TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > TiVo TV Talk > Now Playing - TV Show Talk
TiVo Community
Reply
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-29-2011, 08:13 PM   #61
mrdbdigital
The TBS Archives
 
mrdbdigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Moultrie, GA
Posts: 2,412
TC CLUB MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Man View Post
The trailer shows camera negatives being loaded into the scanner, and then it morphs a negative image into a positive.

So, yeah, the only high resolution medium that exists of the show is the camera negatives.

Wow! That is really a lot of work!

I'll buy it just to see how well they did with the conversion.
The correct name for what you are calling a scanner is "telecine".
mrdbdigital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2011, 12:31 AM   #62
Fish Man
Phish Food
 
Fish Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 0.7 miles from the Abita brewery!
Posts: 8,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdbdigital View Post
The correct name for what you are calling a scanner is "telecine".
"Telecine" is a device that converts film to video.

The component that went directly from film negatives to (positive) video was referred to by several tecs who worked with it as a "negative scanner" according to articles I've read, to differentiate it from traditional "telecine".

The equipment to go directly from negative to video was quite new and relatively novel in 1987. According to several articles (contemporary to the first season of ST:TNG) it was the first TV series to use this technique (negatives, direct to video, and then edit in the video domain) in production. As opposed to going all the way to a finished product on film, and then converting that finished film to video via telecine, which is common right up to today.

(ST:TNG's "negatives to video" technique never really caught on.)

Again, the whole point is, had they gone all the way to finished product on film, then used traditional telecine (as, indeed ST:TOS did, and Hogans Heros, and Sienfield, etc. etc.) we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by Fish Man : 10-01-2011 at 12:38 AM.
Fish Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2011, 12:54 PM   #63
mrdbdigital
The TBS Archives
 
mrdbdigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Moultrie, GA
Posts: 2,412
TC CLUB MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Man View Post
"Telecine" is a device that converts film to video.

The component that went directly from film negatives to (positive) video was referred to by several tecs who worked with it as a "negative scanner" according to articles I've read, to differentiate it from traditional "telecine".

The equipment to go directly from negative to video was quite new and relatively novel in 1987. According to several articles (contemporary to the first season of ST:TNG) it was the first TV series to use this technique (negatives, direct to video, and then edit in the video domain) in production. As opposed to going all the way to a finished product on film, and then converting that finished film to video via telecine, which is common right up to today.

(ST:TNG's "negatives to video" technique never really caught on.)

Again, the whole point is, had they gone all the way to finished product on film, then used traditional telecine (as, indeed ST:TOS did, and Hogans Heros, and Sienfield, etc. etc.) we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
A traditional telecine will scan negative film just as well as positive prints. Never seen one that won't. It is a very simple electronic process to convert from negative to positive within the telecine. Telecines were around and well implemented in the television production environment way before ST:TNG ever started production. In fact, Rank Cintel was on about their 4th generation of flying spot scanner telecines by then, so your statement, "The equipment to go directly from negative to video was quite new and relatively novel in 1987" is completely inaccurate.

I think part of this confusion is the digital revolution has taken over what was once the telecine business, and the modern digital scanners are much faster at scanning film, either positive or negative, because you only have to scan the film through once, store it digitally, and do all your post processing with computers and with the film back in the storage vault. This is different from the previous traditional methods of transfer, where the adjustments and color correction, etc. require multiple passes of the film through the transport., constantly starting and stopping to do scene by scene adjustments.

I suspect the articles you were citing were written by industry professionals used to the new digital scanners, who applied the current generic name to the older process of traditional telecine film transfer to video. It would be interesting to find someone who was involved with the transfers back then and see what machine the film was actually transferred on. I'm willing to bet it was a Rank-Cintel telecine, as they were the dominant force in the industry back then.

Last edited by mrdbdigital : 10-01-2011 at 07:54 PM.
mrdbdigital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2011, 09:20 PM   #64
alansh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,175
Yeah, I think they're trying to distinguish the old analog telecine process from the new digital scanning process. The end result may be the same (film -> video) but the process is totally different.

How will it look? I dunno. Some of the effects in the first couple seasons were not very good, though the ILM-produced effects for the pilot (and reused as stock footage) were pretty good.
alansh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 04:22 AM   #65
lordargent
real ultimate power
 
lordargent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Helmerichs View Post
It's interesting to watch the Babylon 5 DVDs
Mmmmm, Babylon 5 with new CGI
__________________
1) When completed, the tivo must appear to be stock.
lordargent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 07:16 AM   #66
Rob Helmerichs
I am Groot!
 
Rob Helmerichs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 31,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordargent View Post
Mmmmm, Babylon 5 with new CGI
That was the big miscalculation JMS made (the little one was assuming his directors would understand the concept of framing open-matte film for both 4:3 and 16:9): He assumed that by the time 16:9 was commonplace enough for the 16:9 version of B5 to be needed, the price of FX would have dropped enough to be able to cheaply fill out the 16:9 frame, so to save money they only did the FX on the 4:3 portion of the image. Oops.
__________________
“This is the moment of truth. Are you my friend, or are you some bloodsucking network vampire?”
“Why do I have to pick one or the other?”
Rob Helmerichs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2011, 11:22 AM   #67
Jonathan_S
Registered User
 
Jonathan_S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 13,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Helmerichs View Post
That was the big miscalculation JMS made (the little one was assuming his directors would understand the concept of framing open-matte film for both 4:3 and 16:9): He assumed that by the time 16:9 was commonplace enough for the 16:9 version of B5 to be needed, the price of FX would have dropped enough to be able to cheaply fill out the 16:9 frame, so to save money they only did the FX on the 4:3 portion of the image. Oops.
Well he might have been right, but IIRC their FX studio went under and the various digial models and files were lost. Recreating the models would have been prohibitively expensive. Rerender the CGI if they still had all the files might have been affordable.
__________________
Xbox: MetalThreshkeen -- PSN: Threshkeen
TiVo Elite
Jonathan_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2011, 11:32 AM   #68
DougF
Registered User
 
DougF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 13,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Man View Post
"Telecine" is a device that converts film to video.

The component that went directly from film negatives to (positive) video was referred to by several tecs who worked with it as a "negative scanner" according to articles I've read, to differentiate it from traditional "telecine".

The equipment to go directly from negative to video was quite new and relatively novel in 1987. According to several articles (contemporary to the first season of ST:TNG) it was the first TV series to use this technique (negatives, direct to video, and then edit in the video domain) in production. As opposed to going all the way to a finished product on film, and then converting that finished film to video via telecine, which is common right up to today.

(ST:TNG's "negatives to video" technique never really caught on.)

Again, the whole point is, had they gone all the way to finished product on film, then used traditional telecine (as, indeed ST:TOS did, and Hogans Heros, and Sienfield, etc. etc.) we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
I read that with "Seinfeld" they had to back to the film masters and re-edit as the editing had been done on video. I don't have a source as I can't remember where I saw it.
DougF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2011, 12:20 PM   #69
IndyJones1023
Documentarianologist
 
IndyJones1023's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 51,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan_S View Post
Well he might have been right, but IIRC their FX studio went under and the various digial models and files were lost. Recreating the models would have been prohibitively expensive. Rerender the CGI if they still had all the files might have been affordable.
I thought I heard they used viewer created models for the last movie.
__________________
Common sense is a gift, not a given.
IndyJones1023 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2011, 02:42 PM   #70
Rob Helmerichs
I am Groot!
 
Rob Helmerichs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 31,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan_S View Post
Well he might have been right, but IIRC their FX studio went under and the various digial models and files were lost. Recreating the models would have been prohibitively expensive. Rerender the CGI if they still had all the files might have been affordable.
My understanding is that if Warners had to choose between spending $20 on redoing all the B5 FX and $20 having lunch at Wendys, they would have gone to lunch.

Which is to say, they weren't going to spend ANYTHING on those DVD releases.
__________________
“This is the moment of truth. Are you my friend, or are you some bloodsucking network vampire?”
“Why do I have to pick one or the other?”
Rob Helmerichs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2011, 04:03 PM   #71
JYoung
Series 3
 
JYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 24,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Helmerichs View Post
My understanding is that if Warners had to choose between spending $20 on redoing all the B5 FX and $20 having lunch at Wendys, they would have gone to lunch.

Which is to say, they weren't going to spend ANYTHING on those DVD releases.
Well, you can tell that they spared no expense with the B5 DVD sets.
(/sarcasm)

It seemed to me like they didn't even do basic cleanup on the transfer.
__________________
Member of the TiVoShanan Fan Club!

"I aim to misbehave"
JYoung is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2011, 09:15 PM   #72
Bob_Newhart
My Custom User Title
 
Bob_Newhart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 20,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidTigerFan View Post
I think they should stretch it.
Or scan and pan it.

Or both FTW.
Bob_Newhart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 02:44 PM   #73
Azlen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Peoria, AZ
Posts: 2,029
EW has a video showing old and new side by side. One thing to note is that the aspect ratios aren't different between the two in this video, the new version is still 4:3. No idea if it will look that way in the final product or not.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/01/05/st...clusive-video/
Azlen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 02:49 PM   #74
doom1701
I blue myself!
 
doom1701's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 24,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azlen View Post
EW has a video showing old and new side by side. One thing to note is that the aspect ratios aren't different between the two in this video, the new version is still 4:3. No idea if it will look that way in the final product or not.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/01/05/st...clusive-video/
Pretty impressive. I might have to eat my words about this not being possible. I do wish they had more shots of the Enterprise, though.

Regarding the aspect ratio, though--it is a 4x3 show. The HD release is going to be 4x3.
__________________
Tim
doom1701 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 03:06 PM   #75
Fish Man
Phish Food
 
Fish Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 0.7 miles from the Abita brewery!
Posts: 8,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azlen View Post
EW has a video showing old and new side by side. One thing to note is that the aspect ratios aren't different between the two in this video, the new version is still 4:3. No idea if it will look that way in the final product or not.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/01/05/st...clusive-video/
I hope the blue ray sticks with 4x3, or at least has a menu option for that.

When the show was in production, all the cinematographers and directors were working with the knowledge that the final product would be 4x3 so they composed their shots for that. Cropping them would not show the director's intended composition and would remove part of the frame that they composed.

That being said, if this remastering effort leads to HD releases of the series for broadcast (on SyFy channel, etc.) I assume they'll release a "cropped to 16x9" version for broadcast, just as has been done with Seinfeld, Hogan's Heros, etc. etc.

Edited to add: I was really impressed with that sample clip! If they maintain that sort of quality for the entire series... Wow! I'm going to be blowing some money on some BlueRay sets...
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by Fish Man : 01-05-2012 at 05:01 PM.
Fish Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 05:26 PM   #76
LoadStar
LOAD"*",8,1
 
LoadStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 31,129
Wow. That is truly impressive. It would be hard to believe from the "new" version that you were watching a 25+ year old episode.

I wish they would have left it an "old" side and a "new" side. I wanted to see the whole thing, side-by-side. I was going a bit mad trying to follow it as the line kept scanning side-to-side.
LoadStar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 05:54 PM   #77
Fish Man
Phish Food
 
Fish Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 0.7 miles from the Abita brewery!
Posts: 8,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoadStar View Post
Wow. That is truly impressive. It would be hard to believe from the "new" version that you were watching a 25+ year old episode.
I had the exact same reaction. Then I got to thinking and became less and less surprised (albeit, still impressed!)

Originally, the camera negatives were telecine'd directly to Type C videotape.

Type C is slightly more lossy than the earlier Quadraplex that it replaced, and while Quadraplex could actually be edited by cutting the tape (the tracks were perfectly perpendicular to the tape edges, allowing cutting between them) Type C is editable only by dubbing.

So, the edited episode is at least a second generation dub from the tape containing the telecine'd camera masters. They'd then dub several "duplication masters" from that edited master (third generation), from which they'd dub many "distribution copies" (fourth generation) that would be distributed to the TV stations (remember, this show was syndicated).

Alternatively, one of the "duplication masters" was probably transmitted by satellite for the TV stations to make their own Type C dub (or possibly BetaCam dub). Fourth generation again, and this time with an analog satellite transmission adding further murk to the image.

I may well even be missing a dubbing generation. There is quite possibly another dub involved in adding the finished soundtrack (with music, effects, etc.), for instance.

We didn't notice in 1987 watching on our 1987 or earlier vintage TV sets connected to a snowy, poorly maintained cable TV system.

I assume they used a forth (or worse) generation tape, like the above, as the source for the "old" in the demo.

What various cable networks are currently showing might be digitized off of the third generation "duplication masters", or maybe, but probably not, off the second generation "edited master".

Still, the HD directly from the camera negative is going to look great no matter how you slice it.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Fish Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 06:19 PM   #78
LoadStar
LOAD"*",8,1
 
LoadStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 31,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Man View Post
I had the exact same reaction. Then I got to thinking and became less and less surprised (albeit, still impressed!)

Originally, the camera negatives were telecine'd directly to Type C videotape.

Type C is slightly more lossy than the earlier Quadraplex that it replaced, and while Quadraplex could actually be edited by cutting the tape (the tracks were perfectly perpendicular to the tape edges, allowing cutting between them) Type C is editable only by dubbing.

So, the edited episode is at least a second generation dub from the tape containing the telecine'd camera masters. They'd then dub several "duplication masters" from that edited master (third generation), from which they'd dub many "distribution copies" (fourth generation) that would be distributed to the TV stations (remember, this show was syndicated).

Alternatively, one of the "duplication masters" was probably transmitted by satellite for the TV stations to make their own Type C dub (or possibly BetaCam dub). Fourth generation again, and this time with an analog satellite transmission adding further murk to the image.

I may well even be missing a dubbing generation. There is quite possibly another dub involved in adding the finished soundtrack (with music, effects, etc.), for instance.

We didn't notice in 1987 watching on our 1987 or earlier vintage TV sets connected to a snowy, poorly maintained cable TV system.

I assume they used a forth (or worse) generation tape, like the above, as the source for the "old" in the demo.

What various cable networks are currently showing might be digitized off of the third generation "duplication masters", or maybe, but probably not, off the second generation "edited master".

Still, the HD directly from the camera negative is going to look great no matter how you slice it.
Yeah, I too was thinking much of the quality loss is from multiple videotape dubs, and not just that the original was in SD.

Throughout our TNG Rewatch, I've often noticed how *bad* the quality is... I figured it was just a really bad dub to from videotape to DVD, which Netflix then compresses down further for streaming, but I hadn't really thought about it possibly being the result of multiple generation loss.
LoadStar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 07:04 PM   #79
Bierboy
Seasoned gas passer
 
Bierboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Quad Sillies
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Man View Post
...When the show was in production, all the cinematographers and directors were working with the knowledge that the final product would be 4x3 so they composed their shots for that. Cropping them would not show the director's intended composition and would remove part of the frame that they composed....:
We've heard/read this argument ad infinitum....
__________________
"You don't know Bierboy like I know Bierboy. He became a lot more amusing after I figured out his sense of humor..." -- Rob Helmerichs

XL4
Bierboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 07:31 PM   #80
mrdbdigital
The TBS Archives
 
mrdbdigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Moultrie, GA
Posts: 2,412
TC CLUB MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Man View Post
Type C is slightly more lossy than the earlier Quadraplex that it replaced, and while Quadraplex could actually be edited by cutting the tape (the tracks were perfectly perpendicular to the tape edges, allowing cutting between them) Type C is editable only by dubbing.
No one edited Quad by splicing after about the early to mid 1970's, after Hi-band color recording became commonplace. After that, Quad was edited electronically just like every other format. Physical splicing was too crude for color video stability at the edit points, as well as physically damaging to the thinner heads used for Hi-band color recording.

Also the video tracks on Quad are not perfectly parallel to the tape edge. The 15 ips tape speed past the head on Hi-band results in the video tracks being recorded at an angle to the tape edge of around 12 degrees if I remember correctly. The older black and white Lo-band quad format, which was commonly physically spliced, ran at 7.5 ips and therefore had a much lower angle to the edge of the tape.

Quad was long obsolete in the production industry years before TNG.
mrdbdigital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 02:00 AM   #81
Bryanmc
I'm normal.
 
Bryanmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Richardson, TX 75082
Posts: 38,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bierboy View Post
We've heard/read this argument ad infinitum....
Why the rolleyes? It's the correct position to take.
Bryanmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 07:46 AM   #82
Rob Helmerichs
I am Groot!
 
Rob Helmerichs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 31,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryanmc View Post
Why the rolleyes? It's the correct position to take.
There are people who can see the difference, and people who can't. To me, mis-framed stuff is painful to watch, but I've known people who find black bars painful to watch and are happy to see brutally-cropped video.

Oddly enough, people are different. Sometimes I think, especially during election season, the world would be a much better place if we all just figured that out. (Which is not intended as a slam at either you or Bier, more like a gentle dig at both.)
__________________
“This is the moment of truth. Are you my friend, or are you some bloodsucking network vampire?”
“Why do I have to pick one or the other?”
Rob Helmerichs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 08:00 AM   #83
Bryanmc
I'm normal.
 
Bryanmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Richardson, TX 75082
Posts: 38,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Helmerichs View Post
There are people who can see the difference, and people who can't. To me, mis-framed stuff is painful to watch, but I've known people who find black bars painful to watch and are happy to see brutally-cropped video.

Oddly enough, people are different. Sometimes I think, especially during election season, the world would be a much better place if we all just figured that out. (Which is not intended as a slam at either you or Bier, more like a gentle dig at both.)
That's very pious, but why would the preference be an incorrectly framed shot?

Our world of different frame sizes makes black bars inevitable, it would be a tough world to exist in if that really was bothersome.
Bryanmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 08:29 AM   #84
Rob Helmerichs
I am Groot!
 
Rob Helmerichs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 31,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryanmc View Post
That's very pious, but why would the preference be an incorrectly framed shot?

Our world of different frame sizes makes black bars inevitable, it would be a tough world to exist in if that really was bothersome.
I agree with you completely.

People who disagree aren't wrong. They just have different priorities.

(And you may be the first person in the history of the universe to call me pious! )
__________________
“This is the moment of truth. Are you my friend, or are you some bloodsucking network vampire?”
“Why do I have to pick one or the other?”
Rob Helmerichs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 09:09 AM   #85
doom1701
I blue myself!
 
doom1701's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 24,285
I can't imagine why anyone would get excited about them literally rebuilding this show from scratch to create the ultimate HD edition...and then complain that they aren't chopping parts of the screen off to make it 16x9.
__________________
Tim
doom1701 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 10:19 AM   #86
Fish Man
Phish Food
 
Fish Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 0.7 miles from the Abita brewery!
Posts: 8,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by doom1701 View Post
I can't imagine why anyone would get excited about them literally rebuilding this show from scratch to create the ultimate HD edition...and then complain that they aren't chopping parts of the screen off to make it 16x9.
Thank you!

"Let's make as perfect and pristine a presentation of the show that the best available mastering source material available allows, and then f**k it up again by removing part of the picture!"

NO THANK YOU!
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Fish Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 10:26 AM   #87
Fish Man
Phish Food
 
Fish Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 0.7 miles from the Abita brewery!
Posts: 8,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdbdigital View Post
Quad was long obsolete in the production industry years before TNG.
Agreed. Sort of. Depending on how you define "long".

ST:TNG debuted in 1987.

Quad was still in common use into the first half of the 80's. (MTV used it until 1990 or so for their music videos since the only practical "videotape jukebox" available, the Ampex ACR-25, used Quad. MTV had special custom-kludged ACR-25s that supported stereo sound.)

Several soap operas were still using Quad as late as the late 80's and Saturday Night Live was using Quad to tape-delay for the west coast up to '84 or '85 or so.

But you are correct, Type C had taken over as the exclusive distribution medium for syndicated shows by about 1980.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Fish Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 11:50 AM   #88
Bierboy
Seasoned gas passer
 
Bierboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Quad Sillies
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryanmc View Post
Why the rolleyes? It's the correct position to take.
It's been hammered away again and again...we get it...

I don't disagree with the position. I disagree with continually bringing it up...
__________________
"You don't know Bierboy like I know Bierboy. He became a lot more amusing after I figured out his sense of humor..." -- Rob Helmerichs

XL4
Bierboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 12:09 PM   #89
LoadStar
LOAD"*",8,1
 
LoadStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 31,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bierboy View Post
It's been hammered away again and again...we get it...

I don't disagree with the position. I disagree with continually bringing it up...
It was only brought up because someone in the thread asked about it. It's not just being brought up out of the blue to be argumentative.
LoadStar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 01:21 PM   #90
Fish Man
Phish Food
 
Fish Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 0.7 miles from the Abita brewery!
Posts: 8,260
One additional point:

As sloppy and non-caring as they appeared to be with picture quality during the show's original production, it was one of the first episodic TV shows to feature a Dolby Surround soundtrack.

I listened to the audio of the show through a "Dolby Surround" decoder (known these days as "Pro-Logic") during the series' original run and the audio was absolutely state of the art.

Decoding this "Dolby Surround" (Pro-Logic) soundtrack and up-converting it to DD 5.1 or DTS would be a great idea, and still sound really good, even by today's standards, I suspect.

I assume the BlueRay's soundtrack will be an upconvert to a discrete digital format (namely 5.1 or DTS).
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Fish Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Forum Jump




Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Advertisements

TiVo Community
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media

(C) 2013 Magenium Solutions - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVo® is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not owned or operated by TiVo Inc.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 PM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |