One Foot in the Grave
#1

This popped up on one of my social media feeds. Interesting to see this has been remastered into HD:
Events | Regent Christchurch (regentcentre.co.uk)
Reply
#2

Must be your standard "studio videotape, location film" thing as that suggests the 1993 episode mentioned was done outside the studio entirely.

But of course these days "remastered" doesn't always mean what you think it means. It should mean recreation (and the article implies this), but is quite often used interchangeably with restoration. The latter doesn't guarantee a pretty HD/widescreen picture however...
Reply
#3

Remastered would be going back to the original Master recordings/film/source and re-scanning and editing.

Remakes or Recreation would be making the thing again with various levels of adherence to the original source.

Restoration would be similar to remastering, but would focus on keeping the original in tact, but repairing damaged parts.
Reply
#4

Worth noting that the repeat of One Foot in the Algarve on BBC4 on Christmas Eve is a HD restoration:

twitter.com 
[-] The following 5 users Like Omnipresent's post:
  • bkman1990, Happy2001, London Lite, Spencer, Stuart
Reply
#5

There's two other episodes that were done entirely on location and film, I wonder if they'd ever be remastered in HD (though of course it needs the original film to still exist)- or even inserting the film inserts back into the regular episodes, as has been done for some other shows.

I know they released a Blu-Ray of the 1985-89 OFAH Christmas episodes a few years back where the most of the filmed inserts were rescanned in HD (apart from the 87 special, which was all upscaled, presumably the original film's gone walkies).
Reply
#6

Should that One Foot in the Grave thing be widescreen at least if it's been restored from negative?
I know it would have been 4:3 centre cut out, but but I thought the whole point of going back to the original film was to rescan it, which would result in more picture either side of the action, or is this a limitation of 16mm film?

Or is it more to do with the fact that would look totally out of sync with the rest of the show, which was primarily (I presume) done on tape?
Reply
#7

The film is almost certainly still 4:3 if it was standard 16mm, rather than super 16.

And even when there is extra picture on the sides, like in the HD versions of friends, it can still look a mess with all the action clumped in the middle of the frame and it's probably better leaving it in 4:3.
Reply
#8

And One Foot In The Algarve was shot entirely on film anyway, there are no taped bits (apart from the end credits, anyway).
Reply
#9

I wondered how old the undated page linked in the OP was since I suspect it's been a few years since BBC Radio Solent has had the budget to restore a television sitcom.

It would seem it was restored in 2014 looking at this...
www.bbc.co.uk 

Interesting, the episode in question is available to watch now but they don't seem to have separated the original version and the restored version. I assume the broadcast in 2019 was not the HD version but it shows up on the same was as tomorrow's broadcast so it will be difficult for future television historians to know when the HD version was first broadcast.

www.bbc.co.uk 
Reply
#10

The greatest limitation with 16mm is that it is not deemed to be suitable for HD … hence to stopping of Spooks …
super 16 is just about allowable IFF it is so commissioned and if the special requirements are followed which start with how it’s shot…. See
www.thedpp.com 
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)