Would u like tvshowsonblueray (1 Viewer)

[Carabimero]

Charles, as a fan of Dark Shadows and as an owner of the DVD sets, I don't think there is anything in terms of original source materials to get a better transfer from. In other words, the DVDs they are on now can hold more information than is contained in the videos and kinescopes of the shows themselves. It can't get any better simply because the media is better. The show was shot on video and that video won't improve no matter how fancy the medium gets.

I think Dark Shadows looks as good as it ever will, unless someone wants to digitally enhance the sources, but that's a different story.

 

[Mary_P]

For me, it would depend entirely on what show we were talking about. While some shows from the 60s that were shot on film would have higher resolution, that may not necessarily be a good thing.

From a production standpoint, producers knew that the show was going to be seen on a screen with only so much resolution, possibly with a lot of snow or ghosting -- picture quality wasn't as big an issue as it is now, as most shows of that era were never intended to be seen on a big screen with high resolution.

Even SD DVDs can show this kind of flaw in the source material. Make-up starts to look awfully make-up-y -- an actor's stubble may actually just be greasepaint, and looks like it even in standard def. "Outdoor" backgrounds look like what they are: painted flats. Stuntmen look like completely different people from the actors they're doubling for. The one example I keep coming back to of that last item is an episode of "The Avengers" where some of the action scenes were not being done by Diana Rigg at all, but by what was obviously a dude in a catsuit. Kinda spoils the illusion, ya know?

For newer shows, shot with HD in mind, I'll undoubtedly sign onto Blu-ray at some point. I imagine "Pushing Daisies" looks spectacular in Blu. But overall it's gonna have to be a decision I make on a case-by-case basis.

 

[MatthewA]

Unfortunately, even the cheapness can show up in SD, too. I am not totally convinced by the bricks in the first apartment on "I Love Lucy." And the DVDs of "Green Acres" make Hank Kimball look like he's wearing women's make-up.

And this applies to videotaped shows, too. On one "What's Happening" Rerun ran out of Roger's front door and shook the wall in doing so.

For video shows, the best you can do is improve (without altering the look of the show) scene-to-scene color balance and chroma levels and remove tape defects.

 

[Michael Reuben]

By laserdisc, do you mean the format that lasted for 20 years and that some people are still enjoying for rare titles that have yet to be issued on DVD? Tell your friends to contact me; for the right price, I'll take their Blu-rays off their hands.

 

[BobSchneider]

I sorry at best Laser Disk was at best a boutique format that a very very small number of wealth video files got into due to expense of the players and the disks laser disk was a abject failure no matter how you slice it . Yes it was a leap forward in picture quality and sound but 99.9% of the tv's of that era could not take advantage of Laser disc superior quality and vhs won battle for best bang for the buck for average movie collector. Blue ray right now suffers still from the price differential that killed Laser Disk , I am old enough to remember the massive money pioneer spent the cheaper vhs killed it . Vhs did what people wanted at the right price. Dvd does it for vast majority of people right now cheap players, cheap media, in a compact durable format. If Sony drives down the prices and stops with there ever new movie security updates (ie make the format as stable as dvd is NOW) it might make more gains in market share. But now No I do not want studios to spend money on blue ray series set because it will reduce the over all number of new tv series they can release. I want more classic tv series on dvd not less, blue ray sets will divert funds that could go to lower cost quality dvd release. Sorry that how I feel.

 

[TravisR]

False. The very fact that laserdisc lasted 20 years means that it wasn't an "abject failure".

 

[Michael Reuben]

I guess you can't help how you "feel", but feelings aren't necessarily logical and they certainly aren't factual. I note that you have entirely ignored my question about how you know that the Blu-ray firmware upgrades your friends have done related to copy protection. Indeed, it's pretty obvious that you don't know that, have no direct knowledge of the subject, and are basing your assertions on how you feel. That's your privilege, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

And I disagree that laserdisc was for the wealthy. It was the format for enthusiasts. I know people who were far from wealthy, but embraced LD because they wanted the highest quality video format available at the time, and that was LD. Similarly, a lot of people here who have Blu-ray players aren't wealthy, but, as with LD, are enthusiasts who want the highest quality home video format available. That Blu-ray provides that format at the moment is a factual matter not subject to rational dispute.

(Which is not to say that DVD does not have its place. I still acquire DVDs on a regular basis, and my last review for HTF was of a title exclusively available on DVD. Content is still king, but I want the content in the best available version.)

 

[Jon Martin]

Laserdiscs were for the wealthy???? Wow, I guess I was wealthy in the early 90's when I was in college and bought one with the money I made in a summer job.

Players cost what an XBox or PS3 costs today. Are gamers today wealthy? They cost the same as the early DVD players. They cost half what a video camera cost back then. Was everyone with a video camera in the 90's wealthy?

As far as not being able to experience the video quality of the picture, huh??? They were out before the 1080i and p and whatever. If you had a TV, you noticed the difference.

Plus, they offered films letterboxed (which most VHS didn't). They had audio commentary and extras like deleted scenes. Criterion became what they were today back in the laserdisc age.

While I haven't gone Blu yet, you can't make the comparison. Laserdiscs offered what VHS couldn't, that is why people bought in to them. Blu is, I guess you can say, just an advanced version of DVDs.

And in the last days of laserdisc, they were starting to catch on. Both of my local video stores began carrying laserdiscs for rental the year before DVDs were born. They stopped when DVDs took off. If there was no DVD format, we all might be talking about laserdiscs today.

 

[TravisR]

True enough. I saved up and bought a laserdisc player when I was in high school so it wasn't like I was rich (and frankly, I'm still relatively poor now too

) but I bought it because I wanted to see movies in their correct AR and at their best quality.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

The beauty of Blu-ray is that it doesn't REPLACE the media delivery system before it, as CDs did for vinyl, or DVDs did VHS; it just adds to it. Because it is backward compatible with DVDs, no one has to run out and replace their library; they just have a choice to get the best image available on those select films and shows they are most enthusiastic about.

I remember wanting a LD when they came out, but it wasn't the hardware that held me back, but the software (films) running about $100 a piece. That was cost prohibitive to me.

I have about 600 DVDs, including many more obscure titles that will probably NEVER make it to Blu-ray. But as Blu-rays of some of my all-time favorites come out, and I see a deal, I'll gradually replace them. And I think downloadable HD is still a long way off, and doesn't address the desire of Americans to 'collect' physical stuff.

My local Borders are dropping media and doing clearance sales, so I'm scoring Blu-rays at 50% off. I just got Blu-rays of Bonnie and Clyde, The Sixth Sense and Into the Wild all for $50 total. So six classic films in 2009 for the price of one LD in 1990; that I can do.

 

[Jon Martin]

Actually, laserdiscs were $39.99 each for a film only LD (which the majority were). Special editions and Criterions were around $100 (smaller Criterions were $49.99), but 80% were at the $39 price point. And that was just the MSRP, you could often find them lower.

In the latter days, prices would drop. SPEED was $29 when it first came out.

Plus there was a huge used LD market. Even before the internet, there were newsletters where stores would list their inventory where you could get LDs for $10 or so.

 

[Ockeghem]

Well said. I would also use the word 'displace,' much in the same way television displaced radio but did not replace it.

 

[TravisR]

Yeah, I scored the Aliens SE boxset like that. It was a big deal to me since it was out of print at the time and before DVDs.

 

[Carabimero]

Someone said DVD sales have dropped and it's true--they've slipped for the second straight year, doing around 21 million in 2008 after doing 24 million in 2007.

But let's be clear. The slip, at least the majority of it, is not due to Blu-ray, at least not in the way some might think. It's not that the vast bulk of DVD sales are being lost to new Blu-ray customers--they're lost for several reasons; obviously the recession, but many studios have radically cut their DVD prices to try and position the superior Blu-Ray technology in the forefront. And that, in my opinion, does more to make consumers (like me) snap up cheap DVDs than it does to lure me to Blu. Heck, DVDs are getting cheaper...why would I jump ship NOW?

Sure, Blu-ray sales are up more than 200% in the last 18 months are so, but they still reresent less than 4% of the overall market, so let's keep it real.

I just don't see Blu becoming dominant any time soon...maybe not soon enough to stave off its up-and-coming replacement (whatever that may be), particularly with all the downloading and online streaming already happening--and gaining steam.

Disc-based media is being challenged, big-time. That's the biggest reason DVDs are slipping (just as CDs did when audio downloads caught on) and why I don't think Blu-ray has dibs on the future.

 

[Nebiroth]

Well to be honest I wish that we hadn't had blu-ray for around another five to ten years.

This is because there is still a massive back catalogue that is languising in the studio archives - not just TV shows, of course, there are thousands upon thousands of films in there as well.

These films and shows would only ever get a release bec ause of the mass-market nature of DVD - so even a small percentage of owners buying them would still be large numbers and hence profitable.

The studios were clearly running out of "big name" titles on DVD, and were turning to more obscure titles instead.

Unfortunately, along came high-definition.

So instead of all those wonderful, but less well known, TV shows and movies, the studios will fill their schedules and spend their marketing/technical budgets on flogging Spider-Man 3 for the twelth time. Why should they bother with all that old stuff when they can make big bucks from Joe Public who is willing to dip the same thing over and over in a futile attempt to get the "ultimate edition".

I'm not a Luddite - but DVD had a plethora of advantages over VHS tape; not just sound and image quality, but other things like extra features, instant access, compactness and durability. Blu-Ray offers only an improved image and sound, and to get those you have to have a good display as well.

Sadly, I think that those films in the archive will never see a release, because by the time the studios get to digging them out, we'll hit yet another shiny-new-hardware cycle and they'll go to the back of the queue again.

It;s a shame. I'd much rather have all those great movies on DVD than yet another copy of Spider-Man 3....

 

[Mr. Ed]

"Blue Ray...Red Ray...Invisible Ray..Sting Ray. Shows of the 60's and 70's and probably beyond ain't gonna look any better. I think the prices are high enough now. Blue Ray might do wonders for action movies on your six foot home theater screen but I believe way out of bounds for your average TV Show on dvd, From the old tv show (on standard dvd) I say..."Give Me a Break."

 

[TravisR]

If they're shot on film, they will look better. You might not care but that doesn't change the fact that they will look better.

 

[David Deeb]

Travis is correct. And I don't understand this posture of trying to discount both the quality and validity of this format. Especially in a thread asking "would you like tv shows on blu ray". Why can't people just answer "no".

If you are not interested in blu-ray that's fine. But clearly, many home theater enthusiasts find the format and HD enjoyable, and we like it because it has the best audio and video quality available at this time.

I understand wanting favorite films & TV series released in some format or another including DVD. But to wish we didn't have Blu-ray for another 5 years, to call HD unfortunate, to say shows won't look better remastered in HD, to say BD only represents a small portion of the market and whatever else people are saying, just doesn't have any bearing on whether or not some of us would like TV shows on Blu-ray. I would.

There is nothing stopping studios from releasing TV shows on DVD, as a digital download, ON Demand (from cable), in syndication or as a streaming clip on a web site. If there is a market, they will do it.

And there is nothing stopping people from enjoying TV shows on those other formats. There's no reason for me to tell people "I wish Hulu didn't exist because it's keeping TV shows from going to Blu-ray". Multiple distribution channels exist. Go out there and enjoy those shows on those distribution channels if you prefer not to watch Blu-ray.

 

[Nebiroth]

But I can't just say "no".

Yes, I'd like to have TV series on blu-ray, but only if it didn't come at the expense of squeezing other stuff out of the release schedules.

Sadly, it looks as though that is exactly what will happen.

The industry doesn't really give a fig aside from one thing: making money.

And the easiest way to do that is to keep those big blockbusters churning.

No doubt in a few years time, when we get Ultra-DVD or RAM-HD or whatever, the "Cinderalla" movies and shows will get put back in their box, yet again.

All I can say is thank goodness there was Blu vs. HD which slowed things down, so we got a few more years life out of stabdard DVD. I'm sure there's at least two years worth of releases that would probably never have seen the light of day, had Blu been the only contender. And by that, I mean would never have made it out of the archive...ever.

Maybe one day, there will be a release mode that is so cheap and easy that sales volumes below the profit thresholds of DVD will be worthwhile, at which point, the studios will just open their entire archives....I wish...

Let's hope it;s not on demand or something awful though. I don;t fancy being in thrall to that forever. WHen I buy a show, it means, I have it forever, to watch as, when and as often as I please. Not pay for the privilege every time for something that can be withdrawn at will.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

That describes DIVX, and probably one of the reasons Circuit City is out of business today.

But the business model that is cheap and easier involves no physical distribution and is the HD download model. Maybe younger fans will go for that, but some of us still like our packaging and shelf copies. But then I also still like a physical newspaper I can take anywhere.