# BSG in HD



## Lincoln6Echo (Jul 11, 2007)

I know this topic has already been mentioned in the Sci-Fi/USA HD thread, but I just wanted to touch on something here that I didn't want to get lost in the other thread.

OK, first off, this week's episode is the first I've seen in HD, and quite frankly, it doesn't look much if any better than my up-coverted DVDs via my Oppo DV-981HD.

Thoughts?


----------



## DBS Commando (Apr 7, 2006)

I don't like the granyness that they put in the picture. There's way too much.

I think SGA will look much better once they begin airing repeats from Season 4


----------



## neowaxworks (Apr 2, 2008)

it will...
the makers of BSG WANT it to look grungy and dirty... thats part of the artistic expression they are shooting for...I've heard them talk about it being dirty, sweaty and smelly... not an easy space voyage


----------



## clapple (Feb 11, 2003)

" the makers of BSG WANT it to look grungy and dirty... " And depressing!!


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

There's far more detail in HD than there possibly could be in SD. I could pick out important background items in several of the scenes from last night.


----------



## Kman68 (Jan 24, 2008)

It is not HD. It is upconverted SD, just like your Oppo. SciFi.com does not claim that the show is available in HD and if you read their message boards, they state it is not HD. They lack the ability to do CGI in HD.

As for the more detail comment, an upconverting DVD player appears to reveal much more detail than 480i or 480p DVD.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Kman68 said:


> It is not HD. It is upconverted SD, just like your Oppo. SciFi.com does not claim that the show is available in HD and if you read their message boards, they state it is not HD. They lack the ability to do CGI in HD.
> 
> As for the more detail comment, an upconverting DVD player appears to reveal much more detail than 480i or 480p DVD.


Actually BSG is in HD, it's actually one of the few shows they have on Sci-Fi right now that does actually claim to be in HD. One thing that the Sci-Fi HD channel does that I really appreciate is that they only show the "HD" tag next to their Sci-Fi logo when it's a show that's actually being shown in HD. A lot of other "HD" channels always have the "HD" tag next to their logo all the time whether they're broadcasting real HD, "zoomed" or "stretch-o-vision", just hoping the average idiot is too stupid to notice the difference. If you think you're getting a better picture out of upconverted DVD's you might want to check the settings on your tv and receiver, because I also have an upconverting DVD player and while the picture is pretty good it's definitely not as good as the HD broadcasts of BSG or any other actual HD broadcast (even via satellite).


----------



## coldmiser (Mar 10, 2007)

Wasn't BSG originally filmed for the UK? And aren't almost all of their shows shot in HD? I could be wrong, but I thought that was the case.

Another thing...I remember watching some special about BSG on HDNet. The clips they showed there looked a lot better than what is being shown on SciFi IMHO.


----------



## grcooperjr (Mar 19, 2008)

coldmiser said:


> Wasn't BSG originally filmed for the UK? And aren't almost all of their shows shot in HD? I could be wrong, but I thought that was the case.
> 
> Another thing...I remember watching some special about BSG on HDNet. The clips they showed there looked a lot better than what is being shown on SciFi IMHO.


If I remeber correctly it is all filmed in Vancouver BC, and from some of the pod casts on their web site the do film it all in HD


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

It has been discussed before, and will be discussed again... just as in BSG "all has happened before" 

BSG is shot in HD, but is also intended to have a documentary-style look... the producers/directors intend for this show to look like you are there watching, from behind a camera, shooting a documentary of everything. So they have some of the herky-jerky camera movements on purpose as well as intentional grain and fuzzy shots at times to emphasize that feel.

They basically want you to feel like you are there... and they don't want things to look shiny and HD-perfect as it would take away from the depressing/down mood that most episodes really intend to convey.


----------



## Kman68 (Jan 24, 2008)

Look at next Friday's Prime Time airing of BSG. Highlight it and hit "Info" button on the remote. Note that it is shown in (Stereo).

Try the same simple exercise with anything on Voom. Note the (HD) display. If there is no (HD), it is not true HD.

Much of what is shown on HD channels is upconverted SD. As the original poster stated, upconverting DVD players produce a 16x9 720p/1080i or p image with a Dolby Digital soundtrack. While the picture is usually better than the original SD, it is not HD. Some folks are not critical viewers and will not see the difference even if told exactly what to look for.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

This whole discussion reminds me of the 1950's when there was so much "taste" debate over color in movies and then TV. Some people didn't think anything was good that didn't look like early Kodachrome slides - high saturation, bright and shiny. Today film makers are careful to create a mood with the choice of film, lighting, focus, etc. And sometimes a movie bombs when they make bad choices because people know it just doesn't feel right.

HD doesn't mean the show has to look like an NFL game in HD where the goal is to be able to see blades of grass from a blimp shot. I personally like what the BSG people have chosen to do and frankly prefer all the Law and Orders upverted from SD over the non-grainy HD versions - the "visual feel" of the show is at least as important as sound in creating mood and emotion.

Just my opinion, of course. But there are scenes in BSG that HD has improved signficantly. Others were ok in upverted SD.


----------



## HDlover (Jul 28, 2006)

First off it is either shot with HD cameras or film cameras. Film in HD is a oxymoron unless you are comparing to 8mm, not a possability for commercial work. If one says it is shot in HD then that means HD cameras AFAIC. It "looks" like it is shot on 16mm film. :uglyhamme Given all the hand held work, it would make it a lot easier than 35mm and blend in better with the low res CGI.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Well, the debate will rage forever over whether using video (HD or SD) or film (usually 35mm but sometimes 16mm) as your primary medium. If, by ones own definition, HD is only possible using only digital video cameras much content will not be HD. IMHO it is likely in 5 years that we'll be seeing the original camera work done both ways and the final cut converted to digital, with some directors either putting it all on film or creating a film effect. But we may see film cameras disappear if one can create a really good "film effect" from digital video. I also think we'll get rid of the "let's see everyone's warts" final cuts.


----------



## HDlover (Jul 28, 2006)

HD is a step down from film. A film (35mm) master is 3500x2000 (too bad one never sees these in the theater, the copies for distribution are not much better than HD. 4k digital theater from the master is a definite step up.). It can be easily converted/digitized to HD. 16mm is about the same rez as HD and probably less when digitized. 

To get back on topic, BSG is piss poor HD but still better than SD.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

HDlover said:


> To get back on topic, BSG is piss poor HD but still better than SD.


I only have a 42" older plasma, so I probably can't see it. What do you look for in the picture that isn't there in BSG? I know it does not appear as "sharp" or "clear" as even "2001" but my assumption was it is the result of an "artistic" choice and that the CGI effects were somehow affected by ambient color (and grainyness) choices.


----------



## allargon (May 3, 2007)

It's definitely HD-well HD-lite as this is Dish. Upconverted SD still has that faded, washed out look of the NTSC colorspace. It's apparent everytime even on high quality SD DVD's.

It doesn't look as good as the season 1 HD DVD, but it looks way better than the faded, overcompressed SD feed on the standard definition SciFi channel!


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Kman68 said:


> Look at next Friday's Prime Time airing of BSG. Highlight it and hit "Info" button on the remote. Note that it is shown in (Stereo).


ummmmm......so you're telling me that your source of info that makes you think that BSG isn't in HD is the "info" button?! :lol: I think you'll also notice that the info for next weeks ep also says it's original air date is something like 1-15-05 and has no episode number so it's not exactly the best source, id say. Hate to burst your bubble but BSG really is shot in HD and shown in HD on Sci-Fi. I've heard some people say they think it looks better in HD on Universal than Sci-Fi but that's another thread. In anycase i've watced both upconverted DVD's of BSG on my tv and watched BSG in HD on both Universal and Sci-Fi HD and the HD version is a better picture hands down.


----------



## MarkoC (Apr 5, 2004)

When Universal HD recently showed the first season of BSG in HD and I found out they would not be showing the mini-series episodes I got the first HD-DVD from Netflix and was very disappointed in the PQ. I actually thought the shows on Universal HD had better PQ than the mini-series episodes on HD-DVD.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Kman68 said:


> Look at next Friday's Prime Time airing of BSG. Highlight it and hit "Info" button on the remote. Note that it is shown in (Stereo).
> 
> Try the same simple exercise with anything on Voom. Note the (HD) display. If there is no (HD), it is not true HD.


This is not anywhere close to a reliable source of information. Nothing on SciFi or USA has been labelled as HD since those channels launched. You'll also find many other instances on other channels of programs not having the "(HD)" indicator, and yet HD is on those channels. You'll also see "(HD)" on some non-HD programming as well.

The guide info is typed in by someone somewhere or imported from something that someone else typed in... and often contains all sorts of inaccuracies too numerous to mention.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

The guide data on D* for BSG next Friday (and yesterday) says HD and if you don't know what means it then says High-Def.


----------



## TechnoCat (Sep 4, 2005)

It could be that Canadian electrons (BSG is perpetrated in B.C.) are now, due to the exchange rate, too large for our HD pixels. 

I had watched the first year-and-a-half of BSG. I stopped because it was just too depressing. Nothing like the Lorne Greene/Richard Hatch/Dirk Benedict campy schlock, which I quite enjoyed. (Of course I'm old enough to have seen first runs.)

So when SciFi-HD arrived, I watched part of an episode. Didn't see the whole thing, just some context, hoping it would be less depressing.

=== SPOILER ALERT ===

As far as I could discern, the snippet I saw involved an organic mother and her crying baby, the mom about to take them out an airlock to avoid a cylon. The cylon lies, convinces the mom that cylons aren't evil, steals the baby and kicks the mom out the airlock.

That was enough. HD or not, this is not a happy light-hearted show. Uggah. Might as well watch live-action autopsies!

Or, to quote Dirk (Starbuck Take 1) himself...


Dirk Benedict said:


> (They took) what once was and twist it into what never was intended. So that a television show based on hope, spiritual faith, and family is unimagined and regurgitated as a show of despair, sexual violence and family dysfunction.


But more to the point, what kind of picture are you expecting to portray such a story? Hitchcock had color available, he just often didn't use it. Spinal Tap intentionally had camera shake, Ghostbusters intentionally did a lot without a script. BSG is clearly going for the "we're fighting a losing battle for our pathetic empty valueless lives" look, which means muted colors, lots of greys, maybe some other artifacts introduced, and oh yeah, the most frack'inly depressing storyline like evah!


----------



## HDlover (Jul 28, 2006)

phrelin said:


> I only have a 42" older plasma, so I probably can't see it. What do you look for in the picture that isn't there in BSG? I know it does not appear as "sharp" or "clear" as even "2001" but my assumption was it is the result of an "artistic" choice and that the CGI effects were somehow affected by ambient color (and grainyness) choices.


One of the other things missing is contrast, being shot so dark and muted. Contrast is the number one pleasing thing to the eye.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

HDlover said:


> One of the other things missing is contrast, being shot so dark and muted. Contrast is the number one pleasing thing to the eye.


Ah. That is true. I sometimes do have trouble distinguishing things particularly with my aging eyes. They could retain the dark and muted ambience but still kick the contrast up in a way that allows edges to be more visible. Someone needs to fine tune the ambience.


----------



## Lincoln6Echo (Jul 11, 2007)

tsmacro said:


> If you think you're getting a better picture out of upconverted DVD's you might want to check the settings on your tv and receiver, because I also have an upconverting DVD player and while the picture is pretty good it's definitely not as good as the HD broadcasts of BSG or any other actual HD broadcast (even via satellite).


Oh, I'm not saying that my up-converted picture is better, it's just that there's really not that whole hellava lot of difference. If I sit 10' back from my set, when I'm watching my DVDs, it's a pretty damn good picture. Gets lots of detail in the sets and whatnot.

The broadcast HD picture is, if anything a bit smoother. Not quite as much "pixel crawl" as I like to call it. The problem is that my 981 still uses the Faroudja chip, whilest the newest Oppo model 983H uses VRS processing by Anchor Bay which supposedly produces a smoother picture.


----------



## Lincoln6Echo (Jul 11, 2007)

TechnoCat said:


> It could be that Canadian electrons (BSG is perpetrated in B.C.) are now, due to the exchange rate, too large for our HD pixels.
> 
> I had watched the first year-and-a-half of BSG. I stopped because it was just too depressing. Nothing like the Lorne Greene/Richard Hatch/Dirk Benedict campy schlock, which I quite enjoyed. (Of course I'm old enough to have seen first runs.)
> 
> ...


Well obviously this program's not for you. The show is indeed "dark", both visually, and in mood. But so is the real life situation of which it is portrayed, ie. The War on Terror.

Personally, I love this show. And it's ironic you mention the original '78/'79 version. I recently watched a couple episodes of that. The two Kobol episodes after the 3-part pilot. What I come away with is that if you get in a mood where you feel nBSG is too dark, just watch some TOS and you'll realize just how campy the old series is, and realize how superior in vision and atmosphere the new show is.

It's like comparing ST:TOS to STS9.


----------



## HDlover (Jul 28, 2006)

phrelin said:


> Ah. That is true. I sometimes do have trouble distinguishing things particularly with my aging eyes. They could retain the dark and muted ambience but still kick the contrast up in a way that allows edges to be more visible. Someone needs to fine tune the ambience.


Another problem is they are shooting with so low light-fast film or high gain HD, that a lot of the whites "glow"/are blown out. Very distracting.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

HDlover said:


> Another problem is they are shooting with so low light-fast film or high gain HD, that a lot of the whites "glow"/are blown out. Very distracting.


Ok. You win. I just watched Friday's show tonight. I think they could achieve that dark, muted ambience and even the "grainy look" by starting with higher quality filiming then processing for the special effect while retaining the image edges. Maybe a budget issue. Just put it on fast film with low light and get it all but the quality.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

Some of the look could be technical, ie lighting and camera settings, and I think I've noted here or some thread, it could be a cinematic choice to have it look that way..


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

Kman68 said:


> Look at next Friday's Prime Time airing of BSG. Highlight it and hit "Info" button on the remote. Note that it is shown in (Stereo).
> 
> Try the same simple exercise with anything on Voom. Note the (HD) display. If there is no (HD), it is not true HD.
> 
> Much of what is shown on HD channels is upconverted SD. As the original poster stated, upconverting DVD players produce a 16x9 720p/1080i or p image with a Dolby Digital soundtrack. While the picture is usually better than the original SD, it is not HD. Some folks are not critical viewers and will not see the difference even if told exactly what to look for.


I get dolby digital from BSG on Sci-Fi HD. And Sci-Fi specifically advertises and even put a logo on it saying BSG in HD.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

there's a noticeable difference in detail between my DV-981HD's rendering of the BSG (SD) DVDs vs. the season 1 broadcast from UniversalHD, but it's not a huge difference. Just enough that you'd notice. Certainly the DVDs look plenty good enough that the show is thoroughly entertaining and you're not constantly distracted with the poor PQ.

I have noticed artistic use of grain (which I think most people would interpret as reduced detail) and also different levels of contrast to impart different mood or perspective, even very noticeable on the DVDs. Directors do this kind of thing very much on purpose. You want an extreme example, catch Pi when it runs on Film Festival or HDNet sometime, wow talk about grainy and pushed to the max. Almost zero mid-tone.


----------

