I had this HD-DVD movie in mind as my frist HD purchase and wanted to know something about it. Is it anything like BBC Motion Gallery: Japan (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/bbc-nhk.htm) ? I really do like this little clip and haven't been able to find anything else like it at all in HD (even though it's h.264, I think).

Edit: I know understand there are 2 different versions of this movie. I had no idea of this until the users in this thread posted about it. There is the BBC version and the Discovery Channel version. The box art is different for each therefore, you don't necessarily buy something you didn't want.


http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/eastcoasthandle/409c_1.jpg
BBC Version



http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/eastcoasthandle/779512_a2xl.jpg
Discovery Channel

If you go to amazons page for planet earth there is a short but informative trailer.

Watch that...but just imagine in hi def!

Its a "nature" type show. I don't personally have it but I am pretty sure I will get it pretty soon. I have seen a few episodes on DiscHD and I love it. It looks amazing on the over the air HD channel, so I'm sure it can only look better on HD-DVD.

It's a nature show on steroids. I never heard of it until it came out on HD DVD, and I bought it due to the hype. It doesn't disappoint. You get to see all sorts of cool things you've never even heard of before, all in stunning HD. The opening scene on the first disk where you fly between the mountains was awesome, especially on the 100" projection screen. My wife, who doesn't usually get into this stuff (a movie's a movie, she says) said, "This is like being at the IMAX theater!"

Even if you hate documentaries, you need to watch Planet Earth. In many ways it sets the bar for HD cinematography for documentary and movie work alike. Aside from the gorgeous picture, you'll notice many shots of nature that have never been captured before.

It's a nice escape from the concrete jungle.

Thanks for the info. it's appreciated. :)

highly recommended :)

You can't go wrong with this set. Lots of stunning nature shots, like the best stuff on Discovery.

Recommended but not highly recommended. Perfect for family use though.

Just be sure to get the original BBC version rather than the Americanized and more expensive Discovery channel version.

Just be sure to get the original BBC version rather than the Americanized and more expensive Discovery channel version.


Why? I actually liked the US version better..

I still haven't watched anything past the first two episiodes. It's so mind-numbingly boring (for someone who watches nature shows anyway) with it's slow and repetitive pacing--not to mention the lack of a coherent storyline--and I still think the PQ is mediocre compared to the best HD has to offer. Rent it, don't buy it.

Wow...first person I heard not liking it. Not all is shot in HD because of the nature of the shots, but most is, and alot is stunning. I saw the presentation on Discovery, so now I just play the disks, kill the audio, and listen to an assortment of music. Nice to showcase your HD equipment....glad I bought it.

I still haven't watched anything past the first two episiodes. It's so mind-numbingly boring (for someone who watches nature shows anyway) with it's slow and repetitive pacing--not to mention the lack of a coherent storyline--and I still think the PQ is mediocre compared to the best HD has to offer. Rent it, don't buy it.

"Mind-numbingly boring." Really. Hmmm.

"Mind-numbingly boring." Really. Hmmm.
What can I say? I found the narrative style to be repetitive to the point I was making fun of it. Pristine aerial shot, blurry zoom shot, looks-like-it-was-upscaled-from-VHS closeup, zoom, aerial. Rinse, repeat. Here's some bears; here's some snow; here's some rocks and grass; here's some elephants. Ooh. Ahh. :rolleyes:

Between that, the horrid imbalance of the narrator's voice to the music/sfx, the continual posterization noise and grain, plus the fact that this is really just a sampler of nature footage and provides no real explanation as to why the Earth is structured the way it is, I am underwhelmed.

I should probably give episodes 3 and 4 a spin, since I am eager to see the whole ice episode, though I haven't been able to get interested enough again to do so with so many other good HD movies to watch. (Children of Men was the last spin, it was pretty darn phenomenal aside from the ending.)

But I only complain because nobody else does, and I certainly don't think this title is a good one, let alone a great one. Personally I find the now-aged "Beauty of Japan" D-VHS demo to be more engaging as a showpiece for HD. Heck, "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" was far more substantial as a demonstration of what HD can do for documentaries--that was a gorgeous, well-edited show that spent 80% of its time with master-quality footage and tight editing--and it probably had one-tenth the budget of this 'landmark' BBC production.

Perhaps if the image quality on PE was not so rollercoaster-ish I would not feel the same way. As-is, it's like I was suckered out of $60 for something I thought would be amazing both visually and as an awe-inspiring testament to the majestic splendors of our planet. It only touches on the latter; I have a collection of high-res still photos of various planetary features that I find more moving than this video set. I know the BBC can take great video... their HD library is stunningly pristine, and it may be that having seen those clips I expected their work on PE to be equivalent.

Also perhaps I would care more about PE if I could approach it intellectually. The video sucks, so I'd be interested instead of knowing why waterfalls formed or how monkey social groups protect them or a comparison of how large cats have developed geographically specialized anatomies for hunting. PE fails in this as well, being little more than a slide-show of whatever video the BBC crew could get and strung together by a bored narrator (though better than Sigourney's snore-inducing performance, I must add). The entire series felt as if the editor had never shown up for work, and his intern simply did what he could two weeks before the thing was due.

The final insult to purchasers of this set on HD is Warner's (perhaps deliberate) omission of the "making-of" clips, which as many others have said are far more interesting and useful than the show itself. I almost feel bad making light of the work that so many camera crews had endured harsh environments for, but suffering does not make a good product, only luck and/or (preferably) planning does. That's three strikes for PE if you've been counting, so it's out.

But as I said, this is just my opinion. If I'm approaching this the wrong way or if the first two episodes are weak then so be it. If anyone has a suggestion for how I can enjoy the set more I'd love to hear it, since it's gathering dust on my shelf. As it stands, I guess I am the only person on planet Earth who doesn't like Planet Earth. *shrug* :)

Why? I actually liked the US version better..

Interesting. You have seen both?

1. Narrator: I much prefer Sir Richard Attenborough over Sigourny 'monotone' Weaver.

2. Edits: The US version is an edited version of the original from the BBC. Several of the kill scenes were edited down.

3. Cost: The BBC version is $30 less than the Discovery channel version.

I have the BBC version and I think that Attenborough's voice is more suited as a voice over. It's so good I actually forgot where I was up to in the series.

Definitely don't get the US version.

It's a great set, but don't expect much new information if you are a nature show junkie. It's got some great eye candy though. They need to take each episode and make a four disk set just about that episode's topic. It would be nice to actually learn more things along with the great PQ.

It's a must own.

i thought that the BBC version would be the definitive version and that's it, done, final. But no....

Planet Earth looks VERY nice. So cool the way these animals behave.

To me, it's wonderful and gorgeous. For those of you who thought it was boring or lacked depth, have you seen National Geographic's Relentless Enemies? NG tends to be more in depth. I wonder if that would fit the bill better.

We're using it as educational material for our kids, and they absolutely love it. There are shots that you really don't see every day, and enough of the footage is crisp enough to make it VERY appealing from an eye-candy standpoint.

My main observation is that this series would be worthless in SD; many of the shots are long-distance views of large numbers of animals that would simply be a fuzzy mass in SD. In HD, however, the effect is stunning.

[That said, there is some banding and posterization on some shots that is not so great. When it's good, though, it is VERY good.]

[That said, there is some banding and posterization on some shots that is not so great. When it's good, though, it is VERY good.]
Anything shot from their helicopter-mounted camera is stunning... A+ class. I just wonder why the heck they didn't use the same rig anywhere else.

We're using it as educational material for our kids, and they absolutely love it. There are shots that you really don't see every day, and enough of the footage is crisp enough to make it VERY appealing from an eye-candy standpoint.

My main observation is that this series would be worthless in SD; many of the shots are long-distance views of large numbers of animals that would simply be a fuzzy mass in SD. In HD, however, the effect is stunning.

[That said, there is some banding and posterization on some shots that is not so great. When it's good, though, it is VERY good.]

I dug it too, very pretty and not too intense for the kids. Actually generated some long discussions and we've watched portions several times. It wasn't perfect, but what is? I'd buy it again and I would have definately investigated before plunking down that much cash, only to bitch about it later, like some posters.

Ebay has some awesome prices

I had this HD-DVD movie in mind as my frist HD purchase and wanted to know something about it. Is it anything like BBC Motion Gallery: Japan (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/bbc-nhk.htm) ? I really do like this little clip and haven't been able to find anything else like it at all in HD (even though it's h.264, I think).


It's about SICK video from all over the GLOBE in glorious HD.

MUST OWN, buy it!

Planet Earth is the HD DVD in my small collection that I cherish the most. A true collector's item, as well. The picture is stunning on my 133" diagonal screen. A must-have without a doubt.

I own the version narrated by Richard Attenborough - this is the one that is available in Canada. I hope this version was not truncated and censored, like a previous poster mentioned about the Discovery Channel version.

My only criticism is that the HD DVD version (not sure about the Blu-ray - I do not own such a system) does not include the mini-documentaries about how Planet Earth was made, which are nevertheless included in the SD edition.

Planet Earth is the first HD DVD I ever bought. As they say, one onever forgets one's first love. :)

It's a wonderful documentary. The only thing I didn't like about it was that so many shots were repeated/recycled over different episodes.

Interesting. You have seen both?

1. Narrator: I much prefer Sir Richard Attenborough over Sigourny 'monotone' Weaver.

2. Edits: The US version is an edited version of the original from the BBC. Several of the kill scenes were edited down.

3. Cost: The BBC version is $30 less than the Discovery channel version.
You gotta show me the difference between the 2. I am sure the cover and box art is different in one way or another? Then ones I see all say David Attenborough as the narrator/leading role.

Edit: Never mind I think I have it figured out. Take a look at the box art.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/eastcoasthandle/409c_1.jpg
BBC Version



http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/eastcoasthandle/779512_a2xl.jpg
Discovery Channel

Wow, I had no idea there was a difference.

Doesn't the BBC have other shows like this? I don't recall the name but it deals with Space, metors, Saturn, Saturn's moons, etc.

What can I say? I found the narrative style to be repetitive to the point I was making fun of it. Pristine aerial shot, blurry zoom shot, looks-like-it-was-upscaled-from-VHS closeup, zoom, aerial. Rinse, repeat. Here's some bears; here's some snow; here's some rocks and grass; here's some elephants. Ooh. Ahh. :rolleyes:

But I only complain because nobody else does, and I certainly don't think this title is a good one, let alone a great one.

Perhaps if the image quality on PE was not so rollercoaster-ish I would not feel the same way.

would care more about PE if I could approach it intellectually. The video sucks, so I'd be interested instead of knowing why waterfalls formed or how monkey social groups protect them or a comparison of how large cats have developed geographically specialized anatomies for hunting. PE fails in this as well, being little more than a slide-show of whatever video the BBC crew could get and strung together by a bored narrator (though better than Sigourney's snore-inducing performance, I must add). The entire series felt as if the editor had never shown up for work, and his intern simply did what he could two weeks before the thing was due.
Planet Earth. *shrug* :)


Well, I somewhat agree with you, and somewhat disagree with you.

I was happy with the picture quality on my setup (an Optoma 720p DLP projector and a 92" Hi power screen). A great many of the shots look super, and I have no complaints about the PQ in general.

But, as you point out, and and a few others have said. it is somewhat shallow. Its more of an overview of everything in nature, rather than an in depth look at any particular facet. I can see how a nature documentary junkie would be dissatisfied. And, like you, I did get bored at times.

But that being said, I would still recommend it. Its filled with spectacular scenery and animal shots. And I think the documentaries are overall interesting and informative, if a bit lacking in depth. I would purchase this set again.

Are nature shows intented to be entertaining or informative? If you think entertaining then your expectations are out of wack.

I love all the other Attenbourgh and BBC stuff like Life of Mammals, Living Planet, etc and I found Planet Earth pretty boring, it looks nice and all but its nowhere near as good as say Blue Planet.

As far as Im concerned this is a must have title for anyone. If you cant appreciate our planet and the animals that occupy it, in glorious high definition, you are empty inside!!

Well Sir David Attenborough actually knows what he's talking about and it comes through in his delivery . He's not just reading some words on a page like Weaver.

As to the picture quality.

Quite a lot of it is two or three blokes in the middle of the rainforest, desert, arctic tundra patiently waiting and hoping to get the shots they want after doing pain staking research about the habits of the animals in question and living in the middle of nowhere with very little outside support for sometimes years at a time.

You should maybe give them a little bit of leeway if their incredibly rare and difficult to obtain footage is maybe not quite up the standards of a major hollywood blockbuster ...sometimes.

I'm frankly amazed that people slate Planet Earth for the occasional technical limitations of some of the footage. Some people just have no idea what they are actually looking at.

One of PE's major selling points was that it was "shot entirely in high-definition" (per Discovery's site), which is deceptive if not an outright lie. I'm willing to accept that at some point in the chain every frame of video went through a camera (or film) capable of HD resolution, but when you then zoom in (on a 16mm frame) or zoom in from a mile away with an HD video camera, you're talking SD quality as a result. So to me, it's like a lie, one I paid for. The transient shots that actually look like HD do nothing but highlight, painfully, how deficient the rest of the show is in terms of PQ. And whatever process introduced the posterization (Warner?) just killed off what pleasure was left, in terms of watching and enjoying the show as a technical demo.

In terms of them catching glimpses of "never-before seen" places and creatures, I can give them that, but the show is too boring to sit through to watch that. Plus, I don't even know what is unique and what isn't. On high-definition, PE is deficient. On SD, perhaps it would be fine since the visual half is a non-issue. I still need to rent the SD version to see how much it would bug me.

If PE was billed as another nature show, perhaps one with a larger than usual scope, it wouldn't bug me. But as-is, I feel like I was told one thing and paid for (and got) another. But that's the power of fads, and I learned my lesson. :)

It's definately worth a rental, because a handful of shots are indeed stunning, but I personally can't envision watching it more than once, even with kids. Buy this for the content, not the PQ. Forget it's in HD, and then you can approach PE at face value, IMO. At that point, it's really not a unique item in any way other other than scope (and budget).

For other Hollywood type flicks like Kubrik's "Full Metal Jacket" there are tons of complaints, because the picture quality is glaringly and obviously deficient. Even then, it's not as bad as PE, yet people defend PE to the hilt as if it were untouchable. I don't get it. If it wasn't about animals, would people still consider it to be ground-breaking? Or is it just respect for the camera crew, and their (granted) long-suffering task, one which Warner decided was not even worthy of mention on the HD version? Oops, was that another flaw I pointed out? Nevermind... Maybe we can tape some ping-pong balls to a lion and render out a version that is flawless? :D

One of PE's major selling points was that it was "shot entirely in high-definition" (per Discovery's site), which is deceptive if not an outright lie. I'm willing to accept that at some point in the chain every frame of video went through a camera (or film) capable of HD resolution, but when you then zoom in (on a 16mm frame) or zoom in from a mile away with an HD video camera, you're talking SD quality as a result. So to me, it's like a lie, one I paid for. The transient shots that actually look like HD do nothing but highlight, painfully, how deficient the rest of the show is in terms of PQ. And whatever process introduced the posterization (Warner?) just killed off what pleasure was left, in terms of watching and enjoying the show as a technical demo.

In terms of them catching glimpses of "never-before seen" places and creatures, I can give them that, but the show is too boring to sit through to watch that. Plus, I don't even know what is unique and what isn't. On high-definition, PE is deficient. On SD, perhaps it would be fine since the visual half is a non-issue. I still need to rent the SD version to see how much it would bug me.

If PE was billed as another nature show, perhaps one with a larger than usual scope, it wouldn't bug me. But as-is, I feel like I was told one thing and paid for (and got) another. But that's the power of fads, and I learned my lesson. :)

It's definately worth a rental, because a handful of shots are indeed stunning, but I personally can't envision watching it more than once, even with kids. Buy this for the content, not the PQ. Forget it's in HD, and then you can approach PE at face value, IMO. At that point, it's really not a unique item in any way other other than scope (and budget).

For other Hollywood type flicks like Kubrik's "Full Metal Jacket" there are tons of complaints, because the picture quality is glaringly and obviously deficient. Even then, it's not as bad as PE, yet people defend PE to the hilt as if it were untouchable. I don't get it. If it wasn't about animals, would people still consider it to be ground-breaking? Or is it just respect for the camera crew, and their (granted) long-suffering task, one which Warner decided was not even worthy of mention on the HD version? Oops, was that another flaw I pointed out? Nevermind... Maybe we can tape some ping-pong balls to a lion and render out a version that is flawless? :D
------------------------------------------------------
One of PE's major selling points was that it was "shot entirely in high-definition" (per Discovery's site)

I LOL after reading this, I guess it takes all kinds! You do realize there is a Discovery Channel version and a BBC version don't you? You talk about how boring the show is implying you had a level of expectation of something other then a nature show. Here is something you post:
I feel like I was told one thing and paid for (and got) another...For other Hollywood type flicks like Kubrik's "Full Metal Jacket"...

Which makes absolutely no sense at all. It's a nature show pal, you need to comprehend that! In all, after reading your post it's obvious that your train of thought about this movie is off. Also, you are not a nature show buff. It's a shame that someone in a forum on the internet has to tell you that instead of you figuring out for yourself. If you had this level of personal understanding, you would have never considered this movie thus, never posting this absurdity.

The only problem with the BBC version is all of the measurements are in metric...lol..

"This starfish is over 3 metres long!" "This algae forest can grow over 350 kilometres..

My engineering head is trying to do the calculations and I end up missing whats next... :o

Oh well...

I think PE is a great series and a must have for anyone who enjoys great cinematography and visuals that most people will never see about our planet and wildlife. "Boring" is a personal opinion... if it's to general, to bad... they tried to cover the entire Earth in 12 hours worth of video. I think the PQ looks great. All-in-all the series contains some of the most captivating video media I have ever seen.

The only problem with the BBC version is all of the measurements are in metric...lol..

"This starfish is over 3 metres long!" "This algae forest can grow over 350 kilometres..

My engineering head is trying to do the calculations and I end up missing whats next... :o

Oh well...

Not all the measurements they use are metric. They go back and forth between them... I've heard miles and feet used... and probably some others.

(Fellow engineer)

I LOL after reading this, I guess it takes all kinds! You do realize there is a Discovery Channel version and a BBC version don't you? You talk about how boring the show is implying you had a level of expectation of something other then a nature show.
Just to make sure the horse stays dead... I know they're different, but the show is largely the same, and the reason I bought the thing was because I wanted to see various landscapes, animals, and natural things in high-definition. Are you saying the BBC version is in SD, but Discovery is in HD? If so, then yeah, I got the wrong version!

To be blunt, I bought PE as eye candy. People rave about the PQ, it's stated to be HD, yet I spin it up and it's grain, banding, and blurriness, worse at times than upscaled SD, with only a small fraction of pristine HD content. People said this wasn't true, so I took pics. They still said it wasn't true, it must be a bad TV. If the iPhone is the "Jesus Phone" then PE must be the "Jesus Series" because it can do no wrong. I could forgive the PQ if the content was compelling, but I don't feel it is either, being trite and engineered for the short-attention-span-mtv-crowd. So to me it is generally boring and better than half the time it looks bad for an HD title. And the botched narrator audio level means to hear Sir Attenborough I must turn the volume up until the mains audio make my ears bleed. And all this for only the cost of three HD movies, well perhaps the cost of six movies if you have to buy the DVD version too for the making-of diaries.

But there I go again, not overlooking how painful it is to watch this because by God, I am privileged to watch 5 minutes of mixed bag video just to see an animal before skipping on to another one at random. Who cares if I have no understanding of why the animals are there, just seeing them on my TV is amazing! Who cares if there's vaseline smeared on the camera lens, come on, it's bears on a mountain you guys! :p

Also, you are not a nature show buff. It's a shame that someone in a forum on the internet has to tell you that instead of you figuring out for yourself. If you had this level of personal understanding, you would have never considered this movie thus, never posting this absurdity.
I am not enough of a nature buff to overlook a nature show when something is bungled thoroughly, no. Sorry about that, I didn't mean to have high standards, and I don't know why I'm not allowed to have a negative opinion of Planet Earth. Maybe I'm blind, ignorant, and didn't calibrate my TV. Enjoy the pretty animals and plants, I'll bow out from my opinions on this set from now on, since they obviously aren't wanted.

Edit: One review at Amazon suggests the Discovery version is a better encode, though I hadn't heard about it. Is this true? If so, I'll have to buy it just to see.

Just to make sure the horse stays dead... I know they're different, but the show is largely the same, and the reason I bought the thing was because I wanted to see various landscapes, animals, and natural things in high-definition. Are you saying the BBC version is in SD, but Discovery is in HD? If so, then yeah, I got the wrong version!

To be blunt, I bought PE as eye candy. People rave about the PQ, it's stated to be HD, yet I spin it up and it's grain, banding, and blurriness, worse at times than upscaled SD, with only a small fraction of pristine HD content. People said this wasn't true, so I took pics. They still said it wasn't true, it must be a bad TV. If the iPhone is the "Jesus Phone" then PE must be the "Jesus Series" because it can do no wrong. I could forgive the PQ if the content was compelling, but I don't feel it is either, being trite and engineered for the short-attention-span-mtv-crowd. So to me it is generally boring and better than half the time it looks bad for an HD title. And the botched narrator audio level means to hear Sir Attenborough I must turn the volume up until the mains audio make my ears bleed. And all this for only the cost of three HD movies, well perhaps the cost of six movies if you have to buy the DVD version too for the making-of diaries.

But there I go again, not overlooking how painful it is to watch this because by God, I am privileged to watch 5 minutes of mixed bag video just to see an animal before skipping on to another one at random. Who cares if I have no understanding of why the animals are there, just seeing them on my TV is amazing! Who cares if there's vaseline smeared on the camera lens, come on, it's bears on a mountain you guys! :p


I am not enough of a nature buff to overlook a nature show when something is bungled thoroughly, no. Sorry about that, I didn't mean to have high standards, and I don't know why I'm not allowed to have a negative opinion of Planet Earth. Maybe I'm blind, ignorant, and didn't calibrate my TV. Enjoy the pretty animals and plants, I'll bow out from my opinions on this set from now on, since they obviously aren't wanted.

Edit: One review at Amazon suggests the Discovery version is a better encode, though I hadn't heard about it. Is this true? If so, I'll have to buy it just to see.

Your babble contradicts your reasoning. The vary reason why you purchased the movie is the vary thing that bores you. Also, if you sole intent was the eye candy you contradict yourself again by formulating an opinion on the content. Then in order to justify what appears to be nothing more then your feelings you create hallow, exaggerated, negative comments about the series which you obese upon from one post to the next.
I am not enough of a nature buff.. Is a partial quote from your post that also contradicts your opinion (series of posts in this thread) for a series in which you purchased just for the eye candy and not content.

Does anyone have the Discovery version? Is there any reason to believe it might have a different encode from the Warner/BBC version?

It's a nature show on steroids. I never heard of it until it came out on HD DVD, and I bought it due to the hype. It doesn't disappoint. You get to see all sorts of cool things you've never even heard of before, all in stunning HD. The opening scene on the first disk where you fly between the mountains was awesome, especially on the 100" projection screen. My wife, who doesn't usually get into this stuff (a movie's a movie, she says) said, "This is like being at the IMAX theater!"
The IMAX comment is exactly what I thought as I was watching the first episode. (I have a projection setup on a 127" screen). This is the definitive nature documentary series. Parts of the picture quality suffer due to special shooting situations (deep sea with limited lighting, etc.), but by and large it is breathtaking. The BBC version is preferred by a lot of people because the shows are longer in length. Those that prefer the Discovery version do so generally because they prefer Sigourney Weaver's voice to David Attenborough's.

Does anyone have the Discovery version? Is there any reason to believe it might have a different encode from the Warner/BBC version?

read here (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/planetearth_us.html)
and here (http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/768)

Was in Target today and saw PE on HD-DVD for $85. Thought that was a good price so I bought it.

Came home to double-check the reviews. What? The SD version has an entire disc of extras??

Think I'm going back tomorrow and getting the SD version + $30 back, I want those extras!

Sure the PQ will take a hit, but it sounds like the whole thing wasn't shot in HD anyway...shame you can't get the best of both worlds.

shame you can't get the best of both worlds.

Agreed. For me the PQ was the main factor so while I would have liked to see them include the SD dvd with the extras I would not trade my Blu Ray version for SD.

Was in Target today and saw PE on HD-DVD for $85. Thought that was a good price so I bought it.

Came home to double-check the reviews. What? The SD version has an entire disc of extras??

Think I'm going back tomorrow and getting the SD version + $30 back, I want those extras!

Sure the PQ will take a hit, but it sounds like the whole thing wasn't shot in HD anyway...shame you can't get the best of both worlds.
Don't do it -- the program looks BREATHTAKING in HD. A few extra features aren't worth it, IMHO.

(although I do find it humorous that the BD camp tries to say extras aren't important when movies like '300' come up, yet here we have an example of someone wanting to return the HD version for some SD extras... But I digress :) ).

bbc hd version = pretty much unsurpassed picture.

Definitely recommend this series.I actually bought this with their Blue Planet Ocean series and the difference in the picture quality is significant in the Ocean scenes of PE.There were some scenes where the quality was not HD but even those were not that bad.I will say this I have never seen nature shots this clear and crisp period.Cactus and Rock never use to catch my attention until now :).

I wouldnt call myself a nature buff but I have seen my fair share.Think of it as a mix of everything from nature shows,from Landscape shots to mammals,oceans,insects and short documentaries.The first disc actually wowed my sister and I found it a bit boring as it was more landscape shots and the fresh water chapter was not that interesting to me.I prefer the animal dcoumentaries(the penguin documentary if you watched all the discs ;)) and the Oceans.The next 3 dics do get better and interesting in that order.It definitely could have gone into more detail for some of the scenes and made it more interesting but that is the nature of this series.To fully enjoy this series you have to put yourself in the animals shoes and understand the things they have to do to survive.Id give it a 9 for picture quality not perfect and a 7 for storyline :).

bbc hd version = pretty much unsurpassed picture.

Seriously? Dude I've watched much that surpasses this. I remember a show (think it was on Discovery HD) called Music In High Places. Any of those slams the PQ on PE to the ground. Watchin' this on hd dvd on a 60" XBR2 and being thankful that I rented instead of bought. The visuals are stunning but PQ is not! I had to put King Kong and Batman Begins back in to make sure somethin' wasn't wrong with my xa2 or display. (All good).
BTW: the AQ far better done than the PQ.

all I know is that 2 minutes of footage on disc one of the airborne great white sharks munchin seals in slomo was the best 2 minutes of HD I ever saw.

I just popped in the "Seasonal Forests" episode tonight.

The Madagascar part is extraordinary high-def cinematography. (Not that the rest of the series isn't, but this stuff really stuck out for me tonight!)

Uhhh..Earth