Rant Charlie Brown Christmas no longer airing on broadcast TV

[Pohemi]

(see "soap-opera effect")

I've also seen it caused by 60fps vs the standard 24fps film (such as with LOTR.) Gives it that soft matte, slightly "fuzzy" glow effect.

 

[Captante]

I've also seen it caused by 60fps vs the standard 24fps film (such as with LOTR.) Gives it that soft matte, slightly "fuzzy" glow effect.

It's about my least favorite thing about many 60fps productions.... "film grain" and "motion-blur" may suck in games but in movies they can be a beautiful thing.

 

[mikeymikec]

Movies can ABSOLUTELY look bad when they're too sharp or when the color is remastered poorly. (see "soap-opera effect")

There are many 100's of bad blu-rays out there and if you don't do your homework it's easy to get stuck with one. (and feel silly if it's barely/not an improvement over your original copy like I did with LOTR)

OBVIOUSLY all else being equal a BRD with 20gb's storage vs 4gb's for DVD will have better IQ and audio, but frequently that isn't the case at all for multiple reasons having to do with production.

Yup, any BRs I buy I check first on bluray.com for a disc review.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yup, any BRs I buy I check first on bluray.com for a disc review.

Yes, great website.

Also, instead of spending hours trying to find one, this site can guide you as to whether or not it’s even be released.

im still waiting for idiocracy and grandmas boy to have a BR release

 

[Scarpozzi]

A few years ago, I showed my kids Charlie brown christmas. I remembered it being good from when i was a kid, so I was excited to share this with them. I hadnt watched it in years...like 20 years. We all sat down around the TV and started to watch it. Halfway thru my kids chimed in. "Do we have to watch this, its not very good?" I had to agree. Apart from nostalgia, there is no real reason to watch it imo.

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if this is being censored from TV by individuals at Apple that don't like the Christian messages in it being aired on TV. This is in addition to the potential revenue they could make. Charles Shultz was pressured by the networks not to include the Linus monologue about what Christmas is all about. As I may not be the most religious person, I believe that religion brings families and values together. I'm not a fan of evangelist mentalities and I think the people forget the message more today than ever.

It's a very short cartoon and is made for TV and commercials. It has Charlie Brown, who I consider to be a cartoonized version of Larry David as a child...

 

[Captante]

Charlie Brown was my hero when I was a kid.

Explains a lot, I know.

 

[Muse]

Are you kidding? 4K>Blu-ray>DVD>SVHS>VHS. Everyone knows this.

FTFY

SVHS>>VHS

I used to record off antenna TV and my SVHS decks produced recordings that were watchable, using SVHS blank tapes. VHS was awful.

 

[waffleironhead]

This thread reminded me of this sketch about charlie brown, so im sharing it.

Paget Brewster - 'Charlie Brown And Lucy' - Wits - YouTube

 

[SKORPI0]

FTFY

SVHS>>VHS

I used to record off antenna TV and my SVHS decks produced recordings that were watchable, using SVHS blank tapes. VHS was awful.

I still have recordings of Star Trek - Next Generation episodes in VHS, not sure what speed I used. Maybe one of these days, I'll hook up the player and view some of them.

 

[sdifox]

Thanks Disney. I am assuming they will try to extend copyright again in 2024, when Steamboat Willie will enter public domain. That was published in 1928...

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Problem is, people keep paying the fees ... like sheep. If no one paid, the fees would stop. Outside of being in some public place like a doctor's office and more or less a captive audience, I haven't watched a minute of TV in close to 10 years now because I refuse to pay for any of it.

 

[sdifox]

I still have recordings of Star Trek - Next Generation episodes in VHS, not sure what speed I used. Maybe one of these days, I'll hook up the player and view some of them.

Do you even have a display with composite in?

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

^^^ I do.

My Toshiba 30 something has two sets of RCA, and a number of other older style inputs, including DisplayPort and VGA.

 

[SKORPI0]

Do you even have a display with composite in?

Not sure. I've disposed/recycled my Samsung 36" HDTV CRTs when I transitioned to a 46" Sony HDTV 2009 (which I've lent to my niece).
Update - My Panasonic VIERA TC-P46ST30 (3D HDTV) has composite in, right now it's been retired.

 

[HomerJS]

Going to take a wild guess and assume it's cancel culture. I recall something in there that offended the woke people, so probably why they pulled it off. Kinda sad really, it's such an old classic. The woke people are ruining everything.

I should probably try to find a copy of all of these classics before they completely disappear. Some good nostalgia. Even things like Bugs Bunny, no way they would allow that to air now days because of the violence.

WTF are you talking about? Can you stop being a right wing shill for 2 sec?

Know who got cancelled? Liz Cheney because she had the nerve to tell the truth and was blackballed by the same people who claim to hate cancel culture

 

[AdamK47]

Old people complaining about old things no longer happening in an old fashion for irrelevant old traditions.

Old.

 

[Captante]

Old people complaining

 

[darkswordsman17]

To hijack the thread, anyone seen the Guardians of the Galaxy holiday special? I thought it was kinda...shit. I think it was intentionally so to a degree (like them poking fun at the Star Wars holiday special), but then that just made it end up being just shit as well. The animation and message was still better than the Charlie Brown Xmas but that's not saying much.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Old people complaining about old things no longer happening in an old fashion for irrelevant old traditions.

Old.

Aren't you the guy that had to buy a manual transmission end of the line supercar because all the same old people making the old people "cars were better when they were shit!" arguments?

 

[zinfamous]

Technically old-school film recorded movies done with the best cameras have effectively "unlimited" resolution.

Of course the reality is somewhat different and if you zoom in enough the image will still begin to appear "grainy" after a certain point.

well, it depends. the oldest of the oldest are, I think, 16mm film. That isn't so great for max resolution.

35mm has been around forever and is by far the standard, and that is basically what you are referring to. I recall that at "the dawn" of digital imaging, the ultimate goal was getting those 6 MP, which were the theoretical equivalent of "max resolution" of a full-frame 35mm film cell (what we now call "4k," I think). That was for fixed images, of course. recording moving picture shows at tolerable frame rate, at that resolution, obviously took a bit more time, but we're passed that now....well, maybe.

That's always a problematic comparison, though, because you still can't really measure the "Resolution" of cellular film media, as far as I understand it, because it isn't based on pixels or anything that is perfectly quantifiable. It's spongy. ....and then there is the issue that resolution isn't everything for image quality. It's really one of the last things, to be honest. Color accuracy, black levels, contrast, all of things are far more important. These are things that film stock excels at and still amends itself to incredible amounts of manipulation without and real data loss (a problem that digital will have every single time you make an adjustment--each tweak = data loss, quality degradation...mostly. RAW and modern equivalents are great, but they still have their limitation, I suspect).

There is also the ever important fact that whenever you record something digitally, you are forever locked by the digital formats quantified limitations. This is bad if you are interested in maintaining content for perpetuity and adaptable to future formats and demands. I probably have this wrong, but I recall the Star Wars prequels somewhat famously being fully digital sources and..I think maxed at 1080p with those very expensive Sony cameras at the time. Is that correct? That's fucking awful if true--no matter, really. literally no one is interested in preserving that content for future generation standards.

More relevant, I recall that David Gilmore's Live in Gdansk show was I think the first concert recorded fully digital...in GLORIOUS MINI DV FORMAT! YEAH! ALMOST DVD QUALITY! lol. what a fucking disaster. Totally useless the day it was released.

Anyway, cellular film stock amends itself to serious restoration without significant loss of "data" (e.g. PQ), as well as fresh digital scans (however that works?), to generate "pure" fixed resolutions for each scan. I'm honestly not sure what is going on with "8K", but we already know that every great 1080p and 2560p scans have been generated from the same original 35mm stock. I think I recall that it was determined, for some reason, that 4k isn't the "true limit" of 35mm, but maybe I'm pulling that out of my ass. I dunno

...OK and then there's 70mm film stock. Horribly expensive, but yeah, good luck everybody!

Also: Long live the GRAIN! I fucking love grain. Great films are only great when you get the sensation of looking through a sandstorm to see what is going on. Yes, I'm serious.

 

[zinfamous]

I've also seen it caused by 60fps vs the standard 24fps film (such as with LOTR.) Gives it that soft matte, slightly "fuzzy" glow effect.

soap opera effect. I call it Vaseline lens...because this is an actual technique that was done to reduce detail, create halos, trick your brain into thinking "cozy, safe fairy tale (generally whitebread) family show" incoming. Yes, you dollop a bit of Vaseline on the camera lens to create this effect.

This is what >24fps does to film content, and it is always bad. it is always wrong. No adult human with any functioning equilibrium or general taste wants to see this. When they see it and don't know what is wrong or why the feel bad, that is what is happening.

This isn't to say it is bad for certain live sports or other content--obviously rendered graphics are different thing and you want MOAR frames for all sorts of reasons, but with film we aren't trying to emulate reality. We already got it right there. When you've got cars speeding past you or hockey pucks and dudes chasing them, you want to capture that speed as best as possible and then let your own eyes and their relatively low frame rate interpolate that--don't handicap the input from the source. That all makes sense and is a different thing.

But for film...that is just garbage and no one should tolerate it. Peter Jackson can go fuck himself, tbh.

 

[zinfamous]

It's about my least favorite thing about many 60fps productions.... "film grain" and "motion-blur" may suck in games but in movies they can be a beautiful thing.

Cyberpunk is the first game, ime, where "film grain" is absolutely essential and makes the experience infinitely more beautiful.

Always tick that box, please.

 

[zinfamous]

Charlie Brown was my hero when I was a kid.

Explains a lot, I know.

You and I, we pull for the same sports teams, basically.

 

[zinfamous]

Old people complaining about old things no longer happening in an old fashion for irrelevant old traditions.

Old.

Have you been to these forums before?

 

[zinfamous]

To hijack the thread, anyone seen the Guardians of the Galaxy holiday special? I thought it was kinda...shit. I think it was intentionally so to a degree (like them poking fun at the Star Wars holiday special), but then that just made it end up being just shit as well. The animation and message was still better than the Charlie Brown Xmas but that's not saying much.

I forgot about this. I'll watch. I enjoy the Marvel stuff for what it is, and mostly just the Guardians/Guardians-inspired stuff, ....but like you say, it's all become too obnoxiously self-referential and obnoxious. The latest Thor movie was so bad that I don't even know what to do anymore with any of that.

I guess I like my things compartmentalized: Keep Deadpool doing Deadpool things, Keep the Guardians doing Guardian things, and everyone else, whatever they do. Let's just stop mixing it all up together in a stew and assuming that all the genres work for all of the material at the same time. I know, too much for Disney who is simply too poor to spend the money on content creators that can work out these very simple details (that "the real" Marvel, et al already figured out decades ago). These companies are simply thinking of the short term. It's not surprising. this stuff is opium for young people, and they (most of us, really) will eat it up again and again and again, and never question why we can't remember a significant interesting thing about any one of these...now 25 or 27 incomprehensible films after all of these years.

This stuff isn't built to last and survive. No one will really care 10 years from now like they did with 3 simple, stupid, Star Wars films (as one example) for a few decades before the next thing happened. We already know that saturation is fucking terrible for quality. But they don't care. We don't care.