HDTV: Picture quality based on imaging science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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