It’s ironic.
The quality of television resolution has increased over time, from rudimentary pictures at only 50 lines to today’s 1080-line HDTV. With changing standards, producers risk obsolescence of their shows when they make choices of production equipment.
The irony is this: the 1950s television show “I Love Lucy” was produced on 35mm film, which is a high resolution medium. It’s not locked into a certain number of lines of resolution. Thus, “I Love Lucy”, which was originally seen on flickering low-res sets in the 1950s, could easily be broadcast today on high definition receivers, showing all the flaws and details never seen before.
But a show made on videotape, say, “All In The Family,” is not only of too low resolution to broadcast in HD, the tapes themselves are in danger of being lost.
Thus, Lucy = high definition, Archie = low def.
A lot of programs today are being produced in high definition; the problem is that they are digital from start to finish, recorded on high definition video cameras. They look great now, but what happens 20 years from now when the tapes or discs are unreadable or the standards have changed? What will they look like on broadcasts of 3,000 lines or more? “Star Trek” will still exist, ready to be seen in ultra high def. But “Star Trek Enterprise” will be lost. Some people will probably think that’s the way it should be.
It seems to me that film is still the only way to go for longevity and quality.
Thank you for touching on this. As a photographer I amazed at the number of people that want me to transfer their old 8mm movies to video tape so the kids will have something to watch when they grow up. I try to be very clear. The FILM will long out-last videotape or even CD’s disks. If want to put it on your computer so you can edit it or email bits and pieces fine but for long term storage nothing beats film.
I love my digital camera and would be hard pressed to live without it but I still shoot film. I have negatives that my grandmother shot 50 years ago and because they were stored properly they’re STILL sharper, cleaner and better resolution than any digital camera mere mortals can afford.
Try to play a cassette tape you listened to in the 80’s and you’ll get a good idea of where your VHS tape is headed. If you really want to save it for the children transfer your videotape to 35mm film!
And your point about Lucy is further confirmation that not only was Lucy and company among the greatest comedy players of all time but were also on the fore-front of filming and direction. They set the standard with the 3 camera rule that is still used by every sit-com today. “I Love Lucy” has stood the test of time and will continue to be the standard to which all great comedy shows are judged against.
And it’s interesting to note that Kodak has now stopped producing slide projectors. It’s getting harder and harder to find film now.
Although the digital revolution brings an incredible new range of possibilities for imaging and makes photography and video a more accessible hobby for the general public; it also means that we’re in danger of losing a great deal of creative product to the ravages of the medium, hardly an archival format.
This is a really bad analogy, but it’s kinda like a straight raazor… outdated and a pain in the ass to use but still gives the best shave you can get.
Anyway, I’m wondering if we’ll see a surge in up-conversion technology. I myself am interested in an Onkyo DVD player that takes the 480p up to 1080i via a HDMI link. Sure it’s like $2000, but in a few years???