Ready To Replace DVD With HD Formats? How About We Get Rid Of The '30 Year Old' VHS Format First People!
Black Locust
free to respond if they like.
VHS Shrinking, But Still Generating Millions for Certain Studios and
Stores
By Judith McCourt
VHS is dead. Right? Wrong. With more than $1 billion in annual sales in
2004, the cassette market is still adding tidy profits to the coffers of
the studios. Although sales are on the decline, Home Media Research
estimates that cassette sales will float around the $500 million mark in
2005, making it a healthy cash cow.
Buena Vista Home Entertainment and Warner Home Video together accounted
for 38 percent of all cassettes sold in January, according to Nielsen
VideoScan, and were successful with divergent strategies. Buena Vista,
with a strong product portfolio in the family and children's market,
held the line on price to pump up cassette profit. While many have
dropped the price of their VHS product line, Disney has succesfully held
its average price in the low $14 range. The 2004 VHS market share leader
generated more than $300 million at retail from cassette sales last year.
Warner led the charge for DVD adoption -- pouring product into the
marketplace -- yet it ironically remains No. 2 in cassette sales. While
price was Disney's strategy, volume was Warner's approach. The
supplier's VHS products pulled in almost $200 million at retail in 2004,
according to Home Media Research estimates. Warner's strategy included
flooding the market with catalog product at the impulse-buy price of
less than $10.
Channels such as grocery, drug and mass merchants are still moving
enough cassettes to make it worthwhile to keep them in stock. According
to Niesel VideoScan, 60 percent of all cassettes sales occur in discount
mass merchants, drug and grocery channels. More than half(59.2%) of the
VHS units sold in January came from children's non-theatrical(29.6%),
comedy(15.4 percent) and family(14.2%) fare -- genres that fare well in
these channels.
Direct-to-video kids' titles also are a VHS sweet spot. Buena Vista's
direct-to-video release Mulan II is the top VHS seller for far this
year. Universal Studios Home Entertainment's direct-to-video The Land
Before Time XI: Invasion of the Tinysaurauses is No. 2, and Paramount
Home Entertainment's Dora the Explorer: Catch the Stars is No. 3. By
Comparison the No. 1 overall seller(including DVD) so far this year is
Warner's epic Troy, which does not appear on the top 20 VHS sellers
chart.
Top Five VHS Sellers*(Through Feb. 6, 2005)
1. Mulan II - Buena Vista/Disney
2. The Land Before Time XI - Universal
3. Dora the Explorer: Catch the Stars - Paramount
4. Garfield: The Movie - Fox
5. Abs and Chests of Steel 2000 Platinum Series - Warner
Top 10 VHS Sellers Grocery Channel (Through Feb. 6, 2005)
1. Mulan II - BV/Disney
2. The Land Before Time XI - Universal
3. The Village - Buena Vista
4. The Princess Diaries 2 - BV/Disney
5. Spider-Man 2 - Sony Pictures
6. David Copperfield - Lions Gate
7. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - Warner
8. Ray - Universal
9. Dora the Explorer: Catch the Stars - Paramount
10. Friday Night Lights - Universal
Top 10 VHS Sellers Drug Channel(Through Feb. 6, 2005)
1. Mulan II - BV/Disney
2. Spider-Man 2 - Sony Pictures
3. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - Warner
4. Shrek 2 - Dreamworks
5. The Lucy Show(Two-Pack) - Diamond
6. The Andy Griffith Show(Two-Pack) - Diamond
7. The Princess Diaries 2 - BV/Disney
8. The Bourne Supremacy - Universal
9. Spongebob Squarepants: Spongebob Goes Prehistoric - Paramount
10. Mary Poppins - 40th Anniversy Edition(Re-release) - BV/Disney
This article was taken from the February 27-March 5, 2005 edition of
Home Media Retailing Magazine.
--
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we." - George Dumbya Bush
Jay G.
>
> VHS Shrinking, But Still Generating Millions for Certain Studios and
> Stores
>
> By Judith McCourt
>
> VHS is dead. Right? Wrong. With more than $1 billion in annual sales in
> 2004, the cassette market is still adding tidy profits to the coffers of
> the studios. Although sales are on the decline, Home Media Research
> estimates that cassette sales will float around the $500 million mark in
> 2005, making it a healthy cash cow.
So industry analysts expect the market for pre-recorded VHS to *HALVE* in
2005, yet you still consider it a viable competitor?
VHS is not "dead" in only the strictest sense. Strictly speaking, vinyl
isn't dead either, as new records are still being made. Betamax didn't
completely die until a few years ago, and that's only in the sense that the
machines aren't being made anymore.
The only real holdout for VHS is kid's titles, which still sell on tape.
Otherwise, everyone recognizes that VHS is going the way of audio
cassettes, but on a much faster timeline.
-Jay
RichA
wrote:
>This post is primarily directed towards Allan, but anyone else can feel
>free to respond if they like.
>
>
>VHS Shrinking, But Still Generating Millions for Certain Studios and
>Stores
>
>By Judith McCourt
>
>VHS is dead. Right? Wrong. With more than $1 billion in annual sales in
>2004, the cassette market is still adding tidy profits to the coffers of
>the studios. Although sales are on the decline, Home Media Research
>estimates that cassette sales will float around the $500 million mark in
>2005, making it a healthy cash cow.
You'll find them in the notions dept. of Walmart, in between
pressboard furniture and vinyl men's dress shoes.
-Rich
Aaron J. Bossig
news:pub2tek6m2qm.6pbg84qsvap6$.d...@40tude.net:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:31:26 -0600, Black Locust wrote:
>>
>> VHS Shrinking, But Still Generating Millions for Certain Studios and
>> Stores
>>
>> By Judith McCourt
>>
>> VHS is dead. Right? Wrong. With more than $1 billion in annual sales
>> in 2004, the cassette market is still adding tidy profits to the
>> coffers of the studios. Although sales are on the decline, Home Media
>> Research estimates that cassette sales will float around the $500
>> million mark in 2005, making it a healthy cash cow.
>
> So industry analysts expect the market for pre-recorded VHS to *HALVE*
> in 2005, yet you still consider it a viable competitor?
I think the best point to make here is that even for successful
formats, instant conversion really never happens. Older formats
still continue to be used for some things. To use DVD as an example,
there are a lot of titles that simply won't benefit from an HD
treatment enough to justify re-buying the titles. One of the biggest
sellers on DVD would be TV show collections-- many of which were shot
on video and can't be presented much better than they alreay are.
Another popular genre is animation, which tends to do very will on
standard DVD, thankyouverymuch.
I'm looking forward to HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, but I have no intention of
not buying regular DVDs until they're here.
Did you know some places still use CD-i?
--
Aaron J. Bossig
RichA
When I knew DVD was inevitable, I dumped my laserdisc
collection. I knew DVD was going to be a better format.
I suppose I'll do the same with DVD once the other
formats start showing up, but unlike laserdisc, DVD
is a solid, established format which won't disappear in
the space of a year.
-Rich
Black Locust
"Jay G." <J...@tmbg.org> wrote:
> So industry analysts expect the market for pre-recorded VHS to *HALVE* in
> 2005, yet you still consider it a viable competitor?
Me? I posted an article written by a magazine editor. Nothing contained
in it was written by me. I personally loathe VHS and can't wait to see
it's "official" demise at the hands of DVD. It's death is LONG overdue.
> VHS is not "dead" in only the strictest sense. Strictly speaking, vinyl
> isn't dead either, as new records are still being made. Betamax didn't
> completely die until a few years ago, and that's only in the sense that the
> machines aren't being made anymore.
Not a valid comparison. How many new music recordings come out on vinyl
these days? Maybe 3% of all new music is released on that format... The
same thing applies to audio cassettes. Now VHS on the other hand still
has full studio backing from all major Hollywood studios. When was the
last time you saw LPs for sale at Wal-Mart? But boy, you can still find
a good amount of VHS in those places, can't ya? List me any new release
movie and I'll likely be able to find a VHS release of at on amazon.
Afraid the same can't be said about vinyl...
> The only real holdout for VHS is kid's titles, which still sell on tape.
Yet the studios produce VHS versions of 90% of their titles. It's not
just kids stuff. Want LotR: The Return of the King Extended Edition on
VHS? New Line is making it. Want Ray on VHS? Universal is making it.
Want The Grudge on VHS? Sony is making it. Want Tuesdays big new release
Ladder 49 on VHS? No problem, Fox is cranking them out. You get the
idea... Now admittedly, finding VHS copies will be far more difficult
than tracking down their DVD counterparts, but they're being produced
none-the-less.
> Otherwise, everyone recognizes that VHS is going the way of audio
> cassettes, but on a much faster timeline.
No argument there.
> -Jay
Tarkus
> One of the biggest sellers on DVD would be TV show collections-- many
> of which were shot on video and can't be presented much better than
> they alreay are.
But wouldn't you like to get a whole season on one DVD?
--
"In space no one can hear you scream."
Now playing: "Moody Blues - Om"
Black Locust
Tarkus <karn...@beer.com> wrote:
> But wouldn't you like to get a whole season on one DVD?
Not really, no. What's that going to do besides turn me into more of a
couch potato? I like getting up every few hours to switch discs, at the
very least. And for those who are simply too lazy to even do that, 5
disc players are readily available.
HD media means diddly squat when it comes to old shows shot on video.
End of discussion.
Jon Purkey
wrote:
>Yet the studios produce VHS versions of 90% of their titles. It's not
>just kids stuff. Want LotR: The Return of the King Extended Edition on
>VHS? New Line is making it. Want Ray on VHS? Universal is making it.
>Want The Grudge on VHS? Sony is making it. Want Tuesdays big new release
>Ladder 49 on VHS? No problem, Fox is cranking them out. You get the
>idea... Now admittedly, finding VHS copies will be far more difficult
>than tracking down their DVD counterparts, but they're being produced
>none-the-less.
As long as the video rights can be obtained cheaply enough for someone
to make even a small profit, I suspect VHS versions for most films
will be able to be found online for a long time to come.
-
-Jon Purkey - <jonp...@aol.com)
For a quicker reply by email please use the
address found here: http://tinyurl.com/o8ka
Jon Purkey
wrote:
>In article <1xus1j6s...@tarkus.karnevil9.com>,
> Tarkus <karn...@beer.com> wrote:
>
>> But wouldn't you like to get a whole season on one DVD?
>
>Not really, no. What's that going to do besides turn me into more of a
>couch potato? I like getting up every few hours to switch discs, at the
>very least. And for those who are simply too lazy to even do that, 5
>disc players are readily available.
It would save shelf space for those collecting.
And for people renting through the mail, they would not have to worry
about getting discs out of order.
Aaron J. Bossig
news:1xus1j6s...@tarkus.karnevil9.com:
> On 3/9/2005 8:48:17 AM, Aaron J. Bossig wrote:
>
>> One of the biggest sellers on DVD would be TV show collections-- many
>> of which were shot on video and can't be presented much better than
>> they alreay are.
>
> But wouldn't you like to get a whole season on one DVD?
Not really. It isn't like the extra centimeter of shelf
space is overcrowding my collection, and a single DVD already
gives me three or more hours of viewing time.
Following this logic, in 10 years, I'd be upset I can't get an
entire 10-year series on one disc. That just seems nutty. DVD
offers a great value and I'm really thankful.
Black Locust
Jon Purkey <jonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> As long as the video rights can be obtained cheaply enough for someone
> to make even a small profit, I suspect VHS versions for most films
> will be able to be found online for a long time to come.
Don't VHS tapes cost a fair bit to manufacture? I mean, they're big,
bulky things that have to be constructed and use screws, and moving
parts. It seems silly to me that any studio would wish to waste money
producing these things when they make all the money they could ever
'need' with DVD nowadays. And with the HD formats right around the
corner, it makes even less sense to keep an obsolete analog technology
like VHS around. Yet it appears the movie studios are going to keep
cranking them out for the forseeable future. And this in turn is going
to let the "VHS holdouts" remain just THAT. Not a very good business
decision IMO. Basically all a studio is doing when they produce a VHS
version of their movies these days is pandering to the lowest common
denominator.
> -
> -Jon Purkey - <jonp...@aol.com)
> For a quicker reply by email please use the
> address found here: http://tinyurl.com/o8ka
Allan
wrote:
>This post is primarily directed towards Allan, but anyone else can feel
>free to respond if they like.
>VHS is dead. Right? Wrong. With more than $1 billion in annual sales in
>2004,
"Hollywood studios, which count on DVD sales and rental revenues to
offset ballooning movie budgets, basked in a record $15 billion in DVD
sales in 2004"
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/02/dvd_sales_boom.html
> Although sales are on the decline, Home Media Research
>estimates that cassette sales will float around the $500 million mark in
>2005,
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
-- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
- Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
Allan
wrote:
>HD media means diddly squat when it comes to old shows shot on video.
>End of discussion.
Old shows were shot on Video?
So the "End of discussion" means .mpeg2 compression is the "best" it
will ever get. OK.
http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5119938-1.html
HDTV Listings
ABC
ABC
Shows: 8 Simple Rules; According to Jim; Alias; Boston Legal;
Desperate Housewives; George Lopez; Gray's Anatomy; Hope & Faith;
Complete Savages; Less than Perfect; Life as We Know It; Lost; My Wife
and Kids; NYPD Blue; Rodney; made-for-TV movies; theatrical films
Sports and specials: 2005 Stanley Cup; 2005 NBA finals; Monday Night
Football; 2005 Academy Awards
Resolution: 720p
CBS
CBS
Shows: Cold Case; CSI: Crime Scene Investigation; CSI: Miami; CSI: NY;
Everybody Loves Raymond; JAG; Joan of Arcadia; Judging Amy; King of
Queens; Navy NCIS; Still Standing; Two and a Half Men; Without a
Trace; Listen Up; Clubhouse; Center of the Universe; Dr. Vegas; The
Young and the Restless; made-for-TV movies; theatrical films
Sports and specials: Selected NFL games and AFC playoffs; U.S. Open
Tennis; The Masters; PGA Championship
Resolution: 1080i
Fox
Fox
Shows: include 24; American Idol (in 2005); Arrested Development;
Bernie Mac; House; Malcolm in the Middle; North Shore; The O.C.;
Quintuplets
Sports and specials: MLB World Series; all 2005 NASCAR events; 2005
NASCAR Daytona 500; six NFL games a week, NFC playoff games, and Super
Bowl XXXIX
Resolution: 720p
NBC
NBC
Shows: include American Dreams; Crossing Jordan; ER; Father of the
Pride; Joey; Las Vegas; LAX; Law & Order; Law & Order: Criminal
Intent; Law & Order: Special Victims Unit; Medical Investigation;
Third Watch; The Tonight Show with Jay Leno; The West Wing; movies;
theatrical films
Sports and specials: Triple Crown, Wimbledon (2005)
Resolution: 1080i
PBS
PBS
Shows: Highlights include American Family; Jakers! The Adventures of
Piggley Winks; Ocean Wilds; Great Museums; Desert Speaks; and Nova
Sports and specials: N/A
Resolution: 1080i
UPN
UPN
Shows: Star Trek: Enterprise; Veronica Mars; Kevin Hill
Sports and specials: The UPN Friday Night Movie
Resolution: 1080i
WB
WB
Shows: Commando Nanny; Everwood; Gilmore Girls; Jack & Bobby; One Tree
Hill; Reba; Smallville; The Mountain; What I Like About You
Sports and specials: Lord of the Rings trilogy (The Fellowship of the
Ring in November 2004; The Two Towers in 2005; The Return of the King
in 2006); Samantha: An American Girl (WB made-for-TV movie)
Resolution: 1080i
Bravo HD+
Bravo HD+
Shows: Cirque du Soleil's Varekai; Music in High Places; All Access on
TV; movies include Excalibur, Everybody's All American; Exorcist II:
The Heretic; Dead Ringers
Sports and specials: Brandford Marsalis concert; Cinderella ballet;
highlights from summer Olympics 2004
Resolution: 1080i
Comcast SportsNet
Comcast SportsNet
Shows: N/A
Sports and specials: Includes games with the Philadelphia Flyers,
Philadelphia 76ers, and Philadelphia Phillies (Philadelphia market),
and Washington Capitals, Washington Wizards, and Baltimore Orioles
(Washington, D.C., and Baltimore markets)
Resolution: 1080i
Discovery HD Theater
Discovery HD Theater
Shows: American Chopper; Trading Spaces; The Jeff Corwin Experience;
Insectia; Sunrise Earth; Big; Desert Speaks; In the Making; Med Air;
Road Trip; Rides; Surprise by Design; Valley of the T-Rex; Vanished
Canyon; Wild Nights; Weird Homes; Weird Wheels
Sports and specials: BBC Proms 2003
Resolution: 1080i
Encore HD
Encore HD
Shows: Maid in Manhattan; Medicine Man; Austin Powers in Goldmember;
Reign of Fire; The Bride; Awakenings; Gangs of New York; Darkman;
About Schmidt
Sports and specials: N/A
Resolution: 1080i
ESPN HD
ESPN HD
Shows: SportsCenter; ESPN original programming; other studio shows
Sports and specials: Selected MLB, NHL, NFL, and NBA games; college
football and basketball games
Resolution: 720p
HBO HDTV
HBO HDTV
Shows: Carnivale; The Sopranos; Six Feet Under; Deadwood; 80 percent
of movies
Sports and specials: Angels in America; World Championship Boxing
Resolution: 1080i
HDNet
HDNet
Shows: Original HDNet series include True Music; HDNet World Reports;
Across America; HDNet Concert Series; Bikini Destinations; Jonathan
Brownlee's At Home; Get Out!; Hack; Hollywood HD; other TV series
include Philly; Smallville; Wiseguy; Robbery: Homicide Division;
Odyssey 5; Hogan's Heroes; Charlie's Angels; The Agency; The Handler
Sports and specials: NASCAR Elite Division; selected games from the
NHL, USOC, CART, Major League Soccer, college and pro basketball and
football, tennis, boxing, and horse racing
Resolution: 1080i
HDNet Movies
HDNet Movies
Shows: Movies include Badlands; Blood Simple; Blow Up; Diner; Exorcist
III: The Legion; Hellraiser; The Manchurian Candidate (1962); Natural
Born Killers; Once Upon a Time in America; Scanners; The Terminator;
Year of the Dragon
Sports and specials: N/A
Resolution: 1080i
INHD and INHD2
INHD & INHD2*
Shows: FHM Uncovered; Hollywood Walks; Reel Look; Fields of Glory;
Go!; Major League Ballparks: Cathedrals of the Game; and In Theaters
Movies: Full Metal Jacket; A Clockwork Orange; Romancing the Stone;
Die Hard 3; The Man With One Red Show; Dutch; Drugstore Cowboy; The
Sicilian
Sports: NBA, MLB, CSTV: College Sports Television, Olympic Treasures,
MLS Soccer, professional tennis
Specials: Concerts including Pink, Bon Jovi, Mary J. Blige, and Usher;
The Lance Armstrong Chronicles; INHD Extreme; INHD Ringside; Ultimate
Fighting Championship; K-1 Fighting; IFOCE Tour de Gorge; and Venus
Bikini Photo Shoots
Resolution: 1080i
*INHD2 shows the same programming as INHD, but on a different
schedule.
The Movie Channel HD
The Movie Channel HD
Shows: About a third of movies presented in HD, including Harlan
County War; Crimes and Misdemeanors; How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days; The
Hunt for Red October; GoldenEye; Serving Sara; Cops and Robbersons;
Die Another Day; My Beautiful Laundrette
Sports and specials: N/A
Resolution: 1080i
MSG Network
MSG Network
Shows: N/A
Sports and specials: All home games of the Knicks, the Rangers, the
Mets, the Devils, the Islanders, and the Liberty (WNBA)
Resolution: 1080i
NBA TV
NBA TV
Shows: N/A
Sports and specials: About 50 of the 100 NBA games (including
playoffs) broadcast by NBA TV
Resolution: 1080i
Showtime HDTV
Showtime HDTV
Shows: Queer as Folk; Dead Like Me; The L Word; selected movies
Sports and specials: Championship Boxing
Resolution: 1080i
Starz! HD
Starz HD
Shows: Movies include 2 Fast 2 Furious; The Karate Kid; Freddy vs.
Jason; Willard; The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King; Red
Dragon; Ed Wood; Houseguest; The Rock
Sports and specials: N/A
Resolution: 1080i
TNT-HD
TNT-HD
Shows: The Grid, Without a Trace; movies include Cliffhanger; The
Pelican Brief; Demolition Man; The Mask of Zorro; Desperado
Sports and specials: Selected games for the 2004-05 NBA season;
selected NASCAR races
Resolution: 1080i
Wild Coyote
<link...@SpammersWillBeExecuted.ptd.net> wrote:
Well said Aaron and I am not going to dump $25 to $30 thousand in DVDs
just so I can get a season on one disc. It is going to happen.
--
The Day PP was speechless, April 20, 2004.
"This may actually be the strangest idea ever in abp. I think you got
me, WC--I'm speechless. A guy in a female road runner suit... that's
just not right."
Wild Coyote
wild_coyote<AT>whoppermail.com
Aaron J. Bossig
news:fc12319t5kdc9g0si...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:14:02 -0600, Black Locust <bl2...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>HD media means diddly squat when it comes to old shows shot on video.
>>End of discussion.
>
> Old shows were shot on Video?
>
<Snip recent primetime lineup>
Exactly what does the current HD lineup have to do
with a comment about "old shows shot on video? Are you
failing to understand the difference between "old" and
"new"?
Aaron J. Bossig
D73172.162...@news.uswest.net:
>. Basically all a studio is doing when they produce a VHS
> version of their movies these days is pandering to the lowest common
> denominator.
A major film studio? Never!
Black Locust
Allan <Spam...@buffyisbrianlamb.net> wrote:
> "Hollywood studios, which count on DVD sales and rental revenues to
> offset ballooning movie budgets, basked in a record $15 billion in DVD
> sales in 2004"
>
> http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/02/dvd_sales_boom.html
You're completely missing the point Allan. In no way was I trying to say
VHS sales are even in the same ballpark as DVDs. Read the subject line
again. This time more carefully.
Although 1 billion smackers is pretty impressive for a 30 year old
analog magnetic tape format that should quite frankly, be as dead as the
8-track by now. But alas, it just doesn't want to die...
> "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
> because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
> -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
> - Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
Black Locust
Allan <Spam...@buffyisbrianlamb.net> wrote:
> Old shows were shot on Video?
You're an idiot. You listed a bunch of new shows that were obviously
shot on HD.
Sorry, but Seinfeld and The Simpsons are not going to look any better in
HD.
> "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
> because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
> -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
> - Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
Tarkus
> In article <1xus1j6s...@tarkus.karnevil9.com>,
> Tarkus <karn...@beer.com> wrote:
>
>> But wouldn't you like to get a whole season on one DVD?
>
> Not really, no. What's that going to do besides turn me into more of a
> couch potato? I like getting up every few hours to switch discs, at the
> very least. And for those who are simply too lazy to even do that, 5
> disc players are readily available.
It's not just about that. It's also about smaller packaging, and if you
don't know which disc a certain episode is on (and can't remember the
title), you don't have to keep switching discs to find it. Or maybe you
just want to bounce around many different episodes.
> HD media means diddly squat when it comes to old shows shot on video.
> End of discussion.
Obviously not, since I just continued it.
Just because YOU see no benefit to old shows being transferred to HD
media doesn't mean there's no benefit for others.
--
"That movie has warped my fragile little mind."
Now playing: "Patrick Moraz - Incantation (Procession)"
Tarkus
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:14:02 -0600, Black Locust <bl2...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>HD media means diddly squat when it comes to old shows shot on video.
>>End of discussion.
>
> Old shows were shot on Video?
>
> So the "End of discussion" means .mpeg2 compression is the "best" it
> will ever get. OK.
Actually it means he hopes no one will challenge him, and he couldn't
quite think of "nuff said" at the time.
--
"A beer is a lot like a woman. They smell good, they look good, and
you'd step over your own mother just to get one."
Tarkus
> Tarkus <karn...@beer.com> wrote in
> news:1xus1j6s...@tarkus.karnevil9.com:
>
>> On 3/9/2005 8:48:17 AM, Aaron J. Bossig wrote:
>>
>>> One of the biggest sellers on DVD would be TV show collections-- many
>>> of which were shot on video and can't be presented much better than
>>> they alreay are.
>>
>> But wouldn't you like to get a whole season on one DVD?
>
> Not really. It isn't like the extra centimeter of shelf
> space is overcrowding my collection, and a single DVD already
> gives me three or more hours of viewing time.
>
> Following this logic, in 10 years, I'd be upset I can't get an
> entire 10-year series on one disc. That just seems nutty.
Exactly what logic leads you to being upset at that? Who said anything
about being upset? I simply offered benefits of HD media for old TV
series. No one mentioned anything about being upset if it didn't happen.
> DVD offers a great value and I'm really thankful.
Again, what does this have to do with anything? No one's saying you
shouldn't be thankful.
--
"Hey, wait a minute... this looks like rock and/or roll."
Black Locust
Tarkus <karn...@beer.com> wrote:
> It's not just about that. It's also about smaller packaging,
You're forgetting that prior to 'tv on DVD', people were forced to
archive tv series on VHS and that required a TON of shelf space. An
entire run of a series stored on VHS could easily use up as much shelf
space as some people have devoted to their ENTIRE DVD collection these
days. The packaging is small enough already if you ask me. Anyone who
needs an entire season on one disc is just being picky about it.
Also keep in mind that people spend 50 bucks and upwards on these sets.
That's a pretty penny and I don't see too many people buying the same
shows over again, essentially turning that 50(or more) bucks into
"wasted money." just so they can save a little shelf space.
> and if you
> don't know which disc a certain episode is on (and can't remember the
> title), you don't have to keep switching discs to find it. Or maybe you
> just want to bounce around many different episodes.
Every set I've ever bought had the episodes listed on either the
packaging, a seperate booklet or on the disc itself. It's not that
difficult to find out which disc contains the episode you wish to watch.
> Just because YOU see no benefit to old shows being transferred to HD
> media doesn't mean there's no benefit for others.
Well, old shows shot on video. Old shows that happened to be shot on
35MM film could benefit from an HD transfer. But even then, I think it
would have to be a pretty substantial improvement in picture quality to
warrant re-purchasing the show all over again.
Black Locust
Tarkus <karn...@beer.com> wrote:
> Actually it means he hopes no one will challenge him, and he couldn't
> quite think of "nuff said" at the time.
The ironic thing that Allan failed to note is that both HD DVD formats
also use mpeg 2 compression... *grin* So like I said; end of discussion.
Black Locust
wrote:
> Simpsons might not look much different due to it being a cartoon, but
> Seinfeld started out shooting in super16 and later switched to 35mm.
> Why wouldn't it look better in HD?
You sure about that? I was told Seinfeld was shot on video. It certainly
looks like it was, especially in the early seasons.
And would super16 benefit from HD at all? Everything I've seen shot on
super16 is rather grainy and dark(see the first couple of seasons of
buffy for example). It's not even in the same league as 35mm film.
> J
Allan
<link...@SpammersWillBeExecuted.ptd.net> wrote:
>Allan <Spam...@buffyisbrianlamb.net> wrote in
>news:fc12319t5kdc9g0si...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:14:02 -0600, Black Locust <bl2...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>HD media means diddly squat when it comes to old shows shot on video.
>>>End of discussion.
>>
>> Old shows were shot on Video?
>>
>
><Snip recent primetime lineup>
>
>Exactly what does the current HD lineup have to do
>with a comment about "old shows shot on video? Are you
>failing to understand the difference between "old" and
>"new"?
HDNet
HDNet
Shows: Original HDNet series include True Music; HDNet World Reports;
Across America; HDNet Concert Series; Bikini Destinations; Jonathan
Brownlee's At Home; Get Out!; Hack; Hollywood HD; other TV series
include Philly; Smallville; Wiseguy; Robbery: Homicide Division;
Odyssey 5; Hogan's Heroes; Charlie's Angels; The Agency; The Handler
Sports and specials: NASCAR Elite Division; selected games from the
NHL, USOC, CART, Major League Soccer, college and pro basketball and
football, tennis, boxing, and horse racing
Resolution: 1080i
Hogan's Heroes.... NOT new.
Allan
wrote:
>In article <fc12319t5kdc9g0si...@4ax.com>,
> Allan <Spam...@buffyisbrianlamb.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Old shows were shot on Video?
>
>You're an idiot. You listed a bunch of new shows that were obviously
>shot on HD.
Please, your lack of knowledge shines through with each and every
post.
As stated in the post above......
"Aside from daytime soaps, practically all dramatic television
shows were/are shot on film (16mm or 35mm) with a few migrating
to HiDef video in later years."
>Sorry, but Seinfeld and The Simpsons are not going to look any better in
>HD.
Seinfeld was not shot on video... but 35mm. And if you think 480i is
the 'best" that 35mm sourced material will look....please just walk
away from this newsgroup.
selaboc
Allan wrote:
> >You're an idiot. You listed a bunch of new shows that were obviously
> >shot on HD.
>
> Please, your lack of knowledge shines through with each and every
> post.
Coming from you, that is one of the most ironic statements ever made on
usenet.
> As stated in the post above......
>
> "Aside from daytime soaps, practically all dramatic television
> shows were/are shot on film (16mm or 35mm) with a few migrating
> to HiDef video in later years."
And you would be somewhat wrong. Lots of shows (particularily in the
1970s) were shot on video. Mostly sticoms like All in the Family, The
Jeffersons, Later seasons of Happy days, etc. Not to mention British
fare such as The Avengers and Doctor Who. And even when shows were shot
on film, many were coverted to video for editing, Such as Star Trek:
The Next Generation and the 1985 Twilight Zone and thus the final
product only exists as Video (and unless the studios still have the
original filmed material and go to the expense of re-editing it, Video
resolution is the best you'll ever see for those shows).
> >Sorry, but Seinfeld and The Simpsons are not going to look any
better in
> >HD.
>
> Seinfeld was not shot on video... but 35mm. And if you think 480i is
> the 'best" that 35mm sourced material will look....please just walk
> away from this newsgroup.
Yes, Seinfield was shot on 35MM, but it was then transfered to 1" Video
Tape for editing which is what was broadcast on TV. However, as I
understand it, when the made the DVDs They went back to the original
35mm film elements and cut them like a movie to match the original
aired masters. Once they had completed film reels they transferred them
to high definition and then down-converted them for the DVD release.
Bill Vermillion
RichA <no...@none.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:48:17 -0600, "Aaron J. Bossig"
><link...@SpammersWillBeExecuted.ptd.net> wrote:
>
>>"Jay G." <J...@tmbg.org> wrote in
>>news:pub2tek6m2qm.6pbg84qsvap6$.d...@40tude.net:
>>
>>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:31:26 -0600, Black Locust wrote:
>>>>
>>>> VHS Shrinking, But Still Generating Millions for Certain Studios and
>>>> Stores
>>>>
>>>> By Judith McCourt
>>>>
>>>> VHS is dead. Right? Wrong. With more than $1 billion in annual sales
>>>> in 2004, the cassette market is still adding tidy profits to the
>>>> coffers of the studios. Although sales are on the decline, Home Media
>>>> Research estimates that cassette sales will float around the $500
>>>> million mark in 2005, making it a healthy cash cow.
>>>
>>> So industry analysts expect the market for pre-recorded VHS to *HALVE*
>>> in 2005, yet you still consider it a viable competitor?
>>
>>I think the best point to make here is that even for successful
>>formats, instant conversion really never happens. Older formats
>>still continue to be used for some things. To use DVD as an example,
>>there are a lot of titles that simply won't benefit from an HD
>>sellers on DVD would be TV show collections-- many of which were shot
>>on video and can't be presented much better than they alreay are.
>>standard DVD, thankyouverymuch.
>>I'm looking forward to HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, but I have no intention of
>>not buying regular DVDs until they're here.
>>Did you know some places still use CD-i?
>When I knew DVD was inevitable, I dumped my laserdisc
>collection. I knew DVD was going to be a better format.
>I suppose I'll do the same with DVD once the other
>formats start showing up, but unlike laserdisc, DVD
>is a solid, established format which won't disappear in
>the space of a year.
I still have many LD titles that are not on DVD - not available
anywhere as even the VHS tapes have been withdrawn. And two months
ago one of my favorites I had on disk since 1986 has finally made
it to DVD.
If you like the content don't dump it because the medium has
changed if you can't replace it.
I have 78s that never made it to LP, LPs that never made it to CD.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Bill Vermillion
Black Locust <bl2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>This post is primarily directed towards Allan, but anyone else can feel
>free to respond if they like.
>
>VHS Shrinking, But Still Generating Millions for Certain Studios and
>Stores
>By Judith McCourt
>VHS is dead. Right? Wrong. With more than $1 billion in annual
>sales in 2004, the cassette market is still adding tidy profits
>to the coffers of the studios. Although sales are on the decline,
>Home Media Research estimates that cassette sales will float
>around the $500 million mark in 2005, making it a healthy cash
>cow.
The only time I see VHS pre-recorded tapes at Costco is when Disney
releases a new title. Often there are NO VHS pre-recorded for
sale. For kids VHS tapes are a bit more rugged than DVD disks.
As to blank tape they dropped the TDK-EHG line - the better grade -
and have only the cheap line - and the stocks are quite low.
There are only two major VHS blank tape manufactures left in the
world today - down from many. All the major brands stopped making
their own and have it labeled for them. That market had dropped by
over 80% in the past 2 years. Check Magnetic Media Information
Services for a better look than you get in the consumer mags.
And $1B for VHS compared to about $25B for DVD . It's dying
rapidly.
Bill Vermillion
<j...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>Black Locust <bl2...@hotmail.com> wrote: : In article
><42314e84$0$173$cc7c...@news.luth.se>, j...@domain.invalid :
>wrote: : :> Simpsons might not look much different due to it
>being a cartoon, but :> Seinfeld started out shooting in super16
>and later switched to 35mm. :> Why wouldn't it look better in
>HD? : : You sure about that? I was told Seinfeld was shot on
>video. It certainly : looks like it was, especially in the early
>seasons.
>I'm pretty certain. I think I might have heard something about a show
>that used video for a short while, switched to 16mm and then later to
>35mm. It might possibly have been Seinfeld but even if so, the vast
>majority of the material would still be film.
>: And would super16 benefit from HD at all? Everything I've seen
>: shot on super16 is rather grainy and dark(see the first couple
>: of seasons of buffy for example). It's not even in the same
>: league as 35mm film.
>Super16 is certainly a viable format for HD acquistion and it was
>heavily promoted as a cheap way to future-proof for HD in the mid
>90s or so. In fact, Kodak is just about to introduce a brand new
>package for HD that is centered around super16:
>http://www.hdtvbuyer.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=31091
>It has been stated that 16mm has about 2k resolution whereas 35mm has
>4k, although Kodak has a 6k scanner that is sometimes used. 2k is
>slightly better than the HDTV resolution of 1920x1080. Of course,
>resolution depends on a lot more factors than the gauge of the film:
>the sharpness of the lenses, the resolvability of the negative, a
>properly exposed slow, fine grained emulsion will of course show more
>detail than an underexposed fast stock of say 800ASA etc,
And when 4K is transfered to film - it looks wonderful compared to
what went before. The movie Collateral was shot with almost
prototype Viper [I think that's the name - from Grass Valley ].
The differences don't show up as much on the DVD - but on a
40 foot wide screen in the theatre it really looked great.
What was noticeable was the detail and color in the dark sections
at night.
It was the first time I'd seen digital that looked as good as
>good< film. I've seen many prints that I'd wished had been video
they were so poorly printed.
>I don't think that Buffy looks "grainy" so much due to super16
>as to the way it was shot and transferred. I think there was a
>lot of underexposure going on which they corrected by cranking
>the brightness level in the telecine bay. This would add lots
>of grain. On top of that, the telecine machines back then were
>not particularly good for 16mm from what I hear. If they were to
>retransfer on a modern machine, which they would have to do to
>get HD masters, I bet it would clean up a lot.
I didn't realize anyone was doing xfers that way anymore. I friend
I worked with used to have a comany that did film to video xfers
in the mid-1990s with a Rank. Those suckers will get everything
out of film possible - but at $300K they should.
norman...@comcast.net
"Wild Coyote" <Wild_...@TheZone.Net> wrote in message
news:0p2231l9e4gkmgvpt...@4ax.com...
> Well said Aaron and I am not going to dump $25 to $30 thousand in DVDs
> just so I can get a season on one disc. It is going to happen.
Would you mind proofreading this paragraph and punctuating properly, so that
I can understand it.
Thanks,
Norm Strong
Jon Purkey
wrote:
>Also keep in mind that people spend 50 bucks and upwards on these sets.
>That's a pretty penny and I don't see too many people buying the same
>shows over again, essentially turning that 50(or more) bucks into
>"wasted money." just so they can save a little shelf space.
I wouldn't re-buy the same shows again, but it would be nice to get
shows I don't already own on DVD with one season per disc.
Aaron J. Bossig
news:dikynfvi...@tarkus.karnevil9.com:
>>
>> Not really. It isn't like the extra centimeter of shelf
>> space is overcrowding my collection, and a single DVD already
>> gives me three or more hours of viewing time.
>>
>> Following this logic, in 10 years, I'd be upset I can't get an
>> entire 10-year series on one disc. That just seems nutty.
>
> Exactly what logic leads you to being upset at that?
In 1995, having a whole series in my personal collection would have
meant a large shelf full of VHS tapes, or a huge box full of Laserdiscs.
Today, it means about 7 inches of shelf space, give or take. To ask
that it be shrunk down even more seems just absurd.
>Who said anything
> about being upset?
It's a comparison of the attitudes expressed here to those expressed
several years ago over the same topic. What used to be a boon to TV
collecting is now appearing to be second-rate to hypothetical releases
in the future.
>I simply offered benefits of HD media for old TV
> series. No one mentioned anything about being upset if it didn't >>>
> happen.
And I'm just saying that benefit doesn't seem very remarkable to me.
If we can't make the show look any better, who cares about the shelf
space?
>> DVD offers a great value and I'm really thankful.
>
> Again, what does this have to do with anything? No one's saying you
> shouldn't be thankful.
I'm just trying to keep it all in perspective. To me, it doesn't seem
like certain TV shows will need an HD treatment.
Aaron J. Bossig
> Aaron J. Bossig <link...@spammerswillbeexecuted.ptd.net> wrote:
>: Allan <Spam...@buffyisbrianlamb.net> wrote in
>: news:fc12319t5kdc9g0si...@4ax.com:
>:
>:> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:14:02 -0600, Black Locust
>:> <bl2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>:>
>:>>HD media means diddly squat when it comes to old shows shot on
>:>>video. End of discussion.
>:>
>:> Old shows were shot on Video?
>:>
>:
>: <Snip recent primetime lineup>
>:
>: Exactly what does the current HD lineup have to do
>: with a comment about "old shows shot on video? Are you
>: failing to understand the difference between "old" and
>: "new"?
>
> Aside from daytime soaps, practically all dramatic television
> shows were/are shot on film (16mm or 35mm) with a few migrating
> to HiDef video in later years.
There are a lot of other shows that were not, however: sitcoms,
live performances, and hybrids like Star Trek: TNG. Those are the
ones I was referring to.
Aaron J. Bossig
news:s2o231pdqpnq46qtd...@4ax.com:
... and NOT shot on video.
Let's repeat... old shows shot on video. Those are two seperate
qualifiers.
--
Aaron "Billy Goats Gruff, Simulcast in HDTV!" Bossig
Aaron J. Bossig
>:> Aside from daytime soaps, practically all dramatic television
>:> shows were/are shot on film (16mm or 35mm) with a few migrating
>:> to HiDef video in later years.
>:
>: There are a lot of other shows that were not, however: sitcoms,
>: live performances, and hybrids like Star Trek: TNG. Those are the
>: ones I was referring to.
>
> HD compatible.
And many are not, such as The Cosby Show, Married... With Children,
and a great deal of others, especially from 1985-1995.
>I'm not familiar with Star Trek TNG but it appears to
> have been 35mm as well. I guess you're refering to visual effects
> being rendered only for standard def, so any CGI scenes would only
> be upconverted, but it should be possible to composite the upressed
> CGI with the live 35mm footage so that it looks moderately good I
> think.
That's exactly what I was referring to, and yes, upconverting is
possible, but you run the risk of making it obvious which scenes
were upconverted and which were native to film.
>
> As for live performances, is this really what people buy on DVD?
As the last few years have shown us, people will buy any
damn thing on DVD. ;-)
Wild Coyote
I do mind. If you cannot figure it out, just move on to the next
message. You could try something novel like keeping your negative
comments to your self.
--
The Day PP was speechless, April 20, 2004.
"This may actually be the strangest idea ever in abp. I think you got
me, WC--I'm speechless. A guy in a female road runner suit... that's
just not right."
Wild Coyote
wild_coyote<AT>whoppermail.com
Tarkus
> In 1995, having a whole series in my personal collection would have
> meant a large shelf full of VHS tapes, or a huge box full of Laserdiscs.
> Today, it means about 7 inches of shelf space, give or take. To ask
> that it be shrunk down even more seems just absurd.
It's not absurd if there's a market for it. That remains to be seen.
--
"Shop smart, shop S-mart!"
Black Locust
wrote:
> I'm pretty certain. I think I might have heard something about a show
> that used video for a short while, switched to 16mm and then later to
> 35mm. It might possibly have been Seinfeld but even if so, the vast
> majority of the material would still be film.
My perception might just be off, but to my eyes it appears that the
majority of sitcoms are shot on video, while more dramatic and action
based genre series are shot on film(or high-def video these days...).
> I don't think that Buffy looks "grainy" so much due to super16 as to
> the way it was shot and transferred. I think there was a lot of
> underexposure going on which they corrected by cranking the brightness
> level in the telecine bay. This would add lots of grain. On top of that,
> the telecine machines back then were not particularly good for 16mm
> from what I hear. If they were to retransfer on a modern machine, which
> they would have to do to get HD masters, I bet it would clean up a lot.
Interesting. But wouldn't cranking up the brightness cover up much of
the grain? I find grain is only readily apparent in the darker scenes.
Scenes that take place outside in full sunlight for example look very
good and are free of any noticable grain. Infact, I've noticed that my
DVDs are actually substantially brighter than the FX broadcasts and as a
result, the grain can't be seen as easily.
> Besides, Buffy used a mixture of 16mm and 35mm for the first two seasons.
> Can you readily tell which scenes are in 16mm and which are 35mm?
Really? It looks to me like they didn't start using 35mm until season 3.
I can't pin point any scenes in the first 2 seasons where it looks they
were shooting on 35mm. Although I did notice a big improvement in
lighting in the latter half of season 2.
> As for being dark, that has nothing to do with 16mm and it's purely
> an artistic choice.
Well, I don't think they were intentionally trying for a "darker" look
in the early seasons of Buffy. You'll notice everything is much brighter
looking starting in season 3 and that can only be attributed to the 35mm
upgrade. Though oddly enough, it actually looks like they reverted back
to 16mm in certain scenes in season 7!
> You might want to compare how some other 16mm shows look that were going
> for different visual designs. Off the top of my head: Gilmore Girls,
> Dawson's Creek, Dr Quinn, Roswell, Tru Calling, Sex and the City, La
> Femme Nikita are all in 16mm.
Wow. I have Roswell and Tru Calling on DVD and they look great. Never
would have thought they were shot on 16mm. I stand corrected.
Wild Coyote
<Wild_...@TheZone.Net> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:56:06 -0800, <norman...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Wild Coyote" <Wild_...@TheZone.Net> wrote in message
>>news:0p2231l9e4gkmgvpt...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Well said Aaron and I am not going to dump $25 to $30 thousand in DVDs
>>> just so I can get a season on one disc. It is going to happen.
>>
>>Would you mind proofreading this paragraph and punctuating properly, so that
>>I can understand it.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Norm Strong
>>
>
>I do mind. If you cannot figure it out, just move on to the next
>message. You could try something novel like keeping your negative
>comments to your self.
And one last thing Norm. You made me realize that I am long overdue
for a net vacation. Do you have that affect on everyone?
Steve K.
> In 1995, having a whole series in my personal collection would have
> meant a large shelf full of VHS tapes, or a huge box full of Laserdiscs.
> Today, it means about 7 inches of shelf space, give or take. To ask
> that it be shrunk down even more seems just absurd.
Well, yeah, now in 2005, but in 2015 you'll really need that 7 inches of
space! ;-)
Steve
"640K of memory ought to be enough for anybody"
-Bill Gates
Allan
<link...@SpammersWillBeExecuted.ptd.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hogan's Heroes.... NOT new.
>
>... and NOT shot on video.
>
>Let's repeat... old shows shot on video. Those are two seperate
>qualifiers.
Shall I repeat...
>>> Old shows were shot on Video?
Name them.
Allan
wrote:
>In article <42314e84$0$173$cc7c...@news.luth.se>, j...@domain.invalid
>wrote:
>
>> Simpsons might not look much different due to it being a cartoon, but
>> Seinfeld started out shooting in super16 and later switched to 35mm.
>> Why wouldn't it look better in HD?
>
>You sure about that? I was told Seinfeld was shot on video. It certainly
>looks like it was, especially in the early seasons.
Let me guess... your two friends told you so.
Why not do a little bit of research before you look stupid in this
newsgroup.... oh never mind.
>And would super16 benefit from HD at all?
Seinfeld.. super 16.... zero connection.
Allan
>
>Allan wrote:
>> >You're an idiot. You listed a bunch of new shows that were obviously
>
>> >shot on HD.
>>
>> Please, your lack of knowledge shines through with each and every
>> post.
>
>Coming from you, that is one of the most ironic statements ever made on
>usenet.
Yawn...
>> As stated in the post above......
>>
>> "Aside from daytime soaps, practically all dramatic television
>> shows were/are shot on film (16mm or 35mm) with a few migrating
>> to HiDef video in later years."
>
>And you would be somewhat wrong. Lots of shows (particularily in the
>1970s) were shot on video. Mostly sticoms like All in the Family, The
>Jeffersons, Later seasons of Happy days, etc.
"practically all dramatic television shows were/are shot on film (16mm
or 35mm)"
Don't mention sitcoms at all. Can you read? You are "somewhat" full
of shit.
>Not to mention British
>fare such as The Avengers and Doctor Who.
Yeah... Dr. Who was always known for it's great "look".
Please... read the post before saying "somewhat wrong"... you know not
what you talk about.
>Yes, Seinfield was shot on 35MM, but it was then transfered to 1" Video
>Tape for editing which is what was broadcast on TV. However, as I
>understand it, when the made the DVDs They went back to the original
>35mm film elements and cut them like a movie to match the original
>aired masters. Once they had completed film reels they transferred them
>to high definition and then down-converted them for the DVD release.
Shall I repeat:
" Seinfeld was not shot on video... but 35mm. And if you think 480i is
the 'best" that 35mm sourced material will look....please just walk
away from this newsgroup."
>
Allan
wrote:
>My perception might just be off,
No Shit.
Aaron J. Bossig
news:l26f311hh8krub48h...@4ax.com:
>>> Hogan's Heroes.... NOT new.
>>
>>... and NOT shot on video.
>>
>>Let's repeat... old shows shot on video. Those are two seperate
>>qualifiers.
>
> Shall I repeat...
>
>>>> Old shows were shot on Video?
>
> Name them.
The Cosby Show
Married... With Children
Red Dwarf
The Golden Girls
Empty Nest
It's mostly American shows created between 1985-1995, and quite
a few British shows from that era as well.
--
Aaron J. Bossig
Allan
<link...@SpammersWillBeExecuted.ptd.net> wrote:
>>
>> Name them.
>
>The Cosby Show
>Married... With Children
>Red Dwarf
>The Golden Girls
>Empty Nest
Five show.... not even confirmed....
selaboc
Allan wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2005 05:34:54 -0800, "selaboc" <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Allan wrote:
> >> >You're an idiot. You listed a bunch of new shows that were
obviously
> >
> >> >shot on HD.
> >>
> >> Please, your lack of knowledge shines through with each and every
> >> post.
> >
> >Coming from you, that is one of the most ironic statements ever made
on
> >usenet.
>
> Yawn...
If you'd wake up, you'd probably stop making such a fool of yourself.
> >> As stated in the post above......
> >>
> >> "Aside from daytime soaps, practically all dramatic television
> >> shows were/are shot on film (16mm or 35mm) with a few migrating
> >> to HiDef video in later years."
> >
> >And you would be somewhat wrong. Lots of shows (particularily in the
> >1970s) were shot on video. Mostly sticoms like All in the Family,
The
> >Jeffersons, Later seasons of Happy days, etc.
>
> "practically all dramatic television shows were/are shot on film
(16mm
> or 35mm)"
>
> Don't mention sitcoms at all. Can you read? You are "somewhat" full
> of shit.
can YOU read? clearly there's no "somewhat" with you, you are totally
an idiot. rather then stopping partway, try reading in CONTEXT with the
entire paragraph, as I went on to mention more than just sitcoms.
> >Not to mention British
> >fare such as The Avengers and Doctor Who.
>
> Yeah... Dr. Who was always known for it's great "look".
Doesn't matter how great you think it's look is. a lot of dramatic
shows from England (I mention two of the more well known in the US)
were shot on video. you're the one banging on about dramatic shows. it
can't be "practically all" when a large chunk of the dramatic output
Great Britian (You know where the BBC resides) were shot on Video.
> Please... read the post before saying "somewhat wrong"... you know
not
> what you talk about.
BWahahahahahahahahahahahaha. You just don't realize how funny that line
is coming from a clueless idiot like yourself.
> >Yes, Seinfield was shot on 35MM, but it was then transfered to 1"
Video
> >Tape for editing which is what was broadcast on TV. However, as I
> >understand it, when the made the DVDs They went back to the original
> >35mm film elements and cut them like a movie to match the original
> >aired masters. Once they had completed film reels they transferred
them
> >to high definition and then down-converted them for the DVD release.
>
> Shall I repeat:
>
> " Seinfeld was not shot on video... but 35mm. And if you think 480i
is
> the 'best" that 35mm sourced material will look....please just walk
> away from this newsgroup."
And I shall repeat: it was edited on 1" video tape. If they no longer
had the 35mm film and/or if they didn't want to take the time and
expense of reediting it, than 480i would have been the best that the
completed show would look. Fortunately, in Seinfelds case, they still
had the film and were willing to reedit it. Sadly that is not always
the case, particularily with older shows. so even if it were true that
"practically all dramatic television shows" were shot on film (which,
as the British shows can attest, is NOT true) there are many that will
forever be stuck at 480i as their 'best' resolution because they were
edited on video and the original film is no longer available for the
reedit option.
selaboc
Allan wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:15:08 -0600, Black Locust <bl2...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <42314e84$0$173$cc7c...@news.luth.se>,
j...@domain.invalid
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Simpsons might not look much different due to it being a cartoon,
but
> >> Seinfeld started out shooting in super16 and later switched to
35mm.
> >> Why wouldn't it look better in HD?
> >
> >You sure about that? I was told Seinfeld was shot on video. It
certainly
> >looks like it was, especially in the early seasons.
>
> Let me guess... your two friends told you so.
He (or they) probably watched it on broadcast TV saw that it looked
like videotape and made the erroneous conclusion that it was shot that
way.
> Why not do a little bit of research before you look stupid in this
> newsgroup.... oh never mind.
Bwahahahahahaha. Man, you are good for a few laughs, I'll give you
that.
You are the one that needs to do a little bit of research. Seinfeld was
edited on 1" videotape for broadcast, and as such picked up the
"videotape look" in the process.
RichA
<Spam...@buffyisbrianlamb.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:22:45 -0600, "Aaron J. Bossig"
><link...@SpammersWillBeExecuted.ptd.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hogan's Heroes.... NOT new.
>>
>>... and NOT shot on video.
>>
>>Let's repeat... old shows shot on video. Those are two seperate
>>qualifiers.
>
>Shall I repeat...
>
>>>> Old shows were shot on Video?
>
>Name them.
An obscure Canadian sitcom called, "The Trouble With Tracy."
Made in 1971, it was shot on some kind of video.
-Rich
Black Locust
Allan <Spam...@buffyisbrianlamb.net> wrote:
> >>> Old shows were shot on Video?
>
> Name them.
LOL. You realize you just replied to yourself here, right? Stupid fuck...
> "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
> because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
> -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
> - Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
Black Locust
Allan <Spam...@buffyisbrianlamb.net> wrote:
> Let me guess... your two friends told you so.
Of course. They're the same two people who told you everyone(and their
grandma) is going to own an HDTV in a couple of years...
> Why not do a little bit of research before you look stupid in this
> newsgroup.... oh never mind.
Sorry, but unlike you I have this thing called a life. But you have fun
spending your days researching tv series' film grades, digging up
redundant HD DVD articles and masturbating to blurry photos of demo
Blu-Ray discs. We all wish we could be as cool as you Allan. You truly
are a paragon of technology.
> "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
> because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
> -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
> - Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
Black Locust
Allan <Spam...@buffyisbrianlamb.net> wrote:
> "practically all dramatic television shows were/are shot on film (16mm
> or 35mm)"
>
> Don't mention sitcoms at all. Can you read? You are "somewhat" full
> of shit.
This discussion includes all genres of tv series'. He can mention all
the sitcoms he likes, asswhipe.
> "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
> because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
> -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
> - Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
Black Locust
Allan <Spam...@buffyisbrianlamb.net> wrote:
> Five show.... not even confirmed....
Boy Meets World
Family Ties
Full House
Saved by the Bell
Perfect Strangers
There are many old sitcoms that were shot on video. This is just a
handfull of them.
> "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
> because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
> -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
> - Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
Mr. Moe
almost done replacing all my VHS with DVDs. This is bullsh*t. I've spent
alot of money already. Will we be able to play regular DVDs in HD players?
"Black Locust" <bl2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bl2112-728728....@news.uswest.net...
selaboc
Mr. Moe wrote:
> I hope to hell we don't have to buy into another format already....I
am
> almost done replacing all my VHS with DVDs. This is bullsh*t. I've
spent
> alot of money already. Will we be able to play regular DVDs in HD
players?
both HD formats (which use blue lasers) are supposed to include a red
laser so as to be backwards compatiable with current DVDs. So yes you
will be able to play regular DVDs in HD players as long as they follow
through with thier plans to include the red laser in the HD players.
Black Locust
"Mr. Moe" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> I hope to hell we don't have to buy into another format already....I am
> almost done replacing all my VHS with DVDs. This is bullsh*t. I've spent
> alot of money already. Will we be able to play regular DVDs in HD players?
I feel ya man. But don't write DVD off yet. It still has a lot of life
in it. It's not going to die off for a long time to come. To answer your
question; yes, fortunately, the HD players will also play "standard"
DVDs, so the switch won't be nearly as painful as it was going from VHS
to DVD or even going from Laserdisc to DVD. When I do eventually buy an
HDTV and an HD disc player, I plan to be very selective about what
movies I buy over again. SOME titles I will repurchase on whatever HD
format "wins the war." The rest of the HD titles I buy will be movies(or
tv series) that I DON'T already own. Just be sensible about it and you
won't be left with a DVD collection that you suddenly feel was a "waste
of money". Remember, this is not a quantam leap forward like DVD was
over VHS. These new formats are basically just DVDs with higher
resolution video. They offer few other advantages over regular DVD.
Tarkus
> I hope to hell we don't have to buy into another format already....I am
> almost done replacing all my VHS with DVDs. This is bullsh*t. I've
> spent alot of money already. Will we be able to play regular DVDs in
> HD players?
Yes. What is bullshit about it? Do you think they should never again
invent a superior format, just because you might feel compelled to buy
into it?
--
"Good evening, I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien
encounters is true. And by true I mean false. It's all lies. But
they're entertaining lies, so in the end, isn't that the truth? The
answer is 'no.'"
Now playing: "Emerson, Lake & Palmer - Bo Diddley"
Allan
wrote:
>In article <kn6f31lq2jhvr0ukp...@4ax.com>,
> Allan <Spam...@buffyisbrianlamb.net> wrote:
>
>> "practically all dramatic television shows were/are shot on film (16mm
>> or 35mm)"
>>
>> Don't mention sitcoms at all. Can you read? You are "somewhat" full
>> of shit.
>
>This discussion includes all genres of tv series'. He can mention all
>the sitcoms he likes, asswhipe.
Yawn..... Don't get mad again now Mr. Black...
Allan
wrote:
>In article <l26f311hh8krub48h...@4ax.com>,
> Allan <Spam...@buffyisbrianlamb.net> wrote:
>
>> >>> Old shows were shot on Video?
>>
>> Name them.
>
>LOL. You realize you just replied to yourself here, right? Stupid fuck...
Oh... someone is getting mad again... fun to watch.
Black Locust
Allan <Spam...@buffyisbrianlamb.net> wrote:
> Oh... someone is getting mad again... fun to watch.
How can I be LOLing at you and also simultanesouly be angry? Dumb, dumb,
dumb, dumby Allan.
> "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
> because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
> -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
> - Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_