"Babylon5" Hi-def (or Higher-def) Petition
Neil Rieck
http://www.petitiononline.com/B5HiDef/petition.html
We may not see a major effort to recreate space scenes as is happening
with Star Trek, but we may see "480p on DVD with more discs" or "1080i
on Blu-Ray" if Warner Bros can be encouraged to do another digital
transfer.
Neil Rieck
Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/babylon5-hi-def-petition.html
Joseph DeMartino
> I have just started a high-def blu-ray (higher-def DVD) petition here:
*Sigh* Where to begin?
1) No one in the industry pays any attention whatsoever to on-line
petitions - and with good reason. I know people who could whip up a
petition site and a million "signatures" in a couple of hours. The
studios know this, too. In a world of robo-calls and endless spam,
nobody takes on-line expressions of enthusiasm seriously.
2) The materials simply do not exist to do a hi-def version of "B5".
All of the CGI and composite shots exist only in lo-res form. The
purely film-based shots could be remastered in HD, but what would be
the point? The contrast between them and the lo-res CGI and comps
would be make the latter look even worse than it does now.
3) Who would *buy* this crap? Any new DVD release that did *NOT*
involve going back and recreating *all* of the CGI and composite shots
*from scratch* would only offer a tiny improvement off the current
discs. *I'm* not prepared to spend a couple of hundred dollars
rebuying a show I already own in order to get a slight bump in picture
quality. And I doubt very many other fans would be.
4) There two necessary conditions for a Blu Ray release to happen:
a. Warner Bros. has to make money on it.
b. The CGI and the comp shots have to be redone from scratch. (This
assumes that the film elements of the composite shots still exist
somewhere and that the rats haven't gotten to them.)
Since b. will cost millions of dollars (and that doesn't even factor
in the millions it will cost to remaster the *rest* of the material),
a. seems unlikely. You're talking about recouping millions of dollars
selling your product the niche of a niche of a niche. Blu Ray owners
are a minority to begin with. The set of Blu Ray owners who are also
"B5" fans is even smaller. (Don't forget, "B5" was always a cult show
even on television, it was never the cultural phenomenon that "Trek"
was and doesn't have anything like the same fanbase.) The set of Blu
Ray-owning "B5" fans who would see enough benefit in a BD edition to
justiy re-buying the whole set has got to be smaller than that, and
finally the subset of *those* people who could actually afford to
"buy" the set in this economy is even smaller than that.
> We may not see a major effort to recreate space scenes as is happening
> with Star Trek, but we may see "480p on DVD with more discs"
I have no idea what "480p on more discs" means. Are you talking about
a new SD release? What would be the point? The difference between
480i and 480p is marginal at best, and anyone watching the existing
discs on most HDTVs (except CRT-based sets) is *already* seeing them
upscaled to the native resolution of the TV. (LCD, plasma and DLP TVs
can *only* display their own native resolution - typically 768p, 720p
or 1080p. They scale all inputs to that resolution automatically.)
In any event, reissuing the existing transfers at 480p would not
require "more discs". The 480p video and extras would fit on standard
dual-layer DVDs with room to spare.
> :1080i on Blu-Ray" if Warner Bros can be encouraged to do another digital
> transfer.
Not gonna happen, see above. This topic (and the technical/financial
reasons why this is *impossible*) have been discussed to death many
times on this very forum, at least once in a thread that you started.
(But evidently didn't read very closely.)
More recently, there was this thread:
I suppose I should consider the fact that you seem to have given up on
the idea that a "new" "B5" release had already *happened* earlier this
summer to be some kind of progress, but I see you still don't
understand the first think about economics. All of the arguments
given above were already laid out for you the *last* time you posted a
completely unrealistic idea about a DVD release.of the series.
Regards,
Joe
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
> *Sigh* Where to begin?
+1. I'm glad to have B5 on DVD and know it is the best it is ever
going to be, and I'm content with that. Engaging in entirely
pointless *and* hopeless "causes" to get the studio to do something it
wouldn't in its right mind ever do is just a waste of energy. Don't
these people have jobs!?
--
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
Promote someone else.
Kathryn Huxtable
> I have just started a high-def blu-ray (higher-def DVD) petition here:
>
> http://www.petitiononline.com/B5HiDef/petition.html
>
> We may not see a major effort to recreate space scenes as is happening
> with Star Trek, but we may see "480p on DVD with more discs" or "1080i
> on Blu-Ray" if Warner Bros can be encouraged to do another digital
> transfer.
WTF?
-K
Joseph DeMartino
wrote:
>
> WTF?
To paraphrase what Edward Everett wrote to Lincoln after the
dedication of the ceremony at Gettysburg:
"I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to
the central idea of the occasion, in thee hundred words as you did in
three letters" <g>
Later,
Joe
Neil Rieck
The episodes on the current Babylon-5 DVDs are 480i and so do not up-
convert properly on a hi-def player. I am certain the Warner Bros.
could do a new DVD release in 480p with very little effort on their
part. If they reduced the compression slightly then placed three
episodes on a disc, a whole season could be done in 8 discs rather
than 6.
On a related note, the remastered Star Trek (TOS) discs look great (I
watched 8 episodes on the Canadian sci-fi channel on Labor Day).CBS
used 8 discs for the DVD release and 7 discs for the hi-def Blu-ray
release. All space scenes have been recreated using modern CGI. All
other scenes have been digitally cleaned-up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series#The_Remastered_Series
Everyone knows that Star Trek material was originally shot between
1966 and 1969 for a 4x3 aspect ratio. Most people know that Babylon-5
was shot between 1993 and 1998 in 16x9 aspect ratio anticipating HDTV.
Therefore, doing a Blu-ray release of Babylon-5 would require less
effort than ST:TOS
NSR
Charlie E.
Neil,
I am sure others will go into the details, but it ain't gonna happen.
Warner's lost all the CGI files, and it would cost WAY too much to
even begin to try and recreate them. ST:TOS had a few special effects
scenes, B5 was built with them...
Charlie
Matt Ion
> On Sep 13, 5:58 pm, Kathryn Huxtable<kath...@kathrynhuxtable.org>
> wrote:
>> Neil Rieck<n.ri...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>> I have just started a high-def blu-ray (higher-def DVD) petition here:
>>
>>> http://www.petitiononline.com/B5HiDef/petition.html
>>
>>> We may not see a major effort to recreate space scenes as is happening
>>> with Star Trek, but we may see "480p on DVD with more discs" or "1080i
>>> on Blu-Ray" if Warner Bros can be encouraged to do another digital
>>> transfer.
>>
>> WTF?
>>
>> -K
>
> The episodes on the current Babylon-5 DVDs are 480i and so do not up-
> could do a new DVD release in 480p with very little effort on their
> part.
DVDs are progressive-encoded already. 480p is their inherent video format.
> On a related note, the remastered Star Trek (TOS) discs look great (I
> watched 8 episodes on the Canadian sci-fi channel on Labor Day).CBS
> used 8 discs for the DVD release and 7 discs for the hi-def Blu-ray
> release. All space scenes have been recreated using modern CGI. All
> other scenes have been digitally cleaned-up.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series#The_Remastered_Series
The original Trek had no CGI to recreate; B5 used it extensively. TOS
was three seasons with relatively limited "outside" model shots that are
relatively easy to recreate in CG while providing massive improvement;
B5 was five seasons with numerous, EXTENSIVE "outside" shots that would
all need to be re-done. You're talking probably at least 50 times the
amount of work, with no chance of seeing 1/50th the cost recovery, for a
minimal relative improvement.
Mac Breck
You knew that the avalanche was coming, too. I didn't have the heart to
catalog all the reasons why it won't happen, and instead left it up to
the pros. It was only a matter of time.
However, I signed it, with conditions/qualifications, figuring "What
could it hurt?" <shrug>
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Durkani: It doesn't matter if they believe us. Sooner or later the
truth's going to come out. The truth is....
Kendarr: ....out of fashion.
Alex
picture (which is a serious possibility now, according to JMS in a
recent podcast). A lot of CGI will have to be remade for the movie and
later could be reused for BluRay / improved DVD releases.
P.S. To think of it - a lot of CGI was re-done for the Lost Tales,
innit?
P.S.S. In that podcast JMS said that the movie will be made when he
will have a good story idea. But didn't he say years ago that he's
keeping a part of Babylon 5 storyline under wraps specifically for the
movie (the certain "teep" events between the main series and Crusade)
- is it no longer good enough?
Jan
Alex says...
>
>The only way this may happen if there will be a Babylon 5 motion
>picture (which is a serious possibility now, according to JMS in a
>recent podcast). A lot of CGI will have to be remade for the movie and
>later could be reused for BluRay / improved DVD releases.
>
>P.S. To think of it - a lot of CGI was re-done for the Lost Tales,
>innit?
Yes, a lot of ship models were remade and there were a few short battle scenes
as well as the recreation of the destruction of the station. Methinks that's
only the teensiest fraction of what would be needed.
>P.S.S. In that podcast JMS said that the movie will be made when he
>will have a good story idea. But didn't he say years ago that he's
>keeping a part of Babylon 5 storyline under wraps specifically for the
>movie (the certain "teep" events between the main series and Crusade)
>- is it no longer good enough?
Apparently whatever it is/was, and many think that it's the story of the
Telepath War, it's not a story that he burns to tell these days. I think it'll
be when he has a story the he *needs* to tell that he'll approach WB.
Jan
--
�Shared pain is lessened; shared joy is increased; thus do we refute entropy�
--Spider Robinson
Check out http://wedreamforjeanne.blogspot.com/ for ways to help Jeanne Robinson
fight cancer.
Joseph DeMartino
> In article <dacb48bb-607a-4109-88c4-b842389d9...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Alex says...
> >P.S. To think of it - a lot of CGI was re-done for the Lost Tales,
> >innit?
>
> Yes, a lot of ship models were remade and there were a few short battle scenes
> as well as the recreation of the destruction of the station. Methinks that's
> only the teensiest fraction of what would be needed.
Correct. Ship models are nice, but they are the proverbial drop in
the bucket. (And the battle scenes from "TLT" wouldn't be useable in
any other projects.) When it comes to redoing the FX shots for 110
episodes and 5 TV movies it is the redesigning all the action and
movement (now at a 16:9 aspect ratio) and then *rendering* all of it
(and blending some of it with live action footage.) . *Fans* have
recreated most of the ship models for various home-brew projects, but
I don't recall anybody reproducing the battle scenes from seasons 3
and 4, much less executing them at HD resolutions.
A "B5" feature film (that did well in theaters) would increase the
odds of an HD redo for the series less because a bunch of models would
be recreated than because it would make the original series more
valuable and more marketable - not only on DVD, but in syndication.
THAT would give WB a reason to invest in upgrading the show to HD -
and a chance to make their money back by doing so. In that case, a
set of Blu Ray DVDs would be gravy, since the big expense would be
covered by Warner Bros. Domestic Television and Warner Home Video
would be getting away cheap.
This is essentially how we got the widescreen DVDs in the first
place. The demand was there for widescreen, WHV didn't want to pay
for widescreen transfers, that's where things stuck. When The Sci-FI
Channel decided they needed a widescreen version to distinguish their
reruns from the set that had just ended on TNT, Domestic Television
came up with the cash and WHV got their new transfers for free.
Regards,
Joe
Chris Adams
>P.S. To think of it - a lot of CGI was re-done for the Lost Tales,
>innit?
Some (not many in terms of the whole B5 series) of the models were
recreated. However, having the models is only a small part of the work;
somebody has to go through and recreate all the scenes.
Having the CG models is like having actors; a bunch of actors standing
around does not equal a TV show or movie. Even if you were doing a
shot-for-shot remake (like "Psycho"), you still have to actually do the
work of setting up your shots, running the scenes, and assembling the
cuts.
Then, if you recreate all the CGI scenes, you still have to reassemble
the composite (CG+live-action) scenes and double check all your work (or
you end up with another teapot scene). You'd also need to do a
significant amount of clean-up work on the live-action film. Some of
the season 1 DVD scenes almost look like it is snowing (inside the
station!), due to scratches on the film.
--
Chris Adams <cma...@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Neil Rieck
> DVDs are progressive-encoded already. 480p is their inherent video format.
>
Nope. Play the Babylon 5 DVDs (2004 or 2009) on any computer then
enable the OSD (on screen diagnostics).B5 discs are playing in 480i
while everything else I tested played in 480p. (One disc I tested was
the Karate Kid which was published in 2005)
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/babylon5-hi-def-petition.html
Now if the stuff that played on TV is still in film format (including
the CGI) then all WB needs to do is another digital transfer. On the
other hand, maybe they specifically generated 480i for these discs in
order to accommodate the extra material -OR- get 4 episodes on a disc.
(but this is just speculation on my part)
Either way, they could release more detail my doing less compression.
But it would require 1-2 more discs.
NSR
Joseph DeMartino
and that is how probably 90% of them are encoded. Most DVD players
can deinterlace video ouput in one way or another (as when outputting
via component video outputs or digital outputs.) Many computer DVD
drives can do the same. Whether or not they do can depend on the
disc. Your "diagnostic" program is probably reporting the output
resolution, not the native resolution, on those discs. 480p is not
really "higher resolution" than 480i. 480p produces a smoother image,
that's all.
Each frame of SD-DVD video consists of 480 lines. There are 30 video
frames per second. Each frame is made up of two fields. There are 60
frames per second. In interlaced video each field is made up of 240
lines, which are drawn from the top of the screen to the bottom, first
the odd-numbered lines, then the even numbered ones. In progressive
video each field is made up of 480 lines, drawn in order from the top
of the screen to the bottom. So either way you get a 480 line total
line frame every 30 seconds. There is essentially NO difference
between 480i and 480p when it comes to the output quality of a given
HDTV, Blu Ray player or upconverting SD-DVD player to upscale an SD-
DVD to HD resolution.
Assuming you've replaced your bootleg Chinese discs with a set of
legitimate "B5" DVDs and still think the image looks bad the problem
is NOT the difference between 480i and 480p encoding. It is a
combination of the compromises involved in creating the widescreen
masters (see ANY of my previous replies to your posts) and the fact
that you've almost certainly ignored my advice to calibrate your
HDTV.
> Now if the stuff that played on TV is still in film format (including
> the CGI) then all WB needs to do is another digital transfer.
It *isn't*, which you would know if you had bothered to read, I don't
know, ANY of my replies to you on this topic. I can't believe you are
still blathering on about this and haven't managed to absorb this ONE
SIMPLE FACT.
The CGI and composite material does not and never did exist on film.
The final masters ONLY exist on videotape. The CGI was created on
computer and never output to film. (Even if it HAD been, it would
have been lo-res video transferred to film and still wouldn't hold up
to HDTV standards.) The composite shots were also created on video.
All of this was then dropped into the completed episodes after the
film HAD been transferred to film.
Joe
Kathryn Huxtable
And the transfers weren't that great. Although I like the framing, they
did the wide screen for the FX shots by cropping the top and bottom and
interpolating.
The behavior of WHV over the years is why I'm not going to bother to
sign any petitions unless there's a clear economic incentive for WHV to
do something. Clearly, they aren't interested in a few fans, and let's
face it, this isn't anywhere near as popular as the Trek franchise.
-K
Kathryn Huxtable
> [...] It *isn't*, which you would know if you had bothered to read, I
> don't know, ANY of my replies to you on this topic. I can't believe
> you are still blathering on about this and haven't managed to absorb
> this ONE SIMPLE FACT.
You know, I've already ruined one friendship with a knee-jerk remark. I
hesitate to make such on this newsgroup after that incident, but I'm not
friends with Neil, so I'll just say that I had lots of comments in my
head the last time this subject came up. I waited to see what you and
Mac and Matt and others would say.
As usual, you clearly explained the business and technical issues
involved. Others also chimed in with useful information.
None of it helped.
I never use a kill file because this is the only newsgroup I read and
it's moderated. I'll continue to read Neil's fantasies, but I don't see
commenting on them anymore. (You, OTOH, probably can't stop
yourself. ;-)).
-K
Neil Rieck
> The required native resolution for DVD video in North America is 480i,
> and that is how probably 90% of them are encoded. Most DVD players
> can deinterlace video ouput in one way or another (as when outputting
> via component video outputs or digital outputs.) Many computer DVD
> drives can do the same. Whether or not they do can depend on the
> disc. Your "diagnostic" program is probably reporting the output
> resolution, not the native resolution, on those discs. 480p is not
> really "higher resolution" than 480i. 480p produces a smoother image,
> that's all.
>
Don't take my word for it. View one of the B5 discs (2004 or 2009) in
your computer then compare it to a bunch of others. In my case I tried
several programs including PowerDVD and Nero ShowTime. I tested 20 DVD
titles and they were all 480p except for B5 which is 480i.
>
> Each frame of SD-DVD video consists of 480 lines. There are 30 video
> frames per second. Each frame is made up of two fields. There are 60
> frames per second. In interlaced video each field is made up of 240
> lines, which are drawn from the top of the screen to the bottom, first
> the odd-numbered lines, then the even numbered ones. In progressive
> video each field is made up of 480 lines, drawn in order from the top
> of the screen to the bottom. So either way you get a 480 line total
> line frame every 30 seconds. There is essentially NO difference
> between 480i and 480p when it comes to the output quality of a given
> HDTV, Blu Ray player or upconverting SD-DVD player to upscale an SD-
> DVD to HD resolution.
>
One problem I have always encountered when talking to non-technical
people involves those who confuse analog TV limitations with computer
displays (which are the basis for hi-def TVs). There are 18 standard
variations of the MPEG spec. The MPEG display device is required to
switch between 30, 25, or 24 FPS as required by the signal. For
standard-def media (DVDs) in North America, 30 FPS can be either
720x480 interlaced (aka 480i) or 720x480 progressive (480p30). When a
DVD player is connected to a standard-def TV (which is unable to
display MPEG) and is playing 480p30 media, then that player needs to
down-convert the signal (essentially interlacing it). When a player is
connected to a high-def TV (using HDMI or Component Connectors) 480p30
media is presented to the TV as-is.
But don't take my word for it, there are plenty of MPEG + ATSC
articles to be found at the IEEE site.
With regards to Babylon-5, you can't place four 43-minute programs on
one DVD in 480p30.
> Assuming you've replaced your bootleg Chinese discs with a set of
> legitimate "B5" DVDs and still think the image looks bad the problem
> is NOT the difference between 480i and 480p encoding. It is a
> combination of the compromises involved in creating the widescreen
> masters (see ANY of my previous replies to your posts) and the fact
> that you've almost certainly ignored my advice to calibrate your
> HDTV.
I have replaced my Chinese bootleg discs with a brand new set from
Amazon.com titled "Babylon 5: Seasons 1-5 (2009) Repackaged). The TV
is a new 61" JVC that is so modern it cannot be calibrated. I have
three playback devices which all connect via HDMI 1.3 connectors: Sony
PS3 (plays Blu-ray and DVD), Toshiba HD-DVD (plays HD-DVD and DVD),
Sony DVD (only plays DVD). Both the Sony PS3 and the Toshiba HD-DVD
contain up-converting technology which will enhance the playing of
DVDs. Both these players do a really good job on every title in my
collection except the new Babylon-5 discs. I have recently learned
that optimum upconverting of DVD media to a high-def display is best
done with 480p. The B5 discs are 480i which is the reason for the
petition.
>
> > Now if the stuff that played on TV is still in film format (including
> > the CGI) then all WB needs to do is another digital transfer.
>
> It *isn't*, which you would know if you had bothered to read, I don't
> know, ANY of my replies to you on this topic. I can't believe you are
> still blathering on about this and haven't managed to absorb this ONE
> SIMPLE FACT.
>
Look, now you are just being intransigent. Like you, I work for a very
large communications company in a division supplying digital video (SD
as well as HD) to the public on COAX, Hibrid-Fiber COAX, Fiber, VDSL
wireline and IP/TV. I deal with issues involving MPEG compression as
well as other boundary conditions (technologies required to up-convert
or down-convert) all the time. Since my comments here have nothing to
do with my employer, I will not post my employer's name here. But if
you wish to communicate with me personally, send me an email and I
will respond with my technical resume, employer's name, and the
projects I am currently involved in.
>
> The CGI and composite material does not and never did exist on film.
> The final masters ONLY exist on videotape. The CGI was created on
> computer and never output to film. (Even if it HAD been, it would
> have been lo-res video transferred to film and still wouldn't hold up
> to HDTV standards.) The composite shots were also created on video.
> All of this was then dropped into the completed episodes after the
> film HAD been transferred to film.
>
If the CGI had never been stored on film, then that would be a problem
>
> Joe
Neil Rieck
During my short drive to work, I realized I should have added one
additional point regarding 480p30. There is another standard (which
can also be emulated by the correct player technology) called 480p60.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/480p60 (not as good a resource as stuff
at the IEEE site, but good enough for most non-technical people)
Yes, you can get 480 lines every 16 mS.
But this is all academic. Consider this: I have a two-disc Blu-ray
copy of "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" that, when played
through my PS3, delivers an almost continuous bit rate of 20-30 Mb/s
with peaks of 37 Mb/s. Same with my copy of "Blade Runner" which is
stunningly detailed by the way.
So with Star Trek going back and remastering material starting in the
1960s I must ask myself "surely my Babylon-5 friends would be willing
to signal WB that a similar market exists for our favorite series".
And if they aren't able or willing to do hi-def (on Blu-ray) then
maybe they would be willing to do higher-def on DVD.
NSR
Dan Dassow
Neil,
I know you have good intentions with your petition. However, I will
not sign it. Upgrading Babylon 5 to High Definition is unlikely to
happen unless Warner Brothers produces a theatrical film.
JMS has moved on in his career. Although Babylon 5 is a crowning
achievement, I would prefer that he only revisit this universe after
exploring the many possibilities open to him after Clint Eastwood
filmed and produced his screenplay, Changeling. My only hope in that
regard is that JMS does not endanger his health due to committing to
too many projects.
I see parallels to between the collective desire from fans to expand
the Babylon 5 universe and the fans of Isaac Asimov’s Foundation
series wanting that series expanded. The expansion of the Foundation
series was interesting, but paradoxically diminished that universe. I
do not wish to have that happen with Babylon 5. The time may come when
Babylon 5 is produced as a quality theatrical film. If that does not
happen, so be it.
For me Babylon 5 is more about the story than computer graphics. When
I watched the series when it was first broadcast, I had marginal
reception, so I frequently only heard the dialogue with a very fuzzy
picture. Try listening to one of your favorite episode without
watching the video. It is an interesting experience.
Dan Dassow
Mac Breck
> On Sep 12, 12:35 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> I have just started a high-def blu-ray (higher-def DVD) petition
>> here:
>>
>> http://www.petitiononline.com/B5HiDef/petition.html
>>
>> We may not see a major effort to recreate space scenes as is
>> happening
>> with Star Trek, but we may see "480p on DVD with more discs" or
>> "1080i
>> on Blu-Ray" if Warner Bros can be encouraged to do another digital
>> transfer.
>>
>> Neil Rieck
>> Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
>> Ontario,
>>
Canada.http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/babylon5-hi-def-petition.ht
ml
>
> Neil,
>
> I know you have good intentions with your petition. However, I will
> not sign it. Upgrading Babylon 5 to High Definition is unlikely to
> happen unless Warner Brothers produces a theatrical film.
That's like saying that you're not going to vote for a candidate because
they don't have a chance at winning, or you won't buy a lottery ticket
for similar reasons. It's self-fulfilling and ridiculous.
I'm not saying that a petition has a chance of getting WHV to come out
with a better version of B5 on DVD (We'd probably need the jaws of life
to get their wallet open to do that.), but what does it cost you to
sign? The real question is " *Would* you buy such a version *IF* it
came out, yes or no?" I *know* that I would.
> JMS has moved on in his career.
Yeah, I know. :-/
> Although Babylon 5 is a crowning
> achievement, I would prefer that he only revisit this universe after
> exploring the many possibilities open to him after Clint Eastwood
> filmed and produced his screenplay, Changeling.
I *completely* disagree. Yeah, let's wait 20, 30 more years; give the
rats a fighting chance to get to the rest of it; let's see what else WB
can lose. <rolleyes> Besides, isn't that practically all he's been
doing, exploring *other* possibilities (non-B5 comics, movies & TV
pitches). I'm not saying that's wrong; there's probably not much he can
do from his side of things.
> My only hope in that
> regard is that JMS does not endanger his health due to committing to
> too many projects.
Some people only feel right when they have a certain number of chainsaws
in the air at one time. <shrug>
> I see parallels to between the collective desire from fans to expand
> the Babylon 5 universe and the fans of Isaac Asimov's Foundation
> series wanting that series expanded. The expansion of the Foundation
> series was interesting, but paradoxically diminished that universe. I
> do not wish to have that happen with Babylon 5. The time may come when
> Babylon 5 is produced as a quality theatrical film. If that does not
> happen, so be it.
We were talking about the petition, giving *existing* B5 a better
presentation, an HDTV-worthy presentation, on DVD. How is that an
expansion of the B5 universe? You're the one talking about an expansion
with a new theatrical film.
> For me Babylon 5 is more about the story than computer graphics. When
> I watched the series when it was first broadcast, I had marginal
> reception, so I frequently only heard the dialogue with a very fuzzy
> picture. Try listening to one of your favorite episode without
> watching the video. It is an interesting experience.
If you want to grow the audience, now, it better look good on HDTVs.
It's *long* *past* *time* for WB to grow a pair, and treat this TV
series with the respect it deserves, not that that's ever going to
happen, of course.
Mac Breck
> In article
> <dacb48bb-607a-4109...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Alex says...
>>
>> The only way this may happen if there will be a Babylon 5 motion
>> picture (which is a serious possibility now, according to JMS in a
>> recent podcast). A lot of CGI will have to be remade for the movie
>> and later could be reused for BluRay / improved DVD releases.
>>
>> P.S. To think of it - a lot of CGI was re-done for the Lost Tales,
>> innit?
>
> Yes, a lot of ship models were remade and there were a few short
> battle scenes as well as the recreation of the destruction of the
> station. Methinks that's only the teensiest fraction of what would
> be needed.
Methinks you're right. :-(
>> P.S.S. In that podcast JMS said that the movie will be made when he
>> will have a good story idea. But didn't he say years ago that he's
>> keeping a part of Babylon 5 storyline under wraps specifically for
>> the movie (the certain "teep" events between the main series and
>> Crusade) - is it no longer good enough?
>
> Apparently whatever it is/was, and many think that it's the story of
> the Telepath War, it's not a story that he burns to tell these days.
> I think it'll be when he has a story the he *needs* to tell that
> he'll approach WB.
>
> Jan
Hopefully, the story of the Telepath War *is* a story he burns to tell
these days. Note that I did *not* say that the story of The Telepath
War equals, or was contained in, "Babylon 5: The Memory of Shadows."
Chris Adams
>The real question is " *Would* you buy such a version *IF* it
>came out, yes or no?" I *know* that I would.
If the difference was just that it was 480p (or 1080i but just a revised
transfer) instead of 480i? No, I wouldn't buy that; what's the point?
I'm not going to spend a bunch of money on a marginally "better" video.
A new transfer is not what is needed, especially since the scenes that
currently look the worst would not be improved (since there's no film to
be scanned).
I don't really want to see somebody encouraging a mediocre new product
that probably wouldn't do well in the marketplace, as that would almost
certainly close the door to any future Babylon 5 works. I want to see
something new, not just a minor revision of the same old thing.
Mac Breck
> Once upon a time, Mac Breck <macthe...@yahoo.com> said:
>> The real question is " *Would* you buy such a version *IF* it
>> came out, yes or no?" I *know* that I would.
>
> If the difference was just that it was 480p (or 1080i but just a
> revised transfer) instead of 480i? No, I wouldn't buy that; what's
> the point? I'm not going to spend a bunch of money on a marginally
> "better" video.
I'd have to see a side-by-side comparison on a 1080P HDTV, current 480i
vs. 480p30 or 480p60. However what I meant was that I know I'd buy it
*with* the qualifications that I listed in my signature on the petition.
> A new transfer is not what is needed, especially
> since the scenes that currently look the worst would not be improved
> (since there's no film to be scanned).
The film (the live action stuff) still exists doesn't it?
> I don't really want to see somebody encouraging a mediocre new product
> that probably wouldn't do well in the marketplace, as that would
> almost certainly close the door to any future Babylon 5 works. I
> want to see something new, not just a minor revision of the same old
> thing.
I want to see a major revision, the CGI re-created and the CGI and
Composite CGI scenes re-created in 16:9, and that would look great on a
1080P HDTV.
Amy Guskin
(in article <NZOdnadcP71LPzLX...@posted.hiwaay2>):
> Once upon a time, Mac Breck <macthe...@yahoo.com> said:
>> The real question is " *Would* you buy such a version *IF* it
>> came out, yes or no?" I *know* that I would.
>
> If the difference was just that it was 480p (or 1080i but just a revised
> transfer) instead of 480i? No, I wouldn't buy that; what's the point?
> I'm not going to spend a bunch of money on a marginally "better" video.
> A new transfer is not what is needed, especially since the scenes that
> currently look the worst would not be improved (since there's no film to
> be scanned).
>
> I don't really want to see somebody encouraging a mediocre new product
> that probably wouldn't do well in the marketplace, as that would almost
> certainly close the door to any future Babylon 5 works. I want to see
> something new, not just a minor revision of the same old thing. <<
Agreed. I certainly don't need another entire set that only looks marginally
better. But to tell the truth, I also don't need another entire set that
looks MUCH better. I don't watch Babylon 5 to marvel at the visuals; for me,
it's about how great the story is. There are lots of old movies I love that
look like, well, old movies. I don't think they'd be improved by massive CGI
upgrades, either. Nothing about the re-tooled Star Trek made the slightest
difference to me.
The Babylon 5 viewing audience is small (compared to Trek); the percentage of
viewers who are burning for visual upgrades is even smaller. So
unfortunately I see this petition as a total waste of time.
And I'm pretty sure Mac still has me kill-filed (funny to have a moderator
kill-filed, but there ya go), but I don't think this is anything like not
voting for a legitimate candidate because you think they can't win. It might
be more like not voting for Mickey Mouse in a United States presidential
election because you don't think he can win.
Amy
--
Ten Thousand Questions
A Question a Day for Journaling, Self-Discovery, and Transformation
"2009 is the Year of Questions"
tenthousandquestions.com
Jan
I don't know...I think it would have to be significantly better. But since I
don't care in the least about CGI it's kind of doubtful if I would.
>> Although Babylon 5 is a crowning
>> achievement, I would prefer that he only revisit this universe after
>> exploring the many possibilities open to him after Clint Eastwood
>> filmed and produced his screenplay, Changeling.
>
>I *completely* disagree. Yeah, let's wait 20, 30 more years; give the
>rats a fighting chance to get to the rest of it; let's see what else WB
>can lose. <rolleyes> Besides, isn't that practically all he's been
>doing, exploring *other* possibilities (non-B5 comics, movies & TV
>pitches). I'm not saying that's wrong; there's probably not much he can
>do from his side of things.
That last is exactly right. It's simply not up to him and if you've listened to
the Babylon Podcast interview with JMS recently, you know that the factions of
WB were/are constantly at odds with each other...which is why, after having been
promised a budget increase for more Lost Tales they came back with bupkis and so
JMS finally had enough and drew the line in the sand.
Mac Breck
> ....and if you've
> listened to the Babylon Podcast interview with JMS recently, you know
> that the factions of WB were/are constantly at odds with each
> other...which is why, after having been promised a budget increase
WB is utterly hopeless.
Joseph DeMartino
> And I'm pretty sure Mac still has me kill-filed (funny to have a moderator
> kill-filed, but there ya go), but I don't think this is anything like not
> voting for a legitimate candidate because you think they can't win. It might
> be more like not voting for Mickey Mouse in a United States presidential
> election because you don't think he can win.
See, that's exactly the kind of defeatism that has limited our
political choices to the living and the real. And that's just goofy.
<g>
But I agree that Mac's analogy is forced, at best. Petitioning WB to
redo the DVD release is more like petitioning the sun to rise in the
west, or the square of the hypoteneuse not to equal the sum of the
other two squares in a right-angle triangle. The economics of the
situation are every bit as rigid as the laws of physics and
mathematics. If WB can't make money on the venture, no amount of
letters, petitions, begging or carrying on cranky is going to make
them do it. And if WB were to see that they *could* make money on it,
no amount of letters, petitions, begging or carrying on cranky would
be *needed* because they'd be doing it regardless what they *heard*
from the fans.
Before the DVDs were released, WHV was very reluctant to involve
itself with TV material on DVD - not just "B5", but *any* TV stuff
except animated kid shows, which had a renewable audience. They
didn't want to release "Friends", for Pete's sake. Paramount was
willing to release "Star Trek" (one of the few shows that had actually
sold on VHS in the U.S.), but they insisted on following the VHS model
- pricey, 2-episode discs, released in a trickle, a new disc every few
months. But once the industry was persuaded that there was a market
for full season sets, and WHV was persuaded that there was
specifically a market for "B5" on DVD, they weren't at all hesitant
about making money off the title. They wouldn't be reluctant now if
they had the smallest reason to think they could get a reasonable
return on the huge investment that would be required.
Regards,
Joe
Doug Freyburger
>
> I have just started a high-def blu-ray (higher-def DVD) petition here:
After all the discussion I still don't have interest in
redoing the CGI in the episodes. If B5 depended on its
special effects I would have long since forgotten it.
B5 is no more about the special effects than Frankenstein
is about the cool laboratory.
But there is the march of technology. I had vinyl albums
and cassette tapes for music. I ended up buying numerous
CDs rather than ripping them. I've since ripped a fair
number of CDs that I own to MP3 but by no means my entire
library. I had VHS for video. I have ripped some to DVD
and repurchased others.
I have B5 on DVD. At some point the technology will be
obsolete enough that players won't support it. By then I
will still be a B5 fan. Will I rip my DVDs to the next
technology or buy them over again in the next technology?
If they have not been released in the next technology the
answer is given to me. If they have been released in the
next technology it's a matter of monetary priorities. Do
I want to spend the bucks for fresh copies?
Kathryn Huxtable
>>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:21:10 -0400, Chris Adams wrote
> (in article <NZOdnadcP71LPzLX...@posted.hiwaay2>):
>
>> Once upon a time, Mac Breck <macthe...@yahoo.com> said:
>>> The real question is " *Would* you buy such a version *IF* it
>>> came out, yes or no?" I *know* that I would.
>>
>> If the difference was just that it was 480p (or 1080i but just a revised
>> transfer) instead of 480i? No, I wouldn't buy that; what's the point?
>> I'm not going to spend a bunch of money on a marginally "better" video.
> > A new transfer is not what is needed, especially since the scenes that
>> currently look the worst would not be improved (since there's no film to
>> be scanned).
>>
>> I don't really want to see somebody encouraging a mediocre new product
>> that probably wouldn't do well in the marketplace, as that would almost
>> certainly close the door to any future Babylon 5 works. I want to see
>> something new, not just a minor revision of the same old thing. <<
>
> Agreed. I certainly don't need another entire set that only looks
> marginally better. But to tell the truth, I also don't need another
> entire set that looks MUCH better. I don't watch Babylon 5 to marvel
> at the visuals; for me, it's about how great the story is. There are
> lots of old movies I love that look like, well, old movies. I don't
> think they'd be improved by massive CGI upgrades, either. Nothing
> about the re-tooled Star Trek made the slightest difference to me.
Good point. Someone recently told me that they're reissuing "Casablanca"
in Blu-Ray. My goodness, the movie is black and white and in 4x3 aspect
ratio. What purpose can be served?
-K
Christophe Bachmann
> Good point. Someone recently told me that they're reissuing "Casablanca"
> in Blu-Ray. My goodness, the movie is black and white and in 4x3 aspect
> ratio. What purpose can be served?
>
> -K
>
transfer in BluRay if the original film was correctly conserved. 1080
lines are still better than 480 even in B&W, and the quality of the
picture with it's subtle grays and delicate gradations can be better
served on BluRay than on DVD...
--
Greetings, Salutations,
Guiraud Belissen, Château du Ciel, Drachenwald,
Chris CII, Rennes, France
Joseph DeMartino
wrote:
> Good point. Someone recently told me that they're reissuing "Casablanca"
> in Blu-Ray. My goodness, the movie is black and white and in 4x3 aspect
> ratio. What purpose can be served?
A much better image, much closer to what audiences saw in 1942, that's
what. Film has a much higher "resolution" (the term doesn't really
apply because digital media use a pixel matrix and film is analog)
than any digital presentation method available today. That a film is
4:3 and black and white hardly means that it can't benefit from a
clearer image and greater detail. (In fact, I'd say that some black
and white films benefit *more* from hi-def transfers than some color
films, precisely because of the greater detail visible in the darkest
parts of the image.) Hi-def is all about the best reproduction of
the original material, and a "Casablanca" or "Bride of
Frankenstein" (or "Wizard of Oz" to throw in a 4:3 film shot in
Technicolor) can benefit as much or more from the hi-def treatment as
a "Spartacus" or a "2001".
Regards,
Joe
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
> Good point. Someone recently told me that they're reissuing "Casablanca"
> in Blu-Ray. My goodness, the movie is black and white and in 4x3 aspect
> ratio. What purpose can be served?
Film is not like video. It's "resolution" is essentially the grain
size. As long as the HD master isn't over-processed, it can look
stunningly film-like to a degree impossible at SD resolutions. The
real problem is that some techs are still overzealous on the grain
reduction, not understanding that the film grain is part of what gives
film its pleasing look. It's one of the reasons I won't buy the
current HD Star Trek movie set -- I'll wait until someone wakes up and
they re-do them without all the processing that makes people's faces
look like wax.
--
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
Promote someone else.
Joseph DeMartino
> Agreed. I certainly don't need another entire set that only looks marginally
> better. But to tell the truth, I also don't need another entire set that
> looks MUCH better. I don't watch Babylon 5 to marvel at the visuals; for me,
> it's about how great the story is. There are lots of old movies I love that
> look like, well, old movies. I don't think they'd be improved by massive CGI
> upgrades, either. Nothing about the re-tooled Star Trek made the slightest
> difference to me.
Meant to address this in my earlier post, but got sidetracked by
Mickey Mouse. (A frequent occurance in these parts. <g>)
I basically agree with you. The original "Day the Earth Stood Still"
doesn't have what we would consider "state of the art" FX, neither
does the 1933 "King Kong". And don't even get me started on the
"Flash Gordon" and "Buck Rogers" serials, both of which I can still
enjoy. I would hate for anyone to go back and try to digitally
"improve" them. I thought the "Trek" exercise was the next best thing
to pointless.
But we know that JMS hoped from the beginning that when the time came
to create an archive-quality home video release of the show (which he
assumed meant laserdisc <g>) that the time and money would be
available to redo the CGI and composite shots in true 16:9 to match
the quality of the filmed material. That was part of what went into
creating the show the way they did. As it happens there were
technical issues in both the DVD format and the (then still-
developing) HDTV spec which rendered a widescreen version
problematic. Warner Bros. Domestic Television and Warner Home Video
compounded the problem by taking a less-than-optimal approach to how
the dealt with the new transfers, in part because they had very little
experience with that sort of thing, and in part because the project
was probably a lower priority job for them. The Sci-Fi Channel was
still strictly standard def and neither HD-DVD nor Blu Ray even
existed at the time.
The upshot of all of this is that we've never quite seen "B5" as JMS
envisioned it. Yes, I know, this was also Lucas's excuse for
desecrating the original "Star Wars" films, but Lucas went insane.
There is a world of difference between "opening up" Mos Eisley a bit,
to make the tapestry richer and having Greedo get off a shot instead
of having Han blow him away. Han's action in the original helped
establish him as a fairly ruthless character, a professional criminal
who didn't balk at a little pre-emptive killing. The revised version
(s) had him shooting in self-defense and made him just another noble
good guy - which pretty much destroys his character arc. (Not to
mention the fact that we're now supposed to believe that a galaxy-
class bounty hunter can't hit a target sitting less than three feet
from him.) There are actually a few things added to each of the
special editions (or deleted from them, as in the idiotic Ewok song)
that I *liked*. There, I said it. But a good 85% of the changes were
stupid and worthless.
I can't see that being the case with an updated "B5", should such a
thing ever happen. JMS isn't that dumb. <g>
The main problem with the current release isn't that the quality isn't
good, it is that the quality isn't *consistent*. Most of the filmed
stuff looks very good, especially on an HD set. The pure CGI is
generally also good, albeit slightly "shimmery" and looking very
mid-90s computer game. But the composite shots (and those immediately
on either side of them, which tend to also be cropped and zoomed) look
nothing like the rest of the show, and are actually distracting. (I
particularly mourn some of the garden scenes where the performances in
the medium and long shots are just wiped out because you can't see any
of the facial detail.)
To me an updated "B5" would be less like some of the shore-horned in
CGI that we see in "TOS" and "SW" and more like cleaning a painting.
Yeah, we've gotten used to the centuries of lamp and cigarette smoke,
the yellowed varnish and the rest, and we can still see the talent
underneath it all. But it can still be a revelation when all the
flaws are cleaned up and the picture the artist first saw finally sees
the light of day again. I think it would be nice if that happened
someday.
I just don't expect it to happen anytime soon, and then only as a tie-
in with a successful feature film release.
Regards,
Joe
Joseph DeMartino
<starf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's one of the reasons I won't buy the
> current HD Star Trek movie set -- I'll wait until someone wakes up and
> they re-do them without all the processing that makes people's faces
> look like wax.
You mean that's not just the Botox? <g>
Joe
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
> To me an updated "B5" would be less like some of the shore-horned in
> CGI that we see in "TOS" and "SW" and more like cleaning a painting.
> Yeah, we've gotten used to the centuries of lamp and cigarette smoke,
> the yellowed varnish and the rest, and we can still see the talent
> underneath it all. But it can still be a revelation when all the
> flaws are cleaned up and the picture the artist first saw finally sees
> the light of day again. I think it would be nice if that happened
> someday.
+1. If this happened, I'd buy the Blu Ray set in a heartbeat. It's
just that I know better -- the only reason it happened with Star Trek
is because Trek is a "cultural phenomenon," and let's face it -- good
taste isn't, so neither is B5. Not that I dislike Trek, but I ain't
hankerin to swap my old TOS two-shows-per-box complete set out for the
HD version any time soon.
Matt Ion
> With regards to Babylon-5, you can't place four 43-minute programs on
> one DVD in 480p30.
Sure you can, it all depends on the level of compression.
Matt Ion
> So with Star Trek going back and remastering material starting in the
> 1960s I must ask myself "surely my Babylon-5 friends would be willing
> to signal WB that a similar market exists for our favorite series".
What people keep pointing out to you, that you continually fail to
grasp, is that there IS NOT a similar market. Trek's market - heck,
even TOS's market alone - is, has been, and will always be, vastly
larger and thus more profitable than B5's. That's the simple truth, and
I don't think anyone else here will even attempt to deny it, including JMS.
Is one a "better" show than the other? That's always open to debate -
hell, that's the subject of holy wars in some parts. There's no
accounting for personal preference. Can B5 do well on its own? Well,
JMS has claimed that the DVD sales alone have grossed half a billion for WB.
But the raw fact of the matter is that Trek and B5 are about as far from
being "similar markets" as night is from day. Trek is a massive
property that is firmly entrenched in ALL segments of not just North
American culture, not just Western culture, but all of modern culture
*worldwide*. For as much as *we here* love it, B5 will simply never
enjoy Trek's impact.
And thus, B5 will never enjoy the level of re$$$pect[sic] that Trek gets
from the Movie Suits.
Neil Rieck
> In article <aNednYOeirGWPTLXnZ2dnUVZ_hOdn...@supernews.com>, Mac Breck says...
> WB were/are constantly at odds with each other...which is why, after having been
> promised a budget increase for more Lost Tales they came back with bupkis and so
> JMS finally had enough and drew the line in the sand.
>
> Jan
>
> --
> “Shared pain is lessened; shared joy is increased; thus do we refute entropy”
> --Spider Robinson
>
> fight cancer.
In case others haven't heard the interview with JMS, here is the link:
http://www.cafepress.com/B5books/6881137
NSR
p.s. Now to your point. If WB doesn't want to develop the product,
maybe they would be willing to let someone else do it. Just tell them
about Star Trek "remastered"
Neil Rieck
> On Sep 12, 12:35 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> I know you have good intentions with your petition. However, I will
> not sign it. Upgrading Babylon 5 to High Definition is unlikely to
> happen unless Warner Brothers produces a theatrical film.
>
> JMS has moved on in his career.
Will all due respect, you must be referring to a different JMS because
the one that did B5 emails me ads every few months selling B5 scripts.
And now that I think about it, he was instrumental in doing "B5: The
Lost Tales" as well so I think you might be in error about his career
path.
But do we need JMS to bring out a higher-def set of DVDs? Isn't this
just a technical issue? After all, someone decided to remarket all
those Star Trek episodes starting with the 1964 pilot and did it
without the help from Gene Roddenberry who passed away in 1991. No, I
think there is a business opportunity here. Now on the flip side, if
some CGI needs to be reshot, then a JMS supervised product will
probably experience better sales.
NSR
Jan
Neil Rieck says...
>
>On Sep 15, 12:35=A0pm, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> That last is exactly right. =A0It's simply not up to him and if you've li=
>stened to
>> the BabylonPodcastinterview with JMS recently, you know that the factions=
> of
>> WB were/are constantly at odds with each other...which is why, after havi=
>ng been
>> promised a budget increase for more Lost Tales they came back with bupkis=
> and so
>> JMS finally had enough and drew the line in the sand.
>>
>> Jan
>>
>> --
>tropy=94
>> --Spider Robinson
>>
>> Check outhttp://wedreamforjeanne.blogspot.com/for ways to help Jeanne Rob=
>inson
>> fight cancer.
>
>In case others haven't heard the interview with JMS, here is the link:
>
>http://www.cafepress.com/B5books/6881137
>
>NSR
>
>p.s. Now to your point. If WB doesn't want to develop the product,
>maybe they would be willing to let someone else do it. Just tell them
>about Star Trek "remastered"
>
Listen to the podcast again. Particularly the part where JMS likens WB to the
monkey with its hand stuck in a jar-can't get the hand out but refuses to let
go.
WB owns Babylon 5. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be.
And B5 ain't Star Trek. And while I might wish for it to be better known, I
don't wish for B5 to become that much of a diluted cultural icon. Yes, diluted.
For most people, being a Trek or any kind of SF fan is only good for giggles and
smart remarks from the mainstream.
Jan
--
�Shared pain is lessened; shared joy is increased; thus do we refute entropy�
--Spider Robinson
Check out http://wedreamforjeanne.blogspot.com/ for ways to help Jeanne Robinson
fight cancer.
Mac Breck
> Neil Rieck wrote:
> >
>> I have just started a high-def blu-ray (higher-def DVD) petition
>> here:
>
> After all the discussion I still don't have interest in
> redoing the CGI in the episodes. If B5 depended on its
> special effects I would have long since forgotten it.
> B5 is no more about the special effects than Frankenstein
> is about the cool laboratory.
I wouldn't be interested either, if they hadn't botched some of the
effects shots by making it a widescreen DVD set. I also wouldn't be
interested if the effects didn't have artifacts, didn't shimmer because
of taking 4:3 effects to 16:9 (the top & bottom crop and enlarge), or if
they would have *cleaned* *up* *the* *picture* for dust, scratches,
hairs and ink splotches. If they'd come out with a 4:3 DVD sets that
looked just like what had been broadcast all those years, and was
cleaned up, I'd be 100% fine with it.
> But there is the march of technology. I had vinyl albums
> and cassette tapes for music. I ended up buying numerous
> CDs rather than ripping them. I've since ripped a fair
> number of CDs that I own to MP3 but by no means my entire
> library. I had VHS for video. I have ripped some to DVD
> and repurchased others.
>
> I have B5 on DVD. At some point the technology will be
> obsolete enough that players won't support it. By then I
> will still be a B5 fan. Will I rip my DVDs to the next
> technology or buy them over again in the next technology?
> If they have not been released in the next technology the
> answer is given to me. If they have been released in the
> next technology it's a matter of monetary priorities. Do
> I want to spend the bucks for fresh copies?
When that time comes, I'll buy fresh copies, assuming they don't botch
it even worse the next time.
Mac Breck
> On Sep 15, 11:59 am, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>
>> And I'm pretty sure Mac still has me kill-filed
Correct.
>> (funny to have a
>> moderator kill-filed, but there ya go),
Nah. it's good for my blood pressure. I'm almost always rock steady at
120 over 80, but I'm sure you could send it skyrocketing. Certainly the
AG/JD tag team could.
>> but I don't think this is
>> anything like not voting for a legitimate candidate because you
>> think they can't win. It might be more like not voting for Mickey
>> Mouse in a United States presidential election because you don't
>> think he can win.
To use a lottery sound bite, "Ya gotta play to win."
And then JoeD chimes in with the expected agreement.
> See, that's exactly the kind of defeatism that has limited our
> political choices to the living and the real.
Some of the candidates have been positively *unreal* .
> And that's just goofy. <g>
You two should do stand-up.
> But I agree that Mac's analogy is forced, at best. Petitioning WB to
> redo the DVD release is more like petitioning the sun to rise in the
> west, or the square of the hypoteneuse not to equal the sum of the
> other two squares in a right-angle triangle.
....or getting a tightwad to pay for lunch.
> The economics of the
> situation are every bit as rigid as the laws of physics and
> mathematics. If WB can't make money on the venture, no amount of
> letters, petitions, begging or carrying on cranky is going to make
> them do it. And if WB were to see that they *could* make money on it,
> no amount of letters, petitions, begging or carrying on cranky would
> be *needed* because they'd be doing it regardless what they *heard*
> from the fans.
What's it cost you to sign, to go for it? Yeah, I know, it'd be cruel
to give Neil hope regarding WB/WHV. Lots of sigs. on the petition might
do that, and he might think that WB/WHV wouldn't ignore something like a
ton of sigs. on his petition. However, there was *no* *chance* that the
petition would *ever* get a lot of sigs. Like anybody would ever
believe that WB/WHV would ever do anything but go cheap on B5. C'mon!
> Before the DVDs were released, WHV was very reluctant to involve
> itself with TV material on DVD - not just "B5", but *any* TV stuff
> except animated kid shows, which had a renewable audience. They
> didn't want to release "Friends", for Pete's sake. Paramount was
> willing to release "Star Trek" (one of the few shows that had actually
> sold on VHS in the U.S.), but they insisted on following the VHS model
> - pricey, 2-episode discs, released in a trickle, a new disc every few
> months. But once the industry was persuaded that there was a market
> for full season sets, and WHV was persuaded that there was
> specifically a market for "B5" on DVD, they weren't at all hesitant
> about making money off the title. They wouldn't be reluctant now if
> they had the smallest reason to think they could get a reasonable
> return on the huge investment that would be required.
Are you kidding? They'd want to "test the waters" a few times with a
couple episodes on Blu-Ray before they'd ever move to season sets. Of
course fans wouldn't be appreciative because WB/WHV'd do as cheap and
half-assed a job as they felt they could get away with. Then, WB/WHV
would get to say "See, there's no market."
Mac Breck
> On Sep 15, 9:24 am, Dan Dassow <dan_das...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 12:35 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
> [...snip...]
>>
>> I know you have good intentions with your petition. However, I will
>> not sign it. Upgrading Babylon 5 to High Definition is unlikely to
>> happen unless Warner Brothers produces a theatrical film.
>>
>> JMS has moved on in his career.
>
> Will all due respect, you must be referring to a different JMS because
> the one that did B5 emails me ads every few months selling B5 scripts.
The scriptbooks are a drop in the bucket, not a career. That's more a
way to get the scripts out for less that the usual $20/script, and a
sort of gift to the fans, especially considering the *added* *content*
in the scriptbooks that aren't in traditional scripts. Also, it isn't
JMS who emails you those ads., it's the scripts team from CafePress.
> And now that I think about it, he was instrumental in doing "B5: The
> Lost Tales" as well so I think you might be in error about his career
> path.
That was *nothing* compared to "Changling" or the other movie scripts
he's writing. That was a $3 million experiment, WB/WHV testing the
damned waters yet again.
> But do we need JMS to bring out a higher-def set of DVDs? Isn't this
> just a technical issue?
JMS doesn't bring them out. Warner Home Video (WHV) would be the ones to
do it. It's a MONEY issue. The technical issue can be solved with the
application of enough MONEY. The trouble is that WB/WHV *will* *not*
spend the money to do that.
> After all, someone decided to remarket all
> those Star Trek episodes starting with the 1964 pilot and did it
> without the help from Gene Roddenberry who passed away in 1991.
Paramount is not WB/WHV. WB is a dysfunstional family, a bunch of
departments (which includes WHV.) that *compete* against one another,
*not* *cooperate* . They don't pull for the WB team; they'd cut each
others throats.
> No, I
> think there is a business opportunity here.
There may be, but WB/WHV will never see it.
> Now on the flip side, if
> some CGI needs to be reshot, then a JMS supervised product will
> probably experience better sales.
Not enough for WB/WHV to think it's worth the risk.
Mac Breck
I was going to reply to Neil, but thought I'd check out your reply
first, to see if you'd type the same words, ....and you did. ;-)
> And B5 ain't Star Trek. And while I might wish for it to be better
> known, I don't wish for B5 to become that much of a diluted cultural
> icon. Yes, diluted. For most people, being a Trek or any kind of SF
> fan is only good for giggles and smart remarks from the mainstream.
e.g. most late night talk show hosts, especially Conan O'Brien and
Letterman, but not Craig Ferguson.
Jan
>
>Neil Rieck wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 9:24 am, Dan Dassow <dan_das...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 12, 12:35 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>> [...snip...]
>>>
>>> I know you have good intentions with your petition. However, I will
>>> not sign it. Upgrading Babylon 5 to High Definition is unlikely to
>>> happen unless Warner Brothers produces a theatrical film.
>>>
>>> JMS has moved on in his career.
>>
>> Will all due respect, you must be referring to a different JMS because
>> the one that did B5 emails me ads every few months selling B5 scripts.
>
>The scriptbooks are a drop in the bucket, not a career. That's more a
>way to get the scripts out for less that the usual $20/script, and a
>sort of gift to the fans, especially considering the *added* *content*
>in the scriptbooks that aren't in traditional scripts. Also, it isn't
>JMS who emails you those ads., it's the scripts team from CafePress.
>
Minor correction: The Scripts Team isn't part of CafePress, they (we) work for
JMS. Cafe Press does the fullfillment but it's the Team, led by Captain Jaclyn
that puts out the mailings and who've been compiling the Asked & Answered books
most recently.
JMS mentioned at one point that the script books were a sort of closure for him,
a way of saying, 'This is what it was like. This is how I did it' so that those
who follow can take something to the next level.
David Williams
"Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zbCdnZjTArac2S3X...@supernews.com...
> e.g. most late night talk show hosts, especially Conan O'Brien and
> Letterman, but not Craig Ferguson.
NEVER an O'Brian fan,
Early Letterman fan, but he lost (or threw away) the edge that used to make
him funny.
(Forget Leno...)
Ferguson's comedy bits are the lamest, but otherwise he is my current
favorite. He is REALLY on when he interviews british guests.
Regards,
David W.
Mac Breck
> "Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:zbCdnZjTArac2S3X...@supernews.com...
>> e.g. most late night talk show hosts, especially Conan O'Brien and
>> Letterman, but not Craig Ferguson.
>
> NEVER an O'Brian fan,
> Early Letterman fan, but he lost (or threw away) the edge that used
> to make him funny.
I was never an O'Brien fan when he was on after Leno. In fact, I used
to record Leno and then have the recorder switch to Ferguson, almost
never catching Letterman (except when he had a guest that I wanted to
see, e.g. Jim Parsons). I've been watching O'Brien since he took over
The Tonight Show (not every night, though.), and while I'm starting to
like his show, I still FF through certain bits of it like the
obligitory, goes on for what seems like forever, ridiculous, loud
applause and band at the beginning, and the guests that I can't stand.
> (Forget Leno...)
Eh, I'd watch him for a few months, and then get tired of him and drop
him for a month or two and then go back. Watched his new show last
night and it came off as pretty lame. However, it seems to be getting
good ratings. <shrug> Go figure. I'll check it out a few more times.
Wish he would have kept The Tonight Show music, but he probably
couldn't, even though O'Brien isn't using it.
> Ferguson's comedy bits are the lamest, but otherwise he is my current
> favorite.
I liked his show more when he did more skits, e.g. ESPN-UK, Prince
Charles, Larry King of the Jungle, Jessica Fletcher, etc. and Arnold
Schwarzenegger video phone calls. Personally, I can't stand the J. K.
Rowling or Aquaman skits.
> He is REALLY on when he interviews british guests.
Agreed, although he seems to have a hard time attracting high profile,
non-British guests. Some of my favorite guests on his show have been
Michael Caine, Tom Selleck (always has a good, friendly interview.) and
Jennifer Love Hewitt (always fun/lively.).
Mac Breck
> In article <zbCdnZvTAraf2S3X...@supernews.com>, Mac
> Breck says...
>>
>> Neil Rieck wrote:
>>> On Sep 15, 9:24 am, Dan Dassow <dan_das...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 12, 12:35 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>> [...snip...]
>>>>
>>>> I know you have good intentions with your petition. However, I will
>>>> not sign it. Upgrading Babylon 5 to High Definition is unlikely to
>>>> happen unless Warner Brothers produces a theatrical film.
>>>>
>>>> JMS has moved on in his career.
>>>
>>> Will all due respect, you must be referring to a different JMS
>>> because the one that did B5 emails me ads every few months selling
>>> B5 scripts.
>>
>> The scriptbooks are a drop in the bucket, not a career. That's more
>> a way to get the scripts out for less that the usual $20/script, and
>> a sort of gift to the fans, especially considering the *added*
>> *content* in the scriptbooks that aren't in traditional scripts.
>> Also, it isn't JMS who emails you those ads., it's the scripts team
>> from CafePress.
>>
>
> Minor correction: The Scripts Team isn't part of CafePress, they
> (we) work for JMS.
Hm, I didn't know that. I don't want to delve into the details because
it's none of my business, but I'd never even considered that JMS himself
would be employing the Scripts Team.
> Cafe Press does the fullfillment but it's the
> Team, led by Captain Jaclyn that puts out the mailings and who've
> been compiling the Asked & Answered books most recently.
OK, so then they are from JMS, by extension.
> JMS mentioned at one point that the script books were a sort of
> closure for him, a way of saying, 'This is what it was like. This is
> how I did it' so that those who follow can take something to the next
> level.
The behind the scenes stuff like "Okay, What the HELL Happened Here?" in
B5 Scriptbook Vol. 11, is what I most value.
Kathryn Huxtable
Okay, you and Christophe convinced me. I'll buy it when it comes
out. Maybe I'll even buy "Wizard of Oz", though I don't know if I'll
ever watch it again. (I do own it on DVD. It's the Kansas state movie,
after all.)
-K
Kathryn Huxtable
Another +1 on this.
-K
Kathryn Huxtable
> Joseph DeMartino wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 11:59 am, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>
[Lots of stuff deleted...]
>
>> The economics of the
>> situation are every bit as rigid as the laws of physics and
>> mathematics. If WB can't make money on the venture, no amount of
>> letters, petitions, begging or carrying on cranky is going to make
>> them do it. And if WB were to see that they *could* make money on it,
>> no amount of letters, petitions, begging or carrying on cranky would
>> be *needed* because they'd be doing it regardless what they *heard*
>> from the fans.
>
> What's it cost you to sign, to go for it? Yeah, I know, it'd be cruel
> to give Neil hope regarding WB/WHV. Lots of sigs. on the petition might
> do that, and he might think that WB/WHV wouldn't ignore something like a
> ton of sigs. on his petition. However, there was *no* *chance* that the
> petition would *ever* get a lot of sigs. Like anybody would ever
> believe that WB/WHV would ever do anything but go cheap on B5. C'mon!
Giving Neil hope is why I didn't sign. There is no hope and he shouldn't
be encouraged. Otherwise, I agree with you.
>> Before the DVDs were released, WHV was very reluctant to involve
>> itself with TV material on DVD - not just "B5", but *any* TV stuff
>> except animated kid shows, which had a renewable audience. They
>> didn't want to release "Friends", for Pete's sake. Paramount was
>> willing to release "Star Trek" (one of the few shows that had actually
>> sold on VHS in the U.S.), but they insisted on following the VHS model
>> - pricey, 2-episode discs, released in a trickle, a new disc every few
>> months. But once the industry was persuaded that there was a market
>> for full season sets, and WHV was persuaded that there was
>> specifically a market for "B5" on DVD, they weren't at all hesitant
>> about making money off the title. They wouldn't be reluctant now if
>> they had the smallest reason to think they could get a reasonable
>> return on the huge investment that would be required.
>
> Are you kidding? They'd want to "test the waters" a few times with a
> couple episodes on Blu-Ray before they'd ever move to season sets. Of
> course fans wouldn't be appreciative because WB/WHV'd do as cheap and
> half-assed a job as they felt they could get away with. Then, WB/WHV
> would get to say "See, there's no market."
Yep. Especially since the show isn't running in the US anywhere. It's
dropped off most people's radar.
-K
Kathryn Huxtable
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>> Neil Rieck wrote:
>> >
>>> I have just started a high-def blu-ray (higher-def DVD) petition
>>> here:
>>
>> After all the discussion I still don't have interest in
>> redoing the CGI in the episodes. If B5 depended on its
>> special effects I would have long since forgotten it.
>> B5 is no more about the special effects than Frankenstein
>> is about the cool laboratory.
>
> I wouldn't be interested either, if they hadn't botched some of the
> effects shots by making it a widescreen DVD set. I also wouldn't be
> interested if the effects didn't have artifacts, didn't shimmer because
> of taking 4:3 effects to 16:9 (the top & bottom crop and enlarge), or if
> they would have *cleaned* *up* *the* *picture* for dust, scratches,
> hairs and ink splotches. If they'd come out with a 4:3 DVD sets that
> looked just like what had been broadcast all those years, and was
> cleaned up, I'd be 100% fine with it.
That would be my only interest as well.
>> But there is the march of technology. I had vinyl albums
>> and cassette tapes for music. I ended up buying numerous
>> CDs rather than ripping them. I've since ripped a fair
>> number of CDs that I own to MP3 but by no means my entire
>> library. I had VHS for video. I have ripped some to DVD
>> and repurchased others.
>>
>> I have B5 on DVD. At some point the technology will be
>> obsolete enough that players won't support it. By then I
>> will still be a B5 fan. Will I rip my DVDs to the next
>> technology or buy them over again in the next technology?
>> If they have not been released in the next technology the
>> answer is given to me. If they have been released in the
>> next technology it's a matter of monetary priorities. Do
>> I want to spend the bucks for fresh copies?
>
> When that time comes, I'll buy fresh copies, assuming they don't botch
> it even worse the next time.
Me, too.
-K, who agrees with both you *and* AG and JD. (I'd probably abbreviate
him as JdM.)
Matt Ion
> Okay, you and Christophe convinced me. I'll buy it when it comes
> out. Maybe I'll even buy "Wizard of Oz", though I don't know if I'll
> ever watch it again. (I do own it on DVD. It's the Kansas state movie,
> after all.)
Ah, but have you ever tried playing it sync'd to "Dark Side of the Moon"??
Kathryn Huxtable
Matt Ion
Someone has made it easy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYhr7fuWHAM
Josh Hill
<n.r...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>One problem I have always encountered when talking to non-technical
>people involves those who confuse analog TV limitations with computer
>displays (which are the basis for hi-def TVs). There are 18 standard
>variations of the MPEG spec. The MPEG display device is required to
>switch between 30, 25, or 24 FPS as required by the signal. For
>standard-def media (DVDs) in North America, 30 FPS can be either
>720x480 interlaced (aka 480i) or 720x480 progressive (480p30). When a
>DVD player is connected to a standard-def TV (which is unable to
>display MPEG) and is playing 480p30 media, then that player needs to
>down-convert the signal (essentially interlacing it). When a player is
>connected to a high-def TV (using HDMI or Component Connectors) 480p30
>media is presented to the TV as-is.
>
>But don't take my word for it, there are plenty of MPEG + ATSC
>articles to be found at the IEEE site.
Flags apart, there's no real difference between a progressive and
interlaced film transfer on a 59.94 DVD, since a) they are always
recorded in two fields and b) the redundant fields from the 3:2
pulldown aren't actually included in the data (waste of space) but are
indicated by a flag.
However, the general rule, as you suggest, is that the progressive
flag should be set on a DVD that originates from film, which leaves
the question of why Paramount didn't do so in the case of the B5
DVD's. I'm guessing that this is because they had no way of
ascertaining the phase of the 3:2 pulldown on the original masters,
which as Joe pointed out were used for the effects shots. At the time
B5 was made, pulldown phase wasn't yet important -- most display
devices were still interlaced rather than progressive -- so in
film-sourced material that was posted in video, pulldown was typically
random and unflagged. It would have been impractical to line up the
pulldown of the effects shots with the pulldown of the
newly-transferred material when they were edited together.
That being the case, it's up to the upconverting player, HTPC, or
display device to detect the pulldown and reconstruct the original
frames from the material. If it does 3:2 detection properly, the
displayed image from the 480i disk should look much the same as one
with the progressive flag -- they are, after all, the same thing,
except for any brief timing glitches at pulldown changes. However, if
it doesn't get the 3:2 right, you'll see visible degradation. Since
the standard states that the progressive flag should be set on DVD's
sourced from film, it seems entirely possible to me that some players
will miss the 3:2 pulldown on the B5 disks and treat the signal
instead as it were an interlaced image, which will result in a
degraded 480P image.
--
Josh
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex and more violent. It
takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction"
- Albert Einstein.
Kathryn Huxtable
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:34:05 -0700 (PDT), Neil Rieck
> <n.r...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Flags apart, there's no real difference between a progressive and
> interlaced film transfer on a 59.94 DVD, since a) they are always
> recorded in two fields and b) the redundant fields from the 3:2
> pulldown aren't actually included in the data (waste of space) but are
> indicated by a flag.
> [...] Since the standard states that the progressive flag should be
> set on DVD's sourced from film, it seems entirely possible to me that
> some players will miss the 3:2 pulldown on the B5 disks and treat the
> signal instead as it were an interlaced image, which will result in a
> degraded 480P image.
I think that what Neil sees as bad upsampling may in fact be the bad
transfers for the composite shots an Joe mentioned. That's all I've ever
noticed on my 1080p HDTV using a non-upsampling DVD player.
As Amy says, the tale and the characters are the thing, not the CGI.
-K
Mac Breck
The CGI adds a sense of scope and wonder to the show; it gives you a
feel for where the show is set, especially the beauty shots, e.g. the
Hubble (inspired?) backgrounds. Making the show feel like it was
actually in space, is *very* important. Examples of this would be in
*B5* "Midnight on the Firing Line" when Garibaldi and his wingman, in
Starfuries, check out the attacked transport, the Excalibur flybys in
front of colorful nebulae in *Crusade* , and when the Excalibur shuttle
entered the heavy toxic atmosphere in *Crusade* "The Needs of Earth".
Josh Hill
<kat...@kathrynhuxtable.org> wrote:
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>I think that what Neil sees as bad upsampling may in fact be the bad
>transfers for the composite shots an Joe mentioned. That's all I've ever
>noticed on my 1080p HDTV using a non-upsampling DVD player.
>
>As Amy says, the tale and the characters are the thing, not the CGI.
Upsampling players are largely a marketing gimmick -- if your player
doesn't upconvert, your HDTV will do it instead, using the same
techniques. What really counts is the quality of the processing.
Anyway, while you'd see it in a side-by-side comparison, the bad 3:2
deinterlacing I mentioned isn't something that you'd necessarily
notice -- it's less obvious for example than the degradation in the
effects shots.
I guess we'll have to wait for Neil to say what he was reacting to,
but my own reaction to the Sci Fi Channel wide screen B5 transfers was
like Mac's -- I noticed and was bothered by the obvious degradation in
quality of the effects shots. And this was before HDTV, it has to be
worse on a good display. And when I'm conscious of image quality
problems, it tends to pull me out of the program.
Beyond that, well, it depends on how close you watch, how big your
screen is, etc. I've personally found that programs shown on a large
screen (100" or greater) have a greater impact than programs viewed on
a small one: it's the difference between watching something in a
theater and watching it on a TV. That I think is because the brain
reacts more viscerally to images large enough to have an effect than
to miniatures. Aspect ratio also makes a big difference, since it
engages the peripheral vision.
Higher resolution also makes a difference, but whether you'll notice
it depends on how close you sit -- the resolution difference between
480P and 720P or even 1080P is relatively small, and because
resolutions were chosen to satisfy the eye with minimal bandwidth,
when viewed from a distance, high def and standard def images look the
same. The size of the screen also makes a difference. It should not --
in theory, it should depend solely on the arc that the screen
subtends, which is a function of both screen size and viewing distance
-- but in practice I've always found that artifacts and softness were
more annoying on a large screen than a small one.
I've noticed that some people care more about image quality, and the
quality of effects, than others. I worked in HD research, so I can't
be said to be indifferent to image quality, but even so, I've always
felt as you do that the story and characterizations are paramount. In
fact, I've always been a bit bugged when people said TNG was better
than TOS because it had better effects. And given the choice between
watching the original and most recent King Kong, I wouldn't hesitate
to choose the original. Still, I find that when good effects serve a
story they add something extra, and that flaws in the effects tend,
conversely, to detract. And in circumstances where the difference can
be seen, I much prefer HD -- on a large screen, the fuzziness of
standard definition images can be really annoying. I watched some of
the remastered Treks and didn't find that the improved quality made
them worth watching all over again, but if I were in the mood to watch
them I'd want to see clean HD versions. Same in the case of Babylon 5.
Chris Adams
>Upsampling players are largely a marketing gimmick -- if your player
>doesn't upconvert, your HDTV will do it instead, using the same
>techniques. What really counts is the quality of the processing.
While it isn't necessarily the case, an up-converting player _can_ do a
better job than a TV, for a couple of reasons:
- The player has access to the MPEG source, which allows for better
motion-adaptive scaling, and gives the decoder more information about
the source material (flags in the MPEG stream).
- The player can look at multiple frames when scaling (again, helps with
motion compensation). The TV can't do this because it would introduce
delay in only the video (since the audio may be split out at the
player, and not all players or receivers can introduce an arbitrary
audio delay).
--
Chris Adams <cma...@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>While it isn't necessarily the case, an up-converting player _can_ do a
>better job than a TV, for a couple of reasons:
>
>- The player has access to the MPEG source, which allows for better
> motion-adaptive scaling, and gives the decoder more information about
> the source material (flags in the MPEG stream).
>
>- The player can look at multiple frames when scaling (again, helps with
> motion compensation). The TV can't do this because it would introduce
> delay in only the video (since the audio may be split out at the
> player, and not all players or receivers can introduce an arbitrary
> audio delay).
Good points, both.
Joseph DeMartino
wrote:
>
> Okay, you and Christophe convinced me. I'll buy it when it comes
> out. Maybe I'll even buy "Wizard of Oz", though I don't know if I'll
> ever watch it again. (I do own it on DVD. It's the Kansas state movie,
> after all.)
Robert A. Harris is a film historian and restoration expert who
specializes in rescuing large format and technicolor films. Alone, or
with his frequent collaborator Jim Katz, Harris has been responsible
for restoring and sometimes reassembling such films as "Lawrence of
Arabia", "Vertigo", "My Fair Lady", "Spartacus", "Rear Window" and the
two "Godfather" films. (NOTE: There is no such film as "Godfather
3". Please do not try to convince me otherwise. <g>)
Harris does a regular "column" for the Home Theater Forum. Here's
what he had to say about the Blu Ray version of "The Wizard of Oz"
http://tinyurl.com/RAH-OzBluRay
I had the great pleasure of meeting Mr. Harris during the Home Theater
Forum's first national meeting in L.A. in November 2000, and spending
some time talking movies with him on "Studio Day" at the late,
lamented, Daves Video ("The Laser Place") in Studio City. That event
was the first time a Warner Bros. rep went on-the-record, after a
little badgering from some obsessive fan <g>, to say that a "B5" DVD
was in the works and scheduled for release the following year. (This
turned out to be the "ItB/The Gathering" "test disc" that was finally
released in December 2001, thus saving the WHV rep from being a liar
by about three weeks.)
Regards,
Joe
Patty Winter
In article <7c8f3c16-19a6-4f78...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Joseph DeMartino <jdem...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>Harris does a regular "column" for the Home Theater Forum. Here's
>what he had to say about the Blu Ray version of "The Wizard of Oz"
>
>http://tinyurl.com/RAH-OzBluRay
Is it the Blu-Ray version that's being shown during the nationwide
live screening tonight?
http://www.ncm.com/Fathom/Premiere/WizardofOz.aspx
Fathom's reference to "Hi-Def" is very vague. And according to a
discussion in rec.arts.movies.tech, some of the projection systems
aren't even 2K, much less 4K. But if anyone goes, please give us
a report! I attended one of Fathom's live Metropolitan Opera events
last year and enjoyed it very much, but I'm not a video expert and
can't accurately judge what the video quality was.
Patty
Joseph DeMartino
> Is it the Blu-Ray version that's being shown during the nationwide
> live screening tonight?
>
> http://www.ncm.com/Fathom/Premiere/WizardofOz.aspx
It wouldn't be literally the Blu Ray disc that is being shown at these
theaters. It would be a digital copy of the 4K master, but I don't
know if this is being distributed via a coaxial cable hook-up,
satellite or on some physical medium. The Blu Ray discs are derived
from this same master, of course, but they aren't exactly ths same
thing. I hadn't previous heard about this event, and now I'm trying
to figure out if I'll be able to make it, and if anyone I know might
also be interested - especially on such short notice. (It is playing
at a couple of local theaters but NOT the megaplex in the pederstrian
mall a few blocks from my office. That would have been ideal since I
get out of work at 5:30 and would have just had time for a nice dinner
before walking over to the theater. But NOOOOoooo! My choices are a
couple of theaters about 10 miles from my office, neither of them in a
convenient direction vis a vis going home afterwards, but there you
have it.)
If I do manage to go, I'll certainly post a message here.
Later,
Joe
Joseph DeMartino
> Fathom's reference to "Hi-Def" is very vague. And according to a
> discussion in rec.arts.movies.tech, some of the projection systems
> aren't even 2K, much less 4K.
P.S.
I don't know that much about commercial digital projection systems
myself, but clearly each theater will show the film at its own highest
resolution, down-converting the 4K source if necessary. It should
still look darned good at 2K, and much better than any home
presentation when you factor in screen size. And as far as I know 2K
(2048 x 1080) is the lowest resolution commonly used for feature
presentations. Some theaters still use their first-generation 1.2 K
(1280 x 1024) DLP projectors for previews and ads, but few use them
for the main event.
It is technically true that "The Wizard of Oz" won't be shown at
either 4K or 2K, because these numbers refer to the maximum screen
*width*. The 2048 wide by 1080 high dimensions of a 2K image and the
4096 wide by 2160 high dimensions of a 4K image both yield an apect
ratio of about 1.90:1. That's the "frame" within all digital films
are shown. So few films use the entire resolution of the digital
theater screen because few films at shot at 1.90:1. The closest would
be films composed for 1.85:1. Anything wider will leave dark pixels
("black bars" as they're called at home <g>) above and below the
image, while anything narrower will leave dark pixels (know as "pillar
box" bars) on the left and right of the image. Since "Oz" was shot at
the Acadmey sound film ratio of 1.37:1 it will be about 27% smaller
than a 1.90:1 film in that frame - the equivalent of about 1.5K on a
2K screen and 3K on a 4K screen.
Regards,
Joe
Patty Winter
In article <03ebcf84-f1fd-414c...@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Joseph DeMartino <jdem...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Sep 23, 12:36 pm, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
>
>> Is it the Blu-Ray version that's being shown during the nationwide
>> live screening tonight?
>
>theaters.
No, of course not. The individual theaters just screen the incoming
feed from New York or wherever. They don't play discs.
>It would be a digital copy of the 4K master, but I don't
>know if this is being distributed via a coaxial cable hook-up,
>satellite or on some physical medium.
It's a real-time satellite feed. That's why I thought the source
might be the same master that was used to make the new BluRay discs,
since we know that the movie has been newly remastered and thus
would be available to send over Fathom's satellite system.
Patty
Joseph DeMartino
> It's a real-time satellite feed. That's why I thought the source
> might be the same master that was used to make the new BluRay discs,
> since we know that the movie has been newly remastered and thus
> would be available to send over Fathom's satellite system.
Well, I stand corrected. Got this from a member of the Academy (who
recently saw the actual 4K digital restoration) shortly before I saw
your message:
"...these theatres are receiving a satellite feed that is 1080i and
are projecting it on their screens. It's not a 4K screening, though
it may be shown through a 4K projector at some venues, the source is
definitely not 4K"
Sorry for the confusion.
Joe
Neil Rieck
soliciting interest in a Blu-ray release of Babylon 5
http://www.amazon.com/Babylon-5-Blu-ray-Richard-Biggs/dp/B001CUFI7M/
If you are interested, then I invite you all to sign up for an email
alert on this. You would not be committing to buy it.
NSR
Alternatively, you might also wish to sign my higher-def petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/B5HiDef/petition.html
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/babylon5-hi-def-petition.html
Kathryn Huxtable
It'll never happen, but I went ahead and signed up.
I think your petition is pointless, no comment intended on you yourself.
-K
Josh Hill
<kat...@kathrynhuxtable.org> wrote:
>It'll never happen, but I went ahead and signed up.
I signed up too. And "never" is a long time! Not that I'm holding my
breath, but as I understand it the sales of both the original DVD
release and the Untold Stories exceeded their expectations.
--
Josh
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw
Mac Breck
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:26:49 -0500, Kathryn Huxtable
> <kat...@kathrynhuxtable.org> wrote:
>
>> It'll never happen, but I went ahead and signed up.
>
> I signed up too. And "never" is a long time! Not that I'm holding my
> breath, but as I understand it the sales of both the original DVD
> release and the Untold Stories exceeded their expectations.
Their expectations mean nothing. They always underestimate B5, get
better than they expected, and that knowledge stays with them for length
of the attention span of a gnat.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999) - "War Zone"
Galen (to Gideon): "I've been penalized before for helping other
people. I've been trying to decide whether or not I should risk it
again."
Alex
Especially interesting is the mention of Robert Latham Brown (as
producer)!
I believe he only worked on the pilot of the series - meaning that
this may be a BluRay edition of the pilot!
And it might be a case of repeat history - I believe the pilot was
also released on DVD as a market test for the DVD edition. So perhaps
WB decided to do the same with HD version?
*all possible and impossible fingers crossed*
Kathryn Huxtable
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:26:49 -0500, Kathryn Huxtable
> <kat...@kathrynhuxtable.org> wrote:
>
>>It'll never happen, but I went ahead and signed up.
>
> I signed up too. And "never" is a long time! Not that I'm holding my
> breath, but as I understand it the sales of both the original DVD
> release and the Untold Stories exceeded their expectations.
I fail to believe that WB will take the effort to do a good conversion.
So it'll likely look like crap.
I'd be delighted to be wrong, but I don't think I will be.
-K
Neil Rieck
wrote:
I thank you all for your efforts and would like to close by passing on
the following quote from the Babylon 5 article at Wikipedia:
According to producer J. Michael Straczynski as of mid-2006, "The DVD
sales have raised over $500 million in revenue." The financial success
of the DVD box sets has led to a renewed interest in further Babylon 5
work.
So a possible high-def release of B5, or any new B5 projects, will be
primarily due to market demand from B5 fans like you.
Neil Rieck
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/
Josh Hill
<macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Their expectations mean nothing. They always underestimate B5, get
>better than they expected, and that knowledge stays with them for length
>of the attention span of a gnat.
LOL, too true.
Josh Hill
<kat...@kathrynhuxtable.org> wrote:
>I fail to believe that WB will take the effort to do a good conversion.
>So it'll likely look like crap.
>
>I'd be delighted to be wrong, but I don't think I will be.
I'm thinking they'd have to if they ever want to go to Blu Ray,
because there's no way that the existing effects shots can be used or
HD. Paramount did a trial run for Next Generation, which was also
video posted, then gave up on upconversion . . . So if they do it (the
big question) they'll have to spring for new SGI.
Wes Struebing
<kat...@kathrynhuxtable.org> wrote:
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:26:49 -0500, Kathryn Huxtable
>> <kat...@kathrynhuxtable.org> wrote:
>>
>>>It'll never happen, but I went ahead and signed up.
>>
>> I signed up too. And "never" is a long time! Not that I'm holding my
>> breath, but as I understand it the sales of both the original DVD
>> release and the Untold Stories exceeded their expectations.
>
>I fail to believe that WB will take the effort to do a good conversion.
>So it'll likely look like crap.
>
>I'd be delighted to be wrong, but I don't think I will be.
>
I don't see them re-doing the CGI. That would be quite problematic.
I don't think you're wrong, either.
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Homepage: www.carpedementem.org
linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wesstruebing
Joseph DeMartino
> I have no idea what is going on here, but Amazon.com seems to be
> soliciting interest in a Blu-ray release of Babylon 5
Amazon isn't "soliciting" any such thing. This item started turning
up in people's Amazon alerts back in January 2009. It is a mish-mash
of inaccurate information (it lists some people who only worked on the
pilot and others who only worked on the series, has a sell price that
makes no sense and doesn't give any movie titles or episode names.)
As far as I can tell from a little quick Googling, this originated
with a third-party seller who is an Amazon *associate*. It was
quickly picked up as an inventory item by other sites, but the links
are either dead or they point to a page that says the item is no
longer available.
We have already discussed *ad nauseum* the barriers, technical,
logistical and financial, to an HD release of B5. None of that has
changed. The fact that the SD discs had reached cumulative total of
500 million in sales is effectively meaningless in the current
context. The vast majority of the sales for each set (as for *all* TV
disc sets and new movie releases) came immediately after its initial
release, and rapidly tailed off to a slow but steady trickle. It is
impressive that "B5" is still selling well enough to remain in print,
but could hardly be doing the kind of numbers that would justify a Blu
Ray release at this point, especially given how long the show has been
off the air and how long it has been since there was *anything* to get
it on people's radar.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but those are the facts and they are, as
John Adams liked to say, stubborn things. Until they change the odds
of any kind of HD treatment of "B5" will remain exactly where they are
now - at zero. Wishful thinking will not change this. Only a change
in the economic prospects of the property will.
Regards,
Joe
Kathryn Huxtable
Yes, you are completely correct. But it can't hurt to sign up on the
Amazon thing.
-K
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
> I have no idea what is going on here, but Amazon.com seems to be
> soliciting interest in a Blu-ray release of Babylon 5
Didn't we cover how absurdly unlikely this is just a little while ago?
Just FYI, Amazon has done the "notify me" thing for *years*. It
*never* means that the product is actually going to be available.
It's Amazon being business smart -- should it become available, they
get a preorder.
If we get a blockbuster B5 feature film, *maybe* a renewed discussion
of B5 in HD would be warranted. Until then: just re-read the previous
threads on this topic. Nothing has changed. It ain't happening!
--
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
Promote someone else.
Joseph DeMartino
<starf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just FYI, Amazon has done the "notify me" thing for *years*. It
> *never* means that the product is actually going to be available.
> It's Amazon being business smart -- should it become available, they
> get a preorder.
Yeah. I ran this by a guy I know who runs a major DVD news site and,
after he finished laughing, he let me in on how the Amazon "notify"
things really work. Most are based on studio pre-booking info or the
blindingly obvious (like any current major studio release being
assured a DVD and Blu Ray relase within 3 to 6 months of hitting the
theater.) But some are based on the *number of searches* for a given
item. So if a lot of people type "Babylon 5 Blu Ray" into the search
box, up goes a "notify me" cribbed from some of the existing DVD
titles. Not only do they get first crack at the pre-order if and when
the product becomes available, they get a bunch of new e-mail
addresses they can market to. Sheer genius.
One example of this is the 1966 Adam West "Batman" TV series. There's
a notify link on Amazon.com for that, too - and it has been there for
*years*. Are there any plans to release this thing? Even tentative
ones? Hell, no. As anyone who knows anything about the TV-on-DVD biz
can tell you, this property is so tied up in legal red tape and
conflicting ownership claims that both the DVD and Blu Ray formats
will probably be history before it arrives on home video - assuming
that ever happens at all.
Does anybody think that *Amazon* is "soliciting interest" in *this*
title? Why would they? Quite apart from the "no way in Hell this is
being released" problem, there's the tiny fact that they don't make
DVDs. Even if Amazon discovered an interest in a particular DVD
title, the best they could do is tell Warner Homve Video (or Fox or
Paramount) that there is interest in title "X". The thing is, WHV and
Fox already *know* that there is interest in these titles. But WHV
doesn't think the market is big enough to off-set the cost of doing
"B5" on Blu Ray, and Fox *can't* release "Batman" because the rights
are in dispute.
Regards,
Joe
Andrew Swallow
Brothers wishes to test to see if old tv series can be upgraded
to Blu-ray and High Definition. Babylon 5 is frequently used
to test new media.
Andrew Swallow
Joseph DeMartino
> About the one thing that may bring Babylon 5 back is if Warner
> Brothers wishes to test to see if old tv series can be upgraded
> to Blu-ray and High Definition. Babylon 5 is frequently used
> to test new media.
1) There is no need to "test" whether or not old TV series can be
upgraded to HD. Any show shot and edited on 35mm film can be (and
several have been) upgraded to HD without any problem. It is only
shows edited and composited on tape that have to jump through
expensive hoops to make the transition. (Old shows recorded only as
kinescopes or sitcoms and live shows recorded directly on videotape
aren't candidates for the HD treatment because their inherent
resolution is too low. Which doesn't mean they won't be released on
Blu Ray. The extra capacity of BD means you could fit many more
episode on each disc, which might come in handy in the future.)
This is one reason why "ST:TOS" (shot and edited on film) was the
first TREK series to be remastered in HD for broadcast and to get a
Blu Ray release. It was easier and less expensive to do than the
earlier shows. "Enterprise" will likely be next up for the Blu Ray
treatment, because it was mastered for HD in the first place. "TNG"
is scheduled last because it will take the most work (and the most
money) to put into shape for an HD release. "B5" would require far
*more* money and time to fix than "TNG", has no ready syndication
market and would sell a fraction of the number of copies on DVD. Even
if WHV wanted to "experiment" to see if old shows could make the
transition to Blu Ray, they'd be idiots to pick the single most work-
intensive and expensive show on their roster to use for the purpose.
There are a dozen shows that had bigger audiences and which would be
cheaper to upgrade - assuming the "experiment" even had to be made,
which it doesn't.
2) "B5" has NEVER been used to "test new media." The U.S. video
release through Columbia House was not a "test", it was a sop to get
the fans to stop bugging them about releasing the show. It was only
after they saw the sales figures that Warner Home Video decided to
release the show on VHS themselves. And they promptly undermined
their own success with the tapes by prematurely mentioning the
possibility of a DVD release. The initial release of "The Gathering/
In the Beginning" on a two-sided DVD was a test of the viability of
releasing "B5", not of releasing TV movies on DVD in general. The
eventual decision to release the series in full-season boxed sets was
not an "experiment" either. WHV had already released a number of
"Best of" sets of "Friends" at that point. Both the success of
several other shows in season sets (notably Fox's "The X-Files") and
polling and market research that showed "Friends" fans overwhelmingly
preferred season sets led WHV to adopt that model for TV releases.
The "B5" sets were a *result* of these factors and decisions, not an
experiment to see if season sets would work. WHV already *knew* that
season sets would work and that there was a market for them. What
they weren't sure about was whether or not *"B5"* would work.
Regards,
Joe
Mac Breck
> and Laserdiscs
> ....by prematurely mentioning the
> possibility of a DVD release.
That's why Image Entertainment never finished the B5 Laserdisc release.
<snip>
Joseph DeMartino
> That's why Image Entertainment never finished the B5 Laserdisc release.
Right. I forgot about the laserdiscs, never having picked those up
myself. My condolences to the 12 people who did. ;-)
Regards,
Joe
(Who will give up his LDs of the original, unaltered, "Star Wars"
Trilogy when they pry them from his cold, dead hands.)
Josh Hill
<am.sw...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>About the one thing that may bring Babylon 5 back is if Warner
>Brothers wishes to test to see if old tv series can be upgraded
>to Blu-ray and High Definition. Babylon 5 is frequently used
>to test new media.
I can think of several scenarios that might lead to a re-release:
- An attempt to capitalize on the release of a B5 feature
- A testing the water release in which one or two episodes are
released to see if the market is of sufficient size
- A syndication deal with Sci Fi or another venue that would help
offset the cost of the CGI, perhaps with the CGI sent offshore to
reduce costs
Not that I'm holding my breath, I assume we're talking several hundred
thousand per episode rather than the pocket change that usually goes
into a DVD, and while I suspect that Warner's is underestimating B5's
sales potential that's a pretty big nut to crack.
Mac Breck
> On Oct 27, 1:30 pm, "Mac Breck" <macthevor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> That's why Image Entertainment never finished the B5 Laserdisc
>> release.
>
> Right. I forgot about the laserdiscs, never having picked those up
> myself. My condolences to the 12 people who did. ;-)
12 people <grumble> <grumble> :-P :-P :-P :-P :-P :-P :-P
> Regards,
>
> Joe
>
> (Who will give up his LDs of the original, unaltered, "Star Wars"
> Trilogy when they pry them from his cold, dead hands.)
Likewise for my B5 LDs.