Why are some of the Rocko episodes in shit quality on Paramount+? This might seem like complaining for the sake of it, but I really don't like when shows aren't in high quality. And no, this isn't because it's old because shows like Bonkers, Magic School Bus and Batman: The Animated Series premiered around this time whether the same year or the year before or after and are in better condition on streaming services.
>>155135529Hell, The Flintstones premiered in fucking 1960 and the episodes for that show are in higher quality than some episodes of Doug, Rocko and even Rugrats.
>>155135529For proof, here's Bonkers. Somehow it's in higher quality than Rocko is. Despite Bonkers being a mess and Rocko being great.
>>155135529Nickelodeon has never given a single shit about Rocko.
>>155135529Some cartoons were printed onto film stock and others were printed onto video. Video is cheaper and easier to work with but you can never get more detail out of it than 480/576 lines of resolution. This was considered good enough at the time since it most people were expecting shows like Rocko to only ever be watched over television or on VHS where extra detail has no benefit.Film on the other hand is much high quality. Although it doesn't have any set "resolution", standard 35mm film that is properly transferred and stored can be higher quality than 4K.
>>155135587Idk, they reran it for quite a while consistently until 2000 and even after that they aired it for a few months in 2001, then reran it a few times in 2002, had it win the U-Pick several times in 2003, aired it a few times in 2004. Sure, it mostly stopped rerunning after April 2000, but they aired the Christmas special yearly until 2006 and the Halloween episode aired most years til 2005, plus it aired here and there until maybe around 2004. I'd say Nick liked it at one point.
>>155135529Remastering 35MM film stock costs a arm and a leg, also Batman:TAS was remastered from the 35MM negatives so of course that will come out much better.
I don't care about the visual quality of a simple lineart show like this, but I can see why some people would. The only time I care is if there's some tiny visual detail...like I was watching a remastered Simpsons the other day and when Marge announces she wrote a poem about a duck, you can actually see the poem written on the back of the duck-shaped piece of paper.
>>155135646>>155135609That makes sense. Now I feel like an asshole for criticizing the video quality. I don't know jack shit about how shows are filmed.
>>155135529One last thing, but I took a look at CatDog and noticed it seems in very good quality and it doesn't have the VHS grainy fuzziness as much. Is that because CatDog came out late into the 90s?
>>155135546That doesn't exactly look "higher quality" than the Rocko screenshot.
>>155135529Kill yourself, phone posting nigger
>>155135798Yeah, that was a fuck up I did just there. I thought it looked a bit better than the Rocko one, but I think I am blind when it comes to telling the picture quality.
>>155135809who pissed in your corn flakes this morning, anon
>>155135633rerunning shit to fill programming blocks for free isnt the same as caring.
>>155135881What ways do you think Nick never gave a shit about Rocko?
>>155135529People being stupid with how technology and archiving work, you don't say.
