How long will it be before Buffy(tv series) goes Blu? (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

It seems unlikely to me that Fox would redo the DVDs. I guess we'll find out but I'll be stunned if it's anything other than a repack of the existing ones.

 

[Bryan^H]

It seems unlikely to me that Fox would redo the DVDs. I guess we'll find out but I'll be stunned if it's anything other than a repack of the existing ones.

I have nothing to base my assumption on other than the only way you can buy it streaming now in standard definition is from the newer remastered widescreen version. And the streaming artwork per season is the same as the artwork for the upcoming DVD set.
The old full frame versions simply aren't available anymore.

And even though I think it would be awful for Fox to charge $200(probably $130 retail) for a complete series set using the same 17 year old transfers on DVD, given the alternative I would welcome that decision.
It is truly a lose/lose situation

 

[AndrewCrossett]

Joss Whedon has made no secret of how much he hates this remastering hack job, but that doesn't seem to faze them. They must honestly think that nobody actually pays attention to what they're watching.

 

[The Obsolete Man]

Joss Whedon has made no secret of how much he hates this remastering hack job, but that doesn't seem to faze them. They must honestly think that nobody actually pays attention to what they're watching.

Unfortunately, for most "normal" people, filling the screen is more important than things like correct framing, proper aspect ratios, or the show looking right.

 

[jcroy]

Another challenge is that "Star Trek: The Next Generation" was shot on 35mm film on well-lit sets with a really large production budget. The first two seasons of "Buffy" were shot on 16mm film in low-light environments, with lots and lots of really grainy footage.

Probably also a similar issue for seasons 1-3 of Stargate SG1, shot on 16mm film in low-light settings.

 

[jcroy]

Unfortunately, for most "normal" people, filling the screen is more important than things like correct framing, proper aspect ratios, or the show looking right.

Sorta reminds me of a decade ago, when some folks would "stretch" 4:3 content from network tv (or cable) to fill up the entire screen. This is in spite of the faces not looking right, etc ....

If "filling the screen" is indeed an issue or selling point, then perhaps this is why the original Star Trek reruns I watch every week are done in a 16:9 aspect ratio which look like awkward cutoffs at the top and bottom of the screen (if one if familiar with the original 4:3 aspect ratio versions).

 

[AndyMcKinney]

Sorta reminds me of a decade ago, when some folks would "stretch" 4:3 content from network tv (or cable) to fill up the entire screen. This is in spite of the faces not looking right, etc ....

A "decade ago"? There are plenty of people still doing that now with their SD satellite or cable. Even when you tell (and show) them how distorted the picture is.

And, I would say it was/is considerably more than "a few" folks. Probably a large majority.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

I'd really like to see somebody study the psychology of that... why is an obviously distorted picture considered preferable to watching something in a 4:3 ratio? Do they think the widescreen stretch means they're getting "more picture?"

The hardware isn't helping, either. My parents have a 55-inch TV and any 4:3 DVD played on it automatically stretches unless you go into the TV menu and manually change the setting. And then change it back when you're done. Every. Single. Time.

 

[AndyMcKinney]

I'd really like to see somebody study the psychology of that... why is an obviously distorted picture considered preferable to watching something in a 4:3 ratio? Do they think the widescreen stretch means they're getting "more picture?"

Some people I know who do this (family/in-laws) do it because they see unused screen area as a "waste". They think it needs to be "filled up", regardless of whether it's distorted or not.

And in some cases (my dad), we're talking about people with master's degrees in teaching (physics) and experience in school administration. I guess it just goes to prove that sometimes smart people still do stupid things.

He's watching stretched standard-def Dish Network on a plasma screen. He won't upgrade to HD for the simple reason that if he does that, he cannot simply move his received between Kentucky and Florida (he has a dish at each 'home'). Apparently, the HD dish antennas aren't as easily 'do-it-yourself' as the old ones, and he simply cannot be bothered to learn a 'new' way of moving his equipment/subscription between locations.

He's over 70 now, and he and my mother both are a bit 'technology-challenged'. They do (and learn) as little about new technology as possible (my mom still prefers VHS to DVD, for example, for the simple reason of being able to stop a movie and pick back up in the exact same spot you left off. You should be able to do that with DVD most time, but certain discs/players won't let you, and that's reason enough for her to avoid DVDs.