ckuppe@spock.UUCP (Charles A. Kupperman '87 ) (01/20/86)
The showing of the older episodes on American television has brought up several interesting points: * Do colour copies exist of the Pertwees that were shown in BW? Yes, for most of them. I've seen Daemons and Silurians in colour, and the most informed sources say all episodes except Invasion of the Dinosaurs 1 and Planet of the Daleks 3 exist in colour, but they exist on a format that cannot be shown on television. * Will the "butchered" episodes ever be seen properly? I think so. The missing episode of POD was shown in movie form. The reason the episodes were ommited, I think, had more to do with scheduling decisions than availability. So, next time around, we may see the whole thing. * Now for the interesting part. What about the long cherished British opinions on the early (Hartnell) stories? This requires some clarification. Ever since about 1977, the British fans have entertained a very high opinion of themselves. They rather became the arbitrary judges of all Doctor Who stories, declaring the Pertwee years sacred, and declaring certain stories "classics", and spitting upon others. The thing is, however, most of them, until recently, had never seen the Hartnell years. I mean that, at the same time as the consensus of British fandom was solidly in favor of these judgements, they couldn't really remember anything before the Troughton years. (This is a generalisation.) Now, suddenly, these stories are available to both British and American fans, and "sacred" judgements by such authorities as J. Jeremy Bentham, who wrote those reviews in Doctor Who: a Celebration, and whose word is almost inviolate, are being reversed. For instance, the story Edge of Destruction has suddenly lost its status as a "classic", the status it held for many years, and is now being regarded by many fans as a rather silly romp - Invasion of Time without the humor. Similarly, Gunfighters is now seen by many British fans as a terrific farce, a story that, along with the Romans and the Time Meddler, adds a lot of fun to the Doctor Who concept. Personally, I think Horns of Nimon is a fun story and should be regarded a lot more highly. That just goes to show how varied opinions can, and should, be. Sorry to bog you all down with this, Charles Kupperman. "A long-shanked rascal with a mighty nose." -- The Time Warrior.
perl@rdin.UUCP (Robert Perlberg) (01/22/86)
>* Do colour copies exist of the Pertwees that were shown in BW? > Yes, for most of them. I've seen Daemons and Silurians in colour, > and the most informed sources say all episodes except Invasion > of the Dinosaurs 1 and Planet of the Daleks 3 exist in colour, but > they exist on a format that cannot be shown on television. What kind of format are they in that can't be shown on television? Are they holographic or something? So far as I know, if it's on film, it can be shown on television. I can't see frame rate as being a problem since I've seen 24 fps and 18 fps films on American TV which is 30 fps. If you can manage that conversion, you can manage any other! If the episodes are on a strange video format, even THAT should be convertable to NTSC TV. I've seen different video formats from all over the world converted to NTSC. Some don't look too great, but they WERE converted. The upshot of all this is: British video can be converted to American video. We know this because we have seen too many videotaped Dr. Who episodes to deny it. Dr. Who is a British TV show. Ergo, It must have been shown on British TV. Ergo, it can be converted to American TV. Robert Perlberg Resource Dynamics Inc. New York {philabs|delftcc}!rdin!perl
percus@acf4.UUCP (Allon G. Percus) (01/24/86)
> >* Do colour copies exist of the Pertwees that were shown in BW? > > Yes, for most of them. I've seen Daemons and Silurians in colour, > > and the most informed sources say all episodes except Invasion > > of the Dinosaurs 1 and Planet of the Daleks 3 exist in colour, but > > they exist on a format that cannot be shown on television. > > What kind of format are they in that can't be shown on television? Are > they holographic or something? So far as I know, if it's on film, it > can be shown on television. I believe Charles is referring to the quality of those stories. Granted, a story on film CAN always be shown on television, but with many of the older Pertwee stories, you definitely wouldn't enjoy it that way. . ------- |-----| A. G. Percus |II II| (ARPA) percus@acf4 |II II| (NYU) percus.acf4 |II II| (UUCP) ...{allegra!ihnp4!seismo}!cmcl2!acf4!percus |II II| -------
acsgjjp@sunybcs.UUCP (Jim Poltrone) (01/30/86)
>> ... they exist on a format that cannot be shown on television. > > What kind of format are they in that can't be shown on television? Are > they holographic or something? So far as I know, if it's on film, it > can be shown on television. I don't believe it's the format at all. Rather, it is the QUALITY (or resolution) of the images themselves. At a recent convention, I saw episode 1 of Invasion [of the Dinosaurs], which, if it was color, was very pale. Also, the images weren't sharp. It was very hard to watch. Television stations (and other professional installations) use 1/2" video- tape (or is it 3/4"?) to record programs. Anything on Beta, VHS, or even U-matic (an old format not used in homes) lacks sufficient resolution to be converted successfully. These can't be shown directly, without a conversion step. It can be converted, but as in all successive-generation copies, the quality diminishes somewhat. I would imagine that converting to a larger format would result in "gaps" in the final result. In simpler terms, the larger format contains all the information in the smaller format, but it could appear on every other line in the larger format, leaving every other line blank. The images are no longer as crisp as they should be. Therefore, it is "unsuitable for broadcast". > If you can manage that conversion, you can manage any other! Possibly, as this is the most difficult conversion of all. Computer enhance- ment would have to be used. And I doubt the BBC has these facilities, or is willing to devote the time and money to do so. -- ____ ^ ____ |_ _|/ \|_ _| Jim Poltrone (a/k/a Poltr1, \ \/ \/ / the Last of the Raster Blasters) \/ ^ \/ / / \ \ uucp: [decvax,watmath,rocksvax]!sunybcs!acsgjjp / /___\ \ ARPAnet: acsgjjp%buffalo@CSNET-RELAY /___________\ csnet: acsgjjp@BUFFALO _/ /_ _\ \_ BITNET: ACSGJJP@SUNYBCS, ACSGJJP@SUNYABVA |_____| |_____|
steve@bambi.UUCP (Steve Miller) (02/01/86)
> >> ... they exist on a format that cannot be shown on television. > > Television stations (and other professional installations) use 1/2" video- > tape (or is it 3/4"?) to record programs. Anything on Beta, VHS, or even > U-matic (an old format not used in homes) lacks sufficient resolution to be > converted successfully. Just a few points Jim: Most professional video production is done on either 1" or 2" tape. U-matic (the U is mu) is the standard format for 3/4" cassettes, which actually can be broadcast, thought you are right about the resolution being lower. However, home formats like VHS and Beta have actually been aired, usually when an amateur videographer captures some unique event. All tape carries the same number of lines. Lots of stuff about this sort of thing can be found in net.video