RTV has gone HD in Miami, FL's TV market

Status
Please reply by conversation.
Interesting. I like the programs on RTV, but I'm kind of spoiled by HD, so I don't often watch it. But if they go HD, I think I'd be a regular viewer. NEAT.

I just looked at the 4080 mux, and it's pretty much maxed out, but it looks like that 3800 mux has about 19 Mbps of available bandwidth open, so I'm guessing that's where this will show up. Hope they make one or two medium quality HD channels, and not 5 low quality channels .

Neat.
 
If they were shot on film, and they actually acquired the film rather than a tape copy, they could be converted to HD. Whether it would be worth it would depend on what condition the film was in.
 
I watched a movie called Zulu filmed in 1964 originally on 70mm film that came out on Blu-Ray DVD and the quality rivaled some of the best HD we have today. So it was 46 years old but the quality was out standing
 
It's in their AMC 7 mux. A little grainy, but looks much better than their SD feeds. 960 x 1080i
 
The big question is how many of the shows that were shot on film have had HD masters created from them. I believe that number is increasing with Blu-Ray becoming more widespread. I have the entire Star Trek original series on Blu-Ray, and the resolution is absolutely phenomenal. The only downside is that HD reveals focus pull errors, poor costumes, and unrealistic set design that would never be visible in SD, much less on a small TV screen in the 1960s :) ...
 
It's in their AMC 7 mux. A little grainy, but looks much better than their SD feeds. 960 x 1080i
Saw this in the thread in the other forum, and assumed that 960 was a typo, but I guess not. That's a strange resolution.
Also, in other forum it sounded like the HD channel was in the AMC3 mux, which was confusing me, because I checked, and it wasn't in either of those 2 muxes, but I see here that it's on AMC7, not AMC3. That's too bad, but I assume that they have similar plans for other channels, so hopefully some HD will fill up that extra bandwidth on the 3800 mux.
 
I watched a movie called Zulu filmed in 1964 originally on 70mm film that came out on Blu-Ray DVD and the quality rivaled some of the best HD we have today. So it was 46 years old but the quality was out standing
The interesting thing is that film that is older than ~1960 will probably be in much better shape than film shot around 1960. Back in the 30s and 40s, they used cellulose nitrate film, which was very stable color wise, although it did have a nasty tendency to burst into flames. But at some time, which I think was somewhere around the 1950s, they switched over to the less flammable cellulose acetate (I think), which they knew was safer, but what they didn't know was that the colors weren't stable on it. As a result, most film that was shot back in the 50s-60s has degraded very badly. I still have color home movies that were shot back in the 30's and 40's that are in very good shape, and yet the home movies shot with the same camera with the newer film in the 50s, and stored in the same metal containers, is in very poor shape.
Relative to big movies though, I think that they started realizing this, and made copies from many of the masters, at least for more popular movies, but I think a lot of film has been lost. Perhaps this Zulu movie (which I remember when it came out BTW) was one of those that Ted Turner recolorized? I don't like that recolorization effort. I would have much preferred that they spent the money they put toward recolorization of a few movies into just making copies of many many more movies.
 
...The only downside is that HD reveals focus pull errors, poor costumes, and unrealistic set design that would never be visible in SD, much less on a small TV screen in the 1960s :) ...

Don't even need HD for that. The DVDs of the Mission Impossible TV series show impossible jail cells made of pine that a 98 Lb weakling could free from. Focus pull errors galore. Overall it still looks great, though. But you are so right, they got away with a lot because they knew they could.
 
I agree that HD will not be kind to much of the retro programs. I you watch the SD close, plenty is visible as it is. Camera shadows and reflections on outdoor action shots on "Emergency" and "Adam 12" also on my "Chips" DVDs. Sometimes it's fun just to catch these things and it's part of my entertainment.

It would make Irwin Allen's 1960s monsters cheesier than ever if they ever go HD. Some things are better left alone.
 
This is the movie I talked about--don't think it was colorized.

Zulu (1964)@@AMEPARAM@@http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQyNzgyMDg1MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTEyMzcyMQ@@._V1._SX97_SY140_.jpg@@AMEPARAM@@BMTQyNzgyMDg1MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTEyMzcyMQ@@@@AMEPARAM@@SX97@@AMEPARAM@@SY140

The interesting thing is that film that is older than ~1960 will probably be in much better shape than film shot around 1960. Back in the 30s and 40s, they used cellulose nitrate film, which was very stable color wise, although it did have a nasty tendency to burst into flames. But at some time, which I think was somewhere around the 1950s, they switched over to the less flammable cellulose acetate (I think), which they knew was safer, but what they didn't know was that the colors weren't stable on it. As a result, most film that was shot back in the 50s-60s has degraded very badly. I still have color home movies that were shot back in the 30's and 40's that are in very good shape, and yet the home movies shot with the same camera with the newer film in the 50s, and stored in the same metal containers, is in very poor shape.
Relative to big movies though, I think that they started realizing this, and made copies from many of the masters, at least for more popular movies, but I think a lot of film has been lost. Perhaps this Zulu movie (which I remember when it came out BTW) was one of those that Ted Turner recolorized? I don't like that recolorization effort. I would have much preferred that they spent the money they put toward recolorization of a few movies into just making copies of many many more movies.
 
The interesting thing is that film that is older than ~1960 will probably be in much better shape than film shot around 1960. Back in the 30s and 40s, they used cellulose nitrate film, which was very stable color wise, although it did have a nasty tendency to burst into flames. But at some time, which I think was somewhere around the 1950s, they switched over to the less flammable cellulose acetate (I think), which they knew was safer, but what they didn't know was that the colors weren't stable on it. As a result, most film that was shot back in the 50s-60s has degraded very badly. I still have color home movies that were shot back in the 30's and 40's that are in very good shape, and yet the home movies shot with the same camera with the newer film in the 50s, and stored in the same metal containers, is in very poor shape.

Nitrate film caused many projection booth fires, and was extremely unstable. The Italian film "Cinema Paradiso" incorporates that into the storyline. The projectors required fire traps to help prevent a film gate fire from reaching the full reels. What little nitrate film is still out there is basically not usable as it gets very brittle (and there is the fire danger).

Acetate stock had a problem with a chemical breakdown which would lead to "vinegar syndrome" (the film smells very strongly like vinegar). Also, Eastman stocks would fade, leaving only red. This is often visible on prints from before the mid '80s. After that, LPP (low fade) stock was widely used.

Now, with the advent of digital media, things are more clear cut. All you have to watch out for is hard drive crashes that take out your irreplaceable video completely in an instant :D ...
 
Nitrate film caused many projection booth fires, and was extremely unstable. The Italian film "Cinema Paradiso" incorporates that into the storyline. The projectors required fire traps to help prevent a film gate fire from reaching the full reels. What little nitrate film is still out there is basically not usable as it gets very brittle (and there is the fire danger).

Acetate stock had a problem with a chemical breakdown which would lead to "vinegar syndrome" (the film smells very strongly like vinegar). Also, Eastman stocks would fade, leaving only red. This is often visible on prints from before the mid '80s. After that, LPP (low fade) stock was widely used.

Now, with the advent of digital media, things are more clear cut. All you have to watch out for is hard drive crashes that take out your irreplaceable video completely in an instant :D ...

Well ..... on reading the above, particularly the part about the nitrate film being brittle didn't seem compatable with my old film that I thought for sure was the nitrate type. My film is still nice and flexible. I pull them out every once in a while and play them. Besides the home movies, I have commercial movies like Will Rogers movie, a Charlie Chaplin movie, the corination of Queen Elizibeth, so me old sports newsreels showing old 1930s football games, and some cartoons, and also have a reel with footage taken from a B-17 in WWII. All this OLD stuff is still in good condition, so I did some checking. And as usual, I have to eat my words.:o

I first did some checking in Wikipedia, and while it agreed with the time frame I was remembering about when the switch from nitrate to acetate took place, it said that this only applied to the commercial movies in big 35mm format, and that the smaller movies in 16mm (which is what I have) were always done on the acetate film. Since some of my film collection is home movies, and some is commercially produced movies, and others are military film, I thought for sure that some of it would have been cellulose nitrate, but I wasn't sure how to check. I was thinking about clipping off a couple frames and seeing if it burned, but Wikipedia also said that you could check by looking along the edge of the film, where it would say either "nitrate" or "safety". So I went downstairs, and checked, and sure enough, ALL of them were "SAFETY". I've been nervous about those movies catching fire for years, mainly because I have a LOT of them, but I guess that I needn't have worried.

HOWEVER, I am still convinced that there was some major change in the film technology in the 1950 time frame, because all of the movies I have that are from the 30s 40s, and early 50s are still good, but the film taken in mid to late 50s and 60s have all deteriorated. So there must have been some other change in the process, perhaps the emulsion or the colored dyes, or maybe chemicals used in the processing. An example of how the old film is still pretty good is http://www.eskerridge.com/bj/steelers/pass1.jpg , which is from film my father took at a 1940 Steeler/Redskin game. It's a bit scratched up due to a lot of rough use, but the colors and images are still good. Movies taken in the late 50s, are hardly viewable, all bleached out.

Anyway, I was wrong about the acetate base being responsible for the deterioration of 50s-60s era film. It must have been caused by something else.
 
RTN's RTV HD feed launched in South Florida at 10 pm last night on WHDT MIAMI (DMA: MIAMI) and on WHDT STUART (DMA: WPB). The feed is delivered as a 720p/60 HD signal at a variable data rate > 25 mbps on AMC-7 to the entire North American continent. The two stations in Florida are the first affiliates for the custom feed. The high data rate requires use of nearly a full transponder, so the HD feed is currently available only on AMC-7. Sorry.

Until the weekend, RTN is testing the service with an assortment of RetroTV programming. The final schedule is available at < x2c . us > "WHDT World Television Service", ad includes about 30 hours of 60 fps HD, including hunting, fishing, diving, equestrian sports, etc. Some first-run syndicated programs and sports shows are also included in the custom package.

The retro TV shows air as uncompressed "component" video, direct from the RetroTV archives. RTN delivers what was "studio-grade" video direct to the home HDTV screen using the HD transport stream. Compared to the show's first appearances on network television, viewer's can now see what the editors saw in the editing suite. To avoid "burn-in", images appear without sidebars. The conversion from 1.33 to 1.77 aspect ratio is done without visible distortion by using a proprietary non-linear expansion algorithm that accurately mimics the human vision system's ability to correct for off-axis viewing. Interlace artifacts are also eliminated by transmitting only reconstructed progressive frames.

Of course, some material originates from degraded 16mm film stock and is aired without heavy digital reconstruction to avoid "animation" artifacts. This retains the "retro texture" which most viewers prefer over 'manufactured' resolution. If you liked watching the NTSC version, you should really enjoy watching RTV HD.
 
Last edited:
I cannot imagine how "non-linear expansion" and "without visible distortion" could possibly be compatible. Unless you're staring at the center of your screen at a ridiculously close distance, I suspect that the human vision system will notice the distortion quite readily.
 
I don't care how they do it, I am just glad they leave it so us backyard guys can get it, they know we get it, they come here and explain technical stuff to us even. And given the state of things in the broadcasting industry, that is damn refreshing and a great thing.

C-Band would be missing something should RTV go away. I'd like to again thank the RTV folks for the fine programming for us. And if they need us for anything, we'll be here. :up
 
I agree with stogie!I have a feeling that Mark steiner either works for RTV or works for one of those first RTV Hd stations in Florida!seems like he knows what hes talking about.
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Top