The amazon listing for the newly released I Dream Of Jeannie [1965-70] Blu-rays
falsely lists the studio as "Sony" when it's actually Mill Creek, so if I ordered
it I would likely return it as "wrong website description". A real Sony Blu-ray
release probably would have more than 12 discs.

Mill Creek has a deservedly bad reputation of bit-starving it's releases of
DVDs and is continuing to do so with many of it's blu-rays, using severe
compression to reduce the number of discs used. There's really no valid
reason disclosed for this practice: disc replication is *dirt cheap* with
Blu-rays, DVDs and CDs, so the common apology for exclusion of material or
overcompression that "there is not enough space" or to "keep disc count low"
doesn't hold water. Disc replication is the tiniest fraction of the cost
of producing box sets, and messing it up is the most obvious de-valuing
of the set in the eyes of the consumer.

I haven't seen it but hearsay reviews of the new box set has it that it's "just
an upsampling", "soft" etc. Mill Creek already made an inferior DVD set of this
set in 12 discs while the original release was by Sony as 20 discs, either 20
discs piled on a spindle or as the original season sets. Is it possible for
the 12 Mill Creek Blu-rays to be inferior in quality than the 20 Sony DVDs?
Compression can accomplish this, so can other extreme video processing,
like using so-called Noise Reduction to reduce the amount of detail in the
image to assist in the extreme compression. I doubt that there is not more
detail somewhat in the Blu-rays but that detail can easily be messed up by
compression artifacts and noise reduction artifacts. Well, we can wait for
someone to make a technical review between the versions but that may never
happen.

Both separate black and white and colorized versions of the first season were
released by Sony, and it's said that the black and white version is merely the
"color" version with the color turned off: it could be, as colorizers are
notoriously dishonest about the work that they do, their favorite trick is to
first colorize a black and white original and then turn off the color and claim
the heavily altered result is the "original" when compared to the colorized
version, to make their own work look better when a valid test would compare
the actual black and white original with the colorized version and expose
the terrible work of the colorization process.

Just wait till General Schaeffer hears about this! and gimme a pip-chik!

<weary flake> wrote:
> The amazon listing for the newly released I Dream Of Jeannie [1965-70] Blu-rays
> falsely lists the studio as "Sony" when it's actually Mill Creek, so if I ordered
> it I would likely return it as "wrong website description". A real Sony Blu-ray
> release probably would have more than 12 discs.
>
> Mill Creek has a deservedly bad reputation of bit-starving it's releases of
> DVDs and is continuing to do so with many of it's blu-rays, using severe
> compression to reduce the number of discs used. There's really no valid
> reason disclosed for this practice: disc replication is *dirt cheap* with
> Blu-rays, DVDs and CDs, so the common apology for exclusion of material or
> overcompression that "there is not enough space" or to "keep disc count low"
> doesn't hold water. Disc replication is the tiniest fraction of the cost
> of producing box sets, and messing it up is the most obvious de-valuing
> of the set in the eyes of the consumer.
>
> I haven't seen it but hearsay reviews of the new box set has it that it's "just
> an upsampling", "soft" etc. Mill Creek already made an inferior DVD set of this
> set in 12 discs while the original release was by Sony as 20 discs, either 20
> discs piled on a spindle or as the original season sets. Is it possible for
> the 12 Mill Creek Blu-rays to be inferior in quality than the 20 Sony DVDs?
> Compression can accomplish this, so can other extreme video processing,
> like using so-called Noise Reduction to reduce the amount of detail in the
> image to assist in the extreme compression. I doubt that there is not more
> detail somewhat in the Blu-rays but that detail can easily be messed up by
> compression artifacts and noise reduction artifacts. Well, we can wait for
> someone to make a technical review between the versions but that may never
> happen.
>
> Both separate black and white and colorized versions of the first season were
> released by Sony, and it's said that the black and white version is merely the
> "color" version with the color turned off: it could be, as colorizers are
> notoriously dishonest about the work that they do, their favorite trick is to
> first colorize a black and white original and then turn off the color and claim
> the heavily altered result is the "original" when compared to the colorized
> version, to make their own work look better when a valid test would compare
> the actual black and white original with the colorized version and expose
> the terrible work of the colorization process.
>

What flake said.

> Just wait till General Schaeffer hears about this! and gimme a pip-chik!
>

--
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

On 12/5/2021 7:57 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>
> What flake said.
>
You need some dandruff shampoo.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 2021-12-06 02:30:27 +0000, weary flake said:
>
> The amazon listing for the newly released I Dream Of Jeannie [1965-70]
> Blu-rays falsely lists the studio as "Sony" when it's actually Mill
> Creek, so if I ordered it I would likely return it as "wrong website
> description". A real Sony Blu-ray release probably would have more
> than 12 discs.
>
> Mill Creek has a deservedly bad reputation of bit-starving it's releases of
> DVDs and is continuing to do so with many of it's blu-rays, using severe
> compression to reduce the number of discs used. There's really no valid
> reason disclosed for this practice: disc replication is *dirt cheap* with
> Blu-rays, DVDs and CDs, so the common apology for exclusion of material or
> overcompression that "there is not enough space" or to "keep disc count low"
> doesn't hold water. Disc replication is the tiniest fraction of the cost
> of producing box sets, and messing it up is the most obvious de-valuing
> of the set in the eyes of the consumer.
>
> I haven't seen it but hearsay reviews of the new box set has it that
> it's "just an upsampling", "soft" etc. Mill Creek already made an
> inferior DVD set of this set in 12 discs while the original release was
> by Sony as 20 discs, either 20 discs piled on a spindle or as the
> original season sets. Is it possible for the 12 Mill Creek Blu-rays to
> be inferior in quality than the 20 Sony DVDs? Compression can
> accomplish this, so can other extreme video processing, like using
> so-called Noise Reduction to reduce the amount of detail in the image
> to assist in the extreme compression. I doubt that there is not more
> detail somewhat in the Blu-rays but that detail can easily be messed up
> by compression artifacts and noise reduction artifacts. Well, we can
> wait for someone to make a technical review between the versions but
> that may never happen.
>
> Both separate black and white and colorized versions of the first season were
> released by Sony, and it's said that the black and white version is merely the
> "color" version with the color turned off: it could be, as colorizers are
> notoriously dishonest about the work that they do, their favorite trick is to
> first colorize a black and white original and then turn off the color
> and claim the heavily altered result is the "original" when compared to
> the colorized version, to make their own work look better when a valid
> test would compare the actual black and white original with the
> colorized version and expose the terrible work of the colorization
> process.
>
> Just wait till General Schaeffer hears about this! and gimme a pip-chik!

You can buy an autographed copy of this same set from "the official
Baraba Eden Store" ... no idea how genuine or not the website is
though, and it does cost five times as much!
<https://barbaraeden.net/movies-tv/222-signed-idoj-bluray.html>

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> On 2021-12-06 02:30:27 +0000, weary flake said:
>>
>> The amazon listing for the newly released I Dream Of Jeannie [1965-70]
>> Blu-rays falsely lists the studio as "Sony" when it's actually Mill
>> Creek, so if I ordered it I would likely return it as "wrong website
>> description". A real Sony Blu-ray release probably would have more
>> than 12 discs.
>>
>> Mill Creek has a deservedly bad reputation of bit-starving it's releases of
>> DVDs and is continuing to do so with many of it's blu-rays, using severe
>> compression to reduce the number of discs used. There's really no valid
>> reason disclosed for this practice: disc replication is *dirt cheap* with
>> Blu-rays, DVDs and CDs, so the common apology for exclusion of material or
>> overcompression that "there is not enough space" or to "keep disc count low"
>> doesn't hold water. Disc replication is the tiniest fraction of the cost
>> of producing box sets, and messing it up is the most obvious de-valuing
>> of the set in the eyes of the consumer.
>>
>> I haven't seen it but hearsay reviews of the new box set has it that
>> it's "just an upsampling", "soft" etc. Mill Creek already made an
>> inferior DVD set of this set in 12 discs while the original release was
>> by Sony as 20 discs, either 20 discs piled on a spindle or as the
>> original season sets. Is it possible for the 12 Mill Creek Blu-rays to
>> be inferior in quality than the 20 Sony DVDs? Compression can
>> accomplish this, so can other extreme video processing, like using
>> so-called Noise Reduction to reduce the amount of detail in the image
>> to assist in the extreme compression. I doubt that there is not more
>> detail somewhat in the Blu-rays but that detail can easily be messed up
>> by compression artifacts and noise reduction artifacts. Well, we can
>> wait for someone to make a technical review between the versions but
>> that may never happen.
>>
>> Both separate black and white and colorized versions of the first season were
>> released by Sony, and it's said that the black and white version is merely the
>> "color" version with the color turned off: it could be, as colorizers are
>> notoriously dishonest about the work that they do, their favorite trick is to
>> first colorize a black and white original and then turn off the color
>> and claim the heavily altered result is the "original" when compared to
>> the colorized version, to make their own work look better when a valid
>> test would compare the actual black and white original with the
>> colorized version and expose the terrible work of the colorization
>> process.
>>
>> Just wait till General Schaeffer hears about this! and gimme a pip-chik!
>
> You can buy an autographed copy of this same set from "the official
> Baraba Eden Store" ... no idea how genuine or not the website is
> though, and it does cost five times as much!
> <https://barbaraeden.net/movies-tv/222-signed-idoj-bluray.html>
>

The website is completely genuine. A friend of mine is a huge Barbara Eden
fan and collects Jeannie merchandise and has met Eden several times and
corresponded with the people that run the place. He’s got the autographed
Blu-ray coming.

--
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

In article
<355478518.660455765.512265.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> <weary flake> wrote:
> > The amazon listing for the newly released I Dream Of Jeannie
> > [1965-70] Blu-rays falsely lists the studio as "Sony" when it's
> > actually Mill Creek, so if I ordered it I would likely return it as
> > "wrong website description". A real Sony Blu-ray release probably
> > would have more than 12 discs.
> >
> > Mill Creek has a deservedly bad reputation of bit-starving it's
> > releases of DVDs and is continuing to do so with many of it's
> > blu-rays, using severe compression to reduce the number of discs
> > used. There's really no valid reason disclosed for this practice:
> > disc replication is *dirt cheap* with Blu-rays, DVDs and CDs, so
> > the common apology for exclusion of material or overcompression
> > that "there is not enough space" or to "keep disc count low"
> > doesn't hold water. Disc replication is the tiniest fraction of
> > the cost of producing box sets, and messing it up is the most
> > obvious de-valuing of the set in the eyes of the consumer.
> >
> > I haven't seen it but hearsay reviews of the new box set has it
> > that it's "just an upsampling", "soft" etc. Mill Creek already
> > made an inferior DVD set of this set in 12 discs while the original
> > release was by Sony as 20 discs, either 20 discs piled on a spindle
> > or as the original season sets. Is it possible for the 12 Mill
> > Creek Blu-rays to be inferior in quality than the 20 Sony DVDs?
> > Compression can accomplish this, so can other extreme video
> > processing, like using so-called Noise Reduction to reduce the
> > amount of detail in the image to assist in the extreme compression.
> > I doubt that there is not more detail somewhat in the Blu-rays but
> > that detail can easily be messed up by compression artifacts and
> > noise reduction artifacts. Well, we can wait for someone to make a
> > technical review between the versions but that may never happen.
> >
> > Both separate black and white and colorized versions of the first
> > season were released by Sony, and it's said that the black and
> > white version is merely the "color" version with the color turned
> > off: it could be, as colorizers are notoriously dishonest about the
> > work that they do, their favorite trick is to first colorize a
> > black and white original and then turn off the color and claim the
> > heavily altered result is the "original" when compared to the
> > colorized version, to make their own work look better when a valid
> > test would compare the actual black and white original with the
> > colorized version and expose the terrible work of the colorization
> > process.
> >
>
> What flake said.

Since I'm so frickin' old, I'm going to point out that ca. 1965 NBC
began advertising itself in print ads as "the full-color network," with
a very tiny disclaimer at the bottom saying I Dream of Jeannie and the
network news were the only exceptions.

I Dream of Jeannie was an exception because the camera tricks they were
using for genie stuff required b&w that first year. The network news
was expected to run at a loss, so they weren't going to pay for color
on top of that. (Things were simpler then. In b&w, they'd run the
negative of a filmed report and reverse it live in the control room.
Occasionally this went awry.)

A Friend wrote:

>Since I'm so frickin' old, I'm going to point out that ca. 1965 NBC
>began advertising itself in print ads as "the full-color network," with
>a very tiny disclaimer at the bottom saying I Dream of Jeannie and the
>network news were the only exceptions.

>I Dream of Jeannie was an exception because the camera tricks they were
>using for genie stuff required b&w that first year. The network news
>was expected to run at a loss, so they weren't going to pay for color
>on top of that. (Things were simpler then. In b&w, they'd run the
>negative of a filmed report and reverse it live in the control room.
>Occasionally this went awry.)

I've read what Sidney Sheldon said about the b&w episodes, that it would
have added $600 per episode to film in color. He offered to pay for it
from his end but he was talked out of it as everyone assumed the show
would flop.

A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> In article
> <355478518.660455765.512265.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> <weary flake> wrote:
>>> The amazon listing for the newly released I Dream Of Jeannie
>>> [1965-70] Blu-rays falsely lists the studio as "Sony" when it's
>>> actually Mill Creek, so if I ordered it I would likely return it as
>>> "wrong website description". A real Sony Blu-ray release probably
>>> would have more than 12 discs.
>>>
>>> Mill Creek has a deservedly bad reputation of bit-starving it's
>>> releases of DVDs and is continuing to do so with many of it's
>>> blu-rays, using severe compression to reduce the number of discs
>>> used. There's really no valid reason disclosed for this practice:
>>> disc replication is *dirt cheap* with Blu-rays, DVDs and CDs, so
>>> the common apology for exclusion of material or overcompression
>>> that "there is not enough space" or to "keep disc count low"
>>> doesn't hold water. Disc replication is the tiniest fraction of
>>> the cost of producing box sets, and messing it up is the most
>>> obvious de-valuing of the set in the eyes of the consumer.
>>>
>>> I haven't seen it but hearsay reviews of the new box set has it
>>> that it's "just an upsampling", "soft" etc. Mill Creek already
>>> made an inferior DVD set of this set in 12 discs while the original
>>> release was by Sony as 20 discs, either 20 discs piled on a spindle
>>> or as the original season sets. Is it possible for the 12 Mill
>>> Creek Blu-rays to be inferior in quality than the 20 Sony DVDs?
>>> Compression can accomplish this, so can other extreme video
>>> processing, like using so-called Noise Reduction to reduce the
>>> amount of detail in the image to assist in the extreme compression.
>>> I doubt that there is not more detail somewhat in the Blu-rays but
>>> that detail can easily be messed up by compression artifacts and
>>> noise reduction artifacts. Well, we can wait for someone to make a
>>> technical review between the versions but that may never happen.
>>>
>>> Both separate black and white and colorized versions of the first
>>> season were released by Sony, and it's said that the black and
>>> white version is merely the "color" version with the color turned
>>> off: it could be, as colorizers are notoriously dishonest about the
>>> work that they do, their favorite trick is to first colorize a
>>> black and white original and then turn off the color and claim the
>>> heavily altered result is the "original" when compared to the
>>> colorized version, to make their own work look better when a valid
>>> test would compare the actual black and white original with the
>>> colorized version and expose the terrible work of the colorization
>>> process.
>>>
>>
>> What flake said.
>
>
> Since I'm so frickin' old, I'm going to point out that ca. 1965 NBC
> began advertising itself in print ads as "the full-color network," with
> a very tiny disclaimer at the bottom saying I Dream of Jeannie and the
> network news were the only exceptions.
>
> I Dream of Jeannie was an exception because the camera tricks they were
> using for genie stuff required b&w that first year.

I’ve read that before and have no idea what possible Genie tricks would be
easier to implement in black-and-white.
I assume it was just that the network was too damn cheap to pop up an extra
500 bucks for color film, same as they did with season one of lost in
space.

--
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> A Friend wrote:
>
>> Since I'm so frickin' old, I'm going to point out that ca. 1965 NBC
>> began advertising itself in print ads as "the full-color network," with
>> a very tiny disclaimer at the bottom saying I Dream of Jeannie and the
>> network news were the only exceptions.
>
>> I Dream of Jeannie was an exception because the camera tricks they were
>> using for genie stuff required b&w that first year. The network news
>> was expected to run at a loss, so they weren't going to pay for color
>> on top of that. (Things were simpler then. In b&w, they'd run the
>> negative of a filmed report and reverse it live in the control room.
>> Occasionally this went awry.)
>
> I've read what Sidney Sheldon said about the b&w episodes, that it would
> have added $600 per episode to film in color. He offered to pay for it
> from his end but he was talked out of it as everyone assumed the show
> would flop.
>

Yeah that’s the version I’ve read. It is however disturbingly similar to
the story of the first season of Irwin Allen and lost in space.

--
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 02:19:10 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>The website is completely genuine. A friend of mine is a huge Barbara Eden
>fan and collects Jeannie merchandise and has met Eden several times and
>corresponded with the people that run the place. He’s got the autographed
>Blu-ray coming.

Good on her for going strong at age 80!

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>A Friend wrote:

>>>Since I'm so frickin' old, I'm going to point out that ca. 1965 NBC
>>>began advertising itself in print ads as "the full-color network," with
>>>a very tiny disclaimer at the bottom saying I Dream of Jeannie and the
>>>network news were the only exceptions.

>>>I Dream of Jeannie was an exception because the camera tricks they were
>>>using for genie stuff required b&w that first year. The network news
>>>was expected to run at a loss, so they weren't going to pay for color
>>>on top of that. (Things were simpler then. In b&w, they'd run the
>>>negative of a filmed report and reverse it live in the control room.
>>>Occasionally this went awry.)

>>I've read what Sidney Sheldon said about the b&w episodes, that it would
>>have added $600 per episode to film in color. He offered to pay for it
>>from his end but he was talked out of it as everyone assumed the show
>>would flop.

>Yeah that's the version I've read. It is however disturbingly similar to
>the story of the first season of Irwin Allen and lost in space.

Let's be grateful for b&w episodes. They didn't deteriorate within a few
years and still looked just fine in second-run syndication. There was
something seriously flawed with color film used for television
production during that era. It's not like the used Technicolor.

Bewitched had two b&w seasons. The production changed once the show
switched to color. They had a couple of changes in show runners in
seasons 3 and 4, and then her husband took over and I'm not sure that
was good for their marriage or the tv series.

On 12/6/21 8:29 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> A Friend wrote:
>>
>>> Since I'm so frickin' old, I'm going to point out that ca. 1965 NBC
>>> began advertising itself in print ads as "the full-color network," with
>>> a very tiny disclaimer at the bottom saying I Dream of Jeannie and the
>>> network news were the only exceptions.
>>
>>> I Dream of Jeannie was an exception because the camera tricks they were
>>> using for genie stuff required b&w that first year. The network news
>>> was expected to run at a loss, so they weren't going to pay for color
>>> on top of that. (Things were simpler then. In b&w, they'd run the
>>> negative of a filmed report and reverse it live in the control room.
>>> Occasionally this went awry.)
>>
>> I've read what Sidney Sheldon said about the b&w episodes, that it would
>> have added $600 per episode to film in color. He offered to pay for it
>> from his end but he was talked out of it as everyone assumed the show
>> would flop.
>>
>
> Yeah that’s the version I’ve read. It is however disturbingly similar to
> the story of the first season of Irwin Allen and lost in space.
>

I've read the rumor that at the time color film cost 10 times more than
black and white film. That might have been said by Hershel Gordon Lewis who
was saying he was economical with his color film stock. 'Course, that is about
35mm film and not 16mm color vs black and white.

In article <JeKdneC188e_hCj8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>, weary flake
wrote:

> On 12/6/21 8:29 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> > Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >> A Friend wrote:
> >>
> >>> Since I'm so frickin' old, I'm going to point out that ca. 1965 NBC
> >>> began advertising itself in print ads as "the full-color network," with
> >>> a very tiny disclaimer at the bottom saying I Dream of Jeannie and the
> >>> network news were the only exceptions.
> >>
> >>> I Dream of Jeannie was an exception because the camera tricks they were
> >>> using for genie stuff required b&w that first year. The network news
> >>> was expected to run at a loss, so they weren't going to pay for color
> >>> on top of that. (Things were simpler then. In b&w, they'd run the
> >>> negative of a filmed report and reverse it live in the control room.
> >>> Occasionally this went awry.)
> >>
> >> I've read what Sidney Sheldon said about the b&w episodes, that it would
> >> have added $600 per episode to film in color. He offered to pay for it
> >> from his end but he was talked out of it as everyone assumed the show
> >> would flop.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah that¹s the version I¹ve read. It is however disturbingly similar to
> > the story of the first season of Irwin Allen and lost in space.
> >
>
> I've read the rumor that at the time color film cost 10 times more than
> black and white film. That might have been said by Hershel Gordon Lewis who
> was saying he was economical with his color film stock. 'Course, that is about
> 35mm film and not 16mm color vs black and white.

Decades ago, I read that CBS had lost $19 million as of then because it
couldn't syndicate shows that were in b&w. There was no interest in
more than a bare handful of them. William Paley had passed on paying
for color because RCA's system had become the standard, and he was
pissed about that. There were all sorts of things wrong with Paley's
color system. They did wind up using a version of it to telecast
moonwalks live and in color from the lunar surface during the Apollo
program.

On 12/11/21 2:06 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <JeKdneC188e_hCj8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>, weary flake
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/6/21 8:29 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> A Friend wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since I'm so frickin' old, I'm going to point out that ca. 1965 NBC
>>>>> began advertising itself in print ads as "the full-color network," with
>>>>> a very tiny disclaimer at the bottom saying I Dream of Jeannie and the
>>>>> network news were the only exceptions.
>>>>
>>>>> I Dream of Jeannie was an exception because the camera tricks they were
>>>>> using for genie stuff required b&w that first year. The network news
>>>>> was expected to run at a loss, so they weren't going to pay for color
>>>>> on top of that. (Things were simpler then. In b&w, they'd run the
>>>>> negative of a filmed report and reverse it live in the control room.
>>>>> Occasionally this went awry.)
>>>>
>>>> I've read what Sidney Sheldon said about the b&w episodes, that it would
>>>> have added $600 per episode to film in color. He offered to pay for it
>>>> from his end but he was talked out of it as everyone assumed the show
>>>> would flop.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah that¹s the version I¹ve read. It is however disturbingly similar to
>>> the story of the first season of Irwin Allen and lost in space.
>>>
>>
>> I've read the rumor that at the time color film cost 10 times more than
>> black and white film. That might have been said by Hershel Gordon Lewis who
>> was saying he was economical with his color film stock. 'Course, that is about
>> 35mm film and not 16mm color vs black and white.
>
>
>
> Decades ago, I read that CBS had lost $19 million as of then because it
> couldn't syndicate shows that were in b&w. There was no interest in
> more than a bare handful of them. William Paley had passed on paying

The syndication rules seemed too strict: they would only syndicate if
the shows lasted at least five years? What they'd do with I Dream Of Jeannie
in the original syndication, count it as five years but only syndicate the
four color seasons? Only syndicate the color seasons of Bewitched and
Petticoat Junction?

> for color because RCA's system had become the standard, and he was
> pissed about that. There were all sorts of things wrong with Paley's
> color system. They did wind up using a version of it to telecast
> moonwalks live and in color from the lunar surface during the Apollo
> program.
>

The moon landing was on color film? They threw away the original film
and kept only the black and white video dubs!

<weary flake> wrote:
> On 12/11/21 2:06 PM, A Friend wrote:
>> In article <JeKdneC188e_hCj8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>, weary flake
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/6/21 8:29 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>> A Friend wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since I'm so frickin' old, I'm going to point out that ca. 1965 NBC
>>>>>> began advertising itself in print ads as "the full-color network," with
>>>>>> a very tiny disclaimer at the bottom saying I Dream of Jeannie and the
>>>>>> network news were the only exceptions.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I Dream of Jeannie was an exception because the camera tricks they were
>>>>>> using for genie stuff required b&w that first year. The network news
>>>>>> was expected to run at a loss, so they weren't going to pay for color
>>>>>> on top of that. (Things were simpler then. In b&w, they'd run the
>>>>>> negative of a filmed report and reverse it live in the control room.
>>>>>> Occasionally this went awry.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I've read what Sidney Sheldon said about the b&w episodes, that it would
>>>>> have added $600 per episode to film in color. He offered to pay for it
>>>>> from his end but he was talked out of it as everyone assumed the show
>>>>> would flop.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah that¹s the version I¹ve read. It is however disturbingly similar to
>>>> the story of the first season of Irwin Allen and lost in space.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've read the rumor that at the time color film cost 10 times more than
>>> black and white film. That might have been said by Hershel Gordon Lewis who
>>> was saying he was economical with his color film stock. 'Course, that is about
>>> 35mm film and not 16mm color vs black and white.
>>
>>
>>
>> Decades ago, I read that CBS had lost $19 million as of then because it
>> couldn't syndicate shows that were in b&w. There was no interest in
>> more than a bare handful of them. William Paley had passed on paying
>
> The syndication rules seemed too strict: they would only syndicate if
> the shows lasted at least five years? What they'd do with I Dream Of Jeannie
> in the original syndication, count it as five years but only syndicate the
> four color seasons? Only syndicate the color seasons of Bewitched and
> Petticoat Junction?

Yes. That was true of many shows for many years including the ones you just
mentioned.

>
>> for color because RCA's system had become the standard, and he was
>> pissed about that. There were all sorts of things wrong with Paley's
>> color system. They did wind up using a version of it to telecast
>> moonwalks live and in color from the lunar surface during the Apollo
>> program.
>>
>
> The moon landing was on color film? They threw away the original film
> and kept only the black and white video dubs!
>

--
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 17:06:46 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>Decades ago, I read that CBS had lost $19 million as of then because it
>couldn't syndicate shows that were in b&w. There was no interest in
>more than a bare handful of them. William Paley had passed on paying
>for color because RCA's system had become the standard, and he was
>pissed about that. There were all sorts of things wrong with Paley's
>color system. They did wind up using a version of it to telecast
>moonwalks live and in color from the lunar surface during the Apollo
>program.

I don't know about that but (1) RCA was the parent company of NBC at
the time and (2) I definitely remember the coverage of Apollo 11 being
in color though have no idea which network I watched it on. (I was 15
at the time and while I was interested in shortwave radio had little
interest in 90% of TV)

In article <JKGdnQTkIq129Sj8nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com>, weary flake
wrote:

> On 12/11/21 2:06 PM, A Friend wrote:
> > In article <JeKdneC188e_hCj8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>, weary flake
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/6/21 8:29 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> >>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>>> A Friend wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Since I'm so frickin' old, I'm going to point out that ca. 1965 NBC
> >>>>> began advertising itself in print ads as "the full-color network," with
> >>>>> a very tiny disclaimer at the bottom saying I Dream of Jeannie and the
> >>>>> network news were the only exceptions.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I Dream of Jeannie was an exception because the camera tricks they were
> >>>>> using for genie stuff required b&w that first year. The network news
> >>>>> was expected to run at a loss, so they weren't going to pay for color
> >>>>> on top of that. (Things were simpler then. In b&w, they'd run the
> >>>>> negative of a filmed report and reverse it live in the control room.
> >>>>> Occasionally this went awry.)
> >>>>
> >>>> I've read what Sidney Sheldon said about the b&w episodes, that it would
> >>>> have added $600 per episode to film in color. He offered to pay for it
> >>>> from his end but he was talked out of it as everyone assumed the show
> >>>> would flop.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Yeah that1s the version I1ve read. It is however disturbingly similar to
> >>> the story of the first season of Irwin Allen and lost in space.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I've read the rumor that at the time color film cost 10 times more than
> >> black and white film. That might have been said by Hershel Gordon Lewis
> >> who
> >> was saying he was economical with his color film stock. 'Course, that is
> >> about
> >> 35mm film and not 16mm color vs black and white.
> >
> >
> >
> > Decades ago, I read that CBS had lost $19 million as of then because it
> > couldn't syndicate shows that were in b&w. There was no interest in
> > more than a bare handful of them. William Paley had passed on paying
>
> The syndication rules seemed too strict: they would only syndicate if
> the shows lasted at least five years? What they'd do with I Dream Of Jeannie
> in the original syndication, count it as five years but only syndicate the
> four color seasons? Only syndicate the color seasons of Bewitched and
> Petticoat Junction?
>
> > for color because RCA's system had become the standard, and he was
> > pissed about that. There were all sorts of things wrong with Paley's
> > color system. They did wind up using a version of it to telecast
> > moonwalks live and in color from the lunar surface during the Apollo
> > program.
> >
>
> The moon landing was on color film? They threw away the original film
> and kept only the black and white video dubs!

I said "during the Apollo program." The later ones were televised live
and in color.

Of course there were color films made on the surface, including during
11.

On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 07:08:50 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>I said "during the Apollo program." The later ones were televised live
>and in color.
>
>Of course there were color films made on the surface, including during
>11.

Yes you did.

I was of course speaking of remembering Apollo 11 and even remember
the restaurant my family was at when Armstrong stepped down (which is
still there 50+ years later - they turned up the volume on the TV and
I recall that food service stopped for a moment and most of the
patrons were up from their seats crowded around the lunch bar where
the TV was).

My main memory of Apollo before that was 8 9 and 10 (and of course 1
though I don't believe there was any TV coverage of Apollo 1 like
there was with Challenger - in Jan 1986 the disaster happened when I
was on coffee break with co-workers and we saw it all in live action
excruciating detail with multiple islow motion instant replays - and I
would not have watched coverage of Apollo 1 in any case.)

Apollo 11 was just before my 14th birthday and I was one of those
teenagers who dreamed 2001:Space Odyssey would be a documentary of
something that actually happened more or less on schedule rather than
just a pretty good movie and was devastated when Nixon canned 18-20)

As far as I was concerned Apollo-Soyuz was just a publicity stunt and
not the least exciting.

In article <hnbcrgtlhitq5q3bp7adn5i128b7p9uqbd@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
<lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 07:08:50 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
> >I said "during the Apollo program." The later ones were televised live
> >and in color.
> >
> >Of course there were color films made on the surface, including during
> >11.
>
> Yes you did.
>
> I was of course speaking of remembering Apollo 11 and even remember
> the restaurant my family was at when Armstrong stepped down (which is
> still there 50+ years later - they turned up the volume on the TV and
> I recall that food service stopped for a moment and most of the
> patrons were up from their seats crowded around the lunch bar where
> the TV was).
>
> My main memory of Apollo before that was 8 9 and 10 (and of course 1
> though I don't believe there was any TV coverage of Apollo 1 like
> there was with Challenger - in Jan 1986 the disaster happened when I
> was on coffee break with co-workers and we saw it all in live action
> excruciating detail with multiple islow motion instant replays - and I
> would not have watched coverage of Apollo 1 in any case.)

There wasn't any coverage. The fire happened during a practice. I was
watching ABC (probably Batman) when the show was interrupted and
replaced by an index card. Somebody had typed the news bulletin onto
the card. No audio. I think there was a new card, reporting the
deaths of the astronauts, a few minutes later. ABC News had no
flash-studio capability.

The news came as a shock. To that point, we had never had astronaut
deaths in training or flight. IIRC two had died earlier while flying
their fighter jets to Houston, but for them it was like crashing your
car on your way to work.

> Apollo 11 was just before my 14th birthday and I was one of those
> teenagers who dreamed 2001:Space Odyssey would be a documentary of
> something that actually happened more or less on schedule rather than
> just a pretty good movie and was devastated when Nixon canned 18-20)

Nixon and his people hated the Apollo program because they saw it as a
Kennedy thing. The Apollo 11 plaque on the lower stage of the lunar
lander has Nixon's signature, of course, since he was president at the
time, but makes no mention of Kennedy. William Safire once said they
were excited to get 1969 A.D. on the plaque because A.D. was a mention
of religion. Never mind that A.D. is supposed to precede the year and
not follow it. The Nixon people could be as dumb as stumps.

> As far as I was concerned Apollo-Soyuz was just a publicity stunt and
> not the least exciting.

It really meant nothing, but NASA was happy to get a manned flight out
of it, and Deke Slayton (one of the original Mercury Seven, and who'd
been sidelined by a health problem) finally got to go.

Nowadays William Shatner gets to go.

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 3:12:35 PM UTC-5, A Friend wrote:
> In article <hnbcrgtlhitq5q3bp...@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
> <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 07:08:50 -0500, A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I said "during the Apollo program." The later ones were televised live
> > >and in color.
> > >
> > >Of course there were color films made on the surface, including during
> > >11.
> >
> > Yes you did.
> >
> > I was of course speaking of remembering Apollo 11 and even remember
> > the restaurant my family was at when Armstrong stepped down (which is
> > still there 50+ years later - they turned up the volume on the TV and
> > I recall that food service stopped for a moment and most of the
> > patrons were up from their seats crowded around the lunch bar where
> > the TV was).
> >
> > My main memory of Apollo before that was 8 9 and 10 (and of course 1
> > though I don't believe there was any TV coverage of Apollo 1 like
> > there was with Challenger - in Jan 1986 the disaster happened when I
> > was on coffee break with co-workers and we saw it all in live action
> > excruciating detail with multiple islow motion instant replays - and I
> > would not have watched coverage of Apollo 1 in any case.)
> There wasn't any coverage. The fire happened during a practice. I was
> watching ABC (probably Batman) when the show was interrupted and
> replaced by an index card. Somebody had typed the news bulletin onto
> the card. No audio. I think there was a new card, reporting the
> deaths of the astronauts, a few minutes later. ABC News had no
> flash-studio capability.
>
> The news came as a shock. To that point, we had never had astronaut
> deaths in training or flight. IIRC two had died earlier while flying
> their fighter jets to Houston, but for them it was like crashing your
> car on your way to work.
> > Apollo 11 was just before my 14th birthday and I was one of those
> > teenagers who dreamed 2001:Space Odyssey would be a documentary of
> > something that actually happened more or less on schedule rather than
> > just a pretty good movie and was devastated when Nixon canned 18-20)
> Nixon and his people hated the Apollo program because they saw it as a
> Kennedy thing. The Apollo 11 plaque on the lower stage of the lunar
> lander has Nixon's signature, of course, since he was president at the
> time, but makes no mention of Kennedy. William Safire once said they
> were excited to get 1969 A.D. on the plaque because A.D. was a mention
> of religion. Never mind that A.D. is supposed to precede the year and
> not follow it. The Nixon people could be as dumb as stumps.
> > As far as I was concerned Apollo-Soyuz was just a publicity stunt and
> > not the least exciting.
> It really meant nothing, but NASA was happy to get a manned flight out
> of it, and Deke Slayton (one of the original Mercury Seven, and who'd
> been sidelined by a health problem) finally got to go.

> Nowadays William Shatner gets to go.

I hope the Shat went before he went. Those pressure changes in space can be hell on the other crew members.

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.tv/c/q34NwtAe3v8/m/W5sB8RtOAQAJ

On 12/12/21 4:08 AM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <JKGdnQTkIq129Sj8nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com>, weary flake
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/11/21 2:06 PM, A Friend wrote:
>>> In article <JeKdneC188e_hCj8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>, weary flake
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/6/21 8:29 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> A Friend wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since I'm so frickin' old, I'm going to point out that ca. 1965 NBC
>>>>>>> began advertising itself in print ads as "the full-color network," with
>>>>>>> a very tiny disclaimer at the bottom saying I Dream of Jeannie and the
>>>>>>> network news were the only exceptions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I Dream of Jeannie was an exception because the camera tricks they were
>>>>>>> using for genie stuff required b&w that first year. The network news
>>>>>>> was expected to run at a loss, so they weren't going to pay for color
>>>>>>> on top of that. (Things were simpler then. In b&w, they'd run the
>>>>>>> negative of a filmed report and reverse it live in the control room.
>>>>>>> Occasionally this went awry.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've read what Sidney Sheldon said about the b&w episodes, that it would
>>>>>> have added $600 per episode to film in color. He offered to pay for it
>>>>>> from his end but he was talked out of it as everyone assumed the show
>>>>>> would flop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah that1s the version I1ve read. It is however disturbingly similar to
>>>>> the story of the first season of Irwin Allen and lost in space.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've read the rumor that at the time color film cost 10 times more than
>>>> black and white film. That might have been said by Hershel Gordon Lewis
>>>> who
>>>> was saying he was economical with his color film stock. 'Course, that is
>>>> about
>>>> 35mm film and not 16mm color vs black and white.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Decades ago, I read that CBS had lost $19 million as of then because it
>>> couldn't syndicate shows that were in b&w. There was no interest in
>>> more than a bare handful of them. William Paley had passed on paying
>>
>> The syndication rules seemed too strict: they would only syndicate if
>> the shows lasted at least five years? What they'd do with I Dream Of Jeannie
>> in the original syndication, count it as five years but only syndicate the
>> four color seasons? Only syndicate the color seasons of Bewitched and
>> Petticoat Junction?
>>
>>> for color because RCA's system had become the standard, and he was
>>> pissed about that. There were all sorts of things wrong with Paley's
>>> color system. They did wind up using a version of it to telecast
>>> moonwalks live and in color from the lunar surface during the Apollo
>>> program.
>>>
>>
>> The moon landing was on color film? They threw away the original film
>> and kept only the black and white video dubs!
>
>
> I said "during the Apollo program." The later ones were televised live
> and in color.
>
> Of course there were color films made on the surface, including during
> 11.

I was confused with story of the film of the news coverage of the moon
landing. That was on film but they threw away the film and just kept the
weak copies. So what was shown on broadcast television in 1969 was higher
quality video than what remains in the archives.

<weary flake> wrote:
> On 12/12/21 4:08 AM, A Friend wrote:
>> In article <JKGdnQTkIq129Sj8nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com>, weary flake
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/11/21 2:06 PM, A Friend wrote:
>>>> In article <JeKdneC188e_hCj8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>, weary flake
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/6/21 8:29 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> A Friend wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since I'm so frickin' old, I'm going to point out that ca. 1965 NBC
>>>>>>>> began advertising itself in print ads as "the full-color network," with
>>>>>>>> a very tiny disclaimer at the bottom saying I Dream of Jeannie and the
>>>>>>>> network news were the only exceptions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I Dream of Jeannie was an exception because the camera tricks they were
>>>>>>>> using for genie stuff required b&w that first year. The network news
>>>>>>>> was expected to run at a loss, so they weren't going to pay for color
>>>>>>>> on top of that. (Things were simpler then. In b&w, they'd run the
>>>>>>>> negative of a filmed report and reverse it live in the control room.
>>>>>>>> Occasionally this went awry.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've read what Sidney Sheldon said about the b&w episodes, that it would
>>>>>>> have added $600 per episode to film in color. He offered to pay for it
>>>>>>> from his end but he was talked out of it as everyone assumed the show
>>>>>>> would flop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah that1s the version I1ve read. It is however disturbingly similar to
>>>>>> the story of the first season of Irwin Allen and lost in space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've read the rumor that at the time color film cost 10 times more than
>>>>> black and white film. That might have been said by Hershel Gordon Lewis
>>>>> who
>>>>> was saying he was economical with his color film stock. 'Course, that is
>>>>> about
>>>>> 35mm film and not 16mm color vs black and white.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Decades ago, I read that CBS had lost $19 million as of then because it
>>>> couldn't syndicate shows that were in b&w. There was no interest in
>>>> more than a bare handful of them. William Paley had passed on paying
>>>
>>> The syndication rules seemed too strict: they would only syndicate if
>>> the shows lasted at least five years? What they'd do with I Dream Of Jeannie
>>> in the original syndication, count it as five years but only syndicate the
>>> four color seasons? Only syndicate the color seasons of Bewitched and
>>> Petticoat Junction?
>>>
>>>> for color because RCA's system had become the standard, and he was
>>>> pissed about that. There were all sorts of things wrong with Paley's
>>>> color system. They did wind up using a version of it to telecast
>>>> moonwalks live and in color from the lunar surface during the Apollo
>>>> program.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The moon landing was on color film? They threw away the original film
>>> and kept only the black and white video dubs!
>>
>>
>> I said "during the Apollo program." The later ones were televised live
>> and in color.
>>
>> Of course there were color films made on the surface, including during
>> 11.
>
> I was confused with story of the film of the news coverage of the moon
> landing. That was on film but they threw away the film and just kept the
> weak copies. So what was shown on broadcast television in 1969 was higher
> quality video than what remains in the archives.
>

I don’t think so. What was shown on TV in 1969 were transmissions from the
moon which looked like hell. And were probably the source of the “weak
copies” we still have.

--
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

In article
<2106790141.661990973.797909.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> <weary flake> wrote:
> > On 12/12/21 4:08 AM, A Friend wrote:
> >> In article <JKGdnQTkIq129Sj8nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com>, weary flake
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 12/11/21 2:06 PM, A Friend wrote:
> >>>> In article <JeKdneC188e_hCj8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>, weary flake
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 12/6/21 8:29 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> >>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> A Friend wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Since I'm so frickin' old, I'm going to point out that ca. 1965 NBC
> >>>>>>>> began advertising itself in print ads as "the full-color network,"
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> a very tiny disclaimer at the bottom saying I Dream of Jeannie and
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> network news were the only exceptions.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I Dream of Jeannie was an exception because the camera tricks they
> >>>>>>>> were
> >>>>>>>> using for genie stuff required b&w that first year. The network news
> >>>>>>>> was expected to run at a loss, so they weren't going to pay for color
> >>>>>>>> on top of that. (Things were simpler then. In b&w, they'd run the
> >>>>>>>> negative of a filmed report and reverse it live in the control room.
> >>>>>>>> Occasionally this went awry.)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've read what Sidney Sheldon said about the b&w episodes, that it
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>> have added $600 per episode to film in color. He offered to pay for it
> >>>>>>> from his end but he was talked out of it as everyone assumed the show
> >>>>>>> would flop.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yeah that1s the version I1ve read. It is however disturbingly similar
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> the story of the first season of Irwin Allen and lost in space.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've read the rumor that at the time color film cost 10 times more than
> >>>>> black and white film. That might have been said by Hershel Gordon Lewis
> >>>>> who
> >>>>> was saying he was economical with his color film stock. 'Course, that
> >>>>> is
> >>>>> about
> >>>>> 35mm film and not 16mm color vs black and white.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Decades ago, I read that CBS had lost $19 million as of then because it
> >>>> couldn't syndicate shows that were in b&w. There was no interest in
> >>>> more than a bare handful of them. William Paley had passed on paying
> >>>
> >>> The syndication rules seemed too strict: they would only syndicate if
> >>> the shows lasted at least five years? What they'd do with I Dream Of
> >>> Jeannie
> >>> in the original syndication, count it as five years but only syndicate the
> >>> four color seasons? Only syndicate the color seasons of Bewitched and
> >>> Petticoat Junction?
> >>>
> >>>> for color because RCA's system had become the standard, and he was
> >>>> pissed about that. There were all sorts of things wrong with Paley's
> >>>> color system. They did wind up using a version of it to telecast
> >>>> moonwalks live and in color from the lunar surface during the Apollo
> >>>> program.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The moon landing was on color film? They threw away the original film
> >>> and kept only the black and white video dubs!
> >>
> >>
> >> I said "during the Apollo program." The later ones were televised live
> >> and in color.
> >>
> >> Of course there were color films made on the surface, including during
> >> 11.
> >
> > I was confused with story of the film of the news coverage of the moon
> > landing. That was on film but they threw away the film and just kept the
> > weak copies. So what was shown on broadcast television in 1969 was higher
> > quality video than what remains in the archives.
> >
>
> I don¹t think so. What was shown on TV in 1969 were transmissions from the
> moon which looked like hell. And were probably the source of the ³weak
> copies² we still have.

The quality was miserable, but it's like when the bear danced. You're
just happy the bear could dance at all.

>>>>>
>>>>> The moon landing was on color film? They threw away the original film
>>>>> and kept only the black and white video dubs!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I said "during the Apollo program." The later ones were televised live
>>>> and in color.
>>>>
>>>> Of course there were color films made on the surface, including during
>>>> 11.
>>>
>>> I was confused with story of the film of the news coverage of the moon
>>> landing. That was on film but they threw away the film and just kept the
>>> weak copies. So what was shown on broadcast television in 1969 was higher
>>> quality video than what remains in the archives.
>>>
>>
>> I don¹t think so. What was shown on TV in 1969 were transmissions from the
>> moon which looked like hell. And were probably the source of the ³weak
>> copies² we still have.
>

I was referring to the film of the news coverage of the moon landing,
not the moon landing itself, or something like that.

On 12/5/21 6:30 PM, weary flake wrote:
> The amazon listing for the newly released I Dream Of Jeannie [1965-70] Blu-rays
> falsely lists the studio as "Sony" when it's actually Mill Creek, so if I ordered
> it I would likely return it as "wrong website description". A real Sony Blu-ray
> release probably would have more than 12 discs.
>
> Mill Creek has a deservedly bad reputation of bit-starving it's releases of
> DVDs and is continuing to do so with many of it's blu-rays, using severe
> compression to reduce the number of discs used. There's really no valid
> reason disclosed for this practice: disc replication is *dirt cheap* with
> Blu-rays, DVDs and CDs, so the common apology for exclusion of material or
> overcompression that "there is not enough space" or to "keep disc count low"
> doesn't hold water. Disc replication is the tiniest fraction of the cost
> of producing box sets, and messing it up is the most obvious de-valuing
> of the set in the eyes of the consumer.
>
> I haven't seen it but hearsay reviews of the new box set has it that it's "just
> an upsampling", "soft" etc. Mill Creek already made an inferior DVD set of this
> set in 12 discs while the original release was by Sony as 20 discs, either 20
> discs piled on a spindle or as the original season sets. Is it possible for
> the 12 Mill Creek Blu-rays to be inferior in quality than the 20 Sony DVDs?
> Compression can accomplish this, so can other extreme video processing,
> like using so-called Noise Reduction to reduce the amount of detail in the
> image to assist in the extreme compression. I doubt that there is not more
> detail somewhat in the Blu-rays but that detail can easily be messed up by
> compression artifacts and noise reduction artifacts. Well, we can wait for
> someone to make a technical review between the versions but that may never
> happen.
>
> Both separate black and white and colorized versions of the first season were
> released by Sony, and it's said that the black and white version is merely the
> "color" version with the color turned off: it could be, as colorizers are
> notoriously dishonest about the work that they do, their favorite trick is to
> first colorize a black and white original and then turn off the color and claim
> the heavily altered result is the "original" when compared to the colorized
> version, to make their own work look better when a valid test would compare
> the actual black and white original with the colorized version and expose
> the terrible work of the colorization process.
>
> Just wait till General Schaeffer hears about this! and gimme a pip-chik!

Here's some screen screenshots comparing the Mill Creek Blu-rays to the DVDs, each
set of pictures is first a screenshot of the DVD (presumably Sony's DVD), then
the Mill Creek Blu-rays, the blu-rays are clearly inferior to the DVDs,
scroll down a bit:

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/threads/i-dream-of-jeannie-the-complete-series-blu-ray-available-for-preorder.371911/page-16

The Mill Creek box is in "Blur-Ray".