When's the Blu-Ray !?

[Ubik]

Whether he likes it or not, it's not up to him. And I think it would only be wise to get WB's blessing first. AND does anybody know how much it would cost just to do a decent transfer in 4:3 instead of the widescreen debacle? I'm betting that it would be more than Kickstarter could fund. Remember Veronica Mars was *growing* their fanbase thanks to easy availability.

My, don't I sound pessimistic?!?

Jan

Watch WB scramble to do it if and when the B5 movie sees the light of day!

[Jan]

I know JMS dislikes the idea of Kickstarter, but it would be amusing to fund a B5 restoration project to get WB off their collective arses. Hell, if Veronica Mars fans can fund a film for a dead series

Whether he likes it or not, it's not up to him. And I think it would only be wise to get WB's blessing first. AND does anybody know how much it would cost just to do a decent transfer in 4:3 instead of the widescreen debacle? I'm betting that it would be more than Kickstarter could fund. Remember Veronica Mars was *growing* their fanbase thanks to easy availability.

My, don't I sound pessimistic?!?

Jan

[Ubik]

A fan posted to JMS' wall that the DVDs don't look very good on a 47-inch TV screen and wishes that JMS might mention to WB that it's a good time for a better version to be released on blu-ray even if they don't re-do the effects.



Jan

I know JMS dislikes the idea of Kickstarter, but it would be amusing to fund a B5 restoration project to get WB off their collective arses. Hell, if Veronica Mars fans can fund a film for a dead series

[Jan]

A fan posted to JMS' wall that the DVDs don't look very good on a 47-inch TV screen and wishes that JMS might mention to WB that it's a good time for a better version to be released on blu-ray even if they don't re-do the effects.

WB doesn't care about and, according to some of the execs there by actual quote, "don't get" B5. The DVDs are, I believe, simply bad transfers from the UK laser disks. They didn't even bother to go back to the originals for the DVDs. It's profoundly unfortunate and massively short sighted.

Jan

[Ubik]

Re-release the original 4:3 (assuming all the masters still exist) with maybe a bit of a tidy here and there is the more realistic option in my view. While jms’s idea of a long running story arc was indeed a first for sci-fi, it only represents a fraction of the reason why B5 was so ground breaking and influential within the industry. Removing much of the visible signs of that just for the sake of providing prettier ship models is, in my view, pretty abhorrent. It’s a product of its time, a very important product – historically important even. Tidy it up, but leave as is, because once you start changing stuff in the show, where does that end!

THIS. Couldn't agree more! I think B5 is a product of its time, and should remain intact for the very reason that it was groundbreaking at the time of production.

However, if we can get a better looking version of the show in 4:3, I'd be game.

Thanks again for some clarity on the FX issues.

[Triple F]

He does address the composite scenes in the original post, but not in respect of the 4:3 idea that emerged in the comments thread. I have no idea what that would involve!? TripleF?

I’m no expert on the subject, just a bit more familiar than most fans with some aspects of it due to putting B5Scrolls together.

It’s a really unfortunate situation that is the result of a variety of decisions. Sadly I never addressed some of them in the ‘interviews’. The idea of filming in 35mm was deliberately taken to future proof the show. That cost the production a few bucks. But then you have the situation were the CGI was produced exclusively in the 4:3 aspect ratio, and we now know that was down to Doug Netter and his decision to not spend 5 grand on a monitor, then lie to jms about it.

But here’s the thing that gets completely overlooked – and is one of the bits I never chased up while doing the interviews – and it revolves around those troublesome composite shots which have the sharp drop in quality in the DVD’s – and where a HUGE cost would be involved in producing a re-mastered (widescreen) copy. The likes of Kevin Kutchaver (who added stuff like the PPG blasts) and Eric Chauvin (who created the matte backgrounds and the like) were given the filmed plates already telecined down to the 4:3 format. Which seems a remarkably short sighted decision, to force the composite shots to be produced in 4:3, given the whole point of filming the live action using 35mm stock! It was no doubt down to money, but as to the specifics, I’ve no idea, didn’t ask – duh!

So the 4:3 composite shots and CGI were stretched and expanded about a 1/3 in size to fit the 16:9 aspect ratio of the widescreen release. The original plan agreed with WB was to upres them, which wouldn’t have been ideal but still better than what we got. What made the composite shots look even worse was that the DP added a lot of grain to the filmed elements and finished FX shots to give B5 that gritty look. This just added even more visual noise after the stretching and zooming in.

The laserdiscs are easily the best copy of B5 kicking about – but the set is incomplete and stopped being produced because – wait for this – the fans stopped buying them after a possible DVD release was mentioned…… and I think it was jms who started the online rumour. : ) Digital, they’re also in the originally transmitted 4:3 aspect ratio, so you see the composite shots and CGI in more or less the original quality..... and would look even better in a modern blue ray player and the upres'ing algorithms they use.

It’s part of the reason why I think a re-release in the 4:3 ratio is the way to go. But with this far less expensive option is the original 3D and FX quality good enough for a modern audience – it is very low resolution (blocky with jagged edges). More importantly does the studio think a modern audience will accept it. The original 3D models just don’t come close to the complexity of what we have become accustomed to. So it’s down to whatever cost benefit formula Warner applies to these things. On a positive note, they are looking at re-releasing the show, with both options on the table….. so there is hope that something might come out.

As to how difficult it is to produce new composite shots with the original plates for a fully revamped Blue Ray release. The original plates are basically copies of the filmed elements put on tape and given to the FX ‘guys’ to do their thing on. So as long as the original filmed elements still exist it would (technically) be easy enough to produce new plates in a genuine widescreen format. But the sheer volume of work is where the probable crippling costs would come from since B5 has FAR more FX shots that ST:TOS and TNG combined.

Re-release the original 4:3 (assuming all the masters still exist) with maybe a bit of a tidy here and there is the more realistic option in my view. While jms’s idea of a long running story arc was indeed a first for sci-fi, it only represents a fraction of the reason why B5 was so ground breaking and influential within the industry. Removing much of the visible signs of that just for the sake of providing prettier ship models is, in my view, pretty abhorrent. It’s a product of its time, a very important product – historically important even. Tidy it up, but leave as is, because once you start changing stuff in the show, where does that end!

[Jan]

I totally understand what you're saying about #FreeBabylon5, this is perhaps not the best venue for such an idea.

If I had a dozen lieutenants to concentrate on all of the different aspects, I'd love to expand things. Who knows, maybe if every division of WB started getting deluged with letters, maybe that would get their attention big-time.

Maybe after Comic-Con I can go on a recruiting drive.

ETA: Hope the above didn't come over as being whiney!

Jan

[Ubik]

I think Tom/Triple-F is ignoring the complexity of marrying/editing any up-converted files to the composite scenes, of which there are many. Or maybe he's not - he's got much better contacts with technical folks from the show than I ever will. My understanding is that that process would be in the same neighborhood expense-wise as re-rendering the CGI itself.

Jan

He does address the composite scenes in the original post, but not in respect of the 4:3 idea that emerged in the comments thread. I have no idea what that would involve!? TripleF?

My main thrust was that the show (without any touching up) could be presented in a 4:3 format, then the CGi cut scenes wouldn't appear as 'zoomed' as they are on the DVDs. If my understanding is correct, much of it would look a good deal better than the DVDs we have now. I just found it interseting as it's not often discussed from that angle. It's a cheaper and perhaps perfectly achievable quick fix for a re-issue, without re-doing everything at great expense.

I totally understand what you're saying about #FreeBabylon5, this is perhaps not the best venue for such an idea.

[Jan]

There were however, some interesting mutterings in the comments thread, most notably around the possibility of a 4:3 release like the Laser Disc editions, which would be an improvement over the stretched look of the DVDs. Perhaps this is something worth pushing for? #FreeBabylon5?

It might be worth pushing for, but not by #FreeBabylon5 - at least not yet. My feeling is that we need to grow the fan base and that's where all the #FB5 efforts are focused - getting WB to make it possible for the fan bas to grow by making it available at all. Making it available in a particular aspect or format is a job for another day. If we get too scattered, nothing will be effective at all.

While it's great that there are original ship files available (as has long been rumored - however unofficially that may have happened), I think Tom/Triple-F is ignoring the complexity of marrying/editing any up-converted files to the composite scenes, of which there are many. Or maybe he's not - he's got much better contacts with technical folks from the show than I ever will. My understanding is that that process would be in the same neighborhood expense-wise as re-rendering the CGI itself.

Meanwhile, I may just bookmark that post and post it whenever the subject comes up. It'd sure save a lot of typing!!

Jan

[Ubik]

Triple F, who runs B5 Scrolls raised a few interesting points today around the possibility (or not) of a B5 Bluray release. The general gist is that it simply won't happen, something I think the better informed fans are now resigned to. The full post can be read here.

There were however, some interesting mutterings in the comments thread, most notably around the possibility of a 4:3 release like the Laser Disc editions, which would be an improvement over the stretched look of the DVDs. Perhaps this is something worth pushing for? #FreeBabylon5?

“A re-release in the original 4:3 aspect ratio like what appeared on the laser discs would be a vast improvement over the widescreen DVD's we have now - it's also doable on a sensible timescale, and wouldn't break the bank”.

[Ubik]

Not possible. B5's budget generally hovered around 900K per episode. That would have Voyager at almost 20 MILLION per episode. indeed!

Jan

Okay, it wasn't quite that extreme. But we all know B5 came in very cheap compared to Trek!

A typical Trek episode of ENT / Voyager came in at 1.2 Million. BUT, apparently the opening episode for ST: Voyager 'Caretaker' cost in the region of 23 Million! So, when you factor that in, it's pretty much true!

You could film almost a whole season of B5 for the cost of Voyager's feature length pilot episode. Jeez!

[Jan]

I could be wrong, but I recall reading somewhere that an entire season of B5 came in at about the same price as a single ST: Voyager episode.

Not possible. B5's budget generally hovered around 900K per episode. That would have Voyager at almost 20 MILLION per episode. indeed!

Jan

[Ubik]

As JMS, JoeD80, Jan Schroeder and others can verify: Not only did B5 have ten times as many EFX shots per episode, B5 had a smaller production budget per episode than either TNG or DS9. J. Michael Straczynski used his production budget very efficiently.

I could be wrong, but I recall reading somewhere that an entire season of B5 came in at about the same price as a single ST: Voyager episode.

[Dan Dassow]

B5 had 50 - 60 CGI shots/comps per episode when TNG had maybe 5 or 6 EFX shots per. Also DS9 didn't get heavily into CGI until season 6.

As JMS, JoeD80, Jan Schroeder and others can verify: Not only did B5 have ten times as many EFX shots per episode, B5 had a smaller production budget per episode than either TNG or DS9. J. Michael Straczynski used his production budget very efficiently.

[JoeD80]

That's what they did for TNG right? And that's what they'll do for DS9.
And in both of these cases, they had to actually recreate practical effects. Since B5 was so advanced for its time, Warner would only have to re-render the CGI and recompose the shots.
I can see why they wouldn't do it, but it has nothing to do with purported costs.

B5 had 50 - 60 CGI shots/comps per episode when TNG had maybe 5 or 6 EFX shots per. Also DS9 didn't get heavily into CGI until season 6.