When's the Blu-Ray !?

[JoeD80]

What I mean by transfer is a complete new encoding of the original material. Taking the material from the DVD and simply "putting" (ie. re-encoding) it on a bluray yields no results whatsoever.

That was my earlier point -- the EFX would look the same on Blu-Ray as it already does on DVD played on my hi-def TV now, not that it would improve it by any means.

First of all, putting the standard DVD CGI in HD is like stretching a 853×480 image up to 1920x1080, it does not look particularly good on a big screen. Secondly, if the non-CGI scenes were encoded in HD and coupled with the CGI/mixed-CGI scenes from the DVD, you would have a huuuuuuuuuuuuge discrepancy in quality, making things even worse.

This is already what a widescreen TV will do on the DVDs *now*. The CGI is already there in widescreen. It doesn't look bad IMO. If the other stuff looked sharper but the EFX looked the same, would I think it was *worse*? I don't think so.

[oldjoe5]

It doesn't look bad IMO. If the other stuff looked sharper but the EFX looked the same, would I think it was *worse*? I don't think so.

It's not a problem with widescreen, but HD vs upscaled SD. Try looking at one scene in HD, then the next upscaled, next in HD, then one in mixed HD and upscaled - and you will get what the results will be like - worse than now.

Why? Because of the discrepancy between what real HD is (encoding from the source material) and SD upscaled to HD (which is what the mixed and full CGI scenes would be in this case).

I think this has been argued to death in the existing HD thread, but look at it from WBs side why there won't be a blu-ray version:

1. Blu-ray market is a niche market for HD and quality "obsessed" people. Quality is not possible because of the current CGI problems (especially concerning the mixed scenes).
2. CGI needs to be re-done from scratch for point one to be valid. This costs a lot of money and time.
3. WB is not interested in spending money and time to bring out a blu-ray version for a TV-show that does not have a big fanbase.
4. In general, take a look at what TV-shows that come out on blu-ray. In most cases it is only new releases. Old shows rarely gets the blu treatment, unfortunately. Again marketing plays a role in this.

How WB treats blu-ray movies in general when it comes to quality is yet another discussion...

[JoeD80]

It's not a problem with widescreen, but HD vs upscaled SD. Try looking at one scene in HD, then the next upscaled, next in HD, then one in mixed HD and upscaled - and you will get what the results will be like - worse than now.

I did get that point. I don't really see how switching between HD and SD (upscaled as you say) would make it worse that just all SD played on a Hi-Def. The EFX would still look the same as they do now on my hi-def TV (which is what I meant by widescreen TV). Doesn't matter if you upscale it, the source data is the same. It can't have *less* information than the current compressed images that the DVDs have. And the rest of the show being *actual* HD would improve the look, not hinder it IMO, even if you could tell the difference more clearly between the HD and non-HD scenes.

1. Blu-ray market is a niche market for HD and quality "obsessed" people. Quality is not possible because of the current CGI problems (especially concerning the mixed scenes).

This was the idea of the whole thread -- Blu-Ray is fast moving away from being a niche market to the *standard*, now that the latest "format wars" have died down.

3. WB is not interested in spending money and time to bring out a blu-ray version for a TV-show that does not have a big fanbase.

Not a big fanbase? By what measure? Maybe compared to Star Trek and standard network shows you could say that. But it is still one of the better-selling TV shows on DVD.

4. In general, take a look at what TV-shows that come out on blu-ray. In most cases it is only new releases. Old shows rarely gets the blu treatment, unfortunately. Again marketing plays a role in this.

Firefly is coming out on Blu-Ray next month (Nov. 11th for those curious) and it's not a new series, plus it certainly didn't have the time to build as big a fanbase as B5. If they can do it, certainly B5 can.

[oldjoe5]

As I said before, this would still look the same as it does now on my hi-def TV (which is what I meant by widescreen TV). Doesn't matter if you upscale it, the source data is the same. It can't have *less* information than the current compressed images that the DVDs have.

Of course, but looking at the mixed and full CGI scenes in upscaled SD would render it useless. It is pointless to make a full blooded blu-ray release if you have only half the content in proper quality.

This was the idea of the whole thread -- Blu-Ray is fast moving away from being a niche market to the *standard*, now that the latest "format wars" have died down.

It is not moving to become a standard, and is still a niche market. Blu-ray has less than 10% market share, while DVD still has above 90%. And things are not exactly moving in Blu-rays favour either, DVD sales are going up, while Blu-ray sales have declined.

Firefly is coming out on Blu-Ray next month (Nov. 11th for those curious) and it's not a new series, plus it certainly didn't have the time to build as big a fanbase as B5. If they can do it, certainly B5 can.

That is great news for Firefly fans for sure, but as you can read, I was speaking in general. And in general, very few old or older tv-shows get the blu-ray treatment.

The two greatest factors against blu-ray is quality and money, CGI being the big issue here. While I'd like to be optimistic, I just cannot see WB giving Babylon 5 the blu-ray treatment at this time.

[JoeD80]

Of course, but looking at the mixed and full CGI scenes in upscaled SD would render it useless. It is pointless to make a full blooded blu-ray release if you have only half the content in proper quality.

Why? It would look better overall IMO, even with the flaws. It's not useless if people will buy it.

It is not moving to become a standard, and is still a niche market. Blu-ray has less than 10% market share, while DVD still has above 90%. And things are not exactly moving in Blu-rays favour either, DVD sales are going up, while Blu-ray sales have declined.

The market's been going up and down though. The market share for Blu-Ray went up at the beginning of this month to 13% which was a record surge for it. Sure, it's not close to initial predictions but DVD's didn't sell well early on either.

That is great news for Firefly fans for sure, but as you can read, I was speaking in general. And in general, very few old or older tv-shows get the blu-ray treatment.

The point being was that another sci-fi show was being released on blu-ray.

[oldjoe5]

Why? It would look better overall IMO, even with the flaws. It's not useless if people will buy it.

Try to look at it from the big companies view or a standpoint of quality, not your own. Increasing only 50% of the quality will not make it better. It will be like looking at 50% gorgeous stuff, 50% "90s quality" if you wish to put it that way. Viscerally speaking, quality is the whole point of movies - balance is king. Having 50% still in SD will make it look like an amateur put the thing together. Even if WB has dodgy blu-ray standards as I vaguely mentioned, that would be severely lowering the bar for what they could put out. You have to have a quality product, otherwise you cannot expect to sell well. This is not only marketing, but generic quality of the product.

The market's been going up and down though. The market share for Blu-Ray went up at the beginning of this month to 13% which was a record surge for it. Sure, it's not close to initial predictions but DVD's didn't sell well early on either.

DVDs was a big hit seller from the get go. It didn't require consumer to purchase a new TV and even though it was expensive in the beginning, prices were nowhere near what blu-ray is today, and unlike blu, prices dropped extremely fast. Blu-ray has been slow as a turtle to say the least. Blu-ray sales went down to 8% from 13% in late September. While DVD currently has 92% market share.

[JoeD80]

DVDs was a big hit seller from the get go. It didn't require consumer to purchase a new TV and even though it was expensive in the beginning, prices were nowhere near what blu-ray is today, and unlike blu, prices dropped extremely fast. Blu-ray has been slow as a turtle to say the least. Blu-ray sales went down to 8% from 13% in late September. While DVD currently has 92% market share.

You must have lived in a different universe during the 90s. Early DVDs were not big sellers, and they *were* as expensive as blu-ray. $60 for a movie release and they had *no special features whatsoever*. And your share #s are backwards. Blu-Ray dropped to 8% in late September, and rose to 13% in early October. (It may have dropped again, latest #s I was going off were from Oct. 6th)

[oldjoe5]

And your share #s are backwards. Blu-Ray dropped to 8% in late September, and rose to 13% in early October. (It may have dropped again, latest #s I was going off were from Oct. 6th)

No, they aren't:

The Blu-ray U.S. market share dropped to 8 percent at the end of last week -- more than 13 percent from the previous week -- with traditional DVDs commanding the other 92 percent, according to Nielsen VideoScan. This is far from Sony president Ryoji Chubachi's ridiculously lofty goal of 50 percent market share by year's end.

This is from 23. of September. Linky

DVD has the majority market share. Whatever numbers you dig up, that is a fact.

Again I emphasize: The two greatest factors against blu-ray is quality and money, CGI being the big issue here. While I'd like to be optimistic, I just cannot see WB giving Babylon 5 the blu-ray treatment at this time.

So let's not keep going in circles about statistics or numbers. Because those factors are real for WB.

[JoeD80]

No, they aren't:


This is from 23. of September.

Yes and my # was from 6 of October which last I checked occurred after 23 of September.

edit: Sorry, October 5th. But that's still after September 23rd. http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/10/11...nding-october/

[Dr Maturin]

Probably never. The CGI was shaky at best for regular dvd. There's no way it can hold up in High Def. They'd have to go back and re-do the whole series in CGI for that. And this is Warner Bros. It won't happen.

Plus, if they're not going to do that and BD players are backward compatible, there is no reason for B5 on BD.

[oldjoe5]

edit: Sorry, October 5th. But that's still after September 23rd. http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/10/11...nding-october/

Sorry I didn't notice. However, DVD is still the standard by miles. Blu-ray is a niche market, and is going to be that for quite some years to come.

Everything points to no blu-ray. Of course we can continue living in hope, but I like to keep my feet on the ground.

[grumbler]

Why? It would look better overall IMO, even with the flaws. It's not useless if people will buy it.

The problem is that viewers get used to a given level of detail, and the greater the delta between the filmed portion and the CGI portion, the worse the CGI portion looks.

Kinda like the frog and the boiling water; if you toss a frog in boiling water, it will try to get out of the water. If you put the frog in cool water and then slowly bring it to a boil, the frog will remain in the water until it dies, because there never comes the moment when the delta is enough to trigger the escape impulse.

[oldjoe5]

If I were buying B5 for the first time and had the choice between Blu-ray and DVD I would choose Blu-ray regardless of whether or not the CG had been upgraded.

Every average joe would still buy the DVD. This is because Blu-ray is a niche market and is still very expensive compared to DVD. But I think WB cares a lot more about their reputation, reviews, critique, etc. - than to put out a mediocre products (yes, poor video quality on a Blu-ray is a mediocre product, and CGI parts being upscaled SD are just that). I would go as far as to argue that Blu-ray users are more quality aware than DVD users just because of the feats Blu-ray presents.

I'm not actually sure I would want the CG to be upgraded. Part of what makes B5 what it is for me are the special effects (as they are). It would be like buying the movie Tron on Blu-ray and discovering that the computer generated parts had been upgraded and re-rendered in HD. I'd probably return it.

While at least the last half of season 3, season 4, and season 5 have quite good CGI, they would still show a lot of improvement if re-done for HD. No jaggies, finer colors, more details, etc. Season 1 and 2 would never even look half-decent in HD, they would definitively have to be re-done. Of course all seasons hold a good ground on DVD, but HD is a completely other matter.

Also check out Lemon Wolf's thread for some inspiration here

[Garibaldi's Hair]

The big problem I see here is not that the CGI would be worse than it is on DVD, clearly that wouldn't be the case, but precisely that it would be just the same. When you take all the filmed elements and put them into high definition, the CGI and composite scenes will jar and look worse precisely because they are not.

If I paint a crappy picture and put it up in a gallery next to a bundle of other crappy pictures, mine looks OK because it isn't out of place. If I put it in a gallery with a collection of fine art by talented painters it will look like what it is ... a piece of garbage. Same picture, different context, different interpretation.

Hell, I remember people complaining that the composite scenes looked rubbish on DVD because of the combination of filmed elements and cropped CGI ... just imagine how those same fans would react to those composite scenes being bookended by superb, crisp HD scenes filmed in the Zocalo and C&C.

Which brings us to the other issue.

IIRC, the film stock of B5 was damaged in storage and the early seasons in particular were fairly noisy as a result ... something not entirely solved in making the DVDs.

In that case, not only would the CGI have to be re-done from scratch because the original files are lost, but significant funds would need to be spent on repairing the fillm stock to prepare it for HD release.

Without spending the significant sums for those two things to be done, hardcore fans of the show would probably be prepared to forgive and buy the set, because they know the background, others would not. The reviews of the set would likely be universally bad with regards to picture quality, and almost guarantees no sales among non-hardcore fans of the show.

Personally, if WB ever decided to spend that kind of money on B5, I would prefer them to put it towards making something new.

And comparison with the release of Firefly is a bit of a strawman, really. This is a cancelled show, but it is certainly not an OLD show. This was a series made when DVD was already the home video standard and Blu-Ray was on the way. Not only will Fox have made sure to retain the CGI so it could be re-rendered (or whatever the correct term is) into HD, but they may well have had a HD release in mind even when the show was made.

That just isn't true for B5.

[JoeD80]

IIRC, the film stock of B5 was damaged in storage and the early seasons in particular were fairly noisy as a result ... something not entirely solved in making the DVDs.

In that case, not only would the CGI have to be re-done from scratch because the original files are lost, but significant funds would need to be spent on repairing the fillm stock to prepare it for HD release.

There was damage to the pilot film that jms ran into when he did the special edition. Don't know if the damage occurred to the other episodes as well. There are also flaws on the film that show up in a digital transfer, but those flaws wouldn't look worse on the BluRay than they did on the DVD (or they'd be the same size anyway).

Not only will Fox have made sure to retain the CGI so it could be re-rendered (or whatever the correct term is) into HD, but they may well have had a HD release in mind even when the show was made.

That just isn't true for B5.

Well WB was supposed to make sure the CGI for B5 was retained too; they just failed at it. Also, jms *did* have HDTV in mind, mentioning it as early as 1993:

We are shooting in 16:9 aspect ratio, cutting it down to normal TV aspect ratio for its initial broadcasts. When a) the laserdisks are in time released, and b) when HDTV becomes more of a standard, the full letterboxed aspect ratio will be available

We're not shooting on videotape, so it's kind of a moot point. We're shooting on film, which can be converted to HDTV standards *very* easily. The pixel density is a function of where you go once you decide to convert the film. It's now being converted to video at standard resolution; when HDTV comes into existence commercially, the film will be reprocessed out and transferred to video at that level.