HDTV Forum

I read thru this thread just on a whim, and I see a lot of good information and opinions floating around. Hats off to everyone (its refreshing to see a thread not turn into a flame war ).

Anyway.........

I agree on the fact that I can sit and watch "HD" programs, and say "it doesnt look like HD........

what did I pay all this $$$ for".

However, even my wife takes comfort in hearing that we are in a very transitional period. While things like Raymond and CSI may still be transferred to film via telecine, think what would happen if they were shot in HD. It really would look different, and in a way..........NOT real, even though it was closest to real as a show can get. Take, for instance, the show on AFTER Raymond. When Raymond ends and this show starts, you can tell almost immediately that this show is SHOT in HD, not transferred. No grain, great detail, vibrant colors. Why did they choose to do such a thing? Maybe to get viewers responses to the change. And here we are responding

Part of the drama of a TV show is knowing that its just a TV show........if you make it look perfectly real, you lost a certain bit of the drama and the TV show-ness. Also, we are treading on new territory here. Gone are the days where something is filmed and then broadcast. We can shoot in HD, and run through computers to do ANYTHING we want to the source. We can now do the same with film when transferring to HD. We can add grain on purpose, we can make certain colors stand out against others, or we can have "dirty" original copies and things like this can end up in by accident. Its just a matter of time until everything gets sorted out. I can almost bet that after the DTV transition is in full swing, we will see EVERYTHING in the true-HD that we see now. Maybe not as sharp as live sports, but it will be close.

Keep in mind, how many viewers really have the equipment that can show high-definition? It is still easier and infinitely cheaper for stations to shoot in SD and xfer to HD. It will be for some time, which is part of the DTV transition problem: viewers dont want to spend 3K on a set, 600 on a STB if the stations arent going to spend X amount of dollars to make sure the viewers can get the most use out of their new fancy equipment. In time this will fix itself. For now, us "lucky ones" get stuck in the fold.
If I ever doubt my purchases, I turn on HDNet.......makes me happy knowing that someday things will look like that. And if thats not enough, I'll flip on a college football game on CBS Sports and feel like Im there (and I HATE college football..........I just watch it because it looks so nice).
Besides............my 65" widescreen TV still gets oohs and awwws from everyone that walks into my house. Bragging rights are cool

-Chris

From the TIPS List
_____________________________________________________


Hey Guys,

SO, how does FIREFLY look on FOX widescreen? I can't get it here in 480 P -- Western New York/Southern Ontario. We do get CBS and NBC in High Def. CBS is MOST impressive -- NBC seems good but uneven.

GROUP QUESTION

Has anyone noted the difference in "look" between the nets in their areas? For whatever reasons the nets, to my eyes at least, have historically had different visual looks in STANDARD DEF and this seems to be carrying over into HD. If you need a demo of this watch something like a presidential address where all the nets get the same pool video feed. The same feed looks different on each net and the look is consistently different from event to event.

Over many years of viewing in many cities I have observed that; CBS has had the "best" picture to my eyes; bright, sharp colorful with clean whites and midrange and good low level black detail.

FOX has the next "best" picture -- yeah yeah say what you will their SD image is quite clean but not as clean as CBS . . AND their audio is usually "better" than ALL the other nets with more separation -- both left/right and front/back -- and more bottom. To be fair I haven't heard ABC's HD with 5.1 audio broadcasts.

NBC seems next to me mostly because the look is uneven; some shows are sharp -- we're talking historically in analog SD here not necessarily HD --and some are quite soft. In general the midrange tends to feel "muddy" and there seems to be less black level detail AND white level detail.

ABC would be at the bottom for me at least. Their image has always felt "muddy" -- the whites aren't always clean, the midrange is very muddy and there seems to be little black level detail.

Ironically, I had an interesting demo on the ABC "look" ; I recently saw an ABC promo for ALIAS in a really good movie theatre and it looked GREAT. It was the same edit as broadcast so I'm guessing it came from the same likely HD source. It was not muddy and the whites were bright and detailed and the blacks were solid and detailed.

What does this mean? I don't know. It does seem, however, that the ABC broadcast look is deliberate or at least consistent because I have seen the ALIAS promo in three cities and it looked "muddy" compared to the film. I saw it in HD -- over cable -- in one city and it looked alot better than the SD but nowhere NEAR as good as the film.

Did anybody else see this ALIAS promo in a theatre?

Now I'm sure all these networks are run by fine conscientious people so this "rating" is totally subjective. That said, has anybody else noticed this over the years? And how do the nets respective HD signals look to the rest of you?

I would still say CBS has the best HD picture and NBC's HD is decent but still uneven and occasionally muddy. ABC's HD seems to be better than it's analog SD used to be but I only see ABC HD when I'm working out of town . . which is to say not all the time.

. . . and FOX . . . the perennial whipping boy, Fox's 480 P signal looks decent the times I've seen it but it is OF COURSE not HD. The image video quality is quite clean. much like their SD but it definitely wants to be "sharper." That said, their 480 P looks better than ABC's SD signal .. to my eyes at least AND it IS 16 x 9 which is VERY good.


So, what do ya think?

I forgot to mention the look of PBS, probably because WNED - 17 has never had an easy signal to pick up OTA around here. When I have seen PBS in other cities the signal looks great, better than NBC and not quite as consistently rich as CBS.

Best,

Greg

This question was asked in another thread but it lacked the background that this thread contains. HDTV can be true to the source so most of this commentary is more a reflection of the producer, director and camera man than DTV/HDTV

My response to Greg from the TIPS List
_____________________________________________________


Here in Atlanta we have FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC, WB, UPN, PAX, TBS. FOX is difficult to receive at the house so their non-HD stance has no effect and there is nothing on FOX that I watch anyway. PAX and UPN also fall under the "nothing I want" category. IF NTSC means "never the same color twice" than ATSC means "almost the same color twice". While DTV is an improvement in this area I do find it disappointing not only as a customer but also as a calibrator. I wish it had the consistency of DVD. Who is doing the calibrating for the national feed and my locals and with what equipment? That said I would also not be surprised to learn that the broadcasters and the locals play the same silly artifact games as the manufacturers of TV's to grab my attention.

Based on all the past conversations lets go with a 1-10 rating with 1 being the soft poorly defined look of ER and 10 being the hyper sharp look of CSI.

(please note that since this post ER has improved and I now give it a 4. I haven't seen anything else for a 1 reference but think of DVD quality without compression)


ABC's color is little on the hot side in comparison to the others. If I do settle into one of their shows I will turn the color down a little. I find their HD programming awesome. NYPD Blue ranks as a 6. Life with Bonnie as a 3. The Drew Carry Show also a 3. I have seen Live and Let Die, The Man With the Golden Gun, The Spy Who Loved Me, The Edge and the "disney mouse movie" and would rank them all very highly - no number provided since these are movies for film and theater. The very last scene of The Man With the Golden Gun with the chinese junk heading back to the mainland had the "you are there" look. ABC local SD can be very good with the national SD a couple notches below.

NBC is perplexing. I have seen Crossing Jordan and was not impressed - a 3. It seems as if something is missing. ER is a 1. Jay Leno gets a 5. The SD looks almost as good as the HD - scary. I do feel a little hood winked at times. I have yet to see anything that would rank as a 6 thru 10 from NBC. If there is one thing I can say about NBC it is that it's consistently good whether HD or SD with Jay Leno being the only stand out in NBC HD I have seen.

WB can be good. I watched the first episode of Family Affair and would rank it as 3 with lots of film grain. Didn't like the show or the pictrures. I have been watching Smallville for a while and give it 5-6. The SD is OK.

(Samllville has grain evoking sharpness and detail but lacks hard picture content details so I change my rating to 3.)


CBS is just awsome. Raymond gets a 3. Presidio Med gets a 5. CSI is a 10. Just watched Without a Trace and give it 6. The Jacky Gleason Story gets a 6. And my number one show and personal preformance reference is Judging Amy with a 6. I would nearly give it a 10 but we are getting into two different kinds of sharpness. First of all the color is realistic. Many of the shots look like a window into the location. The detail is glorious without the edginess and grain of CSI. I often times find myself losing the story line because I am looking at all the stuff in the picture. This is the way to advertise clothing. It's like putting the material in your hands. There seems to be very little artistic manipulation of the picture and I like that. Overall I rank CBS number one with ABC a very close second. That said the local and national SD was awful. Recently CBS changed out the scaler due to consumer complaints and the national SD is OK now but the local SD is still blah.

FOX has their head up their @#$. The HD channel is 4:3 stretched and the sub SD channel is 4:3 pillared with gray bars. I am really glad they don't have anything I am interested in. Was hoping for some world series 16:9 anything but it was the usual with edge enhancement galore. I have seen their SD be good to OK to blah.

PAX and UPN SD is OK.

TBS is also awesome. I have no complaints. Some of the movies look like HD - it can be that good but it is 4:3. There was a ballgame in the summer that was terrific not only in picture but also the sound. Unfortunately there is little content I want to watch from TBS but while surfing between commercials it has never been a disappointment.

Currently there is not any PBS until April/May 2003.

UNI - universal? and Trinity will be transmitting in November with another religious local in May 2003.

Thanks again Greg,


Richard F. Fisher

Richard, your last post is exactly what I was looking to accomplish with my Best/Worst post. Your 1-10 rating is great. I now know that the crappy HD picture I'm receiving is the same picture others are receiving!

Bill

This is a list of High Def television production news that I have culled
together and it's pretty interesting -- alot of it surprised me. All in all
there is alot of momentum in HD production which will, eventually, trickle
down.

Best,


Greg

____________________________________________________
GENERAL NEWS

ESPN HD - Plans to begin broadcasting NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL games in
HDTV in beginning in March. This is big news for HDTV!

ABC - Already broadcasts most of their prime time dramatic and situation
comedy entertainment series as well as their feature films in HDTV. What's
new - ABC has announced they will begin HD broadcasts of a large number
of sporting events beginning 2003. ABC also broadcasts in 5.1 which is
worth noting!

HD NET - Mark Cuban is adding three additional HDTV Channels within the next
couple of months.
HDNet Sports
HDNet Movies
HDNet Entertainment

CBS - Adding "The Late Show with David Letterman" to the their pioneering
charge for HDTV.



TELEVISION SERIES SHOT IN HIGH DEFINTION i.e. 1080 24P ORIGINATION
NB -- some of these show have been cancelled


ABC
"8 Simple Rules" -- Touchstone
"According to Jim" -- Touchstone
"Less than Perfect" -- Touchstone
"Letters from a Nut"
"Life with Bonnie" -- Touchstone
"MD's" -- Touchstone
"My Wife and Kids" -- Touchstone
"That Was Then" -- Touchstone
"George Lopez" -- Warner Bros.

NBC
"In-Laws" -- Paramount

CBS
"Robbery Homicide Division"
"Baby Bob" -- Paramount
"Touched by an Angel" -- MoonWater
"Yes, Dear" -- 20th Century Fox

SPECIAL HYBRID NOTE;
"Hack" -- Paramount
This show is shot on 35mm film. However, the exterior background plates
for interior shots in the cab are shot High Definition. The cab interiors
are shot ON FILM on a stage and the HD exteriors are composited into the cab
windows during post.

FOX

NOTE; Yes, THAT Fox is shooting on High Def 1080 24 P and DOWNCONVERTING
TO 480 P for broadcast -- don't get me started

"Bernie Mac" -- Regency
"Oliver Beene" -- 20th Century Fox
"Septuplets" -- 20th Century Fox
"The Grubbs" -- Studio USA/Universal
"The Pitts" -- 20th Century Fox

TLC
"Before We Ruled Earth" -- Evergreen Films

UPN
"Girlfriends" -- Paramount
"Half and Half" -- CBS Productions
"One on One" -- Paramount
"The Parkers" -- Paramount

WB
"Do Over" -- Paramount
"Family Affair" -- Pariah
"Greetings from Tucson" -- Big Ticket Television
"Reba" -- 20th Century Fox
"What I Like About You" -- Tollin/Robbins Production

TNT
"Witchblade" -- Warner Bros.
SPECIAL HYBRID NOTE;
"Witchblade" shoots on High Def 1080 24 P. However, the SLOW MOTION scenes
are shot on film and transferred to HD. At the time of production a Slow
Motion HD CAM did not exist but now there are some.

SHOWTIME
"Odyssey5" -- Columbia TriStar

SYNDICATION
"Earth Final Conflict"

With DTV delivery this can be a tough nut to crack.

>>I have been watching Smallville for a while and give it 5-6.

Samllville has grain evoking sharpness and detail but lacks hard picture content details so I change my rating to 3.

>>ER is a 1.

Well somebody changed something and I now give it a 4.

Richard Fisher

I guess all that it takes now to become a TV or motion picture production expert is to have spent several thousand dollars on a high-definition TV.

Paul

Let's rephrase that...

I guess all that it takes now to become a TV or motion picture production expert is to have spent several thousand dollars on "the right" high-definition TV "and have the background to discern what it is you are seeing".

Richard Fisher

ER is shot on 35mm film running at 24fps. The ultimat HD source.

Richard Thorpe

I didn't mean to imply that production quality is not appropriate fodder for this forum, but was directing my sarcasm mainly at those above who indignantly proclaim that they didn't pay thousands of dollars to be fed this this soft fuzzy material that directors and producers have the nerve to feel more accurately projects the feel and mood of their production than would be projected by achieving the maximum sharpness technically achievable.

Richard Thorpe's comment above only underscores that the director and cinematographer can use technology , whether the capture medium is digital or silver halide chemistry film to manipulate the image quality (e.g., sharpness, grain, contrast, color balance, and numerous other factors, including lens manipulation on the camera) regardless of the number of pixels in the image capture medium.

Obviously, directors and cinematographers will be adjusting their techniques as they see (and receive feedback on) how their traditional production techniques for SDTV now come off on HDTV, as indicated by Richard F's modified evaluation of ER.

Paul