A&E to release THE PRISONER on Blu-Ray

Hi all,

Well, the rumor from a few months ago that Network video (UK) was going
to release THE PRISONER on Blu-Ray appears to have been false. But now I
see that A&E (US) is planning on releasing it:

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2845

Now if they'll just release UFO...

Marc

Marc, I have both previous sets on DVD already. I do have a PS3 (Blu-ray player) and a hi def TV. I am not even replacing my Laserdisc collection to DVD, I don't know what would make me want to get the Blu-ray version of UFO??

Concerning my Gerry Anderson on DVD collection, very little would make me want to upgrade to Blu-ray.

Bruce

P.S. In case anyone thought... no, I do not have UFO on Laser :)


----- Original Message -----
From: Marc Martin
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 9:59 PM
Subject: [SHADO] A&E to release THE PRISONER on Blu-Ray





Hi all,

Well, the rumor from a few months ago that Network video (UK) was going
to release THE PRISONER on Blu-Ray appears to have been false. But now I
see that A&E (US) is planning on releasing it:

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2845

Now if they'll just release UFO...

Marc




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I don't know what would make me want to get the Blu-ray version
> of UFO??

Well, if you have a really big screen, then the Blu-rays should
look better than the DVDs.

However, it seems likely that a Blu-ray UFO release will be in
widescreen, meaning the top and the bottom of the original
image will be cut off. Some may see this as a good thing
(filling the screen of their widescreen HDTV), while others
will see this as a bad thing (missing picture on top and
bottom).

I think for many, the UFO DVDs are "good enough".

Marc

On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:40:31 -0700
"Marc Martin" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I think for many, the UFO DVDs are "good enough".
>

I think UFO could look spectacular on BluRay provided the original
source is still in good enough condition for that treatment, but
then again UFO was only a TV programme, and I'm sure the DVDs
provide a better picture on decent equipment than anyone saw on
their early '70s colour telly when it was first broadcast.

James

Definately a bad thing; Casablanca is pillar boxed on DVD so it has black bars on either side of the image when viewed on a 16x9 monitor.  This is butchery, no matter how carefully the images have been reframed, and to accept it is ridiculous.

Rick

--- On Mon, 8/6/09, Marc Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Marc Martin <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [SHADO] A&E to release THE PRISONER on Blu-Ray
To: [hidden email]
Date: Monday, 8 June, 2009, 3:40 AM











   
           
           


     
> I don't know what would make me want to get the Blu-ray version

> of UFO??



Well, if you have a really big screen, then the Blu-rays should

look better than the DVDs.



However, it seems likely that a Blu-ray UFO release will be in

widescreen, meaning the top and the bottom of the original

image will be cut off. Some may see this as a good thing

(filling the screen of their widescreen HDTV), while others

will see this as a bad thing (missing picture on top and

bottom).



I think for many, the UFO DVDs are "good enough".



Marc


 

     

   
   
       
         
       
       








       


       
       


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You see, that's it. When it was filmed, was it done in a hi def format? I have heard bad things about old movies being upgraded to hi def, and coming out completely different (color wise) then the original.

Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: James Gibbon
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 4:32 AM
Subject: [SHADO] Re: A&E to release THE PRISONER on Blu-Ray





On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:40:31 -0700
"Marc Martin" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I think for many, the UFO DVDs are "good enough".
>

I think UFO could look spectacular on BluRay provided the original
source is still in good enough condition for that treatment, but
then again UFO was only a TV programme, and I'm sure the DVDs
provide a better picture on decent equipment than anyone saw on
their early '70s colour telly when it was first broadcast.

James




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It was shot on 35mm film which is a far higher resolution than modern HD formats.  However, being a TV production from 1969-70 it was shot and composed for the 1.37:1 screen ratio used by older TVs.  The copyright holdershave reframed the show for the HD era by creating a 1.77:1 detail taken from the full frame image by cropping off the top and bottom of the frame. Picture information has been lost; this is just as bad as the old panning-and-scanning process to crop a widescreen film for the 1.37:1/full-frame/standard ratio TVs and is purely for the philistines who must have their TV screen filled, like a pitcher of squash (Cool-Aid).

Rick

--- On Mon, 8/6/09, Bruce Sherman <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Bruce Sherman <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: A&E to release THE PRISONER on Blu-Ray
To: [hidden email]
Date: Monday, 8 June, 2009, 12:39 PM











   
           
           


     
You see, that's it. When it was filmed, was it done in a hi def format? I have heard bad things about old movies being upgraded to hi def, and coming out completely different (color wise) then the original.



Bruce

----- Original Message -----

From: James Gibbon

To: SHADO@yahoogroups. com

Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 4:32 AM

Subject: [SHADO] Re: A&E to release THE PRISONER on Blu-Ray



On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:40:31 -0700

"Marc Martin" <marc@ufoseries. com> wrote:



>

> I think for many, the UFO DVDs are "good enough".

>



I think UFO could look spectacular on BluRay provided the original

source is still in good enough condition for that treatment, but

then again UFO was only a TV programme, and I'm sure the DVDs

provide a better picture on decent equipment than anyone saw on

their early '70s colour telly when it was first broadcast.



James



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




 

     

   
   
       
         
       
       








       


       
       


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 07:39:52 -0400
"Bruce Sherman" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> You see, that's it. When it was filmed, was it done in a hi def format?

Yes! It was filmed on photographic film (8mm?), not videotape - so
although it was intended for TV, the format is in principle (not
necessarily in practice) good enough to transfer to a high definition
digital medium.

James

More likely 35mm - transferred to 16mm for broadcast



From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
James Gibbon
Sent: 08 June 2009 22:09
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [SHADO] Re: A&E to release THE PRISONER on Blu-Ray








On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 07:39:52 -0400
"Bruce Sherman" <[hidden email]
<mailto:brucesherman%40sprintmail.com> > wrote:

> You see, that's it. When it was filmed, was it done in a hi def format?

Yes! It was filmed on photographic film (8mm?), not videotape - so
although it was intended for TV, the format is in principle (not
necessarily in practice) good enough to transfer to a high definition
digital medium.

James





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What I meant to say here was that creating 16x9 images that fill the widescreen TV at the expense of cropping the top and bottom off is bad; the way Casablanca is presented is correct.

Rick

--- On Mon, 8/6/09, richard curzon <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: richard curzon <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [SHADO] A&E to release THE PRISONER on Blu-Ray
To: [hidden email]
Date: Monday, 8 June, 2009, 11:21 AM











   
           
           


     
Definately a bad thing; Casablanca is pillar boxed on DVD so it has black bars on either side of the image when viewed on a 16x9 monitor.  This is butchery, no matter how carefully the images have been reframed, and to accept it is ridiculous.



Rick



--- On Mon, 8/6/09, Marc Martin <marc@ufoseries. com> wrote:



From: Marc Martin <marc@ufoseries. com>

Subject: Re: [SHADO] A&E to release THE PRISONER on Blu-Ray

To: SHADO@yahoogroups. com

Date: Monday, 8 June, 2009, 3:40 AM



> I don't know what would make me want to get the Blu-ray version



> of UFO??



Well, if you have a really big screen, then the Blu-rays should



look better than the DVDs.



However, it seems likely that a Blu-ray UFO release will be in



widescreen, meaning the top and the bottom of the original



image will be cut off. Some may see this as a good thing



(filling the screen of their widescreen HDTV), while others



will see this as a bad thing (missing picture on top and



bottom).



I think for many, the UFO DVDs are "good enough".



Marc



       

         

       

       



       



       

       



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




 

     

   
   
       
         
       
       








       


       
       


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I have heard bad things about old movies being upgraded to hi def, and
> coming out completely different (color wise) then the original.

Well, one could say that the color on the UFO DVDs is completely
different than the original broadcasts (speculation on my part -- I
don't have a photographic memory).

I've seen many of the UFO episodes in HDTV. For the most part, the
source material has plenty of resolution, especially since the original
35mm camera negatives were used as source material. There are however
some parts which don't look as good -- scenes with optical effects (fade
ins/fade outs), scenes with stock footage (Interceptors coming out of
silos, etc.), and some of the special effects shots are grainy (perhaps
due to a different kind of film used for the effects). Also scenes
where they are driving around in cars -- I had assumed that they used
back projection for filming these scenes, but due to the degradation in
quality on these scenes, perhaps the backgrounds are optical effects (?)

The HDTV transfers are also not as consistent as the DVDs were, as if
more than one person was working on the series, and they didn't
adjust the color/contrast in the same way. The DVDs are better than
the HDTV versions in this respect, as all of the episodes have the
same "look" to them.

Marc

UFO, like most of the Gerry Anderson and other ITC shows of the 1960s (and the non-ITC Avengers) was shot on 35mm film (the same format as most feature films, then and now). They were shot in film studios by crews who had also worked on features. The only difference was the smaller budgets and shorter shooting schedules. The shows were completed on film and distributed to TV stations worldwide, where they were telecined locally - often live. Thissolved the problem of the various different TV standards around the world;this way everyone got the best possible image on their system.

This introduces a problem now of deciding what the original "look" of UFO should have been in that most early prints would have been struck on a special low contrast stock especially for TV use - that was because the telecineprocess at the time boosted contrast and therefore couldn't handle a normal contrast print. So the average print of the time would look horribly washed out to the eye or if projected. Unless an original normal contrast "answer print" can be found, which would be approved by the production team before the low contrast prints were struck, then it might take some guesswork to tell what was originally intended. Even then, such a print might have faded over time.  

Contemporary 35mm generally has a definition/colour space etc which equals or exceeds the various HD formats and and certainly exceeds Blu-ray. Of course, 1960's 35mm doesn't have the definition of today's stocks but still far exceeds the quality of any video of the period and an original negative (or clean Interneg or Interpos) is more than adequate for blue-ray.

Regards
John

John, what you say makes sense, but what about the FX?? Going to use two examples. In the orginal Star Trek series, when they showed the shuttlecraft flying out in space, you can see the area of space around the shuttlecraft brighter then the rest. My guess it was how they matted the ship onto the background of space. I dont think people would stand for that nowadays. But this was the mid 60's. I know they are redoing the FX scenes, but could you imagine how horrible that would look in hi def??

War of the Worlds. When I watched this on Laser, you can see the strings holding the spacecraft up, again, I dont think people would enjoy watching this in hi def.

How would the FX scenes in UFO come out? We are not used to seeing strings. Would they spend the money to clean up or enhance the FX scenes? Its possible, but also $$$$.

Terminator 2 was such a breakthrough in FX. There was one scene when the arhnold character drives a motorcycle off a bridge into a sewer open cut. This was done with the stunt double being connected to a rope and chain, but they so totally cleaned up the shot, you dont see it at all.

Bruce

-----Original Message-----

> How would the FX scenes in UFO come out? We are not used to seeing
> strings. Would they spend the money to clean up or enhance the FX
> scenes? Its possible, but also $$$$.

I was not bothered by the strings on the HDTV versions of UFO, but then
again, I don't have a 6+ foot screen! The filmmakers did go out of
their way to hide the strings, spray-painting them to the be the same
color as the background.

The main issues with UFO in HDTV are those few scenes that don't use the
original camera negatives (optical effects, stock footage). On the
DVDs, this problem was lessened by replacing stock footage with the
original footage. They don't do this on the HDTV versions, so the stock
footage looks worse than the scenes around it.

And some of the stock/reused footage is not what you'd expect -- for
example, I was watching THE RESPONSIBILITY SEAT the other day, and
noticed that the scene of Freeman walking up to the radar screen to look
at the incoming UFOs was footage reused from A QUESTION OF PRIORITIES.

Marc

Bruce Sherman
>
> John, what you say makes sense, but what about the FX??


That's part of a much bigger question about the limits on restoration and beyond.

There's a continuum. At one end is the repairing, digitally or otherwise, of a damaged, scratched original. At the other far end are things like "colorizing" a film or programme which was originally b/w. Somewhere, near the "colorizing" end is applying modern effects to make seamless FX which were not originally seamless.

I don't think many people would think that repairing damage which was done after the film was struck is a problem, as long as it is done in a way which unarguably replicates how the film looked originally. The debate probablystarts pretty close to that point.

For what it's worth, I would prefer that restoration generally aims to replicate the film/programme as it originally appeared, warts and all.
Admittedly this is slightly more of a problem with a TV show in that it wasonly intended to be watched on a lowish definition 16" TV screen but UFO was made to a higher standard than most anyway. And where do you stop? A painted backdrop out of a window - do you tart that up? A wig line? A TV arialin the far background of a period show? A set which wobbles?
Many such defects are apparent on DVD on a large screen TV anyway.

You can't pretend that UFO was a series made today and anyone watching it will have to accept that anyway. A kid watching UFO is going to have to see it from the perspective of a series made four decades ago regardless, with or without the odd wire showing.
Trying to tinker round the edges isn't going to make much difference and merely falsifies history.

Personally, I want to see the film that it's makers made, with the technology available, not airbrushed - usually by other hands - with hindsight.

Regards
John

Any TV series that was shot on 35mm film from the dawn of such things to the present ought to look great on BR/HD broadcasts, especially if taken fromthe master negative.  Certainly from the pre-video era.  What I mean by that is, TV shows (particularly from the USA) made since the late 1980s are shot on film, then transfered to video for post production where all optical effects work is completed.  In the case of the Trek series post 1987all model work was also completed on 35mm film and then transfered to video for optical work as well.  The problem with this method is that the shows never exist in a finished state on film like the ITC classics do (all all film-shot US series prior to the late 1980s).  So video masters have tobe used unless the copyright holder pays to have all the film material remastered from the negatives and then postproduced with modern technology. This is naturally massively time consuming and expensive, so the
programme has to warrent the time and expence in the eyes of the money men.

This is why such series as The War of the Worlds and Friday the 13th look so poor on DVD because they are of cult interest and have been transfered with minimum effort using ancient video masters.  The newer Trek series look better because they are worth spending money on, but they still are sourced from video masters.  When Paramount remastered the 1960s Trek, they had master negatives to start with and redid the effects using CGI all mastered for 1080i HD.  Apparently, they are having problems with the Next Generation due to the reasons I highlighted above.  There were only 80 1960s episodes, all sourced in their complete state from 35mm negtives.  TNG has 178 episodes with all of the raw film elements not easily sourced.

The ITC shows like UFO will be stunning on HD (ala. the 1960s Trek), but the worrying thing here is that Granada Ventures insists on the HD masters being cropped from 1.37:1 to 1.77:1 (the native HD ratio).  Paramount have pillarboxed classic Trek so the raw HD versions have permanent black bars on either side of the 1.77:1 frame to preserve the original 1.37:1 ratio - they way it ought to be.  The BR of Thunderbirds recently released here inthe UK is a basterdised cropped version, as are the HD broadcasts of UFO and Space 1999 (and others).  The other worrying development is the potential colourisation of B&W shows like Supercar and Fireball XL5 (the new Network DVD makes a selling point of a complete colourised episode).  It willbe a sad day indeed when all B&W shows will be colourised, cropped to m1.77:1 and (in the case of shows made on video like classic Doctor Who) filmised.

The other worrying element are the less concerned or aware fans and viewerswho demand such "improvements" as if programmes were so many out of date journals to be "updated".  Many folks on the Rhubarb/Zeta Minor forums embraced the cropping of Thunderbirds, and the colourisation of Fireball XL5 -it beggers belief.  Why folks can't just accept things they way they were made and enjoy them as much as newer shows sporting newer technology, I'll never know.  We are in real trouble if the only versions available are the altered "improved" versions.  When DVD finally dies off, and is replaced by HD downloads and/or BR, then the cropped version of Thunderbirds will be all that is shown.

Rick

--- On Mon, 8/6/09, john_nhojuk <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: john_nhojuk <[hidden email]>
Subject: [SHADO] Re: A&E to release THE PRISONER on Blu-Ray
To: [hidden email]
Date: Monday, 8 June, 2009, 8:47 PM











   
           
           


     
Bruce Sherman

>

> John, what you say makes sense, but what about the FX??



That's part of a much bigger question about the limits on restoration and beyond.



There's a continuum. At one end is the repairing, digitally or otherwise, of a damaged, scratched original. At the other far end are things like "colorizing" a film or programme which was originally b/w. Somewhere, near the "colorizing" end is applying modern effects to make seamless FX which were not originally seamless.



I don't think many people would think that repairing damage which was done after the film was struck is a problem, as long as it is done in a way which unarguably replicates how the film looked originally. The debate probablystarts pretty close to that point.



For what it's worth, I would prefer that restoration generally aims to replicate the film/programme as it originally appeared, warts and all.

Admittedly this is slightly more of a problem with a TV show in that it wasonly intended to be watched on a lowish definition 16" TV screen but UFO was made to a higher standard than most anyway. And where do you stop? A painted backdrop out of a window - do you tart that up? A wig line? A TV arialin the far background of a period show? A set which wobbles?

Many such defects are apparent on DVD on a large screen TV anyway.



You can't pretend that UFO was a series made today and anyone watching it will have to accept that anyway. A kid watching UFO is going to have to see it from the perspective of a series made four decades ago regardless, with or without the odd wire showing.

Trying to tinker round the edges isn't going to make much difference and merely falsifies history.



Personally, I want to see the film that it's makers made, with the technology available, not airbrushed - usually by other hands - with hindsight.



Regards

John




 

     

   
   
       
         
       
       








       


       
       


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Even in HD and on a six foot screen the imperfections ought to be left alone.

Rick

--- On Mon, 8/6/09, Marc Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Marc Martin <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: A&E to release THE PRISONER on Blu-Ray
To: [hidden email]
Date: Monday, 8 June, 2009, 8:00 PM











   
           
           


     
> How would the FX scenes in UFO come out? We are not used to seeing

> strings. Would they spend the money to clean up or enhance the FX

> scenes? Its possible, but also $$$$.



I was not bothered by the strings on the HDTV versions of UFO, but then

again, I don't have a 6+ foot screen! The filmmakers did go out of

their way to hide the strings, spray-painting them to the be the same

color as the background.



The main issues with UFO in HDTV are those few scenes that don't use the

original camera negatives (optical effects, stock footage). On the

DVDs, this problem was lessened by replacing stock footage with the

original footage. They don't do this on the HDTV versions, so the stock

footage looks worse than the scenes around it.



And some of the stock/reused footage is not what you'd expect -- for

example, I was watching THE RESPONSIBILITY SEAT the other day, and

noticed that the scene of Freeman walking up to the radar screen to look

at the incoming UFOs was footage reused from A QUESTION OF PRIORITIES.



Marc


 

     

   
   
       
         
       
       








       


       
       


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What next? Fully colourised and lipsynched via voice over artistes
versions of silent greats like Metropolis?



From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
richard curzon
Sent: 09 June 2009 19:04
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: A&E to release THE PRISONER on Blu-Ray








Any TV series that was shot on 35mm film from the dawn of such things to the
present ought to look great on BR/HD broadcasts, especially if taken from
the master negative. Certainly from the pre-video era. What I mean by that
is, TV shows (particularly from the USA) made since the late 1980s are shot
on film, then transfered to video for post production where all optical
effects work is completed. In the case of the Trek series post 1987 all
model work was also completed on 35mm film and then transfered to video for
optical work as well. The problem with this method is that the shows never
exist in a finished state on film like the ITC classics do (all all
film-shot US series prior to the late 1980s). So video masters have to be
used unless the copyright holder pays to have all the film material
remastered from the negatives and then postproduced with modern technology.
This is naturally massively time consuming and expensive, so the
programme has to warrent the time and expence in the eyes of the money men.

This is why such series as The War of the Worlds and Friday the 13th look so
poor on DVD because they are of cult interest and have been transfered with
minimum effort using ancient video masters. The newer Trek series look
better because they are worth spending money on, but they still are sourced
from video masters. When Paramount remastered the 1960s Trek, they had
master negatives to start with and redid the effects using CGI all mastered
for 1080i HD. Apparently, they are having problems with the Next Generation
due to the reasons I highlighted above. There were only 80 1960s episodes,
all sourced in their complete state from 35mm negtives. TNG has 178
episodes with all of the raw film elements not easily sourced.

The ITC shows like UFO will be stunning on HD (ala. the 1960s Trek), but the
worrying thing here is that Granada Ventures insists on the HD masters being
cropped from 1.37:1 to 1.77:1 (the native HD ratio). Paramount have
pillarboxed classic Trek so the raw HD versions have permanent black bars on
either side of the 1.77:1 frame to preserve the original 1.37:1 ratio - they
way it ought to be. The BR of Thunderbirds recently released here in the UK
is a basterdised cropped version, as are the HD broadcasts of UFO and Space
1999 (and others). The other worrying development is the potential
colourisation of B&W shows like Supercar and Fireball XL5 (the new Network
DVD makes a selling point of a complete colourised episode). It will be a
sad day indeed when all B&W shows will be colourised, cropped to m1.77:1 and
(in the case of shows made on video like classic Doctor Who) filmised.

The other worrying element are the less concerned or aware fans and viewers
who demand such "improvements" as if programmes were so many out of date
journals to be "updated". Many folks on the Rhubarb/Zeta Minor forums
embraced the cropping of Thunderbirds, and the colourisation of Fireball XL5
- it beggers belief. Why folks can't just accept things they way they were
made and enjoy them as much as newer shows sporting newer technology, I'll
never know. We are in real trouble if the only versions available are the
altered "improved" versions. When DVD finally dies off, and is replaced by
HD downloads and/or BR, then the cropped version of Thunderbirds will be all
that is shown.

Rick

--- On Mon, 8/6/09, john_nhojuk <[hidden email]
<mailto:jks%40johnkennethstewart.com> > wrote:

From: john_nhojuk <[hidden email]
<mailto:jks%40johnkennethstewart.com> >
Subject: [SHADO] Re: A&E to release THE PRISONER on Blu-Ray
To: [hidden email] <mailto:SHADO%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Monday, 8 June, 2009, 8:47 PM

Bruce Sherman

>

> John, what you say makes sense, but what about the FX??

That's part of a much bigger question about the limits on restoration and
beyond.

There's a continuum. At one end is the repairing, digitally or otherwise, of
a damaged, scratched original. At the other far end are things like
"colorizing" a film or programme which was originally b/w. Somewhere, near
the "colorizing" end is applying modern effects to make seamless FX which
were not originally seamless.

I don't think many people would think that repairing damage which was done
after the film was struck is a problem, as long as it is done in a way which
unarguably replicates how the film looked originally. The debate probably
starts pretty close to that point.

For what it's worth, I would prefer that restoration generally aims to
replicate the film/programme as it originally appeared, warts and all.

Admittedly this is slightly more of a problem with a TV show in that it was
only intended to be watched on a lowish definition 16" TV screen but UFO was
made to a higher standard than most anyway. And where do you stop? A painted
backdrop out of a window - do you tart that up? A wig line? A TV arial in
the far background of a period show? A set which wobbles?

Many such defects are apparent on DVD on a large screen TV anyway.

You can't pretend that UFO was a series made today and anyone watching it
will have to accept that anyway. A kid watching UFO is going to have to see
it from the perspective of a series made four decades ago regardless, with
or without the odd wire showing.

Trying to tinker round the edges isn't going to make much difference and
merely falsifies history.

Personally, I want to see the film that it's makers made, with the
technology available, not airbrushed - usually by other hands - with
hindsight.

Regards

John











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:35:20 +0000 (GMT)
richard curzon <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Even in HD and on a six foot screen the imperfections ought
> to be left alone.
>

Well, that's a very purist point of view. I can quite accept
that attitude for a fan who takes a historical interest in
old TV programmes - but many people will want to view these
programmes in the same spirit that was intended when they
were made, ie simple entertainment. For people who are
mainly interested in the shows as vehicles for light fiction
rather than historical records, colourisation, removal of
strings, unintrusive enhancements to sound effects and
cropping for 16:9 are all welcome developments and a way to
get a bit more mileage out of old TV shows.

Personally if I watch Thunderbirds or Stingray, or indeed
any other 4:3 aspect ratio programme, I use 'panoramic'
mode, which uses a combination of non-uniform picture
stretching and subtle cropping to deliver a widescreen image.
I just find it more pleasing and comfortable to watch.

Actually a thought occurs - back in the days when UFO,
Thunderbirds et al were first broadcast, I don't think an
ordinary TV used to display the whole picture frame anyway.
I well remember fiddling about with the controls on the back
of the TV to make the picture move from left to right,
revealing more of the source image at the edges. So I guess
some of that widescreen image can be gained by using part of
the image that would never have been seen by the original
audience, minimising the need for cropping at the top and
bottom.

James

I can't stand the panoramic mode; why do people feel the need to fill theirTV screens at all costs?  Did you never watch letterboxed films on old 4:3 TVs?  I refuse to watch things in anything other than the correct ratio; can't stand to see people squashed or stretched etc.

Although I can understand the need to remove wires, and mattes and the likefrom TV shows, it costs loads and would probably be prohibative as a consequence.  It is the lesser of the various evils I discussed in my post earlier.

Rick

--- On Tue, 9/6/09, James Gibbon <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: James Gibbon <[hidden email]>
Subject: [SHADO] Re: A&E to release THE PRISONER on Blu-Ray
To: [hidden email]
Date: Tuesday, 9 June, 2009, 12:52 PM











   
           
           


     
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:35:20 +0000 (GMT)

richard curzon <hammeramicus2002@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote:



> Even in HD and on a six foot screen the imperfections ought

> to be left alone.

>



Well, that's a very purist point of view. I can quite accept

that attitude for a fan who takes a historical interest in

old TV programmes - but many people will want to view these

programmes in the same spirit that was intended when they

were made, ie simple entertainment. For people who are

mainly interested in the shows as vehicles for light fiction

rather than historical records, colourisation, removal of

strings, unintrusive enhancements to sound effects and

cropping for 16:9 are all welcome developments and a way to

get a bit more mileage out of old TV shows.



Personally if I watch Thunderbirds or Stingray, or indeed

any other 4:3 aspect ratio programme, I use 'panoramic'

mode, which uses a combination of non-uniform picture

stretching and subtle cropping to deliver a widescreen image.

I just find it more pleasing and comfortable to watch.



Actually a thought occurs - back in the days when UFO,

Thunderbirds et al were first broadcast, I don't think an

ordinary TV used to display the whole picture frame anyway.

I well remember fiddling about with the controls on the back

of the TV to make the picture move from left to right,

revealing more of the source image at the edges. So I guess

some of that widescreen image can be gained by using part of

the image that would never have been seen by the original

audience, minimising the need for cropping at the top and

bottom.



James


 

     

   
   
       
         
       
       








       


       
       


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]