Everything looks better in HD… right?

As an critical audio enthusiast I understand perfectly where you are coming from in relation to viewing George but ,if I am perfectly honest I would rather view full screen . I was one of the early buyers of full HD flatscreen viewing as ,because of the screen size ( 42 inch ) the definition wasnt too good but I am quite happy with that and,at present wont be buying a 4K screen. My “beef ” is with the abject rubbish audio of many flatscreen systems , sqeeky , extremely limited frequency response , especially in the low frequency end as ,try as they may they have never completely overcome physics by producing a flat 20 Hz to 20KHz frequency response in a minute sized loudspeaker . Add to that the lack of spatial response , cramped limited 2D signal produced . What a world of a difference when the original high quality wav signal is directed through a high quality amplifier and high quality loudspeakers , certainly not cheap but a DVD takes on an new life . All of a sudden you are swept away by the rumbling wheels of a wagon , the gurgling of a stream, the crack of thunder in the sky , the sound of nature in an outdoor movie . No wonder many SF movies fall flat on their face when transferred to a small screen , I get the full atmosphere of the cinema , the roar of rockets , the heavy wide sound background giving an overall intense rumbling atmosphere to the movie ,every small sound is reproduced you actually feel –you –are taking part in the film , truly awesome !

The debate about To crop or Not to crop has been taking place for as long as there’s been cinematic transfers. But if I can start by correcting some of George’s assumptions, when he says “The latest releases are being filmed and edited with HD (and now 4K)” that’s not quite accurate and certainly not specific. Films, for example, have always been in the equivalent of 8K at least (they use 35mm or more commonly 70mm film which has incredibly high resolution and they use anamorphic lenses to change the format of the print to one of the several types of wide screen that exist (there are at least 4).

That said I’ve recently completed a stint of reformatting several hours of 4:3 video into 16:9 upgrading it to HD on the way. It took me several months to do it because, as you might imagine, it’s a very time consuming business. It cannot be automated, which is what I suspect Fox and Cop have done with Buffy. ‘Pan and Scan’, as the process of re-formatting is called, requires the editor to watch every frame, and as there are between 24 and 29 of these in each second of film, that’s a lot of careful watching :-).

4K is outstanding in its own right, but a huge amount depends on the quality of the original media and the director of photography (DP). Good DPs know that much more light is needed for 4K video and even more for film, but the growth in 4 and 8K media has largely come about because of the vast improvements in digital processing. But returning to the Pan and Scan debate, there’s a lack of willingness on the part of Studios to invest in carefully supervised re-formats because of the cost involved in doing it properly. Shows such as Stargate filmed all the episodes in WS, but maintained the action in the 4:3 format area, so they’ve released box sets that simply use the original format. But if the job is going to be done, and I’m unsure it should be for some films, then it has to be done properly.

Interestingly, the colourisation process used on classics such as ‘It’s a wonderful Life’ was the source of much controversy when it first became available. Now it seems, few notice it and – again – done well it can look good. The secret is taking time and spending money.

A lot of older TV shows and films will show their age no matter how you present them.

Since a lot of this art (and other lesser material) will reflect the time when it was made, I don’t think there is much wrong with watching this sort of stuff in its original format.

At least for me, good old B&W films, e.g. Casablanca and Fort Apache (to name but two) are compelling entertainment none the less.

Lower quality material, like TV shows, tends to show greater potential for ageing. Old scifi shows like Doctor Who, Start Trek TOS (etc.) really suffer here but excellent comedy – e.g. Dad’s Army or Fawlty Towers can be timeless.

I’ve been thinking about the Buffy problem (revealing the crew at the sides of the frame) and I’m a little puzzled. Merely panning and scanning, however ineptly, won’t reveal images not in the original frame. So I doubt that was a result of poor Pan and Scan. That raises the next question: was the original shot in one of the WS formats and, if so, which one and why?

After a lot of digging it appears that seasons 2 onwards were shot in 16:9, but both Seasons 1 and 2 were shot on 16mm film, the remainder being on 35mm stock. So it appears Fox wasn’t entirely the villain, other than in Season 1. More worryingly, however, Fox did alter the lighting for the ‘dark’ scenes. In order to preserve detail dark scenes are normally shot in normal light and then filtered to appear dark. Somewhere along the line Fox made the decision that they were too dark. The creator, Joss Whedon, wasn’t consulted by Fox, and has expressed his lack of enthusiasm for the re-mastering.

Recropping Buffy is similar to what they sometimes do to grand masters’ painting so that they can fit them into standard poster size, or releasing the early Beatles in stereo, or tampering with the original Star Wars by adding special effects where there were none: horrible, commercial nonsense, the opposite of artistic endeavour.

A better definition version of Voyager, what a dream that would be.

A couple of posters have mentioned they can’t see a difference between SD and HD.

When we got our 42″ HD ready TV, and switched to Sky HD, the picture was nothing like we had seen in the showroom. We got Sky out to check it and they said there was nothing they could do and we had the best picture we were going to get. They refused to change the old analogue cable as they said it would make no difference. We bought new rather expensive cable and laid it out so all Sky had to do was connect it. Then we had an excellent HD picture.

We also have a booster in the loft that gives us an excellent HD picture through the aerial.

I have yet to see any aerial installer in the 10,000,s of homes I have visited use top quality co-ax . As far as the “10 metres ” ( note the US version ) is concerned ,as I said I have an array of sat dishes in my back garden, they are bolted onto my ancient 2 foot thick sandstone wall which used to be a cattle shed and is 10 foot high this entails a cable run of 60 metres . I do appreciate that that is not the most expensive item on their eventual bill ,but why spoil the ship for ” a , halfpenny worth of tar ” ?