Thread: TCM in HD ?

While I don't have Dish HD Yet, I do still have HD dreams...LOL
One of my favorite station is TCM, Turner Classic Movies. Rarely dose a week go by I don't watch at least some TCM, So far as I know TCM hasn't made the jump to HD. I was wondering if anyone had any info on what TCM plans in the future as far as HD and the digital transition. Also Has anyone watch much TCM on their HD set, if so how dose it look?

Frankly, TCM in HD would make the least difference of just about any channel, because:

- Many of the films are in black and white, and so the biggest difference of HD, the greater color space, would not matter.

- Many of the films are 4x3 aspect ratio, so those would not benefit from the wider image, the second biggest difference.

- Those films that are wider than 4x3 are letterboxed on TCM, so you do not gain any wider image with added parts of the image.

- Most of the films on TCM do not have a lot of motion, so you would not even gain much from increased bitrate.

Originally Posted by kstuart

Frankly, TCM in HD would make the least difference of just about any channel, because:

- Many of the films are in black and white, and so the biggest difference of HD, the greater color space, would not matter.

- Many of the films are 4x3 aspect ratio, so those would not benefit from the wider image, the second biggest difference.

- Those films that are wider than 4x3 are letterboxed on TCM, so you do not gain any wider image with added parts of the image.

- Most of the films on TCM do not have a lot of motion, so you would not even gain much from increased bitrate.

So much misinformation in a single post? I believe TCM would be one of the best HD channels ever. Did you never see any of the old films when VOOM was on?

- what the heck is a "greater color space"? A black and white film benefits from the increased resolution the same as a color film.

- A 4x3 film would still be 4x3 but at much higher resolution and image clarity.

- A letterboxed film on TCM SD should be somewhere close to the correct screen size for a widescreen HD display.

- Even without motion, a HD picture has more detail than an SD picture.

Originally Posted by kstuart

Frankly, TCM in HD would make the least difference of just about any channel, because:

- Many of the films are in black and white, and so the biggest difference of HD, the greater color space, would not matter.

- Many of the films are 4x3 aspect ratio, so those would not benefit from the wider image, the second biggest difference.

- Those films that are wider than 4x3 are letterboxed on TCM, so you do not gain any wider image with added parts of the image.

- Most of the films on TCM do not have a lot of motion, so you would not even gain much from increased bitrate.

What Pepper said! YIKES!

- B&W movies look GREAT in HD. Remember that there is an infinate variation between TV black and TV white. The difference between 16 bit B&W and 32 bit B&W is stunning just on a still pix! HD's effect on B&W is very noticeable. I just saw Judgment at Nuremberg on HDNet Movies and I couldn't believe how good it looked. In the past I have also seen movies like "The 7 Samurai" and "Dr. Strangelove" in HD and the difference between SD and HD is stunning! The detail and lack of "banding" make it much more enjoyable.

-Gray pillar-boxing with a B&W 4x3 movie looks fabulous. But even with the black bars the difference in PQ is the main difference.

-TCM does use OAR and you can always use the zoom on the receivers to fill the screen, but when you zoom to fill the screen rather than have a "window box" you are losing a ton of resolution. This essentially makes the PQ worse. Even though TCM does look "okay" for an SD channel, it would gain so much with an HD transfer. Again, I point to HDNet Movies, MGM Movies and other channels that will not be named in this post **COUGH**voom**COUGH** that used to play lots of older movies in glorious HD.

-Not enough motion to benefit? Really? Do you ever watch TCM? Westerns with all that dust, horses, carriages, bar fights, etc; Gangster movies with car chases, fist fights, gun fights and fast-moving-fast-talking high-pants wearing wise guys, see. Mya...mya...; WW2 movies galore with ga-gore and all those actions scenes on the beaches and forests and John Wayne lumbering across a battlefield with 20 machine guns shooting at him and all missing by inches spraying sand all over his boots. Or those Fred and Ginger movies with all the intricate dance work. The Busby Berkeley movies with those insane dance numbers? Not enough motion? No... don't buy that one.

Having said all that, I would not expect Turner to come up with an HD TCM channel for a while strictly because of the amount of money it would cost to make the HD masters from the original film masters. TCM did a fabulous job of restoring these films, but much of the restoration was done straight to video. Though the video quality is excellent, the original films are still in serious disrepair and the same type of clean up done to the SD video film transfers would need to be done again. Technology is much better and cheaper now, but it is still expensive to do the entire library like that. So in time it will happen. But I would not expect it very soon.

See ya
Tony

Originally Posted by kstuart

Frankly, TCM in HD would make the least difference of just about any channel, because:

- Many of the films are in black and white, and so the biggest difference of HD, the greater color space, would not matter.

- Many of the films are 4x3 aspect ratio, so those would not benefit from the wider image, the second biggest difference.

- Those films that are wider than 4x3 are letterboxed on TCM, so you do not gain any wider image with added parts of the image.

- Most of the films on TCM do not have a lot of motion, so you would not even gain much from increased bitrate.

Wow, this is one of the most idiotic things I've ever read here, and that's saying a lot.

Let me get this straight...the benefits of HD are...in this order...increased color space, wider image, and increased bitrate.

Resolution doesn't figure in there anywhere?

Tony hit all the other points I was going to make, and probably did a better job, so I won't bother berating you further. The only thing worse than someone who doesn't understand anything is someone who pretends to. Ignore list!

You guys have been soaking in misinformation for many years.

The Internet makes misinformation promulgate faster and wider.

The "resolution" myth comes from not understanding that digital video is lossey.

Up to a certain bitrate, higher resolution just makes the picture quality worse. This is why professional video engineers reduce 1080i to 1440x1080 at lower bitrates - it improves quality at that low bitrate.

Due to digital still cameras, Joe Sixpack has learned what resolution means. Since resolutions are standardized to a small number of fixed sizes, it is easy for Joe to fixate on wanting the "big size".

Hence, several years ago, when DirecTV needed to drastically limit their bandwidth to their HD channels, and thus their bitrate per channel, they lowered their resolution in order to make the picture quality somewhat less terrible. Joe Sixpacks in the Forums, who knew resolution from their digital still cameras, but had no knowledge of lossey digital video and thus did not grasp bitrate, much less encoding algorithms, declared that the "lowered resolution" was the cause of the poor quality, rather than the truth that it was a technique used to keep the low bitrate from making the picture totally unwatchable.

Concerning color space, there is an excellent demonstration in 10 seconds of why it matters more than resolution at the following link - in fact, if you look at the pictures honestly, you will acknowledge that color space really is what you call "resolution":


☆ Shooting for HD: Why Color Space Matters Saturday 24th of January 2009

Notice the difference in detail between the three pillars at the top of the three 480 pictures that are all the same resolution.

Concerning motion, all I can say is "oh please". If there is anything that characterizes TCM movies (and I have seen hundreds of them) it is talking heads. With no television, verbal skill was all important, and far more appreciated by audiences. I recently watched "From Here to Eternity" on TCM, a "war movie" which had some file footage of planes, one scene with people jumping under tables, and the rest was people talking. Of course, the movie is about what they said to each other. Obviously, there is some motion, but the amount of motion is nothing like either the NBA or Star Wars 2.

Lastly, all three of you who replied, who are all usually thoughtful posters, missed that my first sentence said "least difference" . It did not say "no difference".

There is always a difference on satellite and cable between an SD channel and the same channel broadcast an "HD" channel, i.e. upconverted. This is because it gets more bitrate. But that is true of all channels, and thus does not contradict my assesment of "least difference".

PS One more point is that all those 1930's 40's and 50's 4x3 black-and-white movies were in mono, and thus gain the least from HD's 6 channel higher bandwidth sound quality.

One can certainly make the point that many of TCM's movies are more important than a 1980's John Hughes teen movie, but that is not the point under discussion.

I understand the concept of "lossey" video. With my own eye balls I have seen on the same TV the identical movie in B&W in 4x3 on an SD and on an HD channel (Cinemax early morning) The difference even to a B&W movie is easily discernible. Everything else posted above is so much hogwash.

HD TV's advantage is in the higher definition of the picture and sound. The original sound and original picture's reproductions would be truer. Or shall we just show old movies with original optical sound tracks since they can't possibly gain anything by digitizing?

I know you will defend you ludicrous position to the death, but no rationalizing will dispel my personal knowledge of a diametrically opposed real-life experience in what HD can do to even the earliest 4x3 movies with "nothing but talking heads" --another position I think is based on a lie.

And even if the HD channel doesn't require that much bit-rate (which I still know is untrue) that would mean it would not require that much additional bandwidth and even MORE, not less, reason to have it!

See ya
Tony

Originally Posted by kennethlawson

While I don't have Dish HD Yet, I do still have HD dreams...LOL
One of my favorite station is TCM, Turner Classic Movies. Rarely dose a week go by I don't watch at least some TCM, So far as I know TCM hasn't made the jump to HD. I was wondering if anyone had any info on what TCM plans in the future as far as HD and the digital transition. Also Has anyone watch much TCM on their HD set, if so how dose it look?

It's one of my favorite channels too. It's one of the few SD channels I'm willing to watch. I have no idea when it will go HD but I have been looking forward to it for a long time.

On both E and D the SD picture is tolerable. It is one of the better SD images (IMO) available. On Fios it looks almost as good as an SD image on a HD channel. I admit these are subjective remarks and I don't want to get dragged into the discussion above. But one of the things I enjoyed the best about Voom was viewing good old films treated with the respect they deserved.

Originally Posted by TNGTony

I understand the concept of "lossey" video. With my own eye balls I have seen on the same TV the identical movie in B&W in 4x3 on an SD and on an HD channel (Cinemax early morning) The difference even to a B&W movie is easily discernible.

You are not reading my post, because I said the same thing.

The difference is due to the fact that SD channels on satellite providers have insufficient bitrate.

Again, my point was NOT that there is no difference, just that 4x3 black-and-white monophonic talking-head movies gain LESS from HD than other sources.