|
|
Post by Darren Jones on Feb 11, 2021 1:00:58 GMT
This may be a controversial topic and I'm prepared for the counter opinion. I know original episodes contained both video and film and that's how they would have looked to the original audience.
However I'm so used to seeing the 60s serials, on vhs, as copies of the film recording, I find it rather jarring when vidfire is applied to the non film scenes as it doesn't fit with my memory.
So, I'm wondering if you would all prefer the 'pure' 16mm copies, the restoration hybrids (as on dvd), or completely vidfired?
|
|
|
|
Post by georgee on Feb 11, 2021 1:18:50 GMT
I’m a purist myself and for that fact alone I feel like it should be shown without the presence of vidfire. To me it’s a 60’s TV show produced and shown on the small screen regularly and I’d like releases to reflect the original quality as much as possible. I’ve always appreciated stuff like CGI enhancements being present but simply being optional, I just want the stuff as originally broadcast. This is the same reason some animations bother me a lot more than others. Of course to each their own! This is just my personal view, feel free to disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevegerald on Feb 11, 2021 4:54:43 GMT
I’m a purist myself and for that fact alone I feel like it should be shown without the presence of vidfire. To me it’s a 60’s TV show produced and shown on the small screen regularly and I’d like releases to reflect the original quality as much as possible. I’ve always appreciated stuff like CGI enhancements being present but simply being optional, I just want the stuff as originally broadcast. This is the same reason some animations bother me a lot more than others. Of course to each their own! This is just my personal view, feel free to disagree. But VidFIRE makes it look closer to what was originally broadcasted. |
|
|
|
Post by Sue Butcher on Feb 11, 2021 6:34:12 GMT
The use of video and film in combination was typical of television production in the Sixties and Seventies. Vidfire does a decent job of restoring the "presence" of the sequences originally on video. That's important to me because television programmes of that era are closer to theatre than cinema, and presence is a characteristic of theatre.
|
|
|
|
Post by georgee on Feb 11, 2021 7:43:35 GMT
I’m a purist myself and for that fact alone I feel like it should be shown without the presence of vidfire. To me it’s a 60’s TV show produced and shown on the small screen regularly and I’d like releases to reflect the original quality as much as possible. I’ve always appreciated stuff like CGI enhancements being present but simply being optional, I just want the stuff as originally broadcast. This is the same reason some animations bother me a lot more than others. Of course to each their own! This is just my personal view, feel free to disagree. But VidFIRE makes it look closer to what was originally broadcasted. You’re totally right. My understanding of what exactly vidfire accomplishes was incorrect. I feel silly now as I absolutely should not have commented on this unless I was certain I knew exactly what I was commenting on. My bad. I looked into it after you corrected me and now have a solid understanding of vidfire, it is similar to what I thought it was initially but what it actually accomplishes is not what I was thinking. All I can say is it sounds like a perfectly valid form of restoration but I can also see the reasons one would want to avoid it. Again, sorry for my silliness I’ll try to be smarter before I make my next comment. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Feb 11, 2021 9:15:05 GMT
Everyone has a view about this, but I would caution wanting things to be presented to reflect how you as an individual experienced something.
Until 1976 (with a few exceptions) I watched Doctor Who in black and white. I also watched on an 18 inch TV screen and my field of view also contained other distractions.
Restoration is by definition designed to remove flaws introduced after a production has been made. If we take the view of the OP we should surely just dig out the film recording we used back then with no restoration, because that's how he recalled them, warts and all. VidFire is an approximation of the motion of the original tapes that was distorted when the film recordings were made. Stored field film recordings blend two fields of the original video frame into one progressive frame, filming the video in a crude way that also gives the film a soft look. VidFire then interpolates the new consecutive frames, creating in-between frames which are then interlaced to create a new video frame. It is not exactly how the original would have looked because neither is the film recording.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaspal Cheema on Feb 11, 2021 9:31:36 GMT
The use of video and film in combination was typical of television production in the Sixties and Seventies. Vidfire does a decent job of restoring the "presence" of the sequences originally on video. That's important to me because television programmes of that era are closer to theatre than cinema, and presence is a characteristic of theatre. Wow Sue,that's deep... |
|
|
|
Post by Alan Jeffries on Feb 11, 2021 22:26:31 GMT
I know I'm in a minority (of probably just 1), bnt I do not like he vidfire. I would prefer nice, sharp looking images. The few shots in The War Machines that are un vidfired are pin sharp and crisp. I get the point of wanting them to look like they were when transmitted, but what is the point of having them on DVD or Bluray when they don't reach their potential for the clarity they could have? Look at the Star Trek Next Gen or even Space 1999. The difference in restoration (and yes I know they were filmed much later) is astounding, The amount of detail that gets picked up makes them look like new shows. Watching the restoration piece on the Day of the Triffids (BBC one) brings out the colours and makes the show vibrant and removes the turgeidity (is that a word? It is now!) of the original broadcast. It now looks beautiful.
I would love to see a couple of stories given the non vidfire treatment, but I really cannot see me buying the whole of old Who again!.............
Alan
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Feb 11, 2021 23:28:09 GMT
I know I'm in a minority (of probably just 1), bnt I do not like he vidfire. I would prefer nice, sharp looking images. The few shots in The War Machines that are un vidfired are pin sharp and crisp Sorry Alan, but I really don't get the point you're making here. VidFIRE does produce nice, sharp looking images and thus gets the episodes looking very close to the way they were when they were when they were transmitted. That's the whole point of it. But they're only ever applied to material that was recorded electronically in the studio. The only shots that aren't VidFIREd in The War Machines are the film inserts on the film recordings, which includes the tiny bits of original 35mm location film that exist. They look absolutely pristine. But given that the total amount of that material available for the entire 1960s run is minute, the location sequences will never look quite as good as they did on broadcast. The option is to just leave them as film recordings, but that would just leave them looking worse, not better. |
|
|
|
Post by Alan Jeffries on Feb 11, 2021 23:33:32 GMT
Fair enough. Then I will bow to people who know much more than I do about these things Richard. I can't help being a Philistine. And thanks for putting me straight!
Alan
|
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Feb 12, 2021 0:17:17 GMT
I can see no reasonable argument to deprive people of the best possible quality due to a niche subjective desire. This is a niche, I mean really niche. Any modern release should be of the best possible quality, which they are - the RT do a wonderful job of that. If you want to watch them as you did on VHS then watch it on VHS then? If you want to transfer the VHS to a computer for your own use, that's probably your best bet.
The part about restoration hybrids confuses me, as does the completely Vidfired part - neither of those two scenarios are correct. As evidenced by posts in this thread I think quite a few people don't quite know what Vidfire is and how it's used, despite thinking they do.
|
|
Richard Develyn
Member
Living in hope that more missing episodes will come back to us.
Posts: 574
|
Post by Richard Develyn on Feb 12, 2021 12:28:24 GMT
If you don't like vidfire you could always squint a little bit when you watch it.
Richard
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Lia on Feb 12, 2021 23:08:31 GMT
Don't feel bad I begged Paul Vanezis about 9 or 10 years ago to have a special edition of "Spearhead from Space" and "Robot" VIDFIRED and filmized respectively to match the surrounding serials "Plant of the Spiders" and "The Silurians" as for me personally these look wrong seeing the interiors of "SFS" on film and the exteriors of "Robot" on video tape.
I'm still waiting and hoping (but have stopped holding my breath)
|
|
Ace St.John
Member
Enter your message here...
Posts: 139
|
Post by Ace St.John on Feb 13, 2021 2:27:37 GMT
This is a difficult one really because I used to quite like the filmised look and movement (25fps vs 50fps) of the film recordings. I haven't compared the vidfire effect to this enough to know if I would have a preference either one way or the other. After all the movement of vidfire as opposed to raw telerecording should be closer to how it would have felt on broadcast from the original master video tape's as per broadcast.
Are the odd and even lines picked apart and presented separate in each 50mhz frame or kept as one and then the second frame calculated? If so then surely the odd or even lines will be a jump ahead by a 50th of a second compared to their within frame counterpart?
When I first read about the technique before the first DW dvd was released utilising the technique I was very excited about this advamcement and innovation in restoration techniques.
Very recently I enjoyed the clear detail of The Keys of Marinus I watched on BritBox a couple of weeks ago and enjoyed thoroughly and 'got into'. And I thought that the image quality was excellent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Jones on Feb 13, 2021 3:29:31 GMT
The part about restoration hybrids confuses me, as does the completely Vidfired part - neither of those two scenarios are correct. As evidenced by posts in this thread I think quite a few people don't quite know what Vidfire is and how it's used, despite thinking they do. I'm not saying that I don't like the restoration, just that I find it off from my memory. Vidfire interpolate a mid frame that has been lost due to being recorded on film. |
|
