the Blu-ray just looks like the DVD version, upscaled and blurred.
Yea the life on mars folks were rationalizing laziness and decisions based on cost, rather than any inherent problems with the film source. There was no excuse for releasing those fake upscaled blurays.
I don't really understand these comparisons , I mean we basically get 625 lines standard (or a bit less) then HD is 720 or 1050 , that's not even twice as good .
or am I msunderstanding the numbers ?
Yes you are. You're only thinking of it in terms of vertical resoluion, when in fact HD is an increase in both vertical *and* horizontal resolution. if you take a square and double the size of both sides then you end up with a square that - area-wise - is four times as big not twice as big. (Not that SD is square or HD is twice as big as SD, but I'm just trying to show in simple terms where your logic has gone astray.)
In terms of HD vs SD the resolution of a PAL DVD is around 720x576 = 414,720 pixels. 1080p is 1920x1080, so that's 2,073,600 pixels. Divide one by the other and you see where the figure of HD having 5-6 times the detail of SD comes from.
the BBC did rescan and re-edit Pride & Prejudice from scratch in HD (in fact they did it twice, they made a widescreen re-edit in 2004, though I think it was only SD), and they decided the results weren't good enough to justify doing it for anything else made in 16mm- which is how the majority of film shot UK Television has been made, it was only really the ITC productions of the 60s and 70s that used 35mm.
I'm not so sure that the BBC thought that Pride & Prejudice wasn't good enough, so much as the results weren't impressive enough to justify the amount of trouble (i.e. cost) involved in re-transferring and re-editing the whole show from the original negatives. Which is a shame as the P&P Blu-ray looks great and most of the reviews were very positive about the quality. I really wish the BBC would re-consider - Id love to see something like, say, "Our Friends In The North" get the same Blu-ray treatment.
On the subject of ITC, you probably know this, but Network have just put out four compilations of 60s ITC shows remastered for Blu-ray; the results look very good indeed:
Comments
What misinformation was I spreading??:rolleyes:
when comedy central do show it and if they choose to get the HD versions will it just be the 1st and 2nd season they will have in HD or will it be the whole lot???
id imagine WB hast even got all the seasons even done in HD yet would they ??
so comedy central will have 2seasons in hd and the rest in sd
kind of odd setup aint it?
Are you not aware that there is no difference whatsoever between a film from 1966 and a tv show from 1966 if they were both shot on 35mm film?
Star Trek and The Prisoner both look awesome on Bluray .
There are several examples of vintage showsn in HD on tv , but as you have no HD equipment you're not able to see them
I don't think someone who posts such drivel and has never seen HD should really wate their time posting on here.
SD is the same whether its 4:3 or 16:9 .
The 16:9 image is simply a 4:3 image anamorphically compressed - there is no extra detail on a widescreen sd image .
I would say the last 2 seasons of Frasier were not edited on video which is why HD versions are available already but the first 9 seasons would have been so the additional work required for Friends would also need to be done on those seasons of Frasier.
The credits font seems to match the style that was used from series 6 onwards so i think some editing has been done there.
They look amazing in HD.
Yeah, sorry, it's usually 640x360 for Widescreen SD stuff. Sometimes you get 848x480 when it's downscaled from HD.
I wonder how these writers from years ago were able to convey irony and sarcasm without the ever useful smilie face.
Can't seem to do it myself either
We've all seen films and programmes on DVD with as good image quality as the first picture.
So why can't Friends be 'digitally remastered' and released on DVD looking like that?
Erm, how does that make a difference?? Dvd is SD, Bluray is HD, I even threw in a 50 year old film in there to show that age and film didn't have an effect on the vastness of difference between the formats. It is there regardless, images from an old tv show shot on film are still HD if restored and transfered to an HD medium. You are entirely missing the point still to justify your defence of a very old and obsolete tv. I know you need to rationalize your predicament, having a boulder monopolize space in your room, but it doesn't mean you have to make things up.
You didn't say that it was "good enough" for you, you said there was no difference. There is a vast difference, and when friends comes out on bluray and you get real screenshots, and not muddy ones from twice recompressed ones, you will see, there is a huge difference between SD and HD.
For reference. You might as well have said your cassette player sounds as good as your cd player. It simply isn't true.
For a start, the BBC had nothing to do with the Life on Mars Blu-Rays. They didn't make the show or release them, that decision would have been down to Kudos and the DVD company. Plus Life On Mars was shot on Super 16 rather than 35mm film, and it's generally agreed that 16mm and Super 16 aren't really up to HD standards- the BBC did rescan and re-edit Pride & Prejudice from scratch in HD (in fact they did it twice, they made a widescreen re-edit in 2004, though I think it was only SD), and they decided the results weren't good enough to justify doing it for anything else made in 16mm- which is how the majority of film shot UK Television has been made, it was only really the ITC productions of the 60s and 70s that used 35mm.
Super 16 can still look a hell of a lot better than SD though, which is what we got on the Blu-ray, the Blu-ray transfer was from Super 16, to Video Editing, back to 1080p.
Super 16 converts tend to be quite grain heavy but still contain a lot more detail than Video and any SD broadcast, there have been other films released that have Super 16 source and whilst they don't look as good as 35mm, they still tend to look a lot more decent.
The Life on Mars Blu-ray, whoever was responsible for that choice, should have just left the show on DVD if they wern't going to bother to do it proper, the picture on the Blu-ray just looks like the DVD version, upscaled and blurred.
Some shots for people to judge, both shot on Super 16:
Life on Mars
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews50/life_on_mars_blu-ray/large/08_life_on_mars_bluray.jpg
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews50/life_on_mars_blu-ray/large/12_life_on_mars_bluray.jpg
The Wrestler
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews45/the%20wrestler%20blu-ray/large/3.jpg
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews45/the%20wrestler%20blu-ray/large/9.jpg
Yea the life on mars folks were rationalizing laziness and decisions based on cost, rather than any inherent problems with the film source. There was no excuse for releasing those fake upscaled blurays.
yeah they announced it last year sometime - the contract is finally expiring and it's moving to comedy central.
thanks is there a date for that-i did hear it was ending but because the series seem to start again i thought it wa sjust a rumour
October 2011 apparently.
http://www.comedycentral.co.uk/news/66696-the-one-where-comedy-central-gets-friends
Yes you are. You're only thinking of it in terms of vertical resoluion, when in fact HD is an increase in both vertical *and* horizontal resolution. if you take a square and double the size of both sides then you end up with a square that - area-wise - is four times as big not twice as big. (Not that SD is square or HD is twice as big as SD, but I'm just trying to show in simple terms where your logic has gone astray.)
In terms of HD vs SD the resolution of a PAL DVD is around 720x576 = 414,720 pixels. 1080p is 1920x1080, so that's 2,073,600 pixels. Divide one by the other and you see where the figure of HD having 5-6 times the detail of SD comes from.
On the subject of ITC, you probably know this, but Network have just put out four compilations of 60s ITC shows remastered for Blu-ray; the results look very good indeed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkNyoqWkNkM&feature=player_profilepage
I don't understand why anyone would buy The Texas Chainsaw Massacre on blu ray.
It's supposed to look grainy. It's supposed to look very grainy. It's supposed to look realistic/ documentary like / claustrophobic etc.
Not a cold, clinical, glossy Hollywood piece of crap.
It was £5.99 on play and my dvd of it was knackered.