HDTV: Picture quality based on imaging science

[HDTV Forum]

This is a lengthy thread as it documents changes as well as the proper delivery of HDTV and being faithful to the source. There are also a number points made from TIPS List discussions, another service of HDTV Magazine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Watched ER last night for the third time and it is not an HD high resolution source. It looks very good but lacks the detail. I don't run broadcast studios or stations so I can't tell you why this is or what may be going on but I have not been fooled. SuperBit DVD looks just as good. There were numerous head shots that lacked detail. One guy had an American flag on his lapel which was all blurry and other fine details that were blurred out. I am not complaining - yet. I am bringing this to everybodies attention so we will learn how to indentify such programming in this new world of DTV and complain if necessary. DTV is a powerful medium which creates a level playing field for all sources. It requires a new evaluation process because it can be and most often is artifact free. The question is should any broadcaster be able to claim this as HD content when it is a lesser resolution scaled to fill out the screen and transmitted as a 1080I format? Is 4:3 content HD? Except for filling out the screen it is the same thing! Should there be truth in content marketing? Do we need legislation to remedy this and define exactly what can be claimed as HD content? Who all out there could even tell it wasn't HD?

At the end of the show I asked my wife if ER was HD. She said, "It doesn't feel like it but it is". This means the resolution isn't there but it sure looks good and fills out the screen. This is the power of DTV - all beware. In many ways it would seem a discriminating viewer is now in the same boat as a discriminating listener. Video will now be very comparable to high-end audio in that measurements alone will give us a starting point only leaving the experience itself as our final guide.

Indeed Dale's constant forewarning seems to be already taking form. If ER is acceptable then why not cut the bandwidth and go to 480P 16:9. That's what ER is looking like at the moment. I suspect "West Wing" is being done the same way but haven't seen it since it has been full screen on a 1080I format.


Richard F. Fisher
October 11 2002

[HDTV Forum]

I don't watch "ER", even in HD. (Just never got interested in the show, even with it being shown in 1080i now.) But I can assure you that "West Wing" is definitely NOT being shown in HD, never has been. (Though it is shown letterboxed on 4:3 format screens, the choice of the same idiots at NBC who have kept it standard def.)

I would like to ask you though, are you receiving your NBC broadcast of "ER" over the airwaves from a local affiliate or do you get it via cable?

The answer may provide some clues regarding the lack of definition you mentioned. (I will certainly check out next week's "ER" broadcast in my locale as well.)

Jeremy

[HDTV Forum]

I have watched ER for the last couple of weeks and can say without reservation that it is different from how The West Wing is presented in my area. The West Wing picture floats with about 1-2" of black all around. Exactly what you would expect from a 4:3 image with the old zoom and crop. ER on the other hand fills my screen perfectly and is much sharper. ER as well as all NBC programming, including Jay Leno, suffer from obvious pixelization in any action or transition scene. I find it to be very distracting. This defect makes it impossible for me to loose myself in the program.

I may not be the best critic for the networks as I think that ABC does the best job of the big 3. It is also my understanding that my RCA downconverts 720p to 540p. Go figure, but I can tell you that NYPD Blue is bright and fluid with no evidence of compression even if it is a bit softer that CBS.

I'm new to this whole experiment and very curious to see how this plays out. I'm also very concerned about the future of DirecTV. Please don't sell to Murdoch.

jeff

[HDTV Forum]

I don't watch "ER", even in HD. (Just never got interested in the show, even with it being shown in 1080i now.) But I can assure you that "West Wing" is definitely NOT being shown in HD, never has been. (Though it is shown letterboxed on 4:3 format screens, the choice of the same idiots at NBC who have kept it standard def.)

As posted, I have not seen West Wing. About three weeks ago it was quietly announced that ER would be in HD and many wondered if West Wing would be also so I am unable to verify whether it also is now filling out the screen.

I would like to ask you though, are you receiving your NBC broadcast of "ER" over the airwaves from a local affiliate or do you get it via cable?

OTA. Jay Leno came on 30 minutes later in it's typical HD glory. The point is just because it is a 1080I format and the screen is filled out does not mean the content is real HD. You can put what ever content you please into this format.

Richard

[HDTV Forum]

I got the impression that ER was HD but the crew wasn't paying much attention to camera focus. West Wing has never been HD.

Ken - KQ6QV

[HDTV Forum]

was going to post also that my HD reception of ER was sorely lacking in quality. Even when shows are filmed in HD (which I'm assuming all of the network shows shown in HD are) the quality is all over the board. I had posted previously asking for responses to which shows had the best/worst quality. I'm on Comcast cable, by the way.

Bill

[HDTV Forum]

This was posted on the TIPS List (for subscribers only)

______________________________________________________

Dear Richard F. Fisher and others

With regards to the "perceived sharpness" of ER relative to other HD.

Yes, if stations are saying something is HD and it isn't that is not good
and we should all righteously complain to the stations.

HOWEVER, and I couch this in what seems to be my Broken Record here on this
forum, perceived resolution is not the end-all-deal, the deal is the MOST
ACCURATE PRESENTATION OF THE FIMMAKER's INTENT.

In the case of ER that intent is "soft."
In the case of JAY LENO that intent is sharp and colorful -- BYW the
audience shots are less sharp usually because there is less light and
contrast out there.

I think the important question is "does ER look BETTER than it did last
year" and I think it does and HD helped that and that's good.

Yes, SOME SuperBit DVD's will look "sharper" and some CBS HD sports shows
will looker "sharper." . . . but do we really want our filmed drama shows to
look the same as a sporting event? I think not. I hOPE not.

I further couch this in terms of my being a hands-on Film Guy.

Yes, ER and also THE WEST WING [ not HD but letterboxed from the same
producer ] are NOT text book, Koadak Color Lady, SMPTE resolution circle,
Joe Kane Video Essentials "sharp" . . BUT THAT's WHAT THE FILMMAKER'S WANT.

I feel THE WEST WING is one of the best photographed shows on TV [ ER good
but less so ] and PHOTOGRAPHED is the point. It looks like film albeit
INTENTIONALLY diffused film.

I think this forum is a very important and influential resource. That said,
I do think it tends to get side tracked in an OBJECTIVE / TECHNICAL search
for sharpness and overlook the SUBJECTIVE use of INTENTIONAL diffusion and
grain for aesthetic communication.

EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND and CSI are shot 35mm film transferred to HD and
look different. This is good. ROBBERY HOMICIDE DIVISION is shot 1080 24 P
and looks different. This is good. I love how ROBBERY HOMICIDE looks --
it is grainy and soft but it works for the feel of the show.

I find it ironic at best to read that AUSTIN POWERS is held up as a paragon
of video visual quality whereas films like MINORITY REPORT, McCABE AND MRS
MILLER and even THE GODFATHER are somewhat dismissed as being "soft" and or
"grainy."

Each of these films "works" within its own aesthetic.

The high key, highly saturated look of AUSTIN POWERS is deliberate satire
of cheesy spy films and as such it is totally valid. However, it is not
appropriate to site it as REFERENCE QUALITY just because it is "sharp."

HD resolution is a tool, a TECHNICAL standard to be used as creative people
see appropriate. Resolution is not intended to be an end in itself.

All this said, it IS important that the forum be a watchdog and hold the
netwoeks, stations, cable and satellite providers to an extremely high
technical standard and I REALLY want my ISF video installer to REALLY get
fussy about calibration . . . .

. . . . let's just not lose sight of the aestheic considerations in the
process.


I care about resolution because most movie theatres in the US have TERRIBLE
resolution and WORSE light levels [ which of course are related ] This lack
of respect for the movie going public by the movie exhibitors is apalling.

I'm excited about HD because maybe we'll have a chance to see films a lot
closer to the way they were INTENDED to be seen . . . which is as sharp or
as soft as the filmmaker's INTENDED them to be.

. . . but hey, that's just a film guy's point of view.

Best,


Greg Hoey

[HDTV Forum]

My response
No score for this post October 13 2002, 10:46 AM


Dear Greg,

It appears you are an insider to have all the knowledge you do about the
filmmakers intent. I thank you so much for response. As a calibrator I thought
I was going crazy. You have verified exactly what I am seeing and fully
explained why while backing it up with other examples.


My response point by point.

> HOWEVER, and I couch this in what seems to be my Broken Record here on
> this
> forum, perceived resolution is not the end-all-deal, the deal is the
> MOST
> ACCURATE PRESENTATION OF THE FIMMAKER's INTENT.


I completely agree.


> Yes, ER and also THE WEST WING [ not HD but letterboxed from the same
> producer ] are NOT text book, Koadak Color Lady, SMPTE resolution
> circle,
> Joe Kane Video Essentials "sharp" . . BUT THAT's WHAT THE FILMMAKER'S
> WANT.


I really appreciate your making this clear. That was a question I did not know
how to find an answer to. I am surprised that a filmmaker would want such a
soft undefined look - thanks for the verification.



>
> I feel THE WEST WING is one of the best photographed shows on TV [ ER
> good
> but less so ] and PHOTOGRAPHED is the point. It looks like film
> albeit
> INTENTIONALLY diffused film.


Interesting. Wish it was mastered for HD.


>
> I think this forum is a very important and influential resource. That
> said,
> I do think it tends to get side tracked in an OBJECTIVE / TECHNICAL
> search
> for sharpness and overlook the SUBJECTIVE use of INTENTIONAL diffusion
> and
> grain for aesthetic communication.



HDTV and DTV have changed everything. Expectations abound including mine. DVD
by it's nature will have a soft look so I did expect anything properly
mastered for HD would have greater detail. I am learning that this is wrong by
your post.


>
> EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND and CSI are shot 35mm film transferred to HD
> and
> look different. This is good.


Everybody Loves Raymond also has that soft look like ER but this is
intentional - Hmmm.


ROBBERY HOMICIDE DIVISION is shot 1080
> 24 P
> and looks different. This is good. I love how ROBBERY HOMICIDE looks
> --
> it is grainy and soft but it works for the feel of the show.



It has the greater detail I would have expected.


>
> I find it ironic at best to read that AUSTIN POWERS is held up as a
> paragon
> of video visual quality whereas films like MINORITY REPORT, McCABE AND
> MRS
> MILLER and even THE GODFATHER are somewhat dismissed as being "soft" and
> or
> "grainy."
>
> Each of these films "works" within its own aesthetic.
>
> The high key, highly saturated look of AUSTIN POWERS is deliberate
> satire
> of cheesy spy films and as such it is totally valid. However, it is
> not
> appropriate to site it as REFERENCE QUALITY just because it is "sharp."


The reason Austin Powers gets soo much attention is because as a calibrator it
is great reference for the color decoder and proper saturation. Red push is
very obvious when using this DVD.



>
> HD resolution is a tool, a TECHNICAL standard to be used as creative
> people
> see appropriate. Resolution is not intended to be an end in itself.


It is a new tool even for us calibrators. Only an extremely small precentage
of people in the world have ever had access to such capability. According to
your response and my experience it is highly accurate. Indeed I see many of
the things you are describing. Thanks for putting it all into perspective.



>
> All this said, it IS important that the forum be a watchdog and hold
> the
> netwoeks, stations, cable and satellite providers to an extremely
> high
> technical standard and I REALLY want my ISF video installer to REALLY
> get
> fussy about calibration . . . .


This is exactly why I created the post. As a calibrator I am trying to learn
how to evaluate HDTV content. Prior to HDTV the picture always had a softness
to it so you worked towards maximizing detail with the least amount of
artifacts and evaluation was straight forward. While the formula hasn't
changed HDTV certainly changes the evaluation process considerably hence my
issue with ER. The source in this circumstance becomes far more relevant to
evaluation then in the past.



>
> . . . . let's just not lose sight of the aestheic considerations in the
> process.


Never!


> I'm excited about HD because maybe we'll have a chance to see films a
> lot
> closer to the way they were INTENDED to be seen . . . which is as sharp
> or
> as soft as the filmmaker's INTENDED them to be.



I share your excitement.


So your answer to my question is:
It is HD if it is faithful to the source but you must also know that source to
even know if the HDTV broadcast is being faithful to it.

Since you have access to this type of information what is the source and
intent for JUDGING AMY?


Thanks again,


Richard F. Fisher

[HDTV Forum]

More from Greg
____________________________________________________


Richard,

A belated reply --

RE: Would ER be filmed differently for the movie theater?

Probably not radically different. HOWEVER, they would take more time
shooting it which would probably affect the look in a positive manner.

ER shoots an episode in EIGHT days while the average feature shoots for 10
or 12 weeks.


RE: razor sharp "you are there images"

Let me proceed delicately here by first defending everyone's right to like
what they like and by acknowledging that I'm as big a gear-pig techno-weenie
movie-cum-video-nerd as anyone in the forum -- probably more so.

That said, when you see "soft, poorly-defined images" I see "smooth,
natural, rich and organic film-like images." Would I like ER to be abit
sharper? Yes, I absolutely would. Would I like them to look like
something on DISCOVERY or CBS SPORTS? No, I definitely would not.

This is obviously a HUGE, subjective and ultimately personal can of worms.

The COMMON GROUND that we can all agree on is -- the better the delivery
system the more it can accommodate the range of creative expression from
"soft" to "ultra sharp."

I think THAT is the reason to champion HD, not merely for it's impressive
ability for "you are there images."

If we REALLY want "you are there imagery" there are better sources than HD.
IMAX is still pretty amazing and the old Show Scan [ 65 mm film projected at
60 frames per second ] is amazingly real and IMAX SOLIDO { NON polarized
view 3D IMAX projected at 48 frames per second ] is just plain scary real.

AN INTERESTING DEMO

I've recently seem some ABC network TV promos in movie theatres -- I saw
ALIAS and EIGHT RULES etc. They were printed to film from the same HD
master they run on air. Guess, what -- they look better in the theatre.
Big, bright and sharp and very impressive.

What's my point? HD has a lot more potential quality than we're getting
now. We're in a painful transition period and the standards aren't all
settled and the quality control is not always there.

It will get better.

Best,


Greg

[HDTV Forum]

and some more from Greg
______________________________________________________

You've also reminded me of something I wanted to write about; HYPER SHARP.

There are many ways to manipulate an image to make it appear "sharper"
without doing anything to the resolution.

I think alot of people are accepting this stylistic HYPER SHARPNESS as a new
paradigm of high resolution and this is technically and aesthetically
misleading -- it's just a stylistic choice like look of THE WEST WING is a
stylistic choice albeit in the opposite direction.

Case in point; CSI. Now I love this show and it's look as much as anybody
. . but it is HYPER sharp. It's not REALISTIC but, hey, I like it.

Basically, they get this HYPER REAL look with the same lenses and the same
film and the same film-to-tape color correctors as shows like ER and THE
WEST WING.

Here's the worst kept not-so-new-trick in telecine; push the white level,
push the chroma level, reduce the black level and smooth out the
transitions by extending the mid range.


Basically it's increasing the contrast but with infinitely more finesse and
less distortion and noise than is possible with a video display's controls.
In fact the analogy to "brightness" and "contrast" controls is almost
totally invalid.

This is done with VERY powerful digital color correctors that break the
image up into its very small component parts and allows you to manipulate
each area -- grey scale and color -- with very little interaction.




There's another factor -- the cameraman.

I've noted posts from folks saying the felt CSI was "not as sharp" as it was
last year. I will bet money that people didn't feel that this past
Thursday's episode was soft. Am I correct in that assumption?

This episode was photographed by Michael Barrett and the earlier episodes
this season were shot by Frank Byers. Brother Barrett and Brother Byers are
both extremely talented and highly professional and creative cameramen and
they each have their own interpretation of the CSI look and I thoroughly
enjoy the richness of both looks. That said I personally respond more to
Barrett's look which I feel is "punchy" yet smooth and natural at the same
time.

Gee, sounds like we're talking about wine or single-malt here.

Another HUGE factor is the executive producer Jerry Bruckheimer. He has the
taste and the POWER to make the look as strong as it is. Say what you will
about Bruckheimer's movies like PEARL HARBOR, ARMAGEDDON and GONE IN 60
SECONDS [ they're some of MY personal favorite guilty pleasures ] but they
all look GREAT.

It is safe to say that CSI would not look as dark and rich as it does
without the clout of Jerry Bruckheimer.

So what's my rambling point here; IT'S NOT JUST A QUESTION OF RESOLUTION.

Many of the shows the members of the forum reference as being examples of
HIGH RESOLUTION are not -- they are examples of a stylistic choice to
increase the perceived sharpness and contrast of the image.

Please keep this in mind and in perspective.

I personally think this Hyper Sharp look has broken out like the proverbial
plague and is being misused. That said, I still like it and I still use it.


These HYPER SHARP shows are NOT a new bench mark standards of "resolution."
Technically, the resolution" of ER in HD is the same as the resolution of
CSI -- CSI just "looks" sharper.

This stuff can look great but it can also be misleading and the danger is
that it can misrepresent the true strength of HD.

Your analogy to early CD's is right on the mark -- maybe we thought they
sounded great in 1983 but they're hard to listen to now.

HD is going thru this same phase right now.

Thanks,


Greg