Doctor Who is broadcast in 720x576 16:9 on BBC... Does anyone know if it going to be upconverted for broadcast on Sci Fi HD, or will it be letterboxed?

I suspect letterboxed.

I suspect letterboxed.

So do I, but I hope to be wrong. The Sarah Jane Adventures isn't listed as HD and I assume it's in the same format as the Doctor.

ISTR that previous seasons of the new Doctor Who have been shown letterboxed on Sci Fi Channel in the US, but that CBC (who are co-producers) upconverts the 16:9 576/50i SD Doctor Who (which is post-produced to look 25p) to HD 16:9 full frame for broadcast on CBC HD?

I think The Sarah Jane Adventures are also shot 16:9 576/50i (and post produced to give them a 25p look) so would expect that to be treated the same.

Torchwood is the only Doctor Who-related series made in HD currently (it is shot 1080/25p) AFAIK - it is the only series to air on BBC HD certainly.

ISTR that previous seasons of the new Doctor Who have been shown letterboxed on Sci Fi Channel in the USPrevious seasons were broadcast before the channel started broadcasting an HD signal. I doubt that what they did then necessarily indicates what they'll do now.

but that CBC (who are co-producers) upconverts the 16:9 576/50i SD Doctor Who (which is post-produced to look 25p) to HD 16:9 full frame for broadcast on CBC HD?Is that a question? :confused:

Previous seasons were broadcast before the channel started broadcasting an HD signal. I doubt that what they did then necessarily indicates what they'll do now.


Ah - my understanding was that SciFi HD was around for the previous season. Apologies.


Is that a question? :confused:

It is a recollection that I was asking for confirmation of.

I Seem To Recall that CBC HD upconverted the 16:9 SD 576/50i to 16:9 HD 1080/60i - but wanted others who know better to confirm.

From memory people commented that it didn't look HD.

It will certainly look grainy....

Anyhow the episode was very good..

It is a recollection that I was asking for confirmation of.Okay, it seemed as such, but I wasn't sure. I don't know, myself.

ISTR that previous seasons of the new Doctor Who have been shown letterboxed on Sci Fi Channel in the US, but that CBC (who are co-producers) upconverts the 16:9 576/50i SD Doctor Who (which is post-produced to look 25p) to HD 16:9 full frame for broadcast on CBC HD?

It may even have gone via 480/30i before being upconverted to HD... Interestingly, it was a (rather senior) member of the facilities house converting the episodes for CBC that leaked the first episode onto the net in 2005.


I think The Sarah Jane Adventures are also shot 16:9 576/50i (and post produced to give them a 25p look) so would expect that to be treated the same.

I've heard unconfirmed rumours that it is shot DVCam rather than Digibeta which would give the option to use a progressive camera (the DSR450WSP) but looking at the images I think it is still being post processed to progressive...

Torchwood is the only Doctor Who-related series made in HD currently (it is shot 1080/25p) AFAIK - it is the only series to air on BBC HD certainly.

Yep, although it'll be interesting to see what happens with the Dr Who Prom that has just been announced. The Concert stuff in the Albert all will almost certainly be HD, but the 'special scene' with Tennant I'm not so sure about (esp. considering RTD's comments in Ariel) however the Proms director may have other ideas. :)

Steven

My wife and I watched the season opener a few nights ago. While we're happy to have the Doctor back on the tellie, we weren't thrilled with the episode. Why over the top IMHO. Tried to cram too much action into one show.

Hope they back off the throttle just a little for the next episodes.

I think they always overdo some aspects of the holiday shows.

You have to understand the nature of the Christmas episodes as they really are different than all the other ones.

Far more young children are watching and the show is treated as a pantomime for the entire family's viewing.

To quote Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantomime) on the subject:

Traditionally performed at Christmas, with family audiences consisting mainly of children and parents, British pantomime is now a popular form of theatre, incorporating song, dance, buffoonery, slapstick, in-jokes, audience participation, and mild sexual innuendo. There are a number of traditional story-lines, and there is also a fairly well-defined set of performance conventions. Lists of these items follow, along with a special discussion of the "guest celebrity" tradition, which emerged in the late 19th century.

The latter was the reason for the appearance of the "bride," Catherine Tate, quite the famous comedienne in the UK, in last year's Christmas show and the appearance of Kylie Minogue in this year's episode.

It's only through great timing that Ms. Tate is available for full time companion duties this season.

Personally, I think Kylie did quite a nice job with her character, getting us to really feel her loss as well as the fact that this must have brought up the Doctor's feelings over the loss of Rose all over again.

I thought this er.... last year's X-mas special was the worst of the 3 - though decent. The first 3 eps of season 4 have been much better.

FYI, the 2007 Christmas episode was the second most watched program in the UK for the year and the highest rated episode to date of the new series.

Hmmm.... I'm not sure I like the title of this season's finale: Journey's End. Reminds me of an episode of last season's Meerkat Manor, during which something happened which, to this day, most fans of that series are still quite sad about, many of whom simply haven't returned to the series since. Now, even the use of those two words together are a bad thing for me. :)

So for those of us who don't have Sci-Fi HD yet (thank you TWC!), could someone tell me how they are broadcasting Doctor Who. Is it all boxed up or do they present it in true widescreen?

So for those of us who don't have Sci-Fi HD yet (thank you TWC!), could someone tell me how they are broadcasting Doctor Who. Is it all boxed up or do they present it in true widescreen?
It's 16x9 letterbox for the Dr, as soon as BSB comes on- that's fullscreen 16x9 HD. Even the logo changes from "Sci-Fi" to "Sci-Fi HD" at that point.

It's 16x9 letterbox for the Dr, as soon as BSB comes on- that's fullscreen 16x9 HD. Even the logo changes from "Sci-Fi" to "Sci-Fi HD" at that point.

That's weak, and completely unsurprising. Do broadcasters think widescreen filming began with HD?

That's weak, and completely unsurprising. Do broadcasters think widescreen filming began with HD?
It's probably shot in HD and in 16x9 AR, but Sci-Fi is just too cheap to buy the HD masters for Doctor Who, so we get the original 16x9 content- but the lo-rez 408i SD version of it. They know they have a big draw on their hands with BSG so they shell out for the 1080 HD masters.

'Dr. Who' is not shot in HD. ('Torchwood' is, however, to which HDNet viewers can attest). That's a creative decision by the producer, apparently. They discuss this issue at some depth in the 'Torchwood' thread for anyone "who" is interested.

I used to watch Doctor Who but wandered away because I tired of having to watch it in SD. Cox OKC is finally going to add Sci-Fi HD on May 20, so I guess I’ll give the doctor another shot. Upconverted widescreen isn’t HD, of course, but it beats the hell out of 480i 4:3.

I had wandered away from 'Who' as well (the high-cheeziness-factor means I can only take it in infrequent doses), but Freema Agyeman (Martha Jones) brought me back. Damn, that woman is fine. Got to see her in HD during her crossover eps on 'Torchwood' as well. :cool:

...Upconverted widescreen isn’t HD, of course, but it beats the hell out of 480i 4:3.

It looks very good on Comcast Sci-Fi HD. Even though letterboxed the picture is larger than letterboxed SD by about 2.5 inches on the horizontal. The resolution is also higher than the analog SD 4:3 channel.

Of course I'd prefer true HD, but until then, at least content like Doctor Who look significantly better, plus there's the added bonus of Dolby 5.1 audio.

Why is Dr. Who letter boxed and not full screen on the HD chan? They could put WS by the Sci-Fi bug to indicate wide screen instead of HD.

Sci-Fi HD is furnished the show in the letterbox format you see. My Sony HDTV (and I think all of them) does not allow screen controls because the feed includes the black bars. Thus your your TV will show 'Full' when you press your remote. Now if you watch Doctor Who on your analog Sci-Fi channel you could stretch the screen. However the picture, while larger, won't look nearly as good as when viewed on Sci-Fi HD.

Even if they're furnished the shown in a letterboxed 4:3 format, they could nonetheless upscale it to 16:9 widescreen. I personally don't mind that they're not doing so -- I know how to use the zoom controls on my TV and/or sat receiver -- but not everyone has such controls, and many wouldn't know how to use them even if they're present. Sooner or later, the broadcasters will need to do this automatically to avoid a large volume of complaints.

Even if they're furnished the shown in a letterboxed 4:3 format, they could nonetheless upscale it to 16:9 widescreen.

Really, they need to develop a flow to better handle this type of material -- it's going to become an increasingly common issue as time goes by and more people are watching SD letterboxed material on widescreen HD displays.

And while upscaling the 4:3 letterboxed 480i version is better than airing it with black bars on all sides, it is still far from a satisfactory solution -- you're only starting with 360 active scanning lines of image, which is a far cry from the 576 lines present when aired by the BBC. Upscaling the 576i x 720 master to 1080i would give a *way* better result. Not HD, but potentially some very good looking SD.

Could someone explain to me why we see Dr Who letterboxed? I can understand that if it was shot in 4:3 we would see side bars. However it was shot in widescreen so why doesn't it fill our screens?. The wife moans everytime I watch the show

Sorry if this has been explained a 1000 times already

Could someone explain to me why we see Dr Who letterboxed? I can understand that if it was shot in 4:3 we would see side bars. However it was shot in widescreen so why doesn't it fill our screens?. The wife moans everytime I watch the show

Sorry if this has been explained a 1000 times already

It would only fill your screen if it were an HD image. Even if it's widescreen, if it's SD material, it will be letterboxed.

SD widescreen can fill the screen, check Fox and 4:3 SD can be stretched check TBS and etc.

SD widescreen can fill the screen, check Fox and 4:3 SD can be stretched check TBS and etc.

When FOX was doing their 480p telecasts, the deinterlacing was done at the affiliate level. Ditto today for their upconverted shows like 'Do You Think You Can Dance'. The SciFi Network would have no way to accomplish the same thing, I don't think.

I'm still baffled why the show isn't in HD... because of public TV? (BBC), but BBC does make torchwood in HD, and that's the spin-off series!!!

I say spend the money on Doctor Who HD and the spinoff Torchwood upconverted SD...

Or use the same equipment, can't they just use the same sets?

I'm still baffled why the show isn't in HD... because of public TV? (BBC), but BBC does make torchwood in HD, and that's the spin-off series!!!

I say spend the money on Doctor Who HD and the spinoff Torchwood upconverted SD...

Or use the same equipment, can't they just use the same sets?

There is of course no special urgency to update usable SD equipment in Britain because there is no pressing deadline, such as the USA's "all digital" broadcast date of February 17, 2009.

I'm still baffled why the show isn't in HD... because of public TV? (BBC), but BBC does make torchwood in HD, and that's the spin-off series!!!As mentioned before, this was explained in a quote from the production company, which was reported in the Torchwood thread. For those not interesting in following the link to that thread to read the explanation, I'll paraphrase it here: Basically, Doctor Who has a lot more special effects shots than Torchwood, so it would cost way too much more money to produce if it had to be produced in HD.

As it is, there isn't much difference between having the black bars all around or stretching it to fit, which would degrade video quality.

I'm still baffled why the show isn't in HD... because of public TV? (BBC), but BBC does make torchwood in HD, and that's the spin-off series!!!

I say spend the money on Doctor Who HD and the spinoff Torchwood upconverted SD...

Or use the same equipment, can't they just use the same sets?

There was a whole separate thread discussing this (not in the Torchwood thread) a few weeks ago, which includes technical discussion by various AVS members who have experience with the issues involved.

PS Several people posted wrong comments about "it cannot fill your screen because it is SD". Since the aspect ratio is roughly 16x9, then most TVs and satellite receivers will "zoom" the image to fill the screen, eliminating the four black bars (of course the resolution will, as previously mentioned about 360 lines). If you are using a Dish Network HD-DVR, press the " * " button until the word "Zoom" appears on the screen and the image will fill your HD screen (and don't forget to change back to "Normal" when your are done watching Doctor Who).

I had wandered away from 'Who' as well (the high-cheeziness-factor means I can only take it in infrequent doses), but Freema Agyeman (Martha Jones) brought me back. Damn, that woman is fine. Got to see her in HD during her crossover eps on 'Torchwood' as well. :cool:
It wasn't the "cheesiness factor", or even the commercial breaks every 3 - 5 minutes that caused my interest in the show to wane - being such a huge fan of the old series and the way it was, I just got turned off when the realization finally set in that every darned episode was going to be based on Earth.

It would only fill your screen if it were an HD image. Even if it's widescreen, if it's SD material, it will be letterboxed.

That is only the case if a decision is taken to letterbox 16:9 SD content.

It is perfectly possible to upconvert 16:9 576/50i SD content to 16:9 1080/60i - as has been done for quite a few sporting events like the British Open Golf.

Here in the UK Channel Four HD and Sky Sports HD show loads of 16:9 SD content upconverted to 16:9 HD full-screen.

There are two possibilities :

1. SciFi HD (like NBC, and unlike Fox) only want to show HD content 16:9 full-screen on their HD channels, and think that showing 16:9 SD full-screen in 16:9 HD is likely to make people think that the HD signal is sub-par.

2. SciFi HD are only able to source 4:3 master tapes containing a letterboxed 480/60i image not a 16:9 SD master, or don't have the facilities (or time) to upconvert a 16:9 SD master.

There is no technical reason preventing 16:9 SD content being shown 16:9 HD - remember that the BBC produce these shows in full 576/50i SD - they aren't aired in letterbox in the UK - they are aired in 16:9 SD (No UK network shows - with a couple of exceptions - have been made in 4:3 SD - full-screen or letterbox for many years)

When FOX was doing their 480p telecasts, the deinterlacing was done at the affiliate level. Ditto today for their upconverted shows like 'Do You Think You Can Dance'. The SciFi Network would have no way to accomplish the same thing, I don't think.

CBC air Doctor Who upconverted to full-screen 16:9 HD AIUI - and 480p isn't relevant.

(Kitchen Nightmares on Fox is upconverted from 480/60i 16:9 to 720/60p 16:9 - there is no issue about the conversion)

Does anyone know if the episodes airing on SciFi are edited down from the UK versions for time? I noticed that Friday's episode didn't have a teaser, and I remember that the UK versions of previous episodes always had teasers.

It wasn't the "cheesiness factor", or even the commercial breaks every 3 - 5 minutes that caused my interest in the show to wane - being such a huge fan of the old series and the way it was, I just got turned off when the realization finally set in that every darned episode was going to be based on Earth.

Unfortunately, that is now the trend in what is called "science fiction" across the board.

Note that Battlestar Galactica changed the robots into characters that are outwardly human, has pistols that fire bullets and characters say "Jesus!".

The Terminator TV show also has robots that are so advanced that they can be played by human actors with no makeup, thus allowing it to be "SF" with virtually no special effects budget. ;) ;)

The most recent Star Trek - "Enterprise" was exceptional in its use and depiction of truly Alien species. It was canceled due to low ratings. "Babylon 5" was the other show with thoughtfully alien characters, and it was almost canceled due to low ratings several times.

Even Star Wars movies now revolve around human relationships, and the most successful SF movies and TV shows are the ones that are half soap opera (e.g. "Spiderman", "Heroes").

Back in the 20th Century, there was a novelty factor that made the idea of "other planets" interesting to Average Joe, but that is not true today.

Does anyone know if the episodes airing on SciFi are edited down from the UK versions for time? I noticed that Friday's episode didn't have a teaser, and I remember that the UK versions of previous episodes always had teasers.

The current season of Doctor Who on the BBC in the UK are 44:25 including teaser for next week.

Since this is the standard US program length, it seems unlikely that SciFi are cutting them for time.

PS This Friday's episode of Doctor Who is one of the better ones, and it is not a spoiler to mention that it was filmed on the elaborate, expensive and historically accurate sets of the HBO Rome TV show. (not a spoiler because the setting is clear in the first 10 seconds of the episode)

Note that Battlestar Galactica changed the robots into characters that are outwardly human, has pistols that fire bullets and characters say "Jesus!".

The most recent Star Trek - "Enterprise" was exceptional in its use and depiction of truly Alien species. It was canceled due to low ratings.


No character in BSG has ever said "Jesus!" (there is a rumor that Michael Hogan made that gaff once somewhere back in the miniseries but I've never heard it) as He doesn't exist in that universe. Being a polytheist society, however, they do say "My Gods!" with some frequency. ;)

But your premise is wrong, IMO. It's just cheapness and the short production periods, not any creative decision based on people not liking aliens or something. 'Dr. Who' is famous for cheap.

And 'Enterprise', and the Star Trek franchise in general, certainly wasn't a paragon of thoughtfulness and creativity in how they depicted their bipedal, human-sized, four-limbed, erudite aliens. Where do you think the expression, "bumpy headed alien of the week" came from? It just got silly after awhile. :p

Back in the 20th Century, there was a novelty factor that made the idea of "other planets" interesting to Average Joe, but that is not true today.Indeed, my wife and I find that our only interest in Sci Fi is the human relationships between the characters, and the challenges they must face and overcome (i.e., the plot). The Sci Fi backdrop (including all that scientific stuff) is not really very important to us at all. It simply provides license to the writers and director to break through barriers that in a more realistic production they would be barred from breaking through.

I just like the variety, that's all. Especially the different settings. I get bored when it's in the same setting all the time. I actually felt the same way with the old series during that particular stretch of Pertwee episodes that featured Sarah Jane, Harry Sullivan and the Brigadeer (even though Sarah and Pertwee's Doctor were one of my all-time favorite teams - Baker/Sarah and Baker/Leela being the others - nothing can touch those three). Every damned episode was on Earth - and modern-day one at that, which made it even more monotonous.

I can also do without all the blatant lovey-dovey talk and physical affection between the Doctor and his assistants in the new series. Not that I have anything against that sort of thing on the right show - I just don't want to see it on that one. It completely goes against what the relationships in the old series were about. Any affection between them was just "sensed" by the viewer more than anything else, and they never really gave you anything to go on to believe it could be sexual/physical. Maybe just an affectionate word, look or tone of voice, or some playful teasing on rare occasion just so that you knew there was some affection between the characters.

I just like the variety, that's all. Especially the different settings.I like my aliens to look like aliens even if it means a rubber mask. I might watch CSI if it was CSI:Jupiter and all the characters were a foot tall with 18 legs. E.R. would be perfect set on James White's "Sector General" (hospital), a 384 level space station/interspecies hospital. Of course, the writers would have to actually have read some science fiction themselves.

I can also do without all the blatant lovey-dovey talk and physical affection between the Doctor and his assistants in the new series.I think "Donna" (new assistant) would agree with that.

Doctor Who did quite well on its premiere. Stolen from the OutpostGallifrey forums:

Some ratings info on the Return of Doctor Who to SciFi has made it out, thanks to Marc Berman's the Programming Insider newsletter for Today (April 22nd):

-Above Average Dr. Who on Sci Fi Channel:
The fourth season-premiere of Sci Fi Channel’s Dr. Who on Friday, April 18 rose to its best season-opening performance in total viewers (1.48 million), adults 18-49 (693,000) and adults 25-54 (806,000) since March 17, 2006, and its biggest audience overall since October 2006. Compared to its season-three premiere, that was an increase of 40 percent in total viewers, 17 percent in adult 18-49 and 20 percent in adults 25-54.

Farscape - a show that had alien aliens.

The current season of Doctor Who on the BBC in the UK are 44:25 including teaser for next week.

Since this is the standard US program length, it seems unlikely that SciFi are cutting them for time.

This is not accurate -- the typical running time of a 60 minute program does vary from network to network, but I rather doubt that any network hits 44:25 anymore. When I checked the running times on DVD releases of "Battlestar Galactica" (airing on the same network in the US as "Doctor Who"), they generally ran about a minute shorter.

That rather strongly suggests that Sci-Fi will need to chop about a minute of running time out of "Doctor Who" in order to fit in their normal commercial load. I guess that chopping the teaser off of a program is certainly a time tested (and tacky) way to achieve that edit -- I remember seeing many episodes of "Star Trek" mutilated in syndicated reruns by local stations back in the seventies.

Yes, I seem to remember someone saying in the cable forum in a pre-HD SciFi thread awhile back that Who clocked in at 43:-something.

This is not accurate -- the typical running time of a 60 minute program does vary from network to network, but I rather doubt that any network hits 44:25 anymore. When I checked the running times on DVD releases of "Battlestar Galactica" (airing on the same network in the US as "Doctor Who"), they generally ran about a minute shorter.

That rather strongly suggests that Sci-Fi will need to chop about a minute of running time out of "Doctor Who" in order to fit in their normal commercial load. I guess that chopping the teaser off of a program is certainly a time tested (and tacky) way to achieve that edit -- I remember seeing many episodes of "Star Trek" mutilated in syndicated reruns by local stations back in the seventies.And there has been some inconsistencies with the running time of BBC aired Doctor Who episodes. In fact, the first two proper episodes of Season 4 ran over 47 minutes long in the UK broadcasts. Sci-Fi is very likely trimming those episodes substantially. The presence of teasers before the titles has been inconsistent during Davies' run as producer, but I can't see Sci-Fi removing much of any of them (or dropping them completely) as those scenes are usually rather critical to the story.

Dr. Who is one of the few shows we watch as a family (me, wife, 8 yo son), and we've all liked the contrast between shows (pacing, period, etc), which is not something you normally see in US series. And the sci-fi setting allows it to do that and not be too "forced".

E.g. from the last season:

42 - fast paced, thriller, kind of a mix of "Alien", "Sunshine", and "Event Horizon" (not that EH was a good film, just reminded me of it)

Blink - gothic horror mixed with time travel paradoxes (and funny, too - we thought it ranked among the best of the modern Dr. Who episodes)

Human Nature / Family of Blood - period romance, mixed with a little bit of cheesy sci-fi and British class consciousness, slow-paced

Somehow the writing, characters, and "cheekiness" rises above the "cheesiness" for us. Compared to "pure" science fiction, it's definitely less science (or exploration of interesting ideas, concepts, and contrasts with humanity) and more like regular science fiction, but it works for well-done and smart escapism.

Cliff

And while upscaling the 4:3 letterboxed 480i version is better than airing it with black bars on all sides, it is still far from a satisfactory solution -- you're only starting with 360 active scanning lines of image, which is a far cry from the 576 lines present when aired by the BBC. Upscaling the 576i x 720 master to 1080i would give a *way* better result. Not HD, but potentially some very good looking SD.

Bingo! This is why I prefer buying the original PAL anamorphic DVDs of the good Doctor. Full Resolution. Playing the material back on my 1280x1024 computer monitor works out real good, as the image gets displayed at 1280x720. Plus, at the original frame rate. None of this 25 > 29.97 conversion crap either.

Doctor Who in anything but the original PAL is not worth watching. Yes, yes, before going colour it was in 405 line B&W. Going from 405->576->480 is just one too many conversions. Yes, I did watch tons of the episodes on NTSC. Didn't have the ability then, but certain do now and take advantage of it.

When FOX was doing their 480p telecasts, the deinterlacing was done at the affiliate level. Ditto today for their upconverted shows like 'Do You Think You Can Dance'. The SciFi Network would have no way to accomplish the same thing, I don't think.

Sorry, but Fox does all of the upconverting because Fox HD is 720p. It is fed that way to the affiliates, who do no processing of the video.

Sorry, but Fox does all of the upconverting because Fox HD is 720p. It is fed that way to the affiliates, who do no processing of the video.

Yep - it changed when Fox switched from 480/60p ot 720/60p for digital OTA.

When Fox were 480/60p the network was distributed to affiliates in 480/60i and the affiliates de-interlaced to 480/60p, and MPEG2 encoded to ATSC data rate as part of their digital OTA transmission chain.

When Fox switched to 720/60p they moved to distributing the network to affiliates as a pre-encoded 720/60p MPEG2 ATSC data rate stream, via their splicer technology. This means the upconversion from 480/60i for shows like Kitchen Nightmares, So You Think You Can Dance etc. is done by the Fox Network, and not the affiliates.

Bingo! This is why I prefer buying the original PAL anamorphic DVDs of the good Doctor. Full Resolution. Playing the material back on my 1280x1024 computer monitor works out real good, as the image gets displayed at 1280x720. Plus, at the original frame rate. None of this 25 > 29.97 conversion crap either.

Doctor Who in anything but the original PAL is not worth watching. Yes, yes, before going colour it was in 405 line B&W. Going from 405->576->480 is just one too many conversions. Yes, I did watch tons of the episodes on NTSC. Didn't have the ability then, but certain do now and take advantage of it.

Yep - even the episodes that only exist as 525/60i (aka 480/60i) NTSC standards conversion from the PAL masters (the original PAL masters for some stories were wiped leaving only the NTSC copies) - have been Reverse Standards Converted (the early conversions were so basic they can be unpicked!) back to 50i with few motion artefacts, though the original resolution is slightly reduced.

The great thing about the R2 DVDs of classic Doctor Who is that they are remastered to an incredibly high standard - with all remaining film elements re-telecined and re-graded, some special effects improved (whilst retaining their "charm"), and the video content tidied up (drop outs removed etc.)

CBC air Doctor Who upconverted to full-screen 16:9 HD AIUI - and 480p isn't relevant.

I'm not sure what the providence of the HD signal is. I've sneaky suspicion (at least in 2005 anyway) it may have had a 480i stage in it.

Of course, the new series DR Who masters are somewhat lower than full 576i resolution anyway... :)

Steven

Of course, the new series DR Who masters are somewhat lower than full 576i resolution anyway... :)

Please explain that statement.

Please explain that statement.

Dr Who is shot on Digibeta using the DVW-790WSP cameras (most of the time -- a few shots have also been shot on the Varicam and Super16 film for effects purposes), a camera which is only capable of shooting interlaced video. The tapes out of the camera are 50i -- I've seen the footage.

It is then film-effected in post (by conforming the off-line edit through an Alchemist Platinum standards converter set to convert 50i to 25p and adjusting the EDL as appropriate to cope with the delay introduced), which will reduce the resolution somewhat (at worst on very fast motion it could theoretically drop as low as 288p). This conformed tape is then used as the basis for all the effects work and final post-production.

The method they are using is one of the best I've seen (certainly better than the BBC standard of a Snell and Wilcox ARC150 set to filmise) but it is also having a detrimental effect on resolution and does introduce very visible artefacts...

It is somewhat amusing that 'The Five Doctors' made in 1983 is probably the last story made that utilises the available quality of a 576i signal to the full extent (especially the remastered DVD version) everything after that is either made on multi-gen analogue 1" (rather than Quad and so is rather noisy), 480i digibeta (the TV Movie) or field-mashed 576i. :)

Steven

Dr Who is shot on Digibeta using the DVW-790WSP cameras (most of the time -- a few shots have also been shot on the Varicam and Super16 film for effects purposes), a camera which is only capable of shooting interlaced video. The tapes out of the camera are 50i -- I've seen the footage.

It is then film-effected in post (by conforming the off-line edit through an Alchemist Platinum standards converter set to convert 50i to 25p and adjusting the EDL as appropriate to cope with the delay introduced), which will reduce the resolution somewhat (at worst on very fast motion it could theoretically drop as low as 288p). This conformed tape is then used as the basis for all the effects work and final post-production.

The method they are using is one of the best I've seen (certainly better than the BBC standard of a Snell and Wilcox ARC150 set to filmise) but it is also having a detrimental effect on resolution and does introduce very visible artefacts...

It is somewhat amusing that 'The Five Doctors' made in 1983 is probably the last story made that utilises the available quality of a 576i signal to the full extent (especially the remastered DVD version) everything after that is either made on multi-gen analogue 1" (rather than Quad and so is rather noisy), 480i digibeta (the TV Movie) or field-mashed 576i. :)

Steven

Very informative post thanks for that!

Cleared a couple of things up for me...

1.) I always did notice that the remastered Five Doctors DVD looked outstanding! The colors are rich and it flows very well together.

2.) My wife and I watch the new episodes every Saturday night (new as in the episodes are broadcasted hours earlier in the UK) in xVID format and it actually looks very good when viewed on our 50" DLP. I purchased some of the previous seasons on DVD to get an upgrade in image quality and 5.1, but I was very disappointed in the video. There is artifacting everywhere and the image is never razer sharp, even for SD content. Are you saying the post-production master looks this way when converted to 25p?

Are you saying the post-production master looks this way when converted to 25p?

Well think about all the format conversions it has gone through: 576i sourceto 576p for editing and effects to 480i on the DVD to 480p on your TV. Four conversions, on top of the many different digital and analog masters it has gone through before being mastered onto the DVD. That's why I always spend the extra cash and buy the Region 2 DVD, so I can watch on my progressive display the progressive video, and not have to deal with interlacing and unnecessary format conversions.

And there has been some inconsistencies with the running time of BBC aired Doctor Who episodes. In fact, the first two proper episodes of Season 4 ran over 47 minutes long in the UK broadcasts. Sci-Fi is very likely trimming those episodes substantially. The presence of teasers before the titles has been inconsistent during Davies' run as producer, but I can't see Sci-Fi removing much of any of them (or dropping them completely) as those scenes are usually rather critical to the story.

Depends on the meaning of "teaser"; Sci-Fi has always snipped the "Next Week" teaser shown before the end credits and has stomped on the end credits with one of their worthless promos leaving the first two or three seconds of end title theme and often the last half second or so (the "whoosh" when the BBC Wales card comes up.)

The CBC has now started running season 4 (or series IV as they call it in elsewhere in the world). The first two episodes clocked in at precisely 45 minutes including the "next time" preview and closing credits (which are run separately, not on top of each other). While this is a small improvement from last season's 43-44 minutes running time on CBC, we're still getting short changed, I'm afraid. http://www.cbc.ca/doctorwho/

Oh by the way, I'm very annoyed that the CBC had skipped the Christmas 2007 episode. They haven't announced the airdate for that episode, or if it will run on CBC at all ! I'm hopeful that it will.

The CBC has now started running season 4 (or series IV as they call it in elsewhere in the world). The first two episodes clocked in at precisely 45 minutes including the "next time" preview and closing credits (which are run separately, not on top of each other). While this is a small improvement from last season's 43-44 minutes running time on CBC, we're still getting short changed, I'm afraid. http://www.cbc.ca/doctorwho/

Oh by the way, I'm very annoyed that the CBC had skipped the Christmas 2007 episode. They haven't announced the airdate for that episode, or if it will run on CBC at all ! I'm hopeful that it will.

I wouldn't call that an improvement, since I believe the first couple episodes actually clocked in near to 50 minutes. So, there were probably still a good 5 minutes cut out.

Oh by the way, I'm very annoyed that the CBC had skipped the Christmas 2007 episode. They haven't announced the airdate for that episode, or if it will run on CBC at all ! I'm hopeful that it will.

It is certainly silly for them not to show the special. If it makes you feel better, among my "circle" of Who fans at work, the 2007 special was by far our least favorite. It also has zero plot influence on season 4 (which was probably our favorite season). Still, I hope they show it to you at some point.