I have been reading the wiki article about the TV movie with Paul McGann and Ive been wondering why there doesnt appear to ba a BluRay release? According to the Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor...lm)#Production

If this is the case (and I know wiki articles can sometimes be wrong), it would be a good idea to have a BluRay release in HD!

What are peoples thoughts on this?

I'm not sure people are too bothered to be honest. A not-very-good film is still not very good on BluRay

I suppose, but I can see Who fans buying it!

they might not have the original 35mm master tho . I believe a lot of tv shows which even tho they were shot on 35mm were edited on video and had FX done in video , so the master becomes a video tape .

Thats a shame it would mean that all the 35MM negs would need scanning and a re-edit (matching the original video), would need to be done.
Also the special effects would need redoing or lifted from the video and dubbed on top of the new HD master!
Thats if the negs still exist I suppose, which I hope the do. It would be a lot of work but worth it!

Who owns the rights?

I loved the film, just hated the Half-human bit oh and some other bits ...!

According to the same wiki article I linked to before, it was:

So not just the BBC from that!
I guess that the BBC would have to get permission from all the other joint rights owners, to redo this in HD on BluRay, a shame that.
Oh and the bit about 'half human', well that could in theory be edited out if it was re-done for HD, but I doubt it.

They can't edit it out- it explains a certain element of the plot (without giving it away). The initial mention maybe but not the subsequent ones.

I suppose also, what would it gain from a HD/BluRay transfer? HD/BluRay is only worth doing when the film will genuinely gain something from it- when you're simply bringing out a brilliance that has faded. The elements of the film that are good are in the performances, mainly.

I understand fans don't like the 'half-human' thing but the film is basically a pilot. It's a film of potentials and what ifs- some of them work, others don't. The 'half human' thing is just an idea that didn't work, rather than a deliberate attempt to undermine many decades of Who history.

I think within the context of the film, I might have bought the half-human thing a little more if there was some proper backstory to it. It could have been an interesting choice for the film, in that he doesn't truly belong to either the Time Lords or the humans, but they don't commit to it.

I don't think the standard definition masters of the Doctor Who TV movie are even in widescreen.
That's not to say that a widescreen or 4:3 HD master couldn't be made if the original materials are still available.
That's exactly what was done with Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Whether the will or the money is there to do it is another matter of course......

With a little ingenuity, it could be explained away.

The Doctor (McCoy) was charged with bringing the Master back as a prisoner, to Gallifrey. He failed in that task, and the Master escaped.
Possibly Eight's 'half-human-ness' is a punishment from the Time Lord for this failure in that they are saddling this incarnation with all the problems that his half-humanity brings - i.e fancying Grace, or his refusal to fight in the Time War, both of which are the sign of theflaws caused by the human part of his psyche. As the Doctor is so fond of Earth and the human race, what better punishment?

BIB: That's not exactly true. An HD transfer isn't necessarily about restoring a faded or damaged image. It's about whether the resolution of the source material is high enough to give a better picture in HD than in Standard Definition. Whether it's old or recent, many film formats, including 35mm, have a much higher resolution than regular Standard Definition TV. Which makes it worthwhile from a picture quality PoV to make an HD transfer. Whether one actually gets made is a commercial decision. Star Trek got one and Next Gen is getting one because the source material made it worthwhile and the suits figured there was a big enough audience that they'd make money from it. At the moment, if they've even considered it, I doubt they'd think there was a big enough audience to make a fresh HD transfer commercially worthwhile, especially as it would mean going down the STTNG route, with all the problems/costs that might entail. Maybe it might if "Spearhead from Space" did well on BluRay.

Anyone watching a BluRay made from an HD scan from film on an HD TV will always get much improved results (apart from the occasional badly done transfer).

It's on Netflix UK or you can watch it on youtube in parts.

I remember when it first came out and watching it. I recently watched it again and I actually do quite like it, thought Paul McGann was a good Doctor too.

A 4:3 HD master would be fine, indeed thats what I would like to see myself, and its been done with films pre widescreen like Fantasia.

Steve Roberts has said that a Blu-ray of the TV-movie is never going to happen, because it wouldn't sell well enough to recoup the costs of reassembling it in the way The Next Generation was reassembled. And that's assuming they could find all the film in the first place.

Perhaps...
[Insane Conspiracy Theory]They're saving it for a Paul McGann box set containing episodes of a new Eighth Doctor spinoff?[/Insane Conspiracy Theory]

Anyone know if "Spearhead from Space" on BluRay did well? If it has it might change a few minds about "Doctor Who - The Movie" on blu.

I don't think the sales figures for Spearhead from Space on Blu-Ray are especially relevant.
Remastering that in HD was like remastering the original Star Trek in HD. Both were mastered originally completely on film, including all the titles and effects, so rescanning the negatives in HD gave you a complete programme straight off (I'm simplifying things here I do realise!)
Making a full HD version of the Doctor Who movie would be the same as it was with Star Trek: The Next Generation, where all the titles sequences and effects shots would have to be remade from scratch as they were only done using SD video in the first place.
This puts the time and cost involved up hugely of course.

Would they have definitely done the titles and effects in video then?

Also I know it wouldnt be as good, but there wasnt too many effects shots, the SD footage could be upscaled to HD and then used to fill in those bits including the titles.
This would be the most cost effective way of trying things out, if the reception is good, then a later version with the titles and effects could be redone using the original 35mm negs.

In the 1990s, all of the commercial TV editing in the USA was done on video. Only theatrical movies - and I believe certain big-budget mini-series - were fully edited on film. At the time working with video was far easier, quicker and cheaper than on film, and doing it with film was considered useless because the extra image quality would be wasted on the SD TVs of the time.


You can't upscale very well from SD to HD on video, the extra image quality isn't there. At best you get a blurry image that sticks out like a sore thumb from the footage around it. Some of the ST:TNG episodes have missing bits (usually of just a few seconds each) they have to upscale around and it's usually quite noticeable.

Also, I think you're not quite getting the magnitude of the job. It's not just adding effects, it's the re-editing of the entire episode from scratch. Editing usually takes up quite a large chunk of an episode's budget: the ST:TNG remastering job is costing CBS $9 million per season (or between a fifth and a quarter of the cost of making the series first time around from scratch, adjusted for inflation). It's also only possible if the original film has survived - STAR TREK's is all stored in a custom, temperature-controlled warehouse built in an old salt mine underground in Pennsylvania! - and the guide notes have survived so the episode can be rebuilt to match the original (though you can use the existing SD version as a guide instead, but that's a major pain in the backside and makes things slower).

There is some good news. ST:TNG's Blu-Ray remastering has been a massive success and it looks likely that DS9 will follow. Fox is rumoured to be looking at doing their own remastering projects, starting with THE X-FILES, and it sounds like they will be doing a digital upgrading of the effects in THE X-FILES rather than a full replacement of them (though the number of effects shots in THE X-FILES is fairly low, which makes it viable). If that works, Fox may consider rolling it out to other shows of interest, and now that DOCTOR WHO is big in the States they might consider doing it for the TV movie if they perceive the demand is there.

It's also not the case that this is solely for Blu-Ray release. A lot of companies are making money from HD reissues of existing material for Netflix and commercial HD TV channels, and there is some speculation that 20-odd years down the line a lot of people will be refusing to watch non-HD programming the same way now that some people now will refuse to watch black-and-white movies. On that basis, upgrading old shows (even shows with no effects at all, like sitcoms) to HD where possible and whilst the film stock survives and is in good nick could be a very sound investment.

Indeed. I refer you to my post #11. I do expect an HD version of DWTM to require rebuilding it from its film elements (which might not still exist) and any fx added by SD video at the time would need re-doing at HD resolution. Not cheap and would require much more effort/cost than Spearhead from Space.

Nevertheless the relative success or otherwise of Spearhead on Blu would have some bearing on a decision about DWTM.

HD Star Trek was also more involved than you say - especially all the new CG fx shots. But they also had to remove visible nails in scenery and coffee stains from uniforms, suddenly revealed by HD.

That's quite a cool idea, although I disagree that the Doctor fancied Grace. He was fond of her but I don't see any evidence to show that he fancied her.

My problem with an HD TV is that (correct me if I'm wrong) it will expose and magnify the flaws in older/lower quality prints.

This is ridiculous. The people who refuse to watch black-and-white movies are the sort of people who don't like watching old films full stop. Black-and-white has been used for modern films and many old black-and-white films have had some remastering.

I really hope society doesn't go this way because they will be missing out on some fantastic pieces of cinema.

There is always more detail in a 35mm film print than could be resolved in an SD transfer, although I do agree that at 1080i a bad print wont look as good as normal HD.
The poor quality of SD is just not a good medium for film prints anymore, as so much detail is lost especially in the horizontal resolution, as the pixels aren't square!
I suppose that you could argue that anamorphic prints also loose the horizontal resolution, but they still look good as a HD transfer if its a good print and a good transfer.

Well, yes it would, but that's far from the whole story (or complete picture, if you will! ).

Most film formats have far more detail in the image (higher resolution/definition and better colour) than HD, let alone SD. Video copies made at standard definition (SD) can mask faults in the original film that HD video copies will reveal. But that's not an argument against HD. It just means more restoration work might be needed to bring the image up to an acceptable level for HD than for SD. There's also a need to preserve material shot on film in a digital form that retains as much of the detail in the image on the original film as possible.

HD captures more of the detail in the original image making it sharper and better colour than an SD version, but still not as sharp as the original film. When you think films from the 1930s onwards were projected onto 50ft screens in modestly sized picture houses you can imagine the detail in the image that is lost when shown on an SD TV. When you watch a feature film on a regular SD TV it's like looking at the original through out of focus glasses. Everything is slightly blurred or soft focus.

There is still some loss with an HD version, but more of the original detail in the filmed image is retained than with SD.

Nowadays digital formats such as 4K or 8K are used when scanning film. These are higher definition formats than HD and approach or exceed that of the original films. There's not much material available to the ordinary consumer in these formats (nor many displays capable of reproducing them!) but they are used for archiving purposes. DVDs (SD) and BluRays (HD) can be easily prepared from these archive masters by "downscaling" them to the appropriate resolution. In the future, versions of these higher definition formats may well become the norm (I certainly hope so!).

Many older films do require some restoration because of damage either through wear and tear during projection or deterioration by being stored in poor conditions, or because the best source material, the original camera negatives, actually having been destroyed. Sometimes 2nd or 3rd generation copies are the best available sources. The amount of restoration required varies film by film but mostly you can say, the older the film the more restoration is usually required.

There's also the question of the "unwanted" detail captured in the original film, revealed by HD that also requires "restoration". As I mentioned in another post, when they restored original Star Trek for HD (which was shot and edited and post produced entirely on film) they found they could see coffee stains on uniforms. Nails in scenery were suddenly visible too. These problems didn't matter originally as the makers knew they couldn't be seen on a regular SD TV. They were never intended to be shown on large screens. It's not really a problem for feature films.

Overall, very good results can be obtained from old films from the 1930s onwards. They can look just as good as scans of much more recent films. Just because it's old doesn't mean it has to look bad.

Many new films of course are shot digitally, without the use of actual film. Preserving them will be a whole different set of issues, but at the least the value of properly archiving them is now understood.