Possible picture quality improvement?

I know nothing so am prepared for possible ridicule! My wife is
convinced and I can see what she means, that the definition of the
picture occasionally seems to have improved immeasurably over recent
times, seemingly having real depth. Has the introduction of HD equipment
into the studios or network had any effect on the quality of non-HD
transmissions or is it just wishful thinking? For the record, we
exclusively use a Sky dish and this is being noticed on a CRT TV.

On 11/05/2011 20:15, Andy Cap wrote:
I know nothing so am prepared for possible ridicule! My wife is
convinced and I can see what she means, that the definition of the
picture occasionally seems to have improved immeasurably over recent
times, seemingly having real depth. Has the introduction of HD equipment
into the studios or network had any effect on the quality of non-HD
transmissions or is it just wishful thinking? For the record, we
exclusively use a Sky dish and this is being noticed on a CRT TV.

Yes, sort of...

SD picture quality has always been 'variable' - some older material is
really poor. As you are seeing the best HD originated material seen on
an SD display is as good as it gets SD-wise.

Good HD, well converted to SD, looks really good - far better than lots
of ropey SD originated stuff.

The lower noise in the HD material also plays nicely with the TX codec
and gives better received picture quality.


G

In article , Andy
Cap wrote:
Has the introduction of HD equipment
into the studios or network had any effect on the quality of non-HD
transmissions or is it just wishful thinking?

Yes, using an HD camera and downconverting to SD will usually give a
better picture than using an SD camera.

Something similar happened in the late 1960s when some monochrome
broadcasts originated from colour cameras, and as these used
Plumbicon tubes the pictures had a different character, usually
considered "cleaner", from those produced by the older Image Orthicon
tubes.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Roderick Stewart wrote:

Yes, using an HD camera and downconverting to SD will usually give a
better picture than using an SD camera.

Something similar happened in the late 1960s when some monochrome
broadcasts originated from colour cameras, and as these used
Plumbicon tubes the pictures had a different character, usually
considered "cleaner", from those produced by the older Image Orthicon
tubes.

Rod.

Thanks for the various comments. All very interesting.

On Thu, 12 May 2011 09:23:23 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

I can recall in the days when I could see that some US videotaped
stuff was cruddy in the extreme

Playback of the original NTSC videotape, or in fact, PAL converted
video of the original?

"J G Miller" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 12 May 2011 09:23:23 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

I can recall in the days when I could see that some US videotaped
stuff was cruddy in the extreme

Playback of the original NTSC videotape, or in fact, PAL converted
video of the original?

One of the worst (or best) examples I saw was some "Up Pompeii"
episodes which, I imagine, were system converted to NTSC in the 70s
and exported, the original PAL material lost, then the NTSC versions
converted back to PAL for Tx.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On 12/05/2011 21:33, Graham. wrote:
"J G wrote in message ...
On Thu, 12 May 2011 09:23:23 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

I can recall in the days when I could see that some US videotaped
stuff was cruddy in the extreme
Playback of the original NTSC videotape, or in fact, PAL converted
video of the original?
One of the worst (or best) examples I saw was some "Up Pompeii"
episodes which, I imagine, were system converted to NTSC in the 70s
and exported, the original PAL material lost, then the NTSC versions
converted back to PAL for Tx.

I remember the show Soap. it was a good show but the picture was bad!!

On Fri, 13 May 2011 16:28:42 +0100, Gary wrote:

I remember the show Soap. it was a good show but the picture was bad!!

The all time funniest line in that show was when Mary asks about her
new born baby -- "Is it silver?" (As in the skin coloration.)

Do you remember "Mary Hartman, Marty Hartman" as well?

On 11/05/2011 20:15, Andy Cap wrote:
I know nothing so am prepared for possible ridicule! My wife is
convinced and I can see what she means, that the definition of the
picture occasionally seems to have improved immeasurably over recent
times, seemingly having real depth. Has the introduction of HD equipment
into the studios or network had any effect on the quality of non-HD
transmissions or is it just wishful thinking? For the record, we
exclusively use a Sky dish and this is being noticed on a CRT TV.

Yes, freeview HD replayed on a broken Sony CRT with a soft out of focus
tube makes it perfectly all right again. Saw that last week! :-)

Maybe there is chance that the upgrade to HD equipment has allowed the
purchase more sensitive camera CCD sensor arrays and hence creative
useage of wider apertures? Or a budget has been found for decent lenses?

Either way, both could show the depth of field effects that make some
pictures rather more inspiring than those taken on a smaller camera that
look all in focus but flat...

--
Adrian C

On Sat, 14 May 2011 01:00:02 +0100, Adrian C wrote:


Either way, both could show the depth of field effects that make some
pictures rather more inspiring than those taken on a smaller camera that
look all in focus but flat...

I suggested that it was something to do with the depth of field and that your
brain auto-magically re-creates the 3D impression. In some studio shots though,
the foreground image, frequently a face, can be just stunning and far more
stunning than we have ever previously noticed.