Red Dwarf on Blu-rays?

Discussion in 'RED DWARF UNIVERSE' started by steve51184, Mar 31, 2010.

  1. steve51184

    steve51184 Skutter

    Messages:
    7
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    will we ever get seasons 1-8 on 1080i/p Blu-rays? or even better quality DVD's? (season 1/2 look REALLY bad imo and 3+ aren't much better)
     
  2. Almighty_crj

    Almighty_crj First Technician

    Messages:
    144
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    The response to that is... Not a chance in hell. All the studio work was done on 576p tape while the 35mm model footage has gone missing in the BBC's care. so only the tape transfer of that survives either. Sorry
     
  3. steve51184

    steve51184 Skutter

    Messages:
    7
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    right so there is only 576p tape footage of the show? hmm so that's 1080p blu-ray WAY out of the question but why do the 480p dvds look SO bad?

    also can't they up-scale the master 576p tapes to 720p? i best that would look WAY better then the bad dvd transfers we have now
     
  4. Almighty_crj

    Almighty_crj First Technician

    Messages:
    144
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Well, upscaling the footage would remove the term 'as broadcast' as a selling point. The best way to do what you are thinking of would be remaster it - remaster being a dirty word around here.

    As 480p - I don't know. I believe the pal DVD transfer is a direct transfer from the editing master tape, where all the broadcast tapes and remastered where sourced. quite how that got transferred to NTSC standards is unknown.
     
  5. dvd3500

    dvd3500 Catering Officer

    Messages:
    439
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    About the only reason I could see them doing this is to simply combine the two/three disc sets to one disc.

    The other thing is they could release the set with all languages and subtitles that have been out there and set the Blu-ray to region free and just have one set for whole world...

    I highly doubt reencoding/remastering would be worthwhile. The DVD quality is pretty much as good as the source material allows...
     
  6. steve51184

    steve51184 Skutter

    Messages:
    7
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    ok thank you for your replies... kind of disapointed really as i would love this is blu-ray or even 'dvd quality' but oh well... :-(
     
  7. Andrew

    Andrew Executive Officer

    Messages:
    1,665
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Not sure it's accepted fact that the shows look 'SO bad'. I trust comparisons are only being made to other late-80s shows shot on video, as anything shot on film or in a later era isn't fair. When the DVDs came out, the jump from VHS was profound and noticeable - the DVDs look good. They are unquestionably 'DVD Quality'. But they look as good as a show made on one-inch tape in 1988, edited by analogue, can look. It gets better as the series goes on, but you don't even get into digi-beta source until Series VII.

    If you have the DVDs you can upscale to an HD TV. Which, a little artifacting aside, is as good as you're going to get based on the original source. You can't add information, you can't somehow ramp a thing up to be genuine 720p. You can't make a PAL image sudden high-definition. And what processes as there are right now are complex, expensive and far from flawless.
     
  8. steve51184

    steve51184 Skutter

    Messages:
    7
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    hey Andrew thanks for taking the time to reply here..

    right i'm not saying the DVD's are *really* bad but they are quite low quality and i know that they where shot on tape in 1988 but there's been stuff made in the 40's and 50's and below that are on blu-ray so i guess i'm finding it a little hard to understand why RD/bbc used such cheap/low quality tapes in the 90s

    yes i know that i was more talking about improving the low quality DVDs somehow
     
  9. Andrew

    Andrew Executive Officer

    Messages:
    1,665
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    I'd be fascinated to know what shows you're talking about! 40s and 50s tape-filmed TV shows on Blu-ray? Really?!

    I know a lot of MOVIES are available. They shoot on film, though, which is the original 'high-definition' format. There's masses more information in a frame of film than a frame of video. A hugh magnitude of difference, more even than 'standard' HD. A silent film made in 1920 contains much more information and detail in a single frame than a sitcom frame of video filmed in 1995.

    So when you say 'cheap/low quality', I'm not sure what you mean - it's what everybody used. (One-inch being good quality for the time. Just not sky-high celluloid.) One-inch video was the TV standard for eons, then beta SP, then digi-beta. What TV shows from the era are you saying look much, much better on DVD than Red Dwarf while sharing their production method?

    And, as I say, there's no 'fact' about the DVDs being low quality. Go do a VHS to DVD comparison. it's a huge exaggeration to state that the DVDs aren't "DVD quality".

    Unless, for some reason, you're using imported NTSC American DVDs, I really don't see how you're seeing such a difference from what everyone else is seeing.
     
  10. steve51184

    steve51184 Skutter

    Messages:
    7
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    when did i say TV shows? i didn't lol

    yes i know that i was simply saying there is older stuff out there on blu-ray plus not all of us know that RD was shot on tape and movies on film etc but now i know

    sorry didn't know that

    i'm not saying there is any and even then i wouldn't know as i don't have them on dvd
     
  11. backtoreality

    backtoreality Supply Officer

    Messages:
    622
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    would love if a bluray option was available
     
  12. xsavoie

    xsavoie Skutter

    Messages:
    2
    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Hi guys.Lately I bought a DVD set of the whole RED DWARF series in Canada,but returned it because of the horrible quality of the video transfer.Especially of the series VIII which was,as I would call it,pixelated.In other words,whenever there was movement,or change of camera focus,little square like details appeared.In other words it was like watching a bad digital signal on TV.It was as if there was dragging in the video and it just couldn't keep up with the action of the video.I'm sure it wasn't counterfeit since a pamphlet was included in each DVD set and even a quality control reply card was included in order that I might give it a quality rating to BBC.I think Warner Bros is distributing it in North America.I have seen the series on TV a few years ago and I found the video quality adequate.Personally,I would have settled for VHS quality.Have you guys had any such problems with your Red Dwarf DVD sets.:crying:
     
  13. whatsername89

    whatsername89 Skutter

    Messages:
    3
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Location:
    Essex
    i would looove red dwarf to be on blu-ray, coz yeh the dvd quality is ***** for the first few series =[ but then i can put up with it as its worth it...maybe if we all got together and asked very nicely ?? lol:-D
     
  14. Andrew

    Andrew Executive Officer

    Messages:
    1,665
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Um, the DVD transfer's pretty good. Are you comparing late-80s TV video to Blu-ray transfers of movies shot on film? If so, as this thread shows, don't worry, you're not the first.

    Meanwhile, please moderate your language on this forum. Thanks. (Your post has been edited.)
     
  15. Rewcastle

    Rewcastle Second Technician

    Messages:
    62
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    I have the feeling there is only so much you can do to old footage like that. Looking at any blu rays of 80s-90s movies, they still don't look great. I reckon the dvd is the best quality you're gonna get. Put simply - you can shampoo and brush an old dog - yet it still remains what it is
     
  16. whatsername89

    whatsername89 Skutter

    Messages:
    3
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Location:
    Essex
    i didnt realize that the word i put was bad language , sorry
     
  17. Cepillo

    Cepillo Third Technician

    Messages:
    10
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    I don't really see how blu-ray quality audio and visual would be off much benefit to a show like RD. The kitsch quality, TV budget special effects and low-res visuals are part of the shows charm.
     
  18. backtoreality

    backtoreality Supply Officer

    Messages:
    622
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    So would thee be a possibly of making series VII & VIII into blu-ray? I'd respect them as a stand alone blu-ray box-set :-)
     
  19. tortexturtle

    tortexturtle First Technician

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Location:
    TX, USA
    Have advancements in technology really turned people into such obnoxious video snobs? I have all 8 seasons on Region 1 DVDs, and they look just fine. Just like Andrew said, most everything from that era (way back in the late 80s...I can't believe I'm referring to it in such historic terms...era?!) TV-wise was shot on tape. Not film. This isn't Star Trek: The Original Series (shot on film in the 60s!). But I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Paramount Pictures allotted a larger budget to Star Trek: TOS than BBC did for Dwarf! And the whole "I can't believe they used such cheap cameras" is an especially asinine remark. It's obvious who said it knows nothing of technology changes and how as technology gets better, formats get cheaper. For example, did you know that the Atari VCS originally cost $199, back in 1978? Calculating for inflation, that's about $665.00 in today's money. If that doesn't blow your mind, then you probably are too young to know what an Atari is and therefore your ignorance in understanding technological changes in general are explained.

    And is there no deference to historic preservation?! I was reading on some other post in this forum that Doug should go back and update the special effects because it "bothered" one forum user. Here's a suggestion to that user: Get over yourself! If Doug Naylor turns into George Lucas in regards to Red Dwarf, I think I'll shoot myself. They did what that user suggested with Star Trek: TOS 2.0 and you know what? It smegging blew! It was so stupid looking. You had a sixties set inside the bridge, complete with analog clocks! And they'd cut to [obvious] CGI spaceship effortlessly floating through space. Gone was the nostalgia and the awe behind experiencing old school filming techniques, instead we had uninspired lame CGI sequences that couldn't look more out of place.

    TV shows and films are like pictures in a photo album. They are a snapshot of how things were done at the time, and I for one absolutely positively love them for that (though I hope others are out there who share my sentiment). Have any of your mums ever said to you "Sorry for the crap polaroid, son. Let's reshoot this picture with my Canon 5d MkII. Then we'll digitally alter your appearance to look 30 years younger." If your mother has ever said this, get another mother!

    Smeggin Hell!
     
  20. Andrew

    Andrew Executive Officer

    Messages:
    1,665
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Aaaannd...breathe. :-)

    I honestly think that a lot of this is would-be tech-heads who can quote a few numbers and acronyms - PAL, 1080p - but don't really know what they're talking about.

    You only have to look at how this began - "can't they up-scale the master 576p tapes to 720p? i bet that would look WAY better", then "i know that they were shot on tape in 1988"...but then "not all of us know that RD was shot on tape and movies on film etc but now i know".

    From 'I know the resolutions, I know what they can do, I know what I want' to 'oh, so is film different from video?' in a few posts.

    Like so much, we are sold dissatisfaction - 'standard definition doesn't look good' - in order to be sold a solution - 'HD'. (They flog deodorant, medication, cleaning products the same way - instil fear or regret, then offer a buyable solution.) So people begin unhappy, but not always sure why; and if they are sure, they're unaware that sometimes things can't be improved and there's a good, physical reason for it.

    Technology has improved faster than people's comprehension of it.

    But I (almost) totally disagree with your stance on remastering. History isn't preserved in a the commercial releases, it's preserved at the source. The onus is on the owners. Updating Trek episodes is fine so long as you don't burn the original content...and, ideally, so long as you allow people the choice of which to buy.

    Some remastering is decidedly not evil - upgrading sound from mono, processing prints for damage - and one person's 'too far' is another's 'ooh, interesting'.

    The crime of the Star Wars editions is not in the remastering, it's in the removal of choice. Consumers who love the original movies being refused the option of a good-quality versions of them is bad brand management. Putting updated editions in the cinemas in the 90s was a great idea; refusing cinemas now the option of showing anything other than those new editions is reprehensible. But those originals have not been removed from history; they still exist.

    Fans are not the only audience, they just think they are. Remastering can absolutely introduce content to new, casual audiences - people who can be put off by old flaws but who are just as entitled to be entertained as extant fans. And expending the popularity of a film or show only makes the release of more content - new or archive - more likely.

    The remastered editions of Dwarf weren't for everyone, but they brought new audiences to the show globally. There's no question about that. And since you can choose to see them or not - you can buy the remastered episodes, but the originals are all on DVD - what harm does that do?

    Meanwhile, the bigger success of the show brings in the funds to, say, do bonus DVD content. And the remastering project meant finding deleted scenes and other rushes material was affordable, since a lot of the content had been duped to VHS for reference. Which is to say: you get a BETTER historical record available commercially, in part, thanks to the shows being remastered.
     

Share This Page