|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 20, 2018 14:16:52 GMT
If Chibnall wants Doctor Who to be more cinematic, could this mean we may see Doctor Who filmed in 4K Ultra HD in the future?
We know the BBC can afford it as Blue Planet II was filmed this way - and Doctor Who would look stunning with a higher resolution. Just imagine something like The Day of the Doctor or World Enough And Time/The Doctor Falls in 4K. It would be mind-blowing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2018 14:28:41 GMT
Ah, but Blue Planet II has a bigger budget with a number of production companies (some of whom are international) with a much bigger target audience to hit, so doing 4K for who would be far more expensive for the BBC to do.
Also, was Blue Planet actually shot in 4K or just upscaled?
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 20, 2018 14:40:07 GMT
Ah, but Blue Planet II has a bigger budget with a number of production companies (some of whom are international) with a much bigger target audience to hit, so doing 4K for who would be far more expensive for the BBC to do. Also, was Blue Planet actually shot in 4K or just upscaled? According to Real Or Fake 4K, it's Real 4K. Say if BBC America gave the BBC some money to film in 4K though. Surely it would be possible then?
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jan 20, 2018 14:42:34 GMT
We know the BBC can afford it as Blue Planet II was filmed this way Your logic is flawed. I could afford to travel 1st class on my semi annual trips home, but that did not mean I could afford to travel 1st class on my daily commute. 4K is the probable almost certain future, the BBC knows this, and has to start somewhere, and chose Blue Planet II, but they have to make their budget not just to make the technically best looking TV they can, they have cover all sorts of other demands and pulls on that budget. I expect that Who will go to 4K at some point, probably before most other BBC output, but I doubt in will be in the vanguard.
|
|
|
Post by stcoop on Jan 20, 2018 15:06:49 GMT
4k is a con. Unless you have a TV with a minimum of a 60 inch screen you can't even see a difference over regular HD. And 99% of what gets released as 4k is just upscaled 2k.
And bringing it back to Doctor Who; Hollywood blockbusters with budgets in the hundreds of millions still do their FX in 2k because it would cost to much to do it in 4k for no real benefit.
If you want 4k Doctor Who buy a cheap upscaling Blu-Ray player.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 20, 2018 21:17:16 GMT
4k is a con. Unless you have a TV with a minimum of a 60 inch screen you can't even see a difference over regular HD. And 99% of what gets released as 4k is just upscaled 2k. And bringing it back to Doctor Who; Hollywood blockbusters with budgets in the hundreds of millions still do their FX in 2k because it would cost to much to do it in 4k for no real benefit. If you want 4k Doctor Who buy a cheap upscaling Blu-Ray player. 4K isn't a con. I have a 44 inch 4K TV and there's a massive difference in picture quality to standard HD. Blue Planet II and The Grand Tour looks much clearer in 4K Ultra HD.
|
|
|
Post by muckypup on Jan 20, 2018 22:37:34 GMT
4k is a con. Unless you have a TV with a minimum of a 60 inch screen you can't even see a difference over regular HD. And 99% of what gets released as 4k is just upscaled 2k. And bringing it back to Doctor Who; Hollywood blockbusters with budgets in the hundreds of millions still do their FX in 2k because it would cost to much to do it in 4k for no real benefit. If you want 4k Doctor Who buy a cheap upscaling Blu-Ray player. 4K isn't a con. I have a 44 inch 4K TV and there's a massive difference in picture quality to standard HD. Blue Planet II and The Grand Tour looks much clearer in 4K Ultra HD. 4K is a pipe dream, by the time is a viable possibility for most homes, tech will have moved on. blue planet is a difrent prospect for 4K, real life single camera no special effects or sets.......just imagine the cost involved just scaling up those things. i can understand the desire but would you rather have 3 hours of 4K or 10 hours of hd, I know which I would rather have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2018 22:38:46 GMT
4k is a con. Unless you have a TV with a minimum of a 60 inch screen you can't even see a difference over regular HD. And 99% of what gets released as 4k is just upscaled 2k. And bringing it back to Doctor Who; Hollywood blockbusters with budgets in the hundreds of millions still do their FX in 2k because it would cost to much to do it in 4k for no real benefit. If you want 4k Doctor Who buy a cheap upscaling Blu-Ray player. 4K isn't a con. I have a 44 inch 4K TV and there's a massive difference in picture quality to standard HD. Blue Planet II and The Grand Tour looks much clearer in 4K Ultra HD. Jeremy Clarkson in 4K! Yikes!
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 20, 2018 23:04:09 GMT
4K isn't a con. I have a 44 inch 4K TV and there's a massive difference in picture quality to standard HD. Blue Planet II and The Grand Tour looks much clearer in 4K Ultra HD. 4K is a pipe dream, by the time is a viable possibility for most homes, tech will have moved on. blue planet is a difrent prospect for 4K, real life single camera no special effects or sets.......just imagine the cost involved just scaling up those things. i can understand the desire but would you rather have 3 hours of 4K or 10 hours of hd, I know which I would rather have. I'd like the 60th anniversary special in 2023 in 4K on TV and 3D in cinemas. I think a momentous event like that would deserve to be of higher PQ than usual.
|
|
|
Post by muckypup on Jan 20, 2018 23:13:17 GMT
4K is a pipe dream, by the time is a viable possibility for most homes, tech will have moved on. blue planet is a difrent prospect for 4K, real life single camera no special effects or sets.......just imagine the cost involved just scaling up those things. i can understand the desire but would you rather have 3 hours of 4K or 10 hours of hd, I know which I would rather have. I'd like the 60th anniversary special in 2023 in 4K on TV and 3D in cinemas. I think a momentous event like that would deserve to be of higher PQ than usual. You may get it in 4K but 3D I think that boat has sailed matey......3D protection is the next revolution once it can be scaled up but that might just have to be for the 65th.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 20, 2018 23:41:19 GMT
I'd like the 60th anniversary special in 2023 in 4K on TV and 3D in cinemas. I think a momentous event like that would deserve to be of higher PQ than usual. You may get it in 4K but 3D I think that boat has sailed matey......3D protection is the next revolution once it can be scaled up but that might just have to be for the 65th. I'm not sure 3D is dead, I think it's more that people are picky about what they see in 3D because the screenings are more expensive than the 2D ones. They choose films where the 3D is used for story purposes rather than as a gimmick. Avatar and Jurassic World both got more cinemagoers opting for the 3D screenings rather than the 2D ones, and both saw reviews from critics and audiences praising the use of 3D to enhance the narrative. Also: The Day of the Doctor did extremely well at the box office - again, 3D showings that got lots of praise. I think the 60th anniversary would be fine using 3D technology for a cinema release if it was used with story in mind, but to show it in 3D on TV would be redundant unless glasses-free 3D becomes an affordable thing before 2023 and 3D cameras become more affordable for TV companies. I believe Ggasses-free 3D will be a game changer for 3D popularity, but only if directors and cinematographers take note of how the 3D is used creatively rather than as a gimmick in films like Jurassic World to immerse the audience into the world of the story.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jan 20, 2018 23:52:58 GMT
You may get it in 4K but 3D I think that boat has sailed matey......3D protection is the next revolution once it can be scaled up but that might just have to be for the 65th. I'm not sure 3D is dead, I think it's more that people are picky about what they see in 3D because the screenings are more expensive than the 2D ones. They choose films where the 3D is used for story purposes rather than as a gimmick. Avatar and Jurassic World both got more cinemagoers opting for the 3D screenings rather than the 2D ones, and both saw reviews from critics and audiences praising the use of 3D to enhance the narrative. Also: The Day of the Doctor did extremely well at the box office - again, 3D showings that got lots of praise. I think the 60th anniversary would be fine using 3D technology for a cinema release if it was used with story in mind, but to show it in 3D on TV would be redundant unless glasses-free 3D becomes an affordable thing before 2023 and 3D cameras become more affordable for TV companies. I believe Glasses-free 3D will be a game changer for 3D popularity, but only if directors and cinematographers take note of how the 3D is used creatively rather than as a gimmick in films like Jurassic World to immerse the audience into the world of the story. There are currently no major manufacturers making 3D TV's. The BBC produce output for TV not cinema. The cinema releases are done by BBC Worldwide, not the BBC. Back when "The Day of the Doctor" was commissioned by the BBC, it still seemed that 3D TV was going to be the next big thing, which is why the BBC invested in it. 3DTV has all but failed, there is no reason for the BBC to invest in it. If BBC Worldwide want 3D they'd probably have enter into a co-production agreement with the BBC, which in of itself could be a political minefield for the BBC and one they may well want to avoid. But politics aside, would BBC Worldwide even want to do this? How much revenue does a 1 day cinema release make? And how much more revenue would be gotten from being 3D rather than 2D? I suspect not enough to justify the cost.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 21, 2018 0:03:04 GMT
I'm not sure 3D is dead, I think it's more that people are picky about what they see in 3D because the screenings are more expensive than the 2D ones. They choose films where the 3D is used for story purposes rather than as a gimmick. Avatar and Jurassic World both got more cinemagoers opting for the 3D screenings rather than the 2D ones, and both saw reviews from critics and audiences praising the use of 3D to enhance the narrative. Also: The Day of the Doctor did extremely well at the box office - again, 3D showings that got lots of praise. I think the 60th anniversary would be fine using 3D technology for a cinema release if it was used with story in mind, but to show it in 3D on TV would be redundant unless glasses-free 3D becomes an affordable thing before 2023 and 3D cameras become more affordable for TV companies. I believe Glasses-free 3D will be a game changer for 3D popularity, but only if directors and cinematographers take note of how the 3D is used creatively rather than as a gimmick in films like Jurassic World to immerse the audience into the world of the story. There are currently no major manufacturers making 3D TV's. The BBC produce output for TV not cinema. The cinema releases are done by BBC Worldwide, not the BBC. Back when "The Day of the Doctor" was commissioned by the BBC, it still seemed that 3D TV was going to be the next big thing, which is why the BBC invested in it. 3DTV has all but failed, there is no reason for the BBC to invest in it. If BBC Worldwide want 3D they'd probably have enter into a co-production agreement with the BBC, which in of itself could be a political minefield for the BBC and one they may well want to avoid. But politics aside, would BBC Worldwide even want to do this? How much revenue does a 1 day cinema release make? And how much more revenue would be gotten from being 3D rather than 2D? I suspect not enough to justify the cost. Colour originally wasn't a success either, but now we take it for granted. Audiences just need to be convinced that 3D is not the gimmick many say it is, and can be used as a narrative device. That's only going to happen once more film companies follow in the footsteps of proven successful 3D movies like Avatar (which I haven't seen in 3D myself but was hugely popular in the way the 3D technology immersed audiences) and Jurassic World by thinking more creatively about its potential rather than simply throwing things at the screen. I truly believe that once more film companies learn from those movies and cater directly towards what the audience want from a 3D showing, that we will see more TV manufacturers start to include 3D in their technology again. By that point hopefully it will be the glasses free 3D James Cameron is experimenting with for Avatar 2, because not having to buy an extra set of 3D glasses would mean people wouldn't have to spend extra in order to enjoy the feature with family and friends and perhaps make it more appealing overall.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jan 21, 2018 0:12:25 GMT
There are currently no major manufacturers making 3D TV's. The BBC produce output for TV not cinema. The cinema releases are done by BBC Worldwide, not the BBC. Back when "The Day of the Doctor" was commissioned by the BBC, it still seemed that 3D TV was going to be the next big thing, which is why the BBC invested in it. 3DTV has all but failed, there is no reason for the BBC to invest in it. If BBC Worldwide want 3D they'd probably have enter into a co-production agreement with the BBC, which in of itself could be a political minefield for the BBC and one they may well want to avoid. But politics aside, would BBC Worldwide even want to do this? How much revenue does a 1 day cinema release make? And how much more revenue would be gotten from being 3D rather than 2D? I suspect not enough to justify the cost. Colour originally wasn't a success either, but now we take it for granted. Audiences just need to be convinced that 3D is not the gimmick many say it is, and can be used as a narrative device. That's only going to happen once more film companies follow in the footsteps of proven successful 3D movies like Avatar (which I haven't seen in 3D myself but was hugely popular in the way the 3D technology immersed audiences) and Jurassic World by thinking more creatively about its potential rather than simply throwing things at the screen. I truly believe that once more film companies learn from those movies and cater directly towards what the audience want from a 3D showing, that we will see more TV manufacturers start to include 3D in their technology again. By that point hopefully it will be the glasses free 3D James Cameron is experimenting with for Avatar 2, because not having to buy an extra set of 3D glasses would mean people wouldn't have to spend extra in order to enjoy the feature with family and friends and perhaps make it more appealing overall. Colour TV may not have had immediate take up by all consumers, back then TV purchases were significant outlays for people, far more expensive (relatively speaking) than TV's today, even in my own childhood, many people still purchased black and white TV's, because whilst desirable, colour TV was just too expensive. TV manufacturers never pulled out of the colour TV market, they never decided people don't want colour TV's. 3DTV's problem isn't really a content one, it's about how you watch it, and people don't want to put on headsets or 3D glasses to watch, offered a choice between 3D and normal TV even at the same price, many (it turns out most) will opt for a normal TV. 3DTV will happen not when great content is made for it, but when people can sit down where ever they want, using whatever device they want and the time they want, and current technology does not offer that possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Jan 21, 2018 0:20:55 GMT
I would agree that color versus 3D is an apples and oranges debate. 3D may make yet another comeback but at this point I think the ship has clearly sailed.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 21, 2018 10:39:07 GMT
Colour originally wasn't a success either, but now we take it for granted. Audiences just need to be convinced that 3D is not the gimmick many say it is, and can be used as a narrative device. That's only going to happen once more film companies follow in the footsteps of proven successful 3D movies like Avatar (which I haven't seen in 3D myself but was hugely popular in the way the 3D technology immersed audiences) and Jurassic World by thinking more creatively about its potential rather than simply throwing things at the screen. I truly believe that once more film companies learn from those movies and cater directly towards what the audience want from a 3D showing, that we will see more TV manufacturers start to include 3D in their technology again. By that point hopefully it will be the glasses free 3D James Cameron is experimenting with for Avatar 2, because not having to buy an extra set of 3D glasses would mean people wouldn't have to spend extra in order to enjoy the feature with family and friends and perhaps make it more appealing overall. Colour TV may not have had immediate take up by all consumers, back then TV purchases were significant outlays for people, far more expensive (relatively speaking) than TV's today, even in my own childhood, many people still purchased black and white TV's, because whilst desirable, colour TV was just too expensive. TV manufacturers never pulled out of the colour TV market, they never decided people don't want colour TV's. 3DTV's problem isn't really a content one, it's about how you watch it, and people don't want to put on headsets or 3D glasses to watch, offered a choice between 3D and normal TV even at the same price, many (it turns out most) will opt for a normal TV. 3DTV will happen not when great content is made for it, but when people can sit down where ever they want, using whatever device they want and the time they want, and current technology does not offer that possibility. I disagree, I think content is the biggest issue for 3D. Whilst I imagine it will prove more popular once we have glasses-free 3D TVs at an affordable price, they're not going to sell unless there is a lot of 3D content broadcast on TV.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 12:13:25 GMT
There are currently no major manufacturers making 3D TV's. The BBC produce output for TV not cinema. The cinema releases are done by BBC Worldwide, not the BBC. Back when "The Day of the Doctor" was commissioned by the BBC, it still seemed that 3D TV was going to be the next big thing, which is why the BBC invested in it. 3DTV has all but failed, there is no reason for the BBC to invest in it. If BBC Worldwide want 3D they'd probably have enter into a co-production agreement with the BBC, which in of itself could be a political minefield for the BBC and one they may well want to avoid. But politics aside, would BBC Worldwide even want to do this? How much revenue does a 1 day cinema release make? And how much more revenue would be gotten from being 3D rather than 2D? I suspect not enough to justify the cost. Colour originally wasn't a success either, but now we take it for granted. Audiences just need to be convinced that 3D is not the gimmick many say it is, and can be used as a narrative device. That's only going to happen once more film companies follow in the footsteps of proven successful 3D movies like Avatar (which I haven't seen in 3D myself but was hugely popular in the way the 3D technology immersed audiences) and Jurassic World by thinking more creatively about its potential rather than simply throwing things at the screen. I truly believe that once more film companies learn from those movies and cater directly towards what the audience want from a 3D showing, that we will see more TV manufacturers start to include 3D in their technology again. By that point hopefully it will be the glasses free 3D James Cameron is experimenting with for Avatar 2, because not having to buy an extra set of 3D glasses would mean people wouldn't have to spend extra in order to enjoy the feature with family and friends and perhaps make it more appealing overall. But audiences don't want anything from a 3D showing, they are voting with their walllets! Every few years 3D is seen as the next big thing but it never catches on & is always seen as a gimmick because that is what it is. In terms of home entertainment it has not caught on. I don't think it ever will as 3D tvs are not being made any more. I have watched a couple of films in 3D at the cinema, only because it was the only option. Terrible. It darkens the image. & after a while I forgot about the 3D. Sadly it is nothing more than a gimmick. The way to make the cinematic experience more immersive is to write better films! None of the films I loved last year for example would have been enhanced by 3D. To be honest the fact that you haven't seen Avatar in 3D which is often held up as a benchmark movie does kind of negate your point. As for Jurassic World, well I thought it was a pretty poor movie & watching it in 3D wouldn't have made me more immersed, as I have said good writing, good characters & good stories immerse me in a film
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 12:21:59 GMT
Colour TV may not have had immediate take up by all consumers, back then TV purchases were significant outlays for people, far more expensive (relatively speaking) than TV's today, even in my own childhood, many people still purchased black and white TV's, because whilst desirable, colour TV was just too expensive. TV manufacturers never pulled out of the colour TV market, they never decided people don't want colour TV's. 3DTV's problem isn't really a content one, it's about how you watch it, and people don't want to put on headsets or 3D glasses to watch, offered a choice between 3D and normal TV even at the same price, many (it turns out most) will opt for a normal TV. 3DTV will happen not when great content is made for it, but when people can sit down where ever they want, using whatever device they want and the time they want, and current technology does not offer that possibility. I disagree, I think content is the biggest issue for 3D. Whilst I imagine it will prove more popular once we have glasses-free 3D TVs at an affordable price, they're not going to sell unless there is a lot of 3D content broadcast on TV. Neither 3D nor 4K will be considered viable avenues until there are glasses-free 3D iPads or reasonably cheap 4K tablets on the market, essentially, as the BBC wouldn't want to waste their time making their shows in this way, just for a sizeable 1/4 of the audience to watch it in a standard 720p/1080p format anyway.
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Jan 21, 2018 12:23:22 GMT
Just concentrate on good story telling.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 21, 2018 12:32:11 GMT
Colour originally wasn't a success either, but now we take it for granted. Audiences just need to be convinced that 3D is not the gimmick many say it is, and can be used as a narrative device. That's only going to happen once more film companies follow in the footsteps of proven successful 3D movies like Avatar (which I haven't seen in 3D myself but was hugely popular in the way the 3D technology immersed audiences) and Jurassic World by thinking more creatively about its potential rather than simply throwing things at the screen. I truly believe that once more film companies learn from those movies and cater directly towards what the audience want from a 3D showing, that we will see more TV manufacturers start to include 3D in their technology again. By that point hopefully it will be the glasses free 3D James Cameron is experimenting with for Avatar 2, because not having to buy an extra set of 3D glasses would mean people wouldn't have to spend extra in order to enjoy the feature with family and friends and perhaps make it more appealing overall. But audiences don't want anything from a 3D showing, they are voting with their walllets! Every few years 3D is seen as the next big thing but it never catches on & is always seen as a gimmick because that is what it is. In terms of home entertainment it has not caught on. I don't think it ever will as 3D tvs are not being made any more. I have watched a couple of films in 3D at the cinema, only because it was the only option. Terrible. It darkens the image. & after a while I forgot about the 3D. Sadly it is nothing more than a gimmick. The way to make the cinematic experience more immersive is to write better films! None of the films I loved last year for example would have been enhanced by 3D. To be honest the fact that you haven't seen Avatar in 3D which is often held up as a benchmark movie does kind of negate your point. As for Jurassic World, well I thought it was a pretty poor movie & watching it in 3D wouldn't have made me more immersed, as I have said good writing, good characters & good stories immerse me in a film You didn't see the 3D of Jurassic World. It was amazing, and felt like you were actually entering the park. People opt not to see films where the 3D doesn't serve a narrative purpose because of the extra expense, but there are statistics out there to show that if a movie's 3D is highly regarded audiences go to see it. I am sure that if every film company used 3D technology as a storytelling device, 3D would no longer be seen as a gimmick and would see the kind of sales that Avatar and Jurassic World had for their 3D showings. I don't see why you would need glasses-free 3D iPads for 3D at home to take off. That's a completely different device to a television, and the TV having 3D and the iPad not wouldn't render using an iPad whilst watching TV as a second screen useless.
|
|