HDTV Forum

My response to Greg - from the TIPS List
______________________________________________________

Quoting Greg
> There's also an annoying -- and counter productive -- similarity with
> mid-fi video stores cranking up the brightness and chroma level on
> their
> video displays -- sadly including HD sets -- and turning up the
> subwoofers
> on the audio side.
>
> 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.


Manufacturers are also playing this game with the display. My display has been
fully calibrated to remove all the artificial sharpness possible. Due to this
DVD's look very good as well as HD. There is not a night and day difference
like there was before. The best way for me to express the difference now is
that with DVD's I can't tell if something is real or fake but with HD I can.
Otherwise they are both very enjoyable experiences.

BTW, It was encouraging to read that you also feel ER could be a bit sharper
than delivered.


Richard F. Fisher

Sorry, Greg, but I'm with Richard. I've seen a lot of HD programming that is on a par with SD. This is not what I expect from HD. Webster's defines definition as "clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail". You called it right, though: I'm seeing "soft, poorly-defined images" the same as Richard, and that isn't what I just spent several thousand dollars to see.

Bill

I'm with Richard on this one as well. My wife and I switched back and forth from ER 10-1 and 10 from Directv throughout the show. There was absolutely no difference in picture quality. I have had the same complaint in the past here about any ABC show. 8 Rules for dating my teenaged daughter looks exactly the same in sd or hd. Besides The Tonight Show, the HD demo loop, and anything on HD Net, my wife is really giving me the 3rd degree for buying a set that 1. Doesn't make hd look any better 2. Having to live with stretched sd shows to avoid burn-in 3. Spending $3000 for nothing.
I paid for sharp resolution. I paid for bright eye-popping colors. I'd rather watch a show on PBS about pie-making than anything on most of the other stations right now. The soft look isn't going to sell America on HDTV.

Jesse

I'm a little disappointed to read this post and learn that TV/filmmakers can manipulate the picture quality to fit the storyline.!

WHAT ARE WE KINDERGARDNERS.!

I watch the shows for CONTENT, and that's what entertains me. We are looking at human beings, on sets with everyday items that appear in the real world on planet earth. These pompus millionaire filmakers should not have this ability, HOW ABOUT CHANGE THE LIGHTING ON THE SET, come on FCC, make a rule here. You won't let Howard say oral sex. These shows should be shot and reproduced to the HIGHEST possible standards, that's it. I don't want to see a blurry Ray Ramano walking across the living room, THAT'S WHY I WEAR GLASSES.

I want to see the show as if I was looking through a window, ACCURATE REPRESENTATION, that's the essence of HD, BEING THERE. How about giving us 2 channels, 1 for the filmaker's "altered image", and 1 for the "accurate reproduction".


George

I'm a little disappointed to read this post and learn that TV/filmmakers can manipulate the picture quality to fit the storyline.!

They have been doing this ever since it's existence. That is why they call it an art. You have learned something new.

HDTV is about far more than just watching a program or movie it is about educating yourself. HDTV is so good that the intent of the artist can be fully realized causing this sort of debate and discussion. I really appreciate this capability. HDTV is so good that we can seriously discuss display performance and calibration. HDTV is so good that if our dispalys are calibrated on many levels we can discuss the same picture quality. HDTV has the ability to change the world and the way we think about TV and how we communicate with TV. Welcome to the future!


Richard F. Fisher

I'm a little disappointed to read this post and learn that TV/filmmakers can manipulate the picture quality to fit the storyline.!

Did you like "The Matrix", "Lord of the Rings", "O Brother, Where Art Thou"?, or "Three Kings"? These are just a few examples of recent films where the directors very heavily manipulated the color and grain of the film to achieve the results they wanted. These movies were modified more than most films, but many, if not most, films are modified in some way to some degree. As Richard said, this has been done since films first were produced. The look of a film is part of the art of filmmaking.

Stosh

I 100% understand about a movie being mainpulated, expecially science fiction movies that don't take place in the real world (Matrix) But not sitcoms, Everybody Loves Raymond, Becker, King of Queens. These are everday sets, (living rooms, bars, bedrooms) Leave the image as is, and reproduce it as close to original as possible. Like real world sporting events.

If these primetime show look like crap in HD because of the manipulating, I say stop manipulating. I'll enjoy the program for content.

George

I have to agree with the few posts which said they bought HDTV for the sharpness or high definition. That is also why I bought HDTV. I hate to sound like a no class slob but sitcoms or for that matter any run of the mill TV program is solely for entertainment purposes and to sell advertising. We don't view it as art, it is daily entertainment, nothing else. Great writing and talented actors will improve a television product before manipulating it's video presentation. I'm sorry I'm just not much of a beliver in artistic film making. I'm much more interesed in movies that have recieved People's Choice Awards than Academy Awards. Maybe it's the low class slob in me but I see film and television as commercial entertainment and not art. I do have a number of expensive paintings hanging on my walls that I enjoy very much and that is my idea of art. In paintings (or sculptures) I expect the artist to express himself and then according to our tastes we collect certain artist's work. But television and for the most part movies is (in my opinion) entertainment. I have seen some televison specials and many movies that were artistically very well done but had no entertainment value. So to get back to my point TV is entertainment and if I want to see art I will go to the museum.

Mark

don't really disagree with most of the comments regarding some HD television quality; my comments were more aimed at movies. But I do have to challenge some statements:

come on FCC, make a rule here.

What kind of rule? Specifying camera positioning? Acting stlyes? Dialog? Lighting from the front, side, or back? Set design? Content? How can anything like that be legislated? Do you want Big Brother deciding what you watch, and how it is produced? All directors have to follow strict rules for all these things? That is a VERY scary idea.

ACCURATE REPRESENTATION, that's the essence

And how do you define "accurate representation"? Which is more accurate, having the camera low, high, tight focus, or broad focus? Should the camera be 6 inches away from an actor's face, or two feet away? Can the cammera move? How much background should be in a frame to make it more "accurate"? There are no universal answers to these questions, because there is no such thing as "accurate representation".

I'm just not much of a believer in artistic film making

How do you separate the "art" from a film? There is no science or single guiding rule to even a simple thing like where a camera is positioned for any given shot. Filmmaking is art by it's very essence - a filmmaker is "expressing himself" by every decision he makes.

Stosh

Yes I agree there is considerable skill and talent involved in making a movie, poorly made movies are a perfect example of that. But directors can get carried flexing their "artistic muscle" potentially ruining an otherwise quality film. They need to understand for the most part it is not the art that sells but the entertainment value. I guess we could discuss till the end of time and still get a number of different opinions. Actually this thread seems to have gone out on a tangent we were really discussing TV video quality and saying we wanted video sharpness not film fuzziness and maybe that part of the discussion shouldn't be applied to movies as much as TV. Even though I want the "art" to be left in the museum and see films and TV as entertainment only I do disagree with any legislation being applied to process that would stifle any talent whether you choose to call it talent or art.

Mark