Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Why Can't We Get Standard Def TV series on Blu-ray?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#41 of 92 OFFLINE   smithbrad

smithbrad

    Supporting Actor



  • 567 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 12 2013
  • Real Name:Brad

Posted February 02 2014 - 10:27 PM

There's lots to be gained with a high volume disc with better compression that would not take up more space.

Let the marketplace determine the demand.

 

There is also a potential gain in using some of that space. You may not agree with it, but I know some others that do. And it's not unheard of based on some past releases.

 

Easy to say about the marketplace determining the demand. But someone has to take the risk and assume the loss if it doesn't sell well. I understand you would like it and would be willing to buy if done, I just don' think the market would bear that out and I don't think it is worth it to the studio's to put out status quo just to conserve the number of disks. The double dipping model has more traditionally been based on getting better quality and/or more extras as the incentive.

 

I agree with an early poster that the driver would be when the DVD format is retired, but by then physical media might be completely out. This of course is just my opinion.


  • AndyMcKinney likes this

#42 of 92 OFFLINE   Cinescott

Cinescott

    Supporting Actor



  • 838 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 2010
  • Real Name:Scott
  • LocationMilwaukee, WI

Posted February 03 2014 - 04:50 AM

I'm trying to remember when I have encountered such a tech-savvy group so against an advantageous use of technology before. IMO, if a program's source material never rose above SD, that shouldn't be automatic grounds for banning it from Blu-ray for life. Blu-ray has better compression methods, much more space, and the ability to handle SD with no problems. Therefore:

 

1. If the source material is film, great, encode at 1080p HD

2. If it's videotape, encode with 480i(p) and use the additional space for more content.

 

Upconversion has nothing to do with it. I'm not interested in seeing an upconverted All in the Family on Blu-ray. I'd love to see it in 480i on Blu-ray, however, because that's what the source is. 

I recently bought the Twilight Zone on Blu-ray and five seasons required 24 discs. All HD. Five SD seasons of All in the Family could easily fit on 5 discs.

The best quality available on the best physical storage medium. Why is that so bad?

 

Also, for those who say there is no market for these programs, a title like All in the Family had much better ratings than the Twilight Zone could ever have dreamed of having for many more years, so I think there would be a market for it. 


  • MatthewA and Moe Dickstein like this

"There are two types of people in the world, my friend. Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."


#43 of 92 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,316 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted February 03 2014 - 05:27 AM

Why is that so bad? 

For me, it's that none of the goods come close to trumping the bads. It's nice that compression would be better and that there'd be less discs but it wouldn't be worth the consumer confusion and, amongst less knowledgeable folk, it would reinforce the mistaken idea that anything old won't benefit from HD.



#44 of 92 OFFLINE   smithbrad

smithbrad

    Supporting Actor



  • 567 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 12 2013
  • Real Name:Brad

Posted February 03 2014 - 05:28 AM

I'm not against it, I have no interest one way or another. I'm just stating my opinion that I don't think the market is big enough for that type of use to sway studio's into attempting that distribution model.

 

You talk tech-savvy group but then leave out a main advantage that a tech-savvy group might appreciate, which is even the slightest improvement in quality. Sure the compression schemes are better but less compression is still better than any use of compression, no matter how good it is. And up-conversion is almost always in the mix unless your output device can only output 480 content. Having it up-converted on the fly by your output device may not be as good as what they can do in a multi-pass process as part of the preparation of the content.

 

Maybe AITF isn't a good example of something that can be improved, but some might be. You talk ratings between it and Twilight Zone, but what about sales? I would say TZ can run rings around AITF when it comes to sales, and which do you think is more important to the studio's?



#45 of 92 OFFLINE   CraigF

CraigF

    Screenwriter



  • 2,367 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 20 2002
  • Real Name:Craig
  • LocationToronto area, Canada

Posted February 03 2014 - 11:01 AM

I have better DVD upscalers than they use for upscaled SD content on BDs. Apparently anyway, it sure looks better. That is the reason I keep the DVDs...to watch the SD extras on (movie) BDs half-decently. Many very cheap current DVD players also have excellent SD upscalers, I'm told. (The upscalers in displays aren't even worth mentioning, in comparison.)

 

So that's why I hope they'd never put upscaled SD TV shows on BD, regardless of BD's improved algorithms. Just give me what you'd put on the DVD, except ~7X of it....that would cover a whole season of just about all TV shows on one 50GB disc.

 

Problem is, as many have said, this is a ship that's pretty much sailed. It's not a lot of effort/cost to put a season's worth of TV DVDs on a hard disc and stream it if "changing discs" is your primary annoyance, even over a quite lame home network. But for completely new products or significantly improved SD versions of existing products, of course I'd go for it on BD (I doubt there'd be a choice). I do think the studios think that people who buy old TV shows are mostly using DVD players though.



#46 of 92 OFFLINE   jcroy

jcroy

    Screenwriter



  • 1,028 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 28 2011

Posted February 03 2014 - 11:19 AM

I have better DVD upscalers than they use for upscaled SD content on BDs. Apparently anyway, it sure looks better. That is the reason I keep the DVDs...to watch the SD extras on (movie) BDs half-decently. Many very cheap current DVD players also have excellent SD upscalers, I'm told. (The upscalers in displays aren't even worth mentioning, in comparison.)

 

Over the years I've found that the better and more tolerable dvd "upscalers", typically involved using a computer to play dvd content.  (ie. Connecting the computer to the big screen tv via hdmi).

 

Some computer video player programs can even do the inverse telecine properly (or almost) for dvds that look "interlaced".



#47 of 92 OFFLINE   Moe Dickstein

Moe Dickstein

    Filmmaker



  • 3,149 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2001
  • Real Name:T R Wilkinson
  • LocationSherman Oaks, CA

Posted February 03 2014 - 11:36 AM

Upscaling defeats the purpose of storing more on each disc
Yes, these strange things happen all the time - PT Anderson, Magnolia

#48 of 92 OFFLINE   Stephen_J_H

Stephen_J_H

    All Things Film Junkie



  • 4,075 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2003
  • Real Name:Stephen J. Hill
  • LocationNorth of the 49th

Posted February 03 2014 - 12:32 PM

Then how did this and a number of other concert releases slip through on SD Blu-ray?:

 

attachicon.gif71Q7DHt60mL._SL1500_.jpg

There is a rationale behind this release and other Eagle Vision releases touted as SD Blu-ray. They are high definition releases, but in a way that few have thought: HD audio. Eagle Vision has long been pushing the envelope in terms of audio on videodiscs, offering the various iterations of dts, as well as LPCM. Another title in this SD Blu-ray series is the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert, released simultaneously on DVD and SD BD. The DVD release is 2 discs and contains (I believe) both PCM 2.0 on DTS 96/24 tracks in addition to Dolby Digital, whereas the BD release is 1 disc, dts HD Master Audio and may also contain an LPCM surround track. It's a technicality, but it has me curious.


"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player."-- Roger Ebert

#49 of 92 OFFLINE   smithbrad

smithbrad

    Supporting Actor



  • 567 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 12 2013
  • Real Name:Brad

Posted February 03 2014 - 12:34 PM

Upscaling defeats the purpose of storing more on each disc

 

Which is your goal, just saying others may have their own opinion on best ways to utilize the BR format for SD content that isn't all about maximizing storage possibilities. Just mentioning as another example of something that muddies the waters.



#50 of 92 OFFLINE   Moe Dickstein

Moe Dickstein

    Filmmaker



  • 3,149 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2001
  • Real Name:T R Wilkinson
  • LocationSherman Oaks, CA

Posted February 03 2014 - 02:05 PM

SD upscaled isn't going to be any better than SD at uncompressed size, it just wastes disc space.
Yes, these strange things happen all the time - PT Anderson, Magnolia

#51 of 92 OFFLINE   smithbrad

smithbrad

    Supporting Actor



  • 567 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 12 2013
  • Real Name:Brad

Posted February 03 2014 - 02:46 PM

SD upscaled isn't going to be any better than SD at uncompressed size, it just wastes disc space.

 

Not necessarily. SD uncompressed is still at 480 resolution. At some point it has to get to 1080 for most output devices around today. While technically it is done for most of us by external scalers, DVD/BR players, receivers, or our output device, there are some differences in the quality of the up-conversion that takes place dependent on the capability of each person's equipment.  And any up-conversion done by our equipment is done in real-time. Performing this up-conversion upfront as part of preparing the content for release has the potential of delivering the best performance.  Now obviously this is not as big a concern for you as maximizing storage space, but that doesn't mean it isn't to someone else that projects on a 100+ inch screen front-projection system.

 

You've asked why we aren't getting SD content on Blu-ray disks to minimize storage requirements. Obviously, it isn't a technical limitation, but it still hasn't happened. You've been provided many responses covering the gambit from:

- It's outside the spec

- Potential consumer confusion

- Requires double dipping with no perceived improvement in quality

- No proof this is anything but in limited demand

- Risk but little reward for the studio's

- Varying opinions on how best to deliver SD content on a Blu-ray disk

 

It's obviously a hot button for you, but this thread isn't exactly lighting the forum on fire with people following your lead. And if not here, chances are it is even less a concern with the general public. I have 350+ TV shows on DVD myself, so I understand the issue. I went the approach of moving most of my bulky releases to 6-disk standard cases, which to me was a cheaper and satisfactory solution vs. rebuying in another format. Many others have gone the binder approach.

 

The posts are now going in circles with the same or similar responses, so I'll bow out now.


  • AndyMcKinney likes this

#52 of 92 OFFLINE   Cinescott

Cinescott

    Supporting Actor



  • 838 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 2010
  • Real Name:Scott
  • LocationMilwaukee, WI

Posted February 03 2014 - 05:33 PM

My position would be to encode SD with whatever the source material dictates. 480i30, 480p60, whatever. To stylize anything based on what a small percentage of display owners might have (projection, etc.), wouldn't make sense. The end result would probably still beat an everyday DVD in quality and enjoy the large capacity of Blu-ray as a bonus. A bit-for-bit digital equivalent of the original analog video tapes can't be a bad thing. In other words, it'd be interesting to see what a studio could draw out of the original tapes when completely uncompressed, unlike DVD. 

 

My own display (a Samsung 55" LCD) handles SD just fine (via cable or DVD), and I have little doubt it would handle SD Blu-ray just fine too, as would 99.9% of displays out there. Incremental quality could have minor variation based on equipment, but that's the way of our modern world.


  • MatthewA and Moe Dickstein like this

"There are two types of people in the world, my friend. Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."


#53 of 92 OFFLINE   smithbrad

smithbrad

    Supporting Actor



  • 567 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 12 2013
  • Real Name:Brad

Posted February 03 2014 - 07:54 PM

To stylize anything based on what a small percentage of display owners might have (projection, etc.), wouldn't make sense. 

 

I could make the same point about those that are willing to double dip on SD content distributed on Blu-ray for the sole purpose of saving space. :)



#54 of 92 OFFLINE   Mark_TB

Mark_TB

    Second Unit



  • 340 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2005
  • LocationOmaha, Nebraska

Posted February 03 2014 - 08:00 PM

There is a rationale behind this release and other Eagle Vision releases touted as SD Blu-ray. They are high definition releases, but in a way that few have thought: HD audio. Eagle Vision has long been pushing the envelope in terms of audio on videodiscs, offering the various iterations of dts, as well as LPCM. Another title in this SD Blu-ray series is the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert, released simultaneously on DVD and SD BD. The DVD release is 2 discs and contains (I believe) both PCM 2.0 on DTS 96/24 tracks in addition to Dolby Digital, whereas the BD release is 1 disc, dts HD Master Audio and may also contain an LPCM surround track. It's a technicality, but it has me curious.

 

And the video, while shot in SD, has been upscaled to 1080i.  My main concern on the Bee Gees disc is that it has been cropped from 4x3 to 16x9.



#55 of 92 OFFLINE   Stephen_J_H

Stephen_J_H

    All Things Film Junkie



  • 4,075 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2003
  • Real Name:Stephen J. Hill
  • LocationNorth of the 49th

Posted February 03 2014 - 08:07 PM

It hasn't been upscaled at the authoring/compression level, but would be upscaled by whatever equipment is used to view it. I haven't seen the One Night Only disc, but I know that the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert disc is presented in 4:3.
"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player."-- Roger Ebert

#56 of 92 OFFLINE   Cinescott

Cinescott

    Supporting Actor



  • 838 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 2010
  • Real Name:Scott
  • LocationMilwaukee, WI

Posted February 03 2014 - 08:24 PM

I could make the same point about those that are willing to double dip on SD content distributed on Blu-ray for the sole purpose of saving space. :)

 

Well, space saving would be of quantifiable benefit to everyone who would purchase SD Blu-ray; designing an encode for projector owners would only benefit a small minority of Blu-ray users.


"There are two types of people in the world, my friend. Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."


#57 of 92 OFFLINE   Mark Booth

Mark Booth

    Supporting Actor



  • 916 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 25 1999

Posted February 03 2014 - 08:55 PM

Just as an FYI…  'I Love Lucy' (coming soon to Blu-ray) is already available for streaming on Amazon in HD (and perhaps via other streaming services?).  I've already watched the entire 1st season of 'I Love Lucy' via Amazon (currently free with Amazon Prime) and it looks fantastic!

 

Mark


  • MatthewA and Cinescott like this

#58 of 92 OFFLINE   Carl Johnson

Carl Johnson

    Screenwriter



  • 1,951 posts
  • Join Date: May 06 1999

Posted February 03 2014 - 09:13 PM

I wouldn't think that most people with movie collections large enough where storage space becomes an issue would be willing to sacrifice picture quality for the sake of owning fewer discs. How would putting an entire standard definition television season on one disc be any different from doing the same with multiple feature films?

Consumers expect blu rays to look better than DVDs simply because one is more expensive than the other. Even if studios were to educate consumers about the benefit of putting extra hours of standard definition content on blu ray discs I don't think that it would sell well.

#59 of 92 OFFLINE   smithbrad

smithbrad

    Supporting Actor



  • 567 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 12 2013
  • Real Name:Brad

Posted February 03 2014 - 09:37 PM

Well, space saving would be of quantifiable benefit to everyone who would purchase SD Blu-ray; designing an encode for projector owners would only benefit a small minority of Blu-ray users.

 

Not necessarily everyone. Maybe for those that still haven't bought those particular shows yet, but not for many that already owns them on DVD. Space saving at that price is not worth the double dip for me when I can use those funds towards Blu-rays of shows that can truly benefit from the HD format upgrade (where I can justify a double dip). And there are many in the TV on disk buying market that haven't jumped on the Blu-ray bandwagon because they are happy with the SD format and don't want to give up the portability DVD's still provides over Blu-ray for most folks. The AITF example, I have 8 seasons in 4 standard size DVD cases and that's good enough consolidation for me.

 

I'm not against it happening by any means. Just because I don't see a great benefit doesn't mean I wouldn't want others to get something that means more to them. But again, I just don't see it happening for various reasons. An important one being that I don't think the demand is great enough to convince the studio's to risk diversifying the production model for what I believe nets little gain, and may actually contribute to a loss (two distinct production runs, generating a competition between differing formats of the same show).



#60 of 92 OFFLINE   Mark_TB

Mark_TB

    Second Unit



  • 340 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2005
  • LocationOmaha, Nebraska

Posted February 03 2014 - 09:52 PM

It hasn't been upscaled at the authoring/compression level, but would be upscaled by whatever equipment is used to view it. I haven't seen the One Night Only disc, but I know that the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert disc is presented in 4:3.

I have the Bee Gees disc.  From the back cover:

 

"Eagle Vision SD Blu-ray range presents upscaled standard definition original material with uncompressed stereo and DTS-HD Master Audio surround sound for the best possible quality."

 

"Video:  1080i High Definition Widescreen 16x9 (1.78:1)"






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users