Will old TV shows look (much) better on Blu-ray?

[Vandelay_Inds]

I've been wondering about this. Will old TV shows benefit from Blu-ray? Titles like Seinfeld, The Simpsons, Three's Company or even older ones such as The Twilight Zone? Will their picture quality improve to the same degree as movies'?

Thanks.

[bunkaroo]

I think it's really going to depend on how the show was shot, post-produced etc.

For instance, I would think anythink shot on film has a chance to benefit. Use The Sar Trek HD DVD as an example.

Stuff shot on video or finished on video for effects pose the greater challenge.

I'm thinking specifically of something like Babylon 5, where the live action stuff looks great, but the effects shots are bad because of the way they were originally rendered.

While I welcome the opportunity to get any feature film I own on Blu-Ray, I frankly wouldn't see much point in doing a show like Seinfeld. Animation like the Simpsons I'd be interested in seeing the result.

[cracksky]

Of course, Seinfeld was originally shot full frame (1.33:1) but if you check
out TBS HD lately it looks as if they've reformatted the show to a proper
1.78:1 image. When TBS HD first started airing Seinfeld, it was horrible
and all distorted, like other shows and movies still are on that channel.
Maybe they have remastered all the episodes into High Definition and are
preparing them for a Blu-Ray release. I would hope any future BD release
would have both the full frame versions AND the HD versions in the same
ultimate package. Anybody else notice these airings?

[RoboDad]

First, I have to say that if a show was composed for a 4:3 frame, reformatting to 16:9 is not a "proper" image. It is an alteration, and most likely will have some level of compromise in the resulting framing.

I'll take the OAR, thanks.

But, as for the original question, bunkaroo is right. Anything that was shot and processed fully on film will more than likely look great on Blu-ray, assuming that a new HD master can be created for a Blu-ray release.

But anything shot on video (whether the entire series or just effects sequences) will be problematic at best, and painful to watch at worst.

So, ironically, older series have the potential to look much better than many newer series. The original Twilight Zone, for example, would look incredible if it were given the Blu-ray treatment.

[cracksky]

First, I have to say that if a show was composed for a 4:3 frame, reformatting to 16:9 is not a "proper" image. It is an alteration, and most likely will have some level of compromise in the resulting framing.

I'll take the OAR, thanks.

I agree but take a look at how it appears on the channel then come back and comment. It looks good enough to me to have both versions. Not just 1.78:1.

Maybe they shot with the 1.85:1 framing in mind all long.

[Vipper II]

I agree but take a look at how it appears on the channel then come back and comment. It looks good enough to me to have both versions. Not just 1.78:1.

Maybe they shot with the 1.85:1 framing in mind all long.

Or, more likely, they cropped the image down to fit a 16x9 ratio. You can see the effects in some of the shots; the framing doesn't look right.

[Drexl]

First, I have to say that if a show was composed for a 4:3 frame, reformatting to 16:9 is not a "proper" image. It is an alteration, and most likely will have some level of compromise in the resulting framing.

I'll take the OAR, thanks.

I agree. I don't know why this is acceptable for some people who are otherwise pro-OAR. It is no different from pan and scan.

BTW, they mastered Seinfeld in HD for the DVD releases, and an insider at Sony said it would come to Blu-ray eventually. I imagine it will take a while, since few comedy shows have been released so far.

[Josh Z]

Or, more likely, they cropped the image down to fit a 16x9 ratio. You can see the effects in some of the shots; the framing doesn't look right.

I don't know about Seinfeld specifically, but I recall that some of the older series broadcast in 16:9 on HDNet (Hogan's Heroes, The Equalizer, Charlie's Angels, etc.) were transferred by scanning the film negatives further to the left and right edges than was originally planned, then employing a mixture of cropping off the top and bottom and stretching. The result looks less distorted than a straight crop or straight stretch, but still is not the show's original intended composition.

[cracksky]

First, I have to say that if a show was composed for a 4:3 frame, reformatting to 16:9 is not a "proper" image. It is an alteration, and most likely will have some level of compromise in the resulting framing.

I'll take the OAR, thanks.

Do we really know for sure that Seinfeld was composed for 4:3? We know that it was broadcast that way. It was shot on 35mm film with spherical lenses so maybe it was composed for a 1.85:1 image bearing in mind the 1.33:1 framing for television. Unless a hard matte was used which I seriously doubt. The original negative should have the entire 1.85:1 frame on it.

[Gerry P.]

Do we really know for sure that Seinfeld was composed for 4:3? Yes. Do you really think they composed for an aspect ratio other than the one it would be broadcast in for 20 years? There may be more picture information in the frame that can be used to recompose for 16:9, but that doesn't mean it was originally composed for 16:9.

[cracksky]

Yes. Do you really think they composed for an aspect ratio other than the one it would be broadcast in for 20 years? There may be more picture information in the frame that can be used to recompose for 16:9, but that doesn't mean it was originally composed for 16:9.

In 1987, US broadcasters petitioned the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) to reserve spectrum for HDTV broadcasting. Based on interest, the FCC formed an industry wide advisory committee to investigate options and select an HDTV standard. During this process, four competing groups (one of which was NBC) each proposed their own digital HDTV approaches. Unable to reach a decision, in 1993 the FCC encouraged the competing groups to join forces and, as such, the "Grand Alliance" system was developed. This alliance resulted in the ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) standard, which was approved in December of 1996.

Since NBC was one of the networks that picked an HDTV standard, which was first talked about before Seinfeld hit the airwaves, I think it's entirely plausible for a show that was shot on film to have its DP protect for 1.85:1 for a future HD presentation or product yet also compose for TV safe.

[kefrank]

Do we really know for sure that Seinfeld was composed for 4:3? We know that it was broadcast that way. It was shot on 35mm film with spherical lenses so maybe it was composed for a 1.85:1 image bearing in mind the 1.33:1 framing for television. Unless a hard matte was used which I seriously doubt. The original negative should have the entire 1.85:1 frame on it.
Yes, Seinfeld was originally composed for 4:3. There are some great comparison shots of the TBS HD framing to the original 4:3 framing in a thread over at Blu-ray.com and there is a TON of image cropped from the bottom of the frame on the TBS HD, to the point of being detrimental.

[cracksky]

Yes, Seinfeld was originally composed for 4:3. There are some great comparison shots of the TBS HD framing to the original 4:3 framing in a thread over at Blu-ray.com and there is a TON of image cropped from the bottom of the frame on the TBS HD, to the point of being detrimental.

After reading a few threads over there and looking at some screencaps, I'm even more convinced that Seinfeld will be forthcoming in 16x9 HD on BD.

The information that is cropped on the top and bottom of the image is correct for the 16x9 framing. The 4x3 framing has more top/bottom image. Just like when an old full-frame VHS tape comes out on widescreen dvd, you lose image on the top and bottom to get the correct aspect ratio.

TBS HD has shown Seinfeld in an incorrect and distorted form in the past. Only very recently have they aired HD broadcasts that are not zoomed in or otherwise wrong.

[Drexl]

The big difference there is that movies are intended to be seen on wide movie screens. Seinfeld was intended to be seen in the 4x3 aspect ratio.

I didn't buy non-OAR DVDs, so I wouldn't buy this in 16x9 either.

[kefrank]

The information that is cropped on the top and bottom of the image is correct for the 16x9 framing. The 4x3 framing has more top/bottom image. Just like when an old full-frame VHS tape comes out on widescreen dvd, you lose image on the top and bottom to get the correct aspect ratio.
The only full-frame VHS movies that lose image on the top and bottom for widescreen presentation are films that were shot "Open Matte" and matted to 1.85:1. Their original presentation in the theater was widescreen. VHS took advantage of the way they were shot to provide a 4x3 presentation, but they were not composed for 4x3.

Seinfeld was composed for 4x3, so a cropped 16x9 presentation is the equivalent of the full-frame VHS tape: an incorrect version of the original.

TBS HD has shown Seinfeld in an incorrect and distorted form in the past. Only very recently have they aired HD broadcasts that are not zoomed in or otherwise wrong.
A cropped image is still wrong.

[Vipper II]

A cropped image is still wrong.

Especially if you're familiar with the show and how it should look. While the cropped is much nicer than the stretched, it's still very awkward at times because I know how the full frame version looks.

[Nick Martin]

Anyone have a link to the Seinfeld screencaps? Being in Canada I don't get TBS HD.

[Josh Z]

The information that is cropped on the top and bottom of the image is correct for the 16x9 framing. The 4x3 framing has more top/bottom image. Just like when an old full-frame VHS tape comes out on widescreen dvd, you lose image on the top and bottom to get the correct aspect ratio.

TV shows that are intended to air in dual aspect ratios (4:3 in SD and 16:9 in HD) are shot in 3-perf format, which yields an image on the film negative close to 16:9. The 4:3 version is taken as a center extraction. The 16:9 HD airings have more picture on the sides.

This is the opposite of how feature films are shot, which is a 4-perf format yielding a 1.37:1 aspect ratio on the negative.

If the airings of Seinfeld in 16:9 are cropped on the top and bottom, that proves that the show was never filmed with 16:9 in mind. If it had been, there would be extra picture on the sides and no cropping.

[Adboy151]

Anyone have a link to the Seinfeld screencaps? Being in Canada I don't get TBS HD.

AVS Link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1063659)

[Nick Martin]

Wow. Thanks.

Very interesting, and they really put effort into it. I'm curious to actually watch it that way, but again, Canada....

It clearly looks like they opened the sides up AND cropped it. Probably in an effort to avoid the problems the UK Buffy DVDs had with green screen edges, crew members, and even negative edges making the image look like a pinhole camera.

[Vandelay_Inds]

If they start with this fullscreen bullshit again, I'll give up for good any notion of perhaps someday adopting Blu-ray. -ohbfrank-

So, going back to the original question, is it a settled deal that shows like Seinfeld, Three's Company or Family Ties will not benefit from HD?

[Nick Martin]

Well Seinfeld will, regardless of whether its 4x3 or 16x9.

[Drexl]

If they start with this fullscreen bullshit again, I'll give up for good any notion of perhaps someday adopting Blu-ray. -ohbfrank-

So, going back to the original question, is it a settled deal that shows like Seinfeld, Three's Company or Family Ties will not benefit from HD?

Seinfeld will benefit (whether it's OAR or 16x9), but Three's Company and Family Ties were shot on SD video so they probably won't. The best they could do with those is to re-encode them for better compression. Or there might be some small improvements from remastering if they didn't do a great job the first time. They just won't be any higher in resolution.

[Vandelay_Inds]

Thanks for the replies. Generally speaking, which shows were shot on SD video and which weren't? Is there any way to tell? New shows from 90s onwards would all or the vast majority benefit from HD, say Law & Order or The X Files?

[Mr. Salty]

Thanks for the replies. Generally speaking, which shows were shot on SD video and which weren't? Is there any way to tell? New shows from 90s onwards would all or the vast majority benefit from HD, say Law & Order or The X Files?

Again, it depends on how they were handled in post-production.

A lot of shows that were shot on film were then transferred to SD video for editing, and if there were special effects the effects were probably rendered in SD. For such shows to benefit from HD, the original camera negatives would have to be retransferred to video in HD, then re-edited. I think it'll be a while before you see studios going to that much trouble and expense.

[Vipper II]

Thanks for the replies. Generally speaking, which shows were shot on SD video and which weren't? Is there any way to tell? New shows from 90s onwards would all or the vast majority benefit from HD, say Law & Order or The X Files?

Law & Order has been shot on film throughout its entire run (in widescreen, too, but trimmed to 4x3 for most of that time). So, technically, we could get every episode in HD (TNT airs them in HD).

[BuckNaked2k]

I too, noticed that a Seinfeld episode was being broadcast the other day on TBS in 16x9, and that it was not stretched. My first impression was that it did not look horrible.

I started A/B'ing between the HD channel and the non-HD channel to see if I could notice any differences. There was clearly some cropping/zooming being done to render the 4x3 image as 16x9. Faces were noticably bigger (closer) and a small amount of information was lost top & bottom, but all-in-all, it wasn't too gawd awful, and I applaud them for their efforts. I can't stand streched SD, and will change the channel immediately once I detect it, so for me, this works as an acceptable compromise for HD broadcasts.

That said, I already own the complete series boxset, and feel no need to ever rebuy the set on Blu-ray. It's a silly 22 minute sitcom ferchrissakes, and is just fine in SD. Now Firefly OTOH........

[Josh-da-man]

The modern Star Treks (TNG, DS9,VOY) were shot on film, but mastered on videotape, so the DVD is about as good as they're going to look. In order to make them HD ready, they'd have to go back and remaster the whole series from the original film elements in addition to redoing the special effects.

Babylon 5 was shot on film (in WS) with eventual HD release in mind. The plan was to simply re-render all of the computer effects in HD quality. Unfortunately, Warners trashed all of the special effects computer files so they would have to be done from scratch. (They wouldn't let the producers or special effects house keep back-ups.)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer's first two seasons were shot on 16mm film and probably wouldn't benefit from much from HD. (Even on the DVD, a lot of dark shots look like 1995-era quicktime files.) Later seasons were filmed on Super-35, so they could benefit from HD. (And while it is possible the sides "mattes" could be opened up for widescreen, Joss Whedon has made it known that he prefers the show in the 4:3 ratio.)

X-Files, I'm not sure about, but the earlier seasons look they were either filmed on 16mm or mastered on video.

[Gerry P.]

That said, I already own the complete series boxset, and feel no need to ever rebuy the set on Blu-ray. It's a silly 22 minute sitcom ferchrissakes, and is just fine in SD. Now Firefly OTOH........I'm with you here. The DVDs look better than the original broadcast ever did, so I'll never double dip on these.

[kefrank]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer's first two seasons were shot on 16mm film and probably wouldn't benefit from much from HD. (Even on the DVD, a lot of dark shots look like 1995-era quicktime files.)
I disagree. Something shot on 16mm film could definitely benefit from HD. 16mm film still has a higher effective resolution than 1080p. There is more grain, but one of the advantages of Blu-ray is all of the bandwidth that allows faithful rendering of that grain, rather than turning it into noise. DVD's limited bandwidth had a lot of trouble handling grain, resulting in signficant compression artifacts - thus your description of those scenes on DVD.