Series 14 looks terrible

[goodiesguy]

Just bought the latest set released in NZ (labeled Series 15 & 16) and it seems the've just used the broadcast tapes from back then for the dvd, so what we are seeing, are transfers of the 35mm film, onto a big reel of videotape. It's false 16:10 too, with no attempt to remove the small black bars at the top and bottom.

They really should of gone back to the original 35mm negatives and retransfered them, for a fresh, great crisp transfer, They'd only need to redo the credit and title captions (series 14 still had them done in the videotape stage).

On the other hand, Series 15 looks alot more decent, and it seems the show was Completely fully on film by then, with the titles and credits being on the Film itself now, instead of being added on a videotape copy.


Sorry if this is technical, but Series 14, although was all shot on film, was still using videotape to store the completed episodes, therefore, the picture is quite bad (previous series look better, due to lower 16mm film being used, which looks better on videotape sources).

If they had bothered to re-transfer the original 35mm negatives, we could of seen series 14 in Full Widescreen! as they were definitaley shot in 16:9, but where cropped to 16:10, and fitted to a 4:3 aspect ratio for broadcast.

 

[Big Unc]

Just bought the latest set released in NZ (labeled Series 15 & 16) and it seems the've just used the broadcast tapes from back then for the dvd, so what we are seeing, are transfers of the 35mm film, onto a big reel of videotape. It's false 16:10 too, with no attempt to remove the small black bars at the top and bottom.

This intrigued me although I found it very muddling and difficult to follow mainly because of the DVD series numbering shambles after Series #9 - the big con as I am still inclined to call it. But it brought me back to a query I have raised before in different places but have never had a sensible answer. It concerns the medium for recording, videotape or film.

This thread is entitled "Series 14 looks terrible" and then promptly starts talking about "the latest set released in NZ (labeled Series 15 & 16). Lets try and tease this out assuming the post Series #9 DVDs are labelled the same in NZ as in UK.

Real Series #12: DVD Series #13: Videotape for studio, Film for location
Real Series #13: DVD Series #14: All videotape
Real Series #14: DVD Series #15: All film
Real Series #15: DVD Series #16: All film

Is it the all videotape real series #13 or the first all film series #14 which is the subject of the criticism?

But my main query, one for which I have never got an answer is how does film come into the equation? To me, film is used to record visual pictures which will be shown in a cinema through a light projector. For television broadcast you need a medium giving you a signal which you can transmit. So anything on film need to be converted to videotape to be transmitted. The BBC has always been superb at outside broadcast, particularly in the sport context and I have never heard of film being used there. Or am I missing a point completely somewhere? Something at which I have become extremely good with advancing years.

 

[wstol]

I don't much about the technical side of video and film, though I'm fairly sure things can be shot on video and turned into film. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's strange in these days of hd etc how we criticise the use of video, as the 1991 series has such a clear, life-like picture. But it doesn't look right somehow.

 

[goodiesguy]

Just bought the latest set released in NZ (labeled Series 15 & 16) and it seems the've just used the broadcast tapes from back then for the dvd, so what we are seeing, are transfers of the 35mm film, onto a big reel of videotape. It's false 16:10 too, with no attempt to remove the small black bars at the top and bottom.

This intrigued me although I found it very muddling and difficult to follow mainly because of the DVD series numbering shambles after Series #9 - the big con as I am still inclined to call it. But it brought me back to a query I have raised before in different places but have never had a sensible answer. It concerns the medium for recording, videotape or film.

This thread is entitled "Series 14 looks terrible" and then promptly starts talking about "the latest set released in NZ (labeled Series 15 & 16). Lets try and tease this out assuming the post Series #9 DVDs are labelled the same in NZ as in UK.

Real Series #12: DVD Series #13: Videotape for studio, Film for location
Real Series #13: DVD Series #14: All videotape
Real Series #14: DVD Series #15: All film
Real Series #15: DVD Series #16: All film

Is it the all videotape real series #13 or the first all film series #14 which is the subject of the criticism?

But my main query, one for which I have never got an answer is how does film come into the equation? To me, film is used to record visual pictures which will be shown in a cinema through a light projector. For television broadcast you need a medium giving you a signal which you can transmit. So anything on film need to be converted to videotape to be transmitted. The BBC has always been superb at outside broadcast, particularly in the sport context and I have never heard of film being used there. Or am I missing a point completely somewhere? Something at which I have become extremely good with advancing years.

The NZ dvd's are labeled the same as the uk ones. I'm talking about actual SERIES 14, the first one with film. Cover:

Series 14 (labeled as 15 on the dvd's) seems to have the only distiction (of the complete FILM years) of being put to videotape after being shot completely on film. The captions for this series (yellow titles) were done during the videotape stage. When viewing this series on a 32nch tv, it shows how bad it looks. Quite muddy and blurry compared to what it could of been.

Series 15 (labeled as 16 on the dvds) on the otherhand seems to have been made when things were going digital (large spools of videotape not being used) as even the captions on this series (and the next ones) are done on the film itself, as you can see the yellow captions judder a bit along with the film and lack the rich color of the previous series captions. This series actually looks decent.

It's just 14 (first to be all film) that is the odd one out, that looks bad, due to them storing the completed episode on videotape, which is a lower res than film.


EDIT: the next dvd set which will be released in july seems like they've done it right, and transfered from the original 35mm negatives, as it state its in 16:9 widescreen: http://www.dvdwarehouse.com.au/last-of-the-summer-wine-series-17-18-9397810239197.html

 

[Big Unc]

I don't much about the technical side of video and film, though I'm fairly sure things can be shot on video and turned into film. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's strange in these days of hd etc how we criticise the use of video, as the 1991 series has such a clear, life-like picture. But it doesn't look right somehow.

Not sure why one would shoot in video and convert to film. The other way round makes sense, for example, to broadcast a film shot for cinema.

In 1991 the series looked brilliant to us. We have had twenty plus years of technological development since.

 

[goodiesguy]

Have so far watched the first 2 episodes of Series 14, and must say, it's a pretty weak series so far, no way near the heights of the previous series.

 

[Chuffer Enwright]

Have so far watched the first 2 episodes of Series 14, and must say, it's a pretty weak series so far, no way near the heights of the previous series.

You are watching the correctly marked discs aren't you?
Series 13 was pretty dire from start to finish. The first 2 episodes of 14, in fact everything in 14 cocks it's leg all over anything and everything in 13.

 

[goodiesguy]

Yes, I am watching the correct discs. I think Series 13 was a great series overall, but so far, series 14 is not doing much for me.

 

[Big Unc]

Yes, I am watching the correct discs. I think Series 13 was a great series overall, but so far, series 14 is not doing much for me.

Somehow it seems to me we are being bamboozled by the DVD series numbering idiocy. Do you mean the real Series 13 and 14 or the DVD numbered Series 13 and 14. Which years are we talking, 1991 and 1992 (real) or 1990 and 1991 (DVD). Which are first episodes in series, "Quick, Quick, Slow" and "By The Magnificent Thighs of Ernie Burniston" (real) or "Return of the Warrior" and "Quick, Quick, Slow" (DVD).

 

[goodiesguy]

I mean all the real series. I'm watching actual proper series 14 (1992, with auntie wainright back, and the episode where they get smiler to make horse noises for compo)