On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:13:11 GMT, "Stan" wrote:

You think YOU have it bad, I bought my Toshiba Widescreen HDTV 18-months ago
and there's STILL nothing to watch unless you like endless reruns of "C"
movies on HBO, SHOW, and HDNET.

ESPNHD has maybe 2 HD games a week. CBS primetime is a horrid non-watchable
mess that caters to the uneducated masses. They have one game of the week.

DISCHD is endless reruns. If I see one more HD iguana, I'm going to puke.

18-months later and the programming is no better than it was then. My set is
18-months old and getting older everyday. It's $$ down the drain.

So it's not that there's nothing to watch, it's that you don't want to
watch what's on.
Thumper


on" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s53...
Yesterday I had the opportunity of watching HDTV for the first time. I was
at a friends house for Thanksgiving and they had a 55" Mitsubishi rear
projection TV. The movie Home alone 2 was on a channel called INHD. I
noticed that it was coming from a Comcast HDTV cable box. When I hit
'info'
on the remote, it indicated that the input was 1080I so I know that the
box
was sending out the movie in High Definition.

Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not
worth paying 4-6K dollars. --Greg--

If necessary, email me privately at this address:
GREG DOT CA AT ATTBI DOT COM

Thanks --Greg--





To reply drop XYZ in address

"Anon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s53...
Yesterday I had the opportunity of watching HDTV for the first time. I was
at a friends house for Thanksgiving and they had a 55" Mitsubishi rear
projection TV. The movie Home alone 2 was on a channel called INHD. I
noticed that it was coming from a Comcast HDTV cable box. When I hit
'info'
on the remote, it indicated that the input was 1080I so I know that the
box
was sending out the movie in High Definition.

Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not
worth paying 4-6K dollars. --Greg--

If necessary, email me privately at this address:
GREG DOT CA AT ATTBI DOT COM

Thanks --Greg--

You should have been there to watch a real HD production like Texas or
Alaska Wild instead of a film movie which took no particular pains to look
nice in high resolution.

THEN you would know why it's worth it.

Chuck Olson ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Yes, movies are about the worst examples of HDTV you can find. If they were ever photographed
in the degree of resolution that HDTV is capable of displaying, by the time they reach the
airwaves, most have been filtered and softened to fit within the bandwidth of DVD or worse.
There is one place you'll easily recognize full HD bandwidth pictures on network shows - - the
"showoff" aerial shots of Miami or Las Vegas that open segments of "CSI Miami" and "CSI" - - and
they are truly astounding.

It's funny that you think that movies shot on 35mm film are the "worst
examples of HDTV you can find" and yet TV shows also shot on 35mm film are
"truly outstanding".

The process used to get both movies and *most* TV shows to the end user in
HD is identical.

Film has vastly more resolution than the final HD transmission, and as long
as the transfer is good, you can see this.

The reason that people feel that things shot with HD cameras (travelogues,
Leno, live sports) look "better" than film-sourced HD is because film-sourced
material tends to have only part of the frame in focus...like movies have
done for years. But, HD cameras have more depth of field easily available,
and thus can have the entire shot in focus. Although this might make the
picture look better to some, it just looks "fake" to me.

--
Jeff Rife | "If the world were destroyed and you were the
For address harvesters: | last man within a thousand mile radius, I would
| swim across the ocean on a rumor that Screech
| from 'Saved by the Bell' was spotted in Japan."
| -- Ellen

I don't know if I would say that movies are the worst example of HDTV.
It's all in the transfer. But yes, there are much much better examples
out there. As far as film transfers, those aerial shots on CSI are
fantastic!


You will see HDTV images that will blow you away at some point and then
you'll undertsand.

Steve



Chuck Olson wrote:

Yes, movies are about the worst examples of HDTV you can find. If they were ever photographed
in the degree of resolution that HDTV is capable of displaying, by the time they reach the
airwaves, most have been filtered and softened to fit within the bandwidth of DVD or worse.
There is one place you'll easily recognize full HD bandwidth pictures on network shows - - the
"showoff" aerial shots of Miami or Las Vegas that open segments of "CSI Miami" and "CSI" - - and
they are truly astounding. If they don't look that exceptional, then there's something else
wrong in the electronic or optical path to your screen. It's too bad these beautifully detailed
pictures only last a few seconds before "getting on with the story".

Uh....I was under the impression that TV studios use video tape (
digital video tape) to broadcast their shows,not 35mm film.....I am no
technophile and please correct me if I am wrong on this.But for TV
purposes 35mm film would be an ungainly process to use for TV studio
production.Remember movies that are first run do not have to be
transmitted over the airwaves on their INITIAL FIRST RELEASE from
distributors.So when a movie finally does make it to the small
screen,the conversion process from film to DVT or hard disc storage
probably "loses" something in the process and consequently when
reprocessed as a video master it still looks a little 'second'
generation compared to the primary made for TV first generation video
masters.In other words,movie "dubbing" in TV studios is hardly
perfect.This is my theory anyway.....

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:41:42 -0500, Jeff Rife wrote:

Chuck Olson ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Yes, movies are about the worst examples of HDTV you can find. If they were ever photographed
in the degree of resolution that HDTV is capable of displaying, by the time they reach the
airwaves, most have been filtered and softened to fit within the bandwidth of DVD or worse.
There is one place you'll easily recognize full HD bandwidth pictures on network shows - - the
"showoff" aerial shots of Miami or Las Vegas that open segments of "CSI Miami" and "CSI" - - and
they are truly astounding.

It's funny that you think that movies shot on 35mm film are the "worst
examples of HDTV you can find" and yet TV shows also shot on 35mm film are
"truly outstanding".

The process used to get both movies and *most* TV shows to the end user in
HD is identical.

Film has vastly more resolution than the final HD transmission, and as long
as the transfer is good, you can see this.

The reason that people feel that things shot with HD cameras (travelogues,
Leno, live sports) look "better" than film-sourced HD is because film-sourced
material tends to have only part of the frame in focus...like movies have
done for years. But, HD cameras have more depth of field easily available,
and thus can have the entire shot in focus. Although this might make the
picture look better to some, it just looks "fake" to me.

It looks like HD was touted to look to me.
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address

In article ,
wrote:

Uh....I was under the impression that TV studios use video tape (
digital video tape) to broadcast their shows,not 35mm film.....I am no
technophile and please correct me if I am wrong on this.But for TV
purposes 35mm film would be an ungainly process to use for TV studio
production.Remember movies that are first run do not have to be
transmitted over the airwaves on their INITIAL FIRST RELEASE from
distributors.So when a movie finally does make it to the small
screen,the conversion process from film to DVT or hard disc storage
probably "loses" something in the process and consequently when
reprocessed as a video master it still looks a little 'second'
generation compared to the primary made for TV first generation video
masters.In other words,movie "dubbing" in TV studios is hardly
perfect.This is my theory anyway.....



TV studios use 35mm film for their prime time dramas; video tape would
be limited to the reality shows, other non-studio shows, and stuff like
60 minutes.

--
There are no monkeys in my email.

Thumper ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
It looks like HD was touted to look to me.

Go take a look at an SD version of most soap operas. They all have that
"everything in focus" look. HD that looks like that but shouldn't (like
a drama or comedy) looks "cheap" and "fake" to me.

--
Jeff Rife | "But as much as everybody loves you, there is
For address harvesters: | one question that keeps coming up...how dumb
| WAS she?"
| -- Tempus to Lois Lane
|

In article ,
Seth Mattinen writes:
In article ,
wrote:

Uh....I was under the impression that TV studios use video tape (
digital video tape) to broadcast their shows,not 35mm film.....I am no
technophile and please correct me if I am wrong on this.But for TV
purposes 35mm film would be an ungainly process to use for TV studio
production.Remember movies that are first run do not have to be
transmitted over the airwaves on their INITIAL FIRST RELEASE from
distributors.So when a movie finally does make it to the small
screen,the conversion process from film to DVT or hard disc storage
probably "loses" something in the process and consequently when
reprocessed as a video master it still looks a little 'second'
generation compared to the primary made for TV first generation video
masters.In other words,movie "dubbing" in TV studios is hardly
perfect.This is my theory anyway.....



TV studios use 35mm film for their prime time dramas; video tape would
be limited to the reality shows, other non-studio shows, and stuff like
60 minutes.

Unless you are very observant, it is sometimes difficult to tell what
is done in HDTV 24p and what is done on film. The old Diagnosis Murder
series (Dick Van Dyke) was done in HDTV, and so were the later
'Earth Final Conflict.' My guess is that Andromeda is done
at least partially in HDTV (because of similar production situation
as 'Earth.') (Each of these series tend to look film like, much
better than the SDTV film look nonsense.)

In fact, when Earth converted to HDTV, the biggest difference was
that skin textures were more obvious (e.g. Da'an's skin texture
was much clearer.)

I don't know which other series are currently done in HDTV...

John

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:26:25 GMT, Anon wrote:

Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not
worth paying 4-6K dollars.

The thing you were missing is seeing how bad standard or digital cable
looked like on that 55" set. Its even better when you can switch back &
forth on the same channel. I did that during my Super Bowl party. From the
reaction of everyone there, you'd have thought I'd taken a dump on the
coffee table.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
"It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars" - Garrison Keillor