LivingHD

In article ,
kim wrote:
Tommo wrote:
"Ivan" wrote in message
m...


"Tommo" wrote in message
om...
Can someone answer a techy question??

How can an old 60's show like "Bewitched" or.. "I dream of Jeannie"
be shown on LivingHD channel? I'm damn sure even the yanks didn't
have HD cameras in the 60's (lol) so.. what can be so "HD" about
old (pre-HD) shows?


35 mm film?..



Seems so !! News to me

All major US shows were shot on 35mm film to allow for conversion to TV
systems not used in the USA.

That may be a by product, but the main reason is they were made in film
studios using existing equipment and expertise. Unlike in the UK where the
BBC grew up in parallel with the film industry, so used mainly electronic
cameras since most things were live.

(kim)

--
*What happens when none of your bees wax? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:24:24 GMT, "bartc" wrote:

Graham. wrote:
"Tommo" wrote in message
om...
Can someone answer a techy question??

How can an old 60's show like "Bewitched" or.. "I dream of Jeannie"
be shown on LivingHD channel? I'm damn sure even the yanks didn't
have HD cameras in the 60's (lol) so.. what can be so "HD" about
old (pre-HD) shows?

TIA
35mm film is HD, and then some.
Why wouldn't it have been 16mm? 35mm seems overkill (for 525-line NTSC).

The Wikipedia article seems to suggest that 35mm was already in use in
TV studios in the US when 16mm first went into professional use. It
would have been a major step for a studio to throw out its 35mm
equipment and start using equipment that would give lower quality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_mm_film

I was watching some 60's pop from a German program
(with Jimmy Saville as co-presenter!) that was super-sharp.

I guessed it was also 35mm, since videotape at the time
would have been pretty dreadful.

BugBear

"Tommo" wrote in message
om...
Can someone answer a techy question??

How can an old 60's show like "Bewitched" or.. "I dream of Jeannie" be
shown on LivingHD channel? I'm damn sure even the yanks didn't have HD
cameras in the 60's (lol) so.. what can be so "HD" about old (pre-HD)
shows?

TIA


Hi,


I think it is interesting to consider how often or perhaps even whether
ever, material that may even have been recorded in a reasonable definition
source candidate (e.g. 35mm in this case), has actually been re-sampled for
HD broadcast. Do Living have the original or original duplicates of the 35mm
film - seems unlikely / doubtful. Otherwise, has the source studio /
distributor, actually re-sampled this to HD and supplied it to Living -
either under their original license / purchase or as a new or upgrade
purchase?

It seems altogether more likely to me that the same old SD version is
whacked into the "AUTO HDcast system 4000" box / machine and then (therefore
comparatively) crudely upscaled and whacked out on the all NEW all COOL HD
chan(nel)! . ? .

This then suggests the other interesting question which is - just how much
material is purely SD upscaled and how or when do we know which is which or
which it is - or in fact do we ever get to know what is true or real HD?
Can't help thinking that in many cases and increasingly (given the
preference or preponderance of re-runs of old archive or library material
[? - typically it seems by whacking the same "tape" / broadcast source or
format they used the first time round, in, or a fairly default digitally
rendered "new" or "new archive" source]) the proportion of actual, true or
real HD (either re-sampled from high grade original source material or with
"new" HD camera source) is or for some channels will be or is certainly
quite low ! : - P ? ? . (Some channels are surely significantly better
for this than others - for example I believe the BBC almost only show true
HD on their HD channel - with minimal or no upscaled / re-rendered SD -
whereas others... one can perhaps be only somewhat less sure - on a varying
scale?).


Bye for now,




News Reader




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

"News Reader" wrote in message
...


Hi,


I think it is interesting to consider how often or perhaps even whether
ever, material that may even have been recorded in a reasonable definition
source candidate (e.g. 35mm in this case), has actually been re-sampled
for HD broadcast. Do Living have the original or original duplicates of
the 35mm film - seems unlikely / doubtful. Otherwise, has the source
studio / distributor, actually re-sampled this to HD and supplied it to
Living - either under their original license / purchase or as a new or
upgrade purchase?

It seems altogether more likely to me that the same old SD version is
whacked into the "AUTO HDcast system 4000" box / machine and then
(therefore comparatively) crudely upscaled and whacked out on the all NEW
all COOL HD chan(nel)! . ? .






fortunately you're wrong in this case.
there's lots of HD channels in america which makes it economical for the
studios to remaster their material in readiness for HD sales.
after all, even back when dvd was king how many times did you buy something
that boasted of being prepared from a restored HD master even though the dvd
itself was not.



--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....
http://dsbdsb.mybrute.com
you fight better when you have a bear!

In article , News Reader wrote:
This then suggests the other interesting question which is - just how much
material is purely SD upscaled and how or when do we know which is which or
which it is - or in fact do we ever get to know what is true or real HD?

I'm sure upscaling of old video copies instead of rescanning film originals
will happen from time to time, but the more they lower the quality of the
transmission system, the less it will matter.

What would really make a difference worth having would be if the broadcasters
put some effort into making interesting and original programmes with people
who knew and cared about the subject matter, without intrusive music or
effects, with the camera held steady and in focus, and without anybody talking
over the end credits.

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

The dog from that film you saw wrote:
fortunately you're wrong in this case.
there's lots of HD channels in america which makes it economical for the
studios to remaster their material in readiness for HD sales.

To add... American "SD" (NTSC) is so poor that there's
less temptation (or feasibility!) to get away
with SD.

BugBear

Many of the "HD" channels on Sky are simply full-time parallel
versions of the standard SD channel of the same name. (Sky One / Sky
One HD) etc.
This doesnt mean that all of the programmes shown on that channel are
HD, it just means that the ones that are in HD will be seen that way
if you are on the HD channel.

As mentioned in another thread, you can go into options and customise
and set the EPG to highlight HD programmes in orange so that you can
see what is actually HD and what is not. You will be quite suprised.

Oh, that is a good one, I guess the orange is green instead?
Sorry, being silly again.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"widgitt" wrote in message
...
Many of the "HD" channels on Sky are simply full-time parallel
versions of the standard SD channel of the same name. (Sky One / Sky
One HD) etc.
This doesnt mean that all of the programmes shown on that channel are
HD, it just means that the ones that are in HD will be seen that way
if you are on the HD channel.

As mentioned in another thread, you can go into options and customise
and set the EPG to highlight HD programmes in orange so that you can
see what is actually HD and what is not. You will be quite suprised.