Would You Buy A TV Show on Blu-ray if it wasn't HD?

[BillieCassin]

It's a much more complicated question than originally posed.

1) If the title *could* be in HD, then no. This includes everything from "I Love Lucy" to "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" (the earlier seasons of Buffy would not be in 1.78, but could still be scanned in HD). Something like "Lucy" would be magnificent on Blu, I can't imagine how incredible that show would look. It's about as perfectly preserved as possible - I dearly hope that they have been making nice HD masters while they have been redoing the series for DVD. (And don't get me started on what Batman would look like if they could get the rights issues sorted - from my understanding those prints are in FABULOUS condition, and because of the film stock used to make the color "pop" so people would purchase color televisions, it would be stunning on Blu.)

2) If the title was shot on video (i.e., most of the 70's, all of the 80's, and much of the 90's) then I'd consider it (if it didn't cost more than the DVD). Shelf-space is a "so-so" issue for me - I wouldn't pay more just to have it take up less space, but if it was the same price I probably would bite (just for convenice sake).

I really don't do streaming (just don't have the time, I have enough Blu's to keep me occupied) and I'll rot in hell before I "buy" something from iTunes or another source (I don't "buy" digital media, there is no such thing).

I stopped buying theatrical movies and HD-capable TV shows long ago on DVD because I knew I'd eventually be upgrading to HD, and the only reason the majority of my Blu purchases have been theatrical films has been because that is largely what is available. There are many, many shows that I would purchase on Blu if they were available - it's my main interest in home media.

[mayorofsmpleton]

I echo the comments regarding things shot on video, etc.

I'd love to have stuff shot on tape transferred over to BD with higher bitrates, lossless audio, fewer discs, etc.

If the content is HD friendly (shot on film, etc) then I want 1080p, no argument there.

I own Seinfeld on DVD, for example. I'd upgrade to BD if they redid the old masters in HD (this is possible) and presented it that way on BD. I wouldn't buy SD quality masters on a 9 Disc BD set though...

[DavePS3]

Depends on the show. I just picked up Man From Uncle briefcase thing for 90.00

I get a kick out of the show but it's not reaaly good enough that I would buy a BD version.

[OG Pooh]

If it's a series I want, and don't already have on DVD... Sure. Why not?

[JediFonger]

er... most TV shows were shot on 35mm film. it's rare to have it shot on video. that's why i mentioned BBC, cause they were the only studio that tested this on a trial basis. but outside of that, most TV series emulated movies in that they were shot on film.

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

2) If the title was shot on video (i.e., most of the 70's, all of the 80's, and much of the 90's) then I'd consider it (if it didn't cost more than the DVD). Shelf-space is a "so-so" issue for me - I wouldn't pay more just to have it take up less space, but if it was the same price I probably would bite (just for convenice sake).

another factor to consider on BD is lossless audio (which DVDs can't provide). regardless of SD/HD... it'd be great to have TV series/older movies with lossless =)

[YodasFootPowder]

f I could have ten seasons of a show on one Blu-ray disc, I would totally buy it. If it wasn't shot in HD and was an older show, I could live with that.

[PopPunkNerd182]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

let's say Seinfeld or The X-Files or The Wire comes out on blu-ray... will i buy it? yep. will i buy it without reading up on the PQ and AQ? yep. why? because it's about the show for me. and owning them on blu (even a little better quality than their DVD counterparts) is worth it to me.

it would be great to be able to rid my shelf of all my dvd's (only have about 40 or so now unlike many here so it is possible lol) and only have blu-rays.

Agreed, though the later seasons of Seinfeld on HDTV look really great, blows the DVD out of the water.

[Crimson King]

for me I would love to see the MASH series on the superior format as well as the colour Dragnet's (the 1967-1070 series) yes, i would and will buy those if they ever come out. They were shot on film (most likely 35MM) and would look great on blu!

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by BillyJack

for me I would love to see the MASH series on the superior format as well as the colour Dragnet's (the 1967-1070 series) yes, i would and will buy those if they ever come out. They were shot on film (most likely 35MM) and would look great on blu!

M*A*S*H would be hundreds of dollars on blu wouldn't it, since it was 11 seasons?! Loretta Swit would look beyond horrible in HD, she didn't even look good in SD.

[chip75]

This was hinted when the Blu-ray medium came out. Things like you can have all the Bond's on one disk (never going to happen unless some magic new codec arrives and I'd be afraid I'd lose it if it ever did lol) or a single seaon on one disc.

Most of the multiple disc BD cases are regular size anyway so storage isn't a problem. If they stuck Friends on one disc it would still be more expensive than the DVD because it would be a new release. And a 10 disc Friends set would be expensive. I like packaging. I still buy DVD's as long as I think they're worth it. And I don't think I'll stop anytime soon. If the AV quality was the same there isn't much point of rebuying. But I'd be happy too if I knew that was the best it's going to get.

I think early Buffy and a lot of shows were shot on 16mm not 35mm. People forget about 16mm....

[octagon]

Originally Posted by JediFonger

er... most TV shows were shot on 35mm film. it's rare to have it shot on video. that's why i mentioned BBC, cause they were the only studio that tested this on a trial basis. but outside of that, most TV series emulated movies in that they were shot on film.

Wasn't there also a brief spate of US sitcoms - I want to say mid to late seventies - that were shot live on videotape?

I could be confusing that with soaps. Or maybe I'm thinking of the show Soap

But I think it was a little broader than that - that Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman kind of era.

(just to be clear - the show(s) I'm talking about would be a tiny blip, not some major exception - I'm just curious)

[chip75]

Originally Posted by octagon

Wasn't there also a brief spate of US sitcoms - I want to say mid to late seventies - that were shot live on videotape?

I could be confusing that with soaps. Or maybe I'm thinking of the show Soap

But I think it was a little broader than that - that Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman kind of era.

(just to be clear - the show(s) I'm talking about would be a tiny blip, not some major exception - I'm just curious)

I think you're right. I think most live shows would have been recorded onto tape as back-up re-runs etc. It would have made little sense finacially to transmit a show and then send away for the film to be processed. Is that even possible technologically with the camera TV studios used? I know Doctor Who used tape indoors and film outside if I remember correctly during the Tom Baker era.

The first two seasons of Buffy were 16mm.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by mayorofsmpleton

I own Seinfeld on DVD, for example. I'd upgrade to BD if they redid the old masters in HD (this is possible) and presented it that way on BD. I wouldn't buy SD quality masters on a 9 Disc BD set though...

Already done.

Seinfeld owned all the masters and did it himself. I don't know if those are the versions they are showing on TV now, but I believe they re-framed the ones he had into 16x9. I'm not a Seinfeld expert, though, so I may be misremembering.

Originally Posted by JediFonger

er... most TV shows were shot on 35mm film. it's rare to have it shot on video. that's why i mentioned BBC, cause they were the only studio that tested this on a trial basis. but outside of that, most TV series emulated movies in that they were shot on film.

Er...no.

As I said, from the mid-1970's to the early 1990's, much American television was shot on video. This included virtually every sitcom (everything from "Maude" and "All In The Family" to "Roseanne" and "The Nanny") and most other non-dramatic programming.

Of the dramas many were shot on film and transferred to video for editing, and in many cases (I'd daresay most) the original film does not exist anymore. There was no reason to keep them because no one ever thought of HD, let alone these shows making it would be watched 20 years later and anyone would care. The show was considered finished on video, and there was never any reason to think we'd need more. Even in the 90's stuff was still being destroyed - like He-man, which now only exists in PAL video masters because Hallmark didn't even bother to make NTSC ones which means forever we are stuck with sped-up PAL versions before they tossed the film masters.

There of course are exceptions - for instance, Star Trek : TNG, and the other Star Trek titles, where Paramount saved the original film. However, even in cases where the original film is still in place, it's all raw film - so basically each and every shot would need to be studied, recut, and the entire post-production process repeated for each and every episode. The reason they were able to do it relatively easily for the original Trek series was because the masters were already cut on film - so most of the work they did was enhancement, not reassembly. The Trek shows are very unique in this respect, though, as most studios didn't think saving the film was worth the space.

And even some Dramas were *shot* on video - Dallas, the grand-daddy of all primetime dramas in the 1980's - switched to video at one point in the late 80's (although it had a slightly filmic-look, the effect is lamented by many fans today as it also was the point the series started to go creatively downhill). It wasn't until well into the 90's that shooting/editing in HD became more standard, and that was with big time network fare (like ER - wasn't that the first to be broadcast in HD?) with a lot of smaller productions taking until the turn of the century to switch.

So, we have a chunk of 20+ years of television that largely will not be transferred to HD. Even in the select cases where it is possible (where they did save the original, unedited film) it would cost a huge amount of money to scan all of it and re-edit it all from scratch. While some shows (like Trek, mentioned above) kept very good records of what was used, that kind of paper documentation was very rare to save after the show was finished. So someone would literally have to scan all the film, go through it foot by foot, and go through the video masters, shot by shot, and recreate it all. Since we can barely convince them to just dump what masters they have on DVD for release, convincing them to go and spend 100's of 1000's of dollars, or even millions, to go through 100-200 episodes of a show and completely recreate them, the chances are slim to none even where it is possible.

It's a shame, because a lot of these shows are going to disappear eventually. Studio's make a hell of a lot more on syndication than they do on home video releases, and stations are already demanding only widescreen material (which is why you'll see some syndicated shows, like Golden Girls, stretched to fill the screen even though they look awful, just so viewers are happy it "doesn't have black lines". So we'll either get stretched versions or none at all on TV, and if they can't syndicate it, the chances of a home video release are minute as best.

[PopPunkNerd182]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

Already done.

Seinfeld owned all the masters and did it himself. I don't know if those are the versions they are showing on TV now, but I believe they re-framed the ones he had into 16x9. I'm not a Seinfeld expert, though, so I may be misremembering.

You are remembering correctly. I have Seasons 6-9 downloaded on my computer in the TBS HD broadcasts. When I stream them to my TV, you can see FAR more on both sides of the picture than on the SD broadcasts. I'm still amazed just how good Seinfeld looks in HD.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by PopPunkNerd182

You are remembering correctly. I have Seasons 6-9 downloaded on my computer in the TBS HD broadcasts. When I stream them to my TV, you can see FAR more on both sides of the picture than on the SD broadcasts. I'm still amazed just how good Seinfeld looks in HD.

And apparently, it's the same with Friends. NBC (and in Seinfeld's case, Seinfeld himself) was right on top of HD - really before anyone else did (ER was also filmed in 1.78 for it's entire run).

These are the exceptions, though. Most other shows, especially sitcoms, didn't flip over until much closer the turn of the century, and even then for many shows the more minor networks (CW, WB, etc.) were still doing SD (not all of their shows, though, thankfully).

I haven't checked out Seinfeld in HD, now I'll have to. I was a fan from the first episode (before it became "SEINFELD!" and everyone knew about it) but after it was over I found I couldn't really rewatch it. Not only had it been in constant syndication almost the entire time, but I just thought everyone was mean and didn't like anybody LOL. I'll have to take a look at it with fresh eyes now - I don't think I've watched more than 30 seconds in ten years.

The big shame is if we could turn back the clock only 15 years we could have saved some of these shows that won't be in HD - in the 90's they began doing digital masters of everything for future syndication when it became the norm, because digital required far less storage space and once they had those done many studios chucked what prints they did have saved from the 70's to then because the figured that, again, this was the best they'd ever need. It was especially true for smaller shows that changed hands. The ones that are still around are mostly in the hands of the production companies, if they are lucky - and the studios aren't willing to work with the production companies on rights to shows they already feel they own (look at Mama's Family, for an a example - though it's still video the original broadcast masters in this case), so they remain in what essentially is a private vault (again, if they exist at all).

[PopPunkNerd182]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

And apparently, it's the same with Friends. NBC (and in Seinfeld's case, Seinfeld himself) was right on top of HD - really before anyone else did (ER was also filmed in 1.78 for it's entire run).

These are the exceptions, though. Most other shows, especially sitcoms, didn't flip over until much closer the turn of the century, and even then for many shows the more minor networks (CW, WB, etc.) were still doing SD (not all of their shows, though, thankfully).

I haven't checked out Seinfeld in HD, now I'll have to. I was a fan from the first episode (before it became "SEINFELD!" and everyone knew about it) but after it was over I found I couldn't really rewatch it. Not only had it been in constant syndication almost the entire time, but I just thought everyone was mean and didn't like anybody LOL. I'll have to take a look at it with fresh eyes now - I don't think I've watched more than 30 seconds in ten years.

The big shame is if we could turn back the clock only 15 years we could have saved some of these shows that won't be in HD - in the 90's they began doing digital masters of everything for future syndication when it became the norm, because digital required far less storage space and once they had those done many studios chucked what prints they did have saved from the 70's to then because the figured that, again, this was the best they'd ever need. It was especially true for smaller shows that changed hands. The ones that are still around are mostly in the hands of the production companies, if they are lucky - and the studios aren't willing to work with the production companies on rights to shows they already feel they own (look at Mama's Family, for an a example - though it's still video the original broadcast masters in this case), so they remain in what essentially is a private vault (again, if they exist at all).

Agreed, NBC from what I remember was the first major network to also start filming all their shows in HD first. I didn't know about Friends, but assumed it was also done well.

I know a lot of people aren't fans of Everybody Loves Raymond, but that also looks great in HD, it's also shown on TBS HD along with Seinfeld and Friends, so maybe TBS also knows what they are doing.

I'd recommend Seinfeld to literally everyone. I think almost anyone could find something redeeming about the show, it's personally my favorite show of all time (along with The Simpsons) and there will be at least one episode of Seinfeld that will personally relate to you.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by PopPunkNerd182

I know a lot of people aren't fans of Everybody Loves Raymond, but that also looks great in HD, it's also shown on TBS HD along with Seinfeld and Friends, so maybe TBS also knows what they are doing.

In that case I don't know if it's so much TBS as CBS in that case. As Raymond didn't start until 1996, by then most major network shows were on the bandwagon.

It is nice that TBS is showing interest and showing the HD versions of all of these, though, and not just blowing up 4x3 like other networks are.

[PopPunkNerd182]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

In that case I don't know if it's so much TBS as CBS in that case. As Raymond didn't start until 1996, by then most major network shows were on the bandwagon.

It is nice that TBS is showing interest and showing the HD versions of all of these, though, and not just blowing up 4x3 like other networks are.

It must be that, I'm sure TBS doesn't have the money to correctly reframe syndications haha.

I'm just enjoying it, the earlier seasons of these shows looked so bad on TV/DVD, it's like seeing them for the first time.

[cableguyleonard]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Bring on Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Seinfeld would be awesome!!!!

[chip75]

I'm a few seasons away from finishing my Seinfeld collection on DVD lol. All this Blu-ray talk makes me nervous.... Unless it was incredible value for money I don't think I'd double-dip and that's a rule I try to stick to when upgrading to HD.