JMS: Any thoughts on High Definition television and B5?
shab...@gmail.com
With the original Babylon 5 television series, you had the foresight to
take into account a future trend, namely widescreen television. Today,
we see High Definition television slowly gaining more and more market
penetration, maybe more so than widescreen television had when the
first season of B5 was being shot. You have talked about doing new
Babylon 5 episodes this year, to be released next year. I was wondering
if you again have taken into account future trends for television
formats, and if so, in what way?
In a related matter, Star Trek: The Original Series is getting a
makeover for the HD era (more info can be found on their website here:
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/23775.html ). The
show is being remastered for High Definition video, and the effects
scenes are getting a CGI makeover. I had a twofold question about such
an HD makeover, if I may. A deal with the Sci-Fi Channel got us a
widescreen version of the show. How realistic is it to expect a similar
HD treatment for original B5, maybe when HD has become as common as
colour television now, after another network or syndication deal?
Possibly with the CGI re-rendering we never got because WB lost the
computer files?
Second, is it _technically_ possible to do an HD version of original
B5? Does the Super 35 film that I believe the live action was shot on
offer the option of re-scanning for HD? For the live action / CGI
composited shots, are the live action parts of those still stored in a
format that would allow rescanning into a higher resolution and
different aspect ratio? And last, with new CGI assets being created for
The Lost Tales, would that make it in any way easier for the CGI to
finally be re-rendered at some future point in time, even with the
original files missing?
Thank you for your time.
-Shabaz
jms...@aol.com
shab...@gmail.com wrote:
> JMS,
>
> Star Trek: The Original Series is getting a
> makeover for the HD era (more info can be found on their website here:
> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/23775.html ). The
> show is being remastered for High Definition video, and the effects
> scenes are getting a CGI makeover. I had a twofold question about such
> an HD makeover, if I may. A deal with the Sci-Fi Channel got us a
> widescreen version of the show. How realistic is it to expect a similar
> HD treatment for original B5, maybe when HD has become as common as
> colour television now, after another network or syndication deal?
> Possibly with the CGI re-rendering we never got because WB lost the
> computer files?
>
That's a studio question, far outside my expertise. I suppose it's as
possible as anything else.
> Second, is it _technically_ possible to do an HD version of original
> B5? Does the Super 35 film that I believe the live action was shot on
> offer the option of re-scanning for HD? For the live action / CGI
> composited shots, are the live action parts of those still stored in a
> format that would allow rescanning into a higher resolution and
> different aspect ratio? And last, with new CGI assets being created for
> The Lost Tales, would that make it in any way easier for the CGI to
> finally be re-rendered at some future point in time, even with the
> original files missing?
>
Yes, you can up-rez 35mm to HD fairly easily, especially since we had
to deliver film negative masters to WB...but again you'd have to crop
the CGI if you wanted it in wide. We tried experimenting with
up-rezzing Jeremiah to HD and it looked fine.
jms
Shabaz
Thank you for the answers. And I guess you can't answer Lost Tales
questions yet at the moment, which I understand. I am very much looking
forward to them though, HD or not.
-Shabaz
Immortus45
> Second, is it _technically_ possible to do an HD version of original
> B5? Does the Super 35 film that I believe the live action was shot on
> offer the option of re-scanning for HD? For the live action / CGI
> composited shots, are the live action parts of those still stored in a
> format that would allow rescanning into a higher resolution and
> different aspect ratio?
Are you trying to say that there was no point at which the CGI was
transfered to 35 mm film ? They don't have complete 42 minute episodes
on film in a vault somewhere ?
Josh Hill
wrote:
When they did the widescreen version, they had to blow up the 3*4
video frames on the effects shots. And, unfortunately, you can see it.
Here's to hoping that B5 will someday be remastered to HD, with redone
and widescreen effects . . . expensive, but a good opportunity for the
studio to sell everyone the whole show over again!
All the Next Generation effects were done directly in video as well,
and apparently in NTSC composite -- it looks absolutely terrible, or
at least the version I have does.
--
Josh
[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [...]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he departed.
- The Gospel of Judas
Shabaz
As far as I know, all the composited and CGI shots only exist now as
NTSC 480i masters. Which is a resolution that they barely managed to
get rendered in a workable time anyway; rendering for film resolution
as they do for movies would've been ridiculously expensive and time
intensive, and overkill at the time for the television broadcast.
However, the original computer files that the CGI scenes were rendered
from were turned over to WB every year, from what I understand, with
the intention of rerendering to different aspect ratios and resolutions
if and when that would come up. Except WB lost those files, somehow.
So they had to go back to those NTSC versions that were rendered for
television for the comped and CGI shots, cut off the top and bottom
sections of the frames, and blow those shots up to make them fit in the
widescreen frame for the Sci-Fi and DVD widescreen versions of B5.
-Shabaz
Angelika Tobisch
> Here's to hoping that B5 will someday be remastered to HD, with redone
> and widescreen effects . . .
Am I the only one who couldn't care less for redone effects? Depending
on just how different they look I might actually resent them.
Angelika
Joseph DeMartino
> Are you trying to say that there was no point at which the CGI was
> transfered to 35 mm film? They don't have complete 42 minute episodes
> on film in a vault somewhere?
Exactly. On a feature film you *have* to output CGI and digitally
composited shots to film because the final result has to be a complete,
edited negative from which film prints can be struck. Theatrical films
are, after all, distributed *on film.* But TV shows aren't anymore.
They're uplinked to a network satellite and then downlinked to the
local station where they are recorded on broadcast-standard videotape
(or stored on a hard drive) and held for broadcast. "B5" always did
things using the cheapest and fastest methods just to stay on time and
on budget. There was no time to output the finished episodes to film
even if they had wanted to do so. That's why the CGI and composite
elements look so bad compared to the live action material on the DVDs,
because the live action could be sourced from film (had to be extract
the widescreen frame from the Super35 prints) but the rest existed only
as broadcast master tapes.
Complicating the issue further is the fact that WB lost/destroyed all
the CGI computer files. If those still existed the original CGI shots
could be re-worked and re-rendered at higher resolution. Even the
composite shots could be recreated assuming the other elements (live
action, background plates, animation cels) are still around or (in the
case of the rotoscope stuff) could be easily recreated or even replaced
with CGI. But given the the files and models aren't there anymore, all
of it would have to be recreated from scratch for there to ever be a
true HD version of "B5". And that means Warenr Bros. spending a
massive amount of money. Now it isn't *impossible* that WB might
decide to invest the kind of money if it thinks it will get a decent
return on it over the long haul, but I wouldn't bet the rent money on
that happening.
OTOH, this is "B5" we're talking about. The pilot wasn't supposed to
get made. Then it was never going to series. Then it wouldn't last a
season. It was going to be cancelled every single year. It
*certainly* wasn't going to make it to the planned 5th year. Ten years
ago people scoffed at the idea that anybody would buy a TV show on DVD,
that anybody would spend the money to buy whole seasons of a show, and
especially that there would be a big enough audience for an obscure
syndicated show like "B5" to make a DVD release worthwhile. I myself
was called nuts for saying that a "B5" DVD release was not only
possible, but that it could be successful enough to get WB interested
in a feature film. Well, 500 million dollars in DVD sales later WB
*did* approach JMS about a feature film and *he* turned *them* down
(for the time being) - but only because real life (and sadly, death)
had made it impossile for him to consider such a project *now*.
So who knows? A couple of years of doing well with "The Lost Tales"
and a "B5" feature film around 2010 that does better than the studio
expects could make them decide that to pull a "Trek" and revamp "B5"
for true HDTV.
Of course, that means I'll have to buy the whole damned show all over
again, but I'll take that chance. By then, with luck, the format war
will be over and I'll actually own a hi-def DVD player. <g>
Regards,
Joe
"See this? It's gonna replace CDs in a few years. Looks like I'm
gonna have to buy 'The White Album' again." - Agent K "Men in Black"
Amy Guskin
(in article <4514d630$0$5144$9b4e...@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>):
Same here, Angelika. In most cases, I probably wouldn't even _notice_ that
they were redone. That's not why I watch the show.
Amy
Greg Bryant
Now if some of William Shatner's over-the-top acting could be redone, that
might be a good thing... ;-)
.
Shabaz
I care, mostly because what we have now are 4:3 frames cropped and then
blown up to fit the widescreen frames. It looks off to me. Not even
that much for the space CGI shots, which are a bit blurry and aliased
on my DVDs, but there the framing mostly feels ok to me. But with the
comped shots, you sometimes go from a full widescreen frame to 4:3
cropped frames of the same shot in one scene, and it can be jarring.
Furthermore, the comped shots didn't get the clearing up that using a
more modern telecine does for its live action film footage, and even
for the part of the image where the 4:3 frame and widescreen frames
overlap, the old NTSC 4:3 broadcast telecine used for the comped shots
looks noticeably less clear. I did some screenshots myself, but the one
you can find here illustrate what I'm saying a bit clearer, I think:
http://tinyurl.co.uk/mqg4 Scroll down to "How Much Quality Do We Lose
With Composites?".
And I do think that better, more clearer versions can both make the
dramatic performances come out better, and for those new to the series,
make it a bit more accessible. I quite like the widescreen version of
B5, and how the live action looks in it. Also, I believe that JMS spoke
of the widescreen version enhancing shelf life with the coming HD
standards, when those were made. I think a HD could serve a similar
purpose, and CGI and comped shots that weren't made of cropped 4:3
interlaced frames would be nice in that regard too.
And in general, I like how this show looks. Since it was shot on film,
they did shoot all this extra detail, and an HD version would bring
that extra detail out. It would make me very happy to see it.
-Shabaz
Joseph DeMartino
> I care, mostly because what we have now are 4:3 frames cropped and then
> blown up to fit the widescreen frames. It looks off to me. Not even
> that much for the space CGI shots, which are a bit blurry and aliased
> on my DVDs, but there the framing mostly feels ok to me.
That's because those shots were really designed to be cropped. The
tops and bottoms of the frame were "padded" and all the key action took
place towards the center. (In fact, I think a number of the 100% CGI
shots look *better* in widescreen than they do full frame, more focused
and better balanced.)
The comp shots were less well composed under the pressure of meeting
air dates, and because some directors were more adept at planning for
widescreen than others. Finally the the need to marry these shots to
anamorphic widescreen shots of the live action led to additoinal
processing. Ironically the show would have ended up looking more
consistent, at least, if it had been released in widescreen on
letterboxed laserdiscs - which is more or less how JMS envisioned
things going at the time, since DVD didn't yet exist and most people
not directly involved in the technical end of things had only the
vaguest idea of how hi-def digital television was going to work. The
irony is that hi-def DVDs *don't* use anamorphic processing because
their native aspect ratio is 16:9. Anamorphic is a way of squeezing
the maximum resolution out of standard-def discs primarily on standard
def TVs, while also allowing them to play on SD TVs. Hi-def discs
don't have to *worry* about playing on SD TVs, so that wasn't an issue
in putting the spec together.
Regards,
Joe
Josh Hill
wrote:
I wasn't thinking in terms of /different/ or /better/ effects. It's a
matter of being able to remaster the show properly in widescreen and
in high definition -- the current effects are 3 x 4 525 line, which
doesn't allow for either.
Joseph DeMartino
> -- the current effects are 3 x 4 525 line, which doesn't allow for either.
Actually 4:3 and 480 (interlaced) lines. <g> Aspect ratios are always
expressed *as* ratios (":" not "x") and the width is always given
first. A 3:4 screen would have a very different shape than a 4:3 one.
This becomes important when comparing different aspect ratios,
especially between TV, where the terms 4:3 and 16:9 tend to be used a
lot, and film, where the second value in all ratios is "1". (As in
2.60:1, 2.35:1, 1.85:1, 1.66:1 - it is easy in all cases to understand
how wide each is in relation to the others. 4:3 and 16:9 are,
respectively, about 1.33:1 and 1.78:1
And while an NTSC broadcast signal is made up of 525 horizontal lines,
the number actually devoted to the image is 480. Other data including
closed captioning information is carried in the remaining lines.
Regards,
Joe
Nitpicker-in-Training
Josh Hill
<jdem...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Heh, yes, I know. 483 lines, actually, for a 21-line VBI. I expressed
the numbers as I did because I thought it would be clearer for a
non-technical reader.
Angelika Tobisch
>> Am I the only one who couldn't care less for redone effects? Depending
>> on just how different they look I might actually resent them.
[...]
> Furthermore, the comped shots didn't get the clearing up that using a
> more modern telecine does for its live action film footage, and even
> for the part of the image where the 4:3 frame and widescreen frames
> overlap, the old NTSC 4:3 broadcast telecine used for the comped shots
> looks noticeably less clear. I did some screenshots myself, but the one
> you can find here illustrate what I'm saying a bit clearer, I think:
> http://tinyurl.co.uk/mqg4 Scroll down to "How Much Quality Do We Lose
> With Composites?".
Thanks for the link. From the technical point of view it's a very
interesting read (or skim, if I'm honest) and the screenshots do show
quite a difference. However, B5 still is pretty much all about the story
for me. I've just started my third run within 2 years and I still don't
even notice the credits even though they're all over the very things I'm
looking at. It's called immersion and with this show it happens for me
all the time. If the quality would indeed improve, I probably wouldn't
notice at all.
Granted, the Sinclair-vs-Raiders scenes in "Midnight on the Firing Line"
had me think beyond the box: "OK, the effects _do_ get better later on,
I admit that, but - whoah - look at how he just turned and the ship
actually keeps moving in the same direction. It's called inertia, it's
real and welcome back to the B5-universe!" ;) It helps with the
immersion stuff, you know.
> And I do think that better, more clearer versions can both make the
> dramatic performances come out better, and for those new to the series,
> make it a bit more accessible.
That is indeed a good reason.
Angelika
Amy Guskin
(in article <45165445$0$30686$9b4e...@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>):
>
> Granted, the Sinclair-vs-Raiders scenes in "Midnight on the Firing Line"
> had me think beyond the box: "OK, the effects _do_ get better later on,
> I admit that, <<
It's funny, but at the start of this sentence, I thought for _sure_ you were
invoking the teapot scene. :-)
Did that happen to you guys in Germany, too? During SciFi's last couple of
broadcasts of the series in the US, we had this hilarious glitch: there's
this scene in that episode where Sinclair is out chasing the raiders, and
he's looking for a C&C ship which, he says, "looks just like that" -- and on
that comment, the visual jarringly switches for a moment to the teapot in
Londo's quarters, from which he takes a part to construct a gun (which he's
not supposed to have on station). And then we're back with Sinclair and the
raiders.
I'm still disappointed that we didn't get the teapot scene as an extra on the
DVDs... I'll have to save that videotape of it forever now!
Amy
Angelika Tobisch
>> Granted, the Sinclair-vs-Raiders scenes in "Midnight on the Firing Line"
>> had me think beyond the box: "OK, the effects _do_ get better later on,
>> I admit that, <<
>
> It's funny, but at the start of this sentence, I thought for _sure_ you were
> invoking the teapot scene. :-)
>
> Did that happen to you guys in Germany, too? During SciFi's last couple of
> broadcasts of the series in the US, we had this hilarious glitch: there's
> this scene in that episode where Sinclair is out chasing the raiders, and
> he's looking for a C&C ship which, he says, "looks just like that" -- and on
> that comment, the visual jarringly switches for a moment to the teapot in
> Londo's quarters, from which he takes a part to construct a gun (which he's
> not supposed to have on station). And then we're back with Sinclair and the
> raiders.
That's hilarious. I've never seen the show on anything but DVDs so I
don't know about broadcasts on German television. It hasn't been on for
ages, which is not the best way to bring in new viewers.
> I'm still disappointed that we didn't get the teapot scene as an extra on the
> DVDs... I'll have to save that videotape of it forever now!
I know I would <g>
Angelika
Hendrik Boom
>
> shab...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Second, is it _technically_ possible to do an HD version of original
>> B5? Does the Super 35 film that I believe the live action was shot on
>> offer the option of re-scanning for HD? For the live action / CGI
>> composited shots, are the live action parts of those still stored in a
>> format that would allow rescanning into a higher resolution and
>> different aspect ratio? And last, with new CGI assets being created for
>> The Lost Tales, would that make it in any way easier for the CGI to
>> finally be re-rendered at some future point in time, even with the
>> original files missing?
>>
>
> Yes, you can up-rez 35mm to HD fairly easily, especially since we had
> to deliver film negative masters to WB...but again you'd have to crop
> the CGI if you wanted it in wide. We tried experimenting with
> up-rezzing Jeremiah to HD and it looked fine.
I imagine the hard part would be to get Warner Brothers to *find* the
film.
-- hendrik
Joseph DeMartino
> I imagine the hard part would be to get Warner Brothers to *find* the
> film.
As far as I konw Warner Bros. has all of the original film except for
those portions of the negative for "The Gathering" that were damaged
due to poor storage. The original film was used to source the
widescreen digital masters that were apparently used to create both the
Sci-Fi Channel widescreen letterboxed broadcast masters and the
anamorphic widescreen DVD masters. (Although it is possible that they
had to do new transfers for the DVDs if they didn't do the SFC masters
at high enough resolution.)
Depending on exactly how the widescreen masters were created WB may
already *have* HD copies of all the filmed material on hand. (Since
thwy were going to the expense and trouble of re-telecineing everything
to widescreen WB may have gone with hi-res D1 masters which could then
be downconverted to NTSC resolution for the SFC copies, 480p for the
DVDs and held in reserve for eventual HD use. Certainly that's what I
and others urged them to do before the widescreen version was produced.
But that would still leave the issue of the CGI and comp shots, which
would look even worse in comparison to HD live action footage than they
do now.)
Only the CGI files were actually lost and/or destroyed, because the
digital discs, back-up tapes etc. were evidently handled differently at
Warner Bros. than filmed materials and audio tracks.
Regards,
Joe
Bill
> > Did that happen to you guys in Germany, too? During SciFi's last couple of
> > broadcasts of the series in the US, we had this hilarious glitch: there's
> > this scene in that episode where Sinclair is out chasing the raiders, and
> > he's looking for a C&C ship which, he says, "looks just like that" -- and on
> > that comment, the visual jarringly switches for a moment to the teapot in
> > Londo's quarters, from which he takes a part to construct a gun (which he's
> > not supposed to have on station). And then we're back with Sinclair and the
> > raiders.
>
> That's hilarious. I've never seen the show on anything but DVDs so I
> don't know about broadcasts on German television. It hasn't been on for
> ages, which is not the best way to bring in new viewers.
>
> > I'm still disappointed that we didn't get the teapot scene as an extra on the
> > DVDs... I'll have to save that videotape of it forever now!
>
> I know I would <g>
>
The glitch is hilarious. I didn't see it on SciFi either, but someone
uploaded it some time ago and I saved it to my PC. It's now available
for mass consumption here
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/People_Of_rastb5m/files/ .
Bill
Henrik Herranen
> The irony is that hi-def DVDs *don't* use anamorphic processing because
> their native aspect ratio is 16:9. Anamorphic is a way of squeezing
> the maximum resolution out of standard-def discs primarily on standard
> def TVs, while also allowing them to play on SD TVs. Hi-def discs
> don't have to *worry* about playing on SD TVs, so that wasn't an issue
> in putting the spec together.
I fail to see the irony. If a HD version of Babylon 5 would be done,
there would be exactly the same problems with special effects and
composite shots as there were with making the 16:9 DVDs. Actually,
they would be worse, because film elements could (and would) be
re-scanned for HDTV resolution, and most of the time the results
would probably be very good. However, the CGI and composite still
have only the composite video standard definition 4:3 NTSC masters
to begin with so the disparity on image quality would be even
bigger than with the DVDs.
The only way to save at least some CGI/composite picture quality
would be to transfer the effect shots as 4:3 elements in a 16:9
frame, so that there would be black borders at the left and right
side of the screen. That way the current DVDs could actually look
a _lot_ better than what they do now because the subpar vertical
scaling as used in the current transfers wouldn't be needed at all.
Reference:
http://www.iki.fi/leopold/Babylon5/DVD/DVDTransfer.html
Kind regards,
- Henrik
--
Good signatures never die, they just fade away
Graeme Kingston
"Joseph DeMartino" <jdem...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1159018172....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
><Snip
> Complicating the issue further is the fact that WB lost/destroyed all
> the CGI computer files. If those still existed the original CGI shots
> could be re-worked and re-rendered at higher resolution. Even the
> composite shots could be recreated assuming the other elements (live
> action, background plates, animation cels) are still around or (in the
> case of the rotoscope stuff) could be easily recreated or even replaced
> with CGI. But given the the files and models aren't there anymore, all
> of it would have to be recreated from scratch for there to ever be a
> true HD version of "B5". And that means Warenr Bros. spending a
> massive amount of money. Now it isn't *impossible* that WB might
> decide to invest the kind of money if it thinks it will get a decent
> return on it over the long haul, but I wouldn't bet the rent money on
> that happening.
>
As the original poster said, many CGI assets will have to be recreated for
and paid for by the new show, which surely means re-doing the CGI shots for
the original show will be that much easier and cheaper. The shots would
still have to be recreated, but many of the CGI models will be there. It's
one less obstacle for a full-on HD 16:9 version of B5.
Graeme
Jo'Asia
> The glitch is hilarious. I didn't see it on SciFi either, but someone
> uploaded it some time ago and I saved it to my PC. It's now available
> for mass consumption here
> http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/People_Of_rastb5m/files/ .
It's GREAT. 8)))
But how will I explain the chuckle at every mention of a teapot? ;)
Jo'Asia
--
__.-=-. -< Joanna Slupek >----------------------< http://esensja.pl/ >-
--<()> -< joasia @ hell . pl >------< http://bujold.fantastyka.net/ >-
.__.'| -< I don't ask for search warrants, I *issue* them.
{Diplomatic Immunity} >-
Joseph DeMartino
> As the original poster said, many CGI assets will have to be recreated for
> and paid for by the new show, which surely means re-doing the CGI shots for
> the original show will be that much easier and cheaper. The shots would
> still have to be recreated, but many of the CGI models will be there. It's
> one less obstacle for a full-on HD 16:9 version of B5.
*Some* of the original models and virtual sets will probably have to be
created for the "Lost Tales", but that's only a fraction of what would
be needed to recreate the CGI and composite scenes from the original
series and the TV movies. We're not just talking about stock shots of
the station in orbit or Staryfury fly-bys. How deep into the "Tales"
might we get before there is a reason to show an Earthforce destroyer?
How much longer before we would see all classes of EF ships? Minbari?
Narn? How many Vorlon, Shadow and other First One ships are we likely
to see? And those are just ship models. If the "Tales" don't go to
Centauri Prime that's a whole bunch of virtual sets and planetscapes
that have to be done from scratch.
The finished shots are, of course, made up of much more than models.
Some of the space battles involved hundreds of individual ship objects,
not to mention background plates from JPL and thousands of weapons
beams and bursts to be animated. Somebody will have to look at the
existing 4:3 space battles and then design a 16:9 version that looks
similar from scratch. The composite shots are mosly unique - all the
virtual set stuff, for instance. The exact camera angles and the
models for "one off" locations would again have to be created all over
again.
Having the station, a few ship and some planet models would *help*, but
I doubt it would significantly reduce the cost of re-doing the CGI for
HD. Because frankly building the 3D wire frames and even adding the
texture maps are *not* the most time-consuming and expensive parts of
the process, as least according to my limited understanding of such
things.
Regards,
Joe
Graeme Kingston
Yes I know there's *much* more to a finished CGI shot than the CGI models. I
didn't claim that *all* the models required to do the original show would be
available because of the new show. That's exactly why I said "many" and not
"all" CGI models and why I said the shots would still have to be recreated
and why I said only that it was "one less obstacle" and not "it's a complete
solution". I don't think we're disagreeing here. Glass half full vs half
empty, maybe? :-)
It would still need both the enhanced Star Trek and B5:TLT to be financial
successes for a full-on HD B5 to be on WB's radar. But there is precedent
here: Paramount must have made money on the reworked effects for ST:TMP for
it to have considered doing the enhanced ST. And no doubt George has made a
mint tinkering with the original Star Wars trilogy.
So here's B5 breaking new ground yet again, this time by testing a new
business model for WB: Can WB make money by making a TV show that isn't paid
for by a broadcast network? By going straight to another delivery method,
like DVD? Or maybe, ultimately, the internet? Why not put (what would
otherwise be) "first run" shows straight on to iTunes or equivalent? At an
appropriate price for the download, of course. Perhaps only DVD can command
the price premium WB needs for now, but the days of ABC, CBS et al are
definitely numbered.
Graeme
Graeme