why does "Buffy" not count as HD?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Waterperson77, Dec 11, 2003.

  1. For the person who said Buffy was never made in HD,

    huh?

    I heard that anything on 35 mm film is HD. (and that would include season 4
    and after of Buffy, even if it wasn't originally broadcast that way).

    That is, 35 mm film has more resolution than HDTV, and therefore, anything
    filmed entirely on 35 mm film can be broadcast in HD. (such as the original
    Star Trek)

    while stuff shot on old-fashioned videotape can not be broadcast in HD (such as
    All in the Family)

    but this also brings up a question of mine in which the original statement I'm
    replying to could be correct.

    Some people said that anything broadcast in 4:3 is not HDTV, because HDTV is
    defined as 16:9 widescreen in the HDTV standard.

    So this would mean old shows of Star Trek can never be broadcast in HD (without
    cropping) because 4:3 isn't HD. (according to them)

    But if it has the full 1080i lines, then isn't it HD even if it's 4:3 instead
    of widescreen?
    Waterperson77, Dec 11, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Waterperson77

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > For the person who said Buffy was never made in HD,
    >
    > huh?
    >
    > I heard that anything on 35 mm film is HD. (and that would include

    season 4
    > and after of Buffy, even if it wasn't originally broadcast that way).


    No, "HD" means something specific. It means a video master is prepared
    in either 1080i or 720p resolution. A program shot on film can be
    mastered to HD video, but film and HD are not the same thing.

    Buffy the Vampire Slayer was shot on film, but was never mastered for
    HDTV. The film elements were transferred down to 480i
    standard-definition video, where post-production was completed. Although
    overseas markets did present the show in 16:9 widescreen, the series was
    never broadcast in either 1080i or 720p HDTV.

    The first two seasons of Angel were broadcast in 4:3 standard-def. In
    Seasons 3-4 it switched to 16:9 widescreen standard-def. Currently,
    Season 5 is the first year that show has been mastered in and broadcast
    in 1080i HDTV.

    > Some people said that anything broadcast in 4:3 is not HDTV, because

    HDTV is
    > defined as 16:9 widescreen in the HDTV standard.
    >
    > So this would mean old shows of Star Trek can never be broadcast in HD

    (without
    > cropping) because 4:3 isn't HD. (according to them)
    >
    > But if it has the full 1080i lines, then isn't it HD even if it's 4:3

    instead
    > of widescreen?


    HDTV is inherently a 16:9 aspect ratio. If you want to display 4:3
    content like Star Trek, it is possible. All you have to do is add black
    pillarbox bars onto the sides of the frame. Like with letterboxing on
    DVDs, the black bars are part of the video signal and count towards its
    resolution total. The video signal has to be 16:9, but that 16:9 frame
    can be composed of anything you want, including black bars.
    Joshua Zyber, Dec 11, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Waterperson77

    John Savard Guest

    On 11 Dec 2003 05:51:46 GMT,
    (Waterperson77) wrote, in part:

    >Some people said that anything broadcast in 4:3 is not HDTV, because HDTV is
    >defined as 16:9 widescreen in the HDTV standard.
    >
    >So this would mean old shows of Star Trek can never be broadcast in HD (without
    >cropping) because 4:3 isn't HD. (according to them)
    >
    >But if it has the full 1080i lines, then isn't it HD even if it's 4:3 instead
    >of widescreen?


    Yes, shows originally shot on film can be broadcast with higher
    resolution.

    Of course, with black bars on the sides, they will not be *fully
    suited* to the HD television medium, which will best and most
    efficiently portray programming with the 16:9 aspect ratio. They will
    look somewhat awkward and unsuited to that new medium.

    John Savard
    http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
    John Savard, Dec 11, 2003
    #3
  4. In article <HMTBb.10889$>,
    Joshua Zyber <> wrote:
    >
    >The first two seasons of Angel were broadcast in 4:3 standard-def. In
    >Seasons 3-4 it switched to 16:9 widescreen standard-def. Currently,
    >Season 5 is the first year that show has been mastered in and broadcast
    >in 1080i HDTV.


    Pretty much. Although the FX work on the first several episodes of S5
    (at least) are upconverted 480(i or p). It's glaringly obvious when they
    go from an HD-mastered shot where you can see every individual hair to a
    (comparatively) blurry FX shot.

    The signal is, of course, 1080i as you said.

    --
    Aaron Brezenski
    Not speaking for my employer in any way.
    Aaron Brezenski, Dec 11, 2003
    #4
  5. Waterperson77

    Invid Fan Guest

    In article <>, John Savard
    <> wrote:

    > On 11 Dec 2003 05:51:46 GMT,
    > (Waterperson77) wrote, in part:
    >
    > >Some people said that anything broadcast in 4:3 is not HDTV, because HDTV is
    > >defined as 16:9 widescreen in the HDTV standard.
    > >
    > >So this would mean old shows of Star Trek can never be broadcast in HD
    > >(without
    > >cropping) because 4:3 isn't HD. (according to them)
    > >
    > >But if it has the full 1080i lines, then isn't it HD even if it's 4:3 instead
    > >of widescreen?

    >
    > Yes, shows originally shot on film can be broadcast with higher
    > resolution.
    >
    > Of course, with black bars on the sides, they will not be *fully
    > suited* to the HD television medium, which will best and most
    > efficiently portray programming with the 16:9 aspect ratio. They will
    > look somewhat awkward and unsuited to that new medium.
    >

    Much as widescreen show are now on 4:3 sets.

    --
    Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
    'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
    -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
    Invid Fan, Dec 11, 2003
    #5
  6. Waterperson77

    Mark Spatny Guest

    John Savard, says...
    > Of course, with black bars on the sides, they will not be *fully
    > suited* to the HD television medium, which will best and most
    > efficiently portray programming with the 16:9 aspect ratio. They will
    > look somewhat awkward and unsuited to that new medium.


    Nevertheless, the increased resolution will provide a much better
    picture, which is still an improvement over viewing in NTSC.
    Mark Spatny, Dec 11, 2003
    #6
  7. Waterperson77

    Mark Spatny Guest

    Joshua Zyber, says...
    > No, "HD" means something specific. It means a video master is prepared
    > in either 1080i or 720p resolution. A program shot on film can be
    > mastered to HD video, but film and HD are not the same thing.


    Technically, by that definition you are leaving out 1080 24P, which is
    the HDTV mastering medium of choice.
    Mark Spatny, Dec 11, 2003
    #7
  8. Waterperson77

    Mark Spatny Guest

    Waterperson77, says...
    > I heard that anything on 35 mm film is HD.


    You heard wrong.

    > That is, 35 mm film has more resolution than HDTV,


    Correct so far...

    > and therefore, anything
    > filmed entirely on 35 mm film can be broadcast in HD. (such as the original
    > Star Trek)


    Also true so far.

    Here's where you go wrong. HDTV referes to a specific video standard.
    VIDEO, not FILM. 35mm film can be transferred to HDTV, but it does not
    have to be. The problem is that you are confusing resolution (data) with
    formats. What you are doing is saying something along the lines of "CDs
    can hold more data than floppy disks, therefore all CDs are floppy
    disks". See where the error comes in? The amount of data and the format
    are two seperate things.
    Mark Spatny, Dec 11, 2003
    #8
  9. Waterperson77

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Mark Spatny" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > No, "HD" means something specific. It means a video master is

    prepared
    > > in either 1080i or 720p resolution. A program shot on film can be
    > > mastered to HD video, but film and HD are not the same thing.

    >
    > Technically, by that definition you are leaving out 1080 24P, which is
    > the HDTV mastering medium of choice.


    Fair enough. I should have distinguished between the HD video master and
    the HDTV broadcast standards.
    Joshua Zyber, Dec 11, 2003
    #9
  10. Waterperson77

    Justin Guest

    Aaron Brezenski wrote on [Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:36:11 +0000 (UTC)]:
    > In article <HMTBb.10889$>,
    > Joshua Zyber <> wrote:
    >>
    >>The first two seasons of Angel were broadcast in 4:3 standard-def. In
    >>Seasons 3-4 it switched to 16:9 widescreen standard-def. Currently,
    >>Season 5 is the first year that show has been mastered in and broadcast
    >>in 1080i HDTV.

    >
    > Pretty much. Although the FX work on the first several episodes of S5
    > (at least) are upconverted 480(i or p). It's glaringly obvious when they
    > go from an HD-mastered shot where you can see every individual hair to a
    > (comparatively) blurry FX shot.


    Yeah. It always was obvious when an FX shot was coming, even on regular
    broadcast
    Justin, Dec 12, 2003
    #10
  11. Waterperson77

    anthony Guest

    HDTV will be stunted if it's not used to present the best of cinema
    from all ages... and that includes a major swag of films shot in
    Academy ratio.
    And the solution for home presentation will have to be to have a
    decent-sized screen which won't make a film look "stunted" as someone
    here described, due to the black-bars each side. That wouldn't be
    "stunted" anyway, since the height will be the same for Academy ratio
    movies -- the width will be different.
    The clear analogy is with anamorphic movies shown on an
    anamorphic-capable 4.3 ratio television.
    My Loewe TV presents full-line display of anamorphic widescreen
    movies, and the screen is large enough to match the size of most
    present-day widescreen sets when it's in anamorphic mode. So I'm not
    seeing a 'reduced' picture, just an appropriate ratio presentation.
    And the all-black set is housed in a black cabinet so that when you're
    viewing, the part of the screen being used is really the only thing
    you notice. The black-bars disappear from consciousness........
    And of course, for Academy-ratio movies, I've got the benefit of the
    full height available.
    anthony, Dec 12, 2003
    #11
  12. Waterperson77

    damnfine Guest

    "Joshua Zyber" wrote:
    > Fair enough. I should have distinguished between the HD video master and
    > the HDTV broadcast standards.


    Which vary. In Australia, 576p is allowed to be called HD, sadly.


    --
    /^\damnfine/^\
    "Who would have thought that a bad Austrian artist who's
    obsessed with the human physical ideal could assemble such
    a rabid political following?" - TheOnion.com
    damnfine, Dec 12, 2003
    #12
  13. On 11 Dec 2003 05:51:46 GMT, Waterperson77 <> scribbled:
    >
    > That is, 35 mm film has more resolution than HDTV, and therefore, anything
    > filmed entirely on 35 mm film can be broadcast in HD. (such as the original
    > Star Trek)


    HDNet, an HD-only broadcaster, actually has created HD transfers of
    episodes of Hogan's Heroes and Charlie's Angels (among others) from
    the 35mm originals. Looks very nice.

    But as others have pointed out: there's a difference between
    shooting on 35mm and being HD.

    VJM
    Vincent J. Murphy, Dec 12, 2003
    #13
  14. Waterperson77

    Steve K. Guest

    Vincent J. Murphy wrote:
    > On 11 Dec 2003 05:51:46 GMT, Waterperson77 <> scribbled:
    >
    >>That is, 35 mm film has more resolution than HDTV, and therefore, anything
    >>filmed entirely on 35 mm film can be broadcast in HD. (such as the original
    >>Star Trek)

    >
    >
    > HDNet, an HD-only broadcaster, actually has created HD transfers of
    > episodes of Hogan's Heroes and Charlie's Angels (among others) from
    > the 35mm originals. Looks very nice.


    Yes, they do look nice. There are slight black bars on the sides.
    Steve K., Dec 12, 2003
    #14
  15. >DNet, an HD-only broadcaster, actually has created HD transfers of
    >episodes of Hogan's Heroes and Charlie's Angels (among others) from
    >the 35mm originals. Looks very nice.


    yes. I've seen HDNET's broadcasts of "Hogan's Heroes" when I had it, and it
    looked nice.

    But what baffles me entirely is that they broadcast it in 16:9 widescreen and
    it still looked good, and didn't seem to be out of proportion!!! and didn't
    seem to be cropped either!!!!! (going by the headroom).

    It was as though it was composed for 16:9 widescreen!!!! But surely "Hogan's
    Hereoe's" wasn't composed for widescreen , since it was made in the 60's for
    tv, which was all 4:3 at that time.

    so I'm completely baffled regarding HDNET's broadcasts of it.

    If it is cropped on HDNET, then showing it full frame would be what some of the
    people in this newsgroup claimed that there's never that much headroom on
    something composed for 4:3

    so I'm totally and completely baffled by it now.
    Waterperson77, Dec 12, 2003
    #15
  16. Waterperson77

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >DNet, an HD-only broadcaster, actually has created HD transfers of
    > >episodes of Hogan's Heroes and Charlie's Angels (among others) from
    > >the 35mm originals. Looks very nice.

    >
    > yes. I've seen HDNET's broadcasts of "Hogan's Heroes" when I had it,

    and it
    > looked nice.
    >
    > But what baffles me entirely is that they broadcast it in 16:9

    widescreen and
    > it still looked good, and didn't seem to be out of proportion!!! and

    didn't
    > seem to be cropped either!!!!! (going by the headroom).


    HDNET's broadcasts of these shows are partially cropped, partially
    stretched. I think they look atrocious, but to each their own.
    Joshua Zyber, Dec 13, 2003
    #16
  17. >HDNET's broadcasts of these shows are partially cropped, partially
    >stretched. I think they look atrocious, but to each their own.
    >


    Thanks. That explains it. I'll have to check my videotapes again of the few
    episodes I recorded from it.

    I hadn't seen the show in so long until HDNET started rerunning it, I might
    have forgotten how the original was supposed to look.

    The HDNET broadcasts didn't seem bad to me at the time, but if they are
    stretching and cropping it (and I'm sure you are correct), you are also correct
    that it's atrocious.
    Waterperson77, Dec 13, 2003
    #17
  18. Waterperson77

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >HDNET's broadcasts of these shows are partially cropped, partially
    > >stretched. I think they look atrocious, but to each their own.

    >
    > Thanks. That explains it. I'll have to check my videotapes again of

    the few
    > episodes I recorded from it.
    >
    > I hadn't seen the show in so long until HDNET started rerunning it, I

    might
    > have forgotten how the original was supposed to look.
    >
    > The HDNET broadcasts didn't seem bad to me at the time, but if they

    are
    > stretching and cropping it (and I'm sure you are correct), you are

    also correct
    > that it's atrocious.


    Well, to be fair, doing it their way tends to look less awful than
    simply cropping or stretching it all the way (look at ESPN for an
    example of how NOT to show 4:3 content on an HD channel). Still, I'm not
    fond of it.
    Joshua Zyber, Dec 13, 2003
    #18
  19. Waterperson77

    Clyde Coffey Guest

    On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:57:01 GMT, "Joshua Zyber"
    <> wrote:

    >"Mark Spatny" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> > No, "HD" means something specific. It means a video master is

    >prepared
    >> > in either 1080i or 720p resolution. A program shot on film can be
    >> > mastered to HD video, but film and HD are not the same thing.

    >>
    >> Technically, by that definition you are leaving out 1080 24P, which is
    >> the HDTV mastering medium of choice.

    >
    >Fair enough. I should have distinguished between the HD video master and
    >the HDTV broadcast standards.


    1080p24 is also a broadcast format so where is the distinction?
    Clyde Coffey, Dec 14, 2003
    #19
  20. Waterperson77

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Clyde Coffey" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >Fair enough. I should have distinguished between the HD video master

    and
    > >the HDTV broadcast standards.

    >
    > 1080p24 is also a broadcast format so where is the distinction?


    And in what venue is this broadcast format actually being broadcast?
    Joshua Zyber, Dec 15, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Melquiades

    Alias vs. Buffy/Angel packaging

    Melquiades, Sep 4, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,378
    Black Locust
    Sep 5, 2003
  2. Anthrax442

    Buffy Region 1 vs. Region 2/4

    Anthrax442, Sep 14, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    778
    Joshua Zyber
    Sep 14, 2003
  3. Black Locust
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    400
    Black Locust
    Dec 15, 2003
  4. TechLifter

    Straight up trade, Buffy Seasons 1 and 4

    TechLifter, Jun 14, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    467
    Wade365
    Jun 14, 2004
  5. JohnR
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    548
    Dave Herzstein
    Oct 19, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page