"Blue Planet: Seas of Life" on Blu? April 9, 13

[Mark07]

The Blue Planet: Seas of Life Blu-ray

Does anyone have any clue if this documentary is going to be making an appearance on Blu-Ray? I'm asking because I am probably going to be buying the DVD version, but if they are possibly going to release it on Blu then I will hold off.

[DocNovak]

Originally Posted by Mark07

Does anyone have any clue if this documentary is going to be making an appearance on Blu-Ray? I'm asking because I am probably going to be buying the DVD version, but if they are possibly going to release it on Blu then I will hold off.

Blue Planet
^^ this is the documentary I am referring to

I haven't seen anything listed for it yet. But check out "the official is this coming to blu-ray" thread.

[Mark07]

ok thanks, sorry...haven't been here in a while

[Kauzu]

in a bit of threadomancy I was wondering if this was ever going to see a solo release?

[dturner88]

2 weeks!

[Rizor]

That's pretty cool. I imagine this is the original version? I know the Discovery channel has had their version as an exclusive on their site for a while.

[mzupeman]

As far as I know, this is supposed to be the David Attenborough narrated version. Can't wait to see reviews.

[DMRI2006]

Just FYI it's a standard-def upconvert. Even says so on the back cover, in little tiny text: "The Main Feature Has Been Upconverted from standard definition source material."

Some of the footage looks HD but a lot of it, especially the underwater sequences, were obviously shot on SD video back at the time, so they have jaggies and other issues. I'm not sure it's worth the upgrade but I don't have the DVD to compare it to.

[Pyoko]

There's nothing they can do about the video footage but I'm pretty sure the majority was still shot on 16mm film and should look great. Shame if they haven't gone back and re-transferred those parts like they did for Life on Earth and Trials of Life (which both looked great.)

On the Attenborough 60 Years in the Wild programme though there was a sequence (marlin hunting) which I think was from the Blue Planet, and there it was definitely in true HD from a new film scan.

[Quad]

The episode where they go to the bottom of the sea and film all the strange life down there is amazing.

[mzupeman]

This series was not shot on video. It was shot on grainy film stock. Still, yes, I can confirm this is an upconvert. The jaggies are due to aliasing from the standard def transfer that was used, not because it was video. There are still some compression issues but this still blows the old DVDs away. So, still an upgrade, but not substantial.

[Veronica Mars]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

This series was not shot on video. It was shot on grainy film stock. Still, yes, I can confirm this is an upconvert. The jaggies are due to aliasing from the standard def transfer that was used, not because it was video. There are still some compression issues but this still blows the old DVDs away. So, still an upgrade, but not substantial.

So, based on it being an upconvert, do you think it's wise to just be even more patient until it's priced like an upconvert?

I don't know now if I should let me preorder stand or what for this to go on a massive sale, even if that means the holidays, if they didn't even bother do more than upconvert this.

I'm not someone who is a bargain bin buyer either. I probably spend way too much money on new releases, but the news of this sort of suggests to me that this release doesn't deserve full price.

[DMRI2006]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

This series was not shot on video. It was shot on grainy film stock. Still, yes, I can confirm this is an upconvert. The jaggies are due to aliasing from the standard def transfer that was used, not because it was video. There are still some compression issues but this still blows the old DVDs away. So, still an upgrade, but not substantial.

There are definitely a few sequences that appear to be shot on video, specifically underwater footage that doesnt look like it was derived from "grainy film stock." The 16mm derived sequences do not have the same issues, though even there, they did not newly transfer it so its still upconverted. I realize there's nothing they can do about some aspects but it is disappointing they did not remaster the 16mm materials at least, seeing as the bulk of it was clearly shot on film.

[rammsteinfan]

Im buying it regardless of the video quality issues because its a great show and worth owning. Im just glad its Attenborough and not the Brosnan narrated version that Discovery released.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by DMRI2006

There are definitely a few sequences that appear to be shot on video, specifically underwater footage that doesnt look like it was derived from "grainy film stock." The 16mm derived sequences do not have the same issues, though even there, they did not newly transfer it so its still upconverted. I realize there's nothing they can do about some aspects but it is disappointing they did not remaster the 16mm materials at least, seeing as the bulk of it was clearly shot on film.

Well that is a major bummer. I guess ill avoid this one. Not paying close to $30 for an upconversion especially for something they clearly was shot on film

If some scenes were shot on video a partial upconversion would have been Ok but to upconvert the whole thing is unforgivable

If they weren't willing to transfer it in HD then they shouldn't have given it a Blu-Ray release at all

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Well that is a major bummer. I guess ill avoid this one. Not paying close to $30 for an upconversion especially for something they clearly was shot on film

If some scenes were shot on video a partial upconversion would have been Ok but to upconvert the whole thing is unforgivable

If they weren't willing to transfer it in HD then they shouldn't have given it a Blu-Ray release at all

I agree somewhat, but this still destroys my old dvd set, if just for the better compression alone.

[WorkShed]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

I agree somewhat, but this still destroys my old dvd set, if just for the better compression alone.

It's kind of reminding me of why people questioned buying the 28 Days Later blu, since that was actually shot on standard definition (save for the epilogue). However, the HD sound is fantastic on that disc.

[mzupeman]

Not shot on standard def. Shot on 16mm film.

[bookcase]

Originally Posted by Veronica Mars

So, based on it being an upconvert, do you think it's wise to just be even more patient until it's priced like an upconvert?

That's my plan.

[DMRI2006]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

This series was not shot on video. It was shot on grainy film stock.

Originally Posted by mzupeman

Not shot on standard def. Shot on 16mm film.

"The source material varied from a wide range of film and video formats -- including frame and field-based animation. Because of the number of crews involved, it was impossible to determine the technical specifications of each piece of footage."

According to BBC resources' technology development manager, Andy King, who was responsible for the HD conversion: "Wildlife programs are traditionally shot on film, with much material acquired at upwards of 40 frames per second in order to capture motion and detail correctly. This tends to give a slight slow motion effect that enables the viewer to see what is going on.

"However, for many of the underwater sequences it was important to give a sense of speed, so video running at 50i was more appropriate. Shooting video underwater is also easier because the cameras are smaller, and you can spend more time filming before you have to change rolls. Having so much video footage interspersed with the film footage was a change that presented a particular challenge in providing a seamless transfer to HD."

According to Snell & Wilcox chief technology engineer, Andy Major: "The fact that a significant percentage of the original material was shot on video is very significant to the use of Alchemist Platinum for the HD upconversion.

It begs the question: Why not shoot everything in HD to start with?

Andy King responds: "In a perfect world, that would be ideal, although HD video does not yet give us all the features of film. It's also not practical because of costs, the extensive use of SD archives in natural history programs, and the difficulty of getting all crews to shoot in the same format. Anybody want to pay for 40 crews to have HD cameras?

"The answer for the time being is to master in 625/50 standard definition with uncompressed editing tools -- then simply upconvert the final program.

http://www.broadcastermagazine.com/n...on/1000111965/

Keep in mind this article is from 2002, so to me, it actually sounds like this transfer could derived from that upconverted HD master. Particularly seeing as not even the 16mm material was remastered for HD. Now, whether or not ALL of it was originally shot with 16mm film and HD video cameras in the first place is open for debate...but given this was, what, shot in the late '90s, that article seems to confirm that a "wide range" of technical elements was employed in the production. It could be that it'd be an impossible task tracking down every piece of footage, especially if some it wasn't HD.

I mean, why did the author ask the BBC manager "why wasn't everything shot in HD" if it was all in HD?? I'm guessing that's the reason we're stuck with a standard-def upconvert.