Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Straight from CBS

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 10:52:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"If you see side bars on a program that is suppose to be hdtv, then it
isn't. Its SD." So how come when I checked out that statement, I did
see the side bars, but my reciever says i1080 and also the program. How
come SD can get that high resolution?

More about : straight cbs

Anonymous
April 9, 2005 11:24:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

CBS should clarify their statement. There are two components to what
makes a broadcast High Definition. The first component is the quality
of the source material (i.e. the video footage), the second the way
it's broadcast.

So CBS may have one or more High Definition digital channels in your
area.that broadcast out in 1080i (high definition resoultion) all the
time, however not all of the material they broadcast was recorded in
High Definition, prime examples of non-HD material are: News broadcast
and most of daytime television, so for this non-HD material the network
will "upconvert" the standard definition program to High Definition,
when they do this they typically preserve the 4:3 aspect ratio and so
they add verticle bars to the left and right side.prior to
broadcasting. They have to add the bars because 1080i is always 16:9
April 9, 2005 4:48:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 9 Apr 2005 06:52:11 -0700, "Boothbay" <harri85274@aol.com> wrote:

>"If you see side bars on a program that is suppose to be hdtv, then it
>isn't. Its SD." So how come when I checked out that statement, I did
>see the side bars, but my reciever says i1080 and also the program. How
>come SD can get that high resolution?

CBS-HD broadcasts in 1080i. SD broadcasts are 480i upconverted to
1080i. So you will get the gray bars (which CBS puts on). The quality
may be slightly better than what you see on standard CBS since the
upconversion happens at the source, but it is not HD resolution.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 6:53:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

If you are accessing the program via a digital channel, then it is
broadcasting everything in 720p or 1080i, whether the original program is HD
or SD. That is true whether you get it over the air, via a digital cable
box or however. Even if the channel is originally not digital, but you are
accessing it via a digital cable box, then it may send it to your TV at 720p
or 1080i because that is the way the box is set.

In any of these cases, your TV set is going to tell you that it is receiving
1080i or 720p, even though it is showing an SD picture. If you are watching
on an HDTV set, it is likely to convert everthing to something like 720p or
788p or whatever -- an HD resolution.

But the only way you will get an actual HD picture is when it was originally
shot with HD cameras at 720p or 1080i, then broadcast all the way up the
line as an HD picture and shown on an HDTV set. Otherwise, you are just
getting an SD picture, perhaps upconverted at various places along the line.
It may look great, good, not so good or hideous, depending on many varying
circumstances.

For example, one of our local stations broadcasts their news in SD but, for
an SD picture, it is really very good. Then, they will introduce a crawl at
the bottom of the picture. The crawl screws up the number of lines of
resolution which, in turn, screws up the look of the rest of the picture on
HDTV sets. An engineer at the station told me he had heard many complaints
about it from HDTV set owners. This is just an example of the kind of weird
thing that can turn a good SD picture into a crummy one on an HD set.

mack
austin


"Boothbay" <harri85274@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113054731.725681.145400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "If you see side bars on a program that is suppose to be hdtv, then it
> isn't. Its SD." So how come when I checked out that statement, I did
> see the side bars, but my reciever says i1080 and also the program. How
> come SD can get that high resolution?
>
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 6:53:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Mack McKinnon wrote:
> But the only way you will get an actual HD picture is when it was originally
> shot with HD cameras at 720p or 1080i, then broadcast all the way up the
> line as an HD picture and shown on an HDTV set. Otherwise, you are just
> getting an SD picture, perhaps upconverted at various places along the line.
> It may look great, good, not so good or hideous, depending on many varying
> circumstances.

Or shot on 35mm film and digitized with an HD transfer. Most HD TV
shows, AFAIK, are shot on 35mm film and then converted. This whole
business of what is SD vs HD can be very confusing to people who just
got their HD TV, which is why the over simplified statement from CBS is
not all that helpful.

The biggest current source of true HD material are movies going back
to the 1930s shot on 35mm film as 35mm film (in good condition) is still
better than HD resolution. But someone has to pay to do an HD transfer,
hopefully at the original aspect ratio (OAR), which is why HBO and
Showtime HD channels still show an awful lot of upconverted SD movies.
Movies prior to the early to mid-1950s were primarily shot at a 4:3
aspect ratio, so these could be true HD presentations, but with
pillarboxes. The WB network true HD broadcast of Wizard of Oz last
December (which was impressive to see) was pillarboxed, so you can have
pillarboxing, but be HD, not just an upconvert. Since movies typically
come in 4:3, 1.66:1, 1.85:1, or 2.35:1 ratios, people need to look at
the picture quality to see if looks to be real HD, not whether it is
pillarboxed or not. Of course, HBO really muddies the water by routinely
cropping HD broadcast of 2.35:1 movies for the 16:9 screen.

Then there is also the whole issue of older TV shows which were
originally shot on 35mm film, but were transferred to SD video for
broadcast back in the day. If the show did not have a lot of special
effect and the original 35mm masters are still around, those shows could
be converted to HD. HDNet has done this for Hogen's Heroes and Charlie's
Angels.

There should be good website that people can send newbies to that
explains all the ins and outs of this. But the rule should be that for
the broadcast networks most of the stuff outside of sports and prime
time scripted shows is upconverted SD.

Alan F
April 9, 2005 6:53:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Mack McKinnon wrote:
> If you are accessing the program via a digital channel, then it is
> broadcasting everything in 720p or 1080i, whether the original program is HD
> or SD. That is true whether you get it over the air, via a digital cable
> box or however. Even if the channel is originally not digital, but you are
> accessing it via a digital cable box, then it may send it to your TV at 720p
> or 1080i because that is the way the box is set.
>
> In any of these cases, your TV set is going to tell you that it is receiving
> 1080i or 720p, even though it is showing an SD picture. If you are watching
> on an HDTV set, it is likely to convert everthing to something like 720p or
> 788p or whatever -- an HD resolution.
>
> But the only way you will get an actual HD picture is when it was originally
> shot with HD cameras at 720p or 1080i, then broadcast all the way up the
> line as an HD picture and shown on an HDTV set. Otherwise, you are just
> getting an SD picture, perhaps upconverted at various places along the line.
> It may look great, good, not so good or hideous, depending on many varying
> circumstances.
>
> For example, one of our local stations broadcasts their news in SD but, for
> an SD picture, it is really very good. Then, they will introduce a crawl at
> the bottom of the picture. The crawl screws up the number of lines of
> resolution which, in turn, screws up the look of the rest of the picture on
> HDTV sets. An engineer at the station told me he had heard many complaints
> about it from HDTV set owners. This is just an example of the kind of weird
> thing that can turn a good SD picture into a crummy one on an HD set.
>
> mack
> austin
>
>
> "Boothbay" <harri85274@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1113054731.725681.145400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>"If you see side bars on a program that is suppose to be hdtv, then it
>>isn't. Its SD." So how come when I checked out that statement, I did
>>see the side bars, but my reciever says i1080 and also the program. How
>>come SD can get that high resolution?
>>
>
>
>


> If you are accessing the program via a digital channel, then it is
> broadcasting everything in 720p or 1080i, whether the original
program is HD
> or SD. That is true whether you get

I don't think this statement is correct. There are a couple of Digital
transmissions that take place here at 480i sometimes, 720p and 1080i at
other times. Same stations.
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 9:54:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Alan Figgatt <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote (in part):

> The biggest current source of true HD material are movies going back
>to the 1930s shot on 35mm film as 35mm film (in good condition) is still
>better than HD resolution. But someone has to pay to do an HD transfer,
>hopefully at the original aspect ratio (OAR), which is why HBO and
>Showtime HD channels still show an awful lot of upconverted SD movies.
>Movies prior to the early to mid-1950s were primarily shot at a 4:3
>aspect ratio, so these could be true HD presentations, but with
>pillarboxes. The WB network true HD broadcast of Wizard of Oz last
>December (which was impressive to see) was pillarboxed, so you can have
>pillarboxing, but be HD, not just an upconvert. Since movies typically
>come in 4:3, 1.66:1, 1.85:1, or 2.35:1 ratios, people need to look at
>the picture quality to see if looks to be real HD, not whether it is
>pillarboxed or not.

Well said, particularly about The Wizard of Oz, which looked even
better than the restored version I saw in a theater. Wish I'd saved a
copy. Maybe next year.

OTOH, WB's much-advertised HD feed of the first Lord of the Rings
movie didn't look like HD to me. It filled the 16:9 screen (after the
local operator remembered to flip the switch, anyway) but looked soft,
like a DVD or the SD upconverts that make up half of the PBS-HD
schedule.

Del Mibbler
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 9:54:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Del Mibbler (mibbler@nycap.rr.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> OTOH, WB's much-advertised HD feed of the first Lord of the Rings
> movie didn't look like HD to me. It filled the 16:9 screen (after the
> local operator remembered to flip the switch, anyway)

It should *never* have filled the screen. All three LotR movies have a
2.35:1 aspect ratio, and should have bars at the top and bottom on a 16:9
TV.

This would probably explain why it didn't look so good...it was zoomed to
fill the screen.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/GiantWate...
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 10:10:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Oldguy" <masqueme-news@yahoo.com> wrote
> I don't think this statement is correct. There are a couple of Digital
> transmissions that take place here at 480i sometimes, 720p and 1080i at
> other times. Same stations.

Yes, I suppose that could be. Where I am, the digital OTA transmissions all
seem to be at 720p or 1080i, whatever that digital channel broadcasts in,
all the time, whatever they are showing. Maybe that's not so. In any case,
the problem I was addressing occurs when someone sees "1080i" or "720p"
displayed by his TV set but the picture he is watching is obviously SD and
is confused. The channel sends out the picture at that resolution but the
picture itself is just SD, upconverted by the TV station. (It would be
upconverted to the HDTV set's native resolution, anyway. Still SD.)

mack
austin
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 10:44:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

DaveR wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2005 06:52:11 -0700, "Boothbay" <harri85274@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "If you see side bars on a program that is suppose to be hdtv, then
>> it isn't. Its SD." So how come when I checked out that statement, I
>> did see the side bars, but my reciever says i1080 and also the
>> program. How come SD can get that high resolution?
>
> CBS-HD broadcasts in 1080i. SD broadcasts are 480i upconverted to
> 1080i. So you will get the gray bars (which CBS puts on). The quality
> may be slightly better than what you see on standard CBS since the
> upconversion happens at the source, but it is not HD resolution.

Agreed, and don't forget some if not most of these affiliates are using
professional 3D comb-filter NTSC to ATSC converters to feed you the best
NTSC color can deliver. It's like having a professional full NTSC decoder in
your home.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 6:56:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote (in part):

>Del Mibbler (mibbler@nycap.rr.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> OTOH, WB's much-advertised HD feed of the first Lord of the Rings
>> movie didn't look like HD to me. It filled the 16:9 screen (after the
>> local operator remembered to flip the switch, anyway)
>
>It should *never* have filled the screen. All three LotR movies have a
>2.35:1 aspect ratio, and should have bars at the top and bottom on a 16:9
>TV.
>
>This would probably explain why it didn't look so good...it was zoomed to
>fill the screen.

Perhaps. Or maybe they didn't want to give away a true HD version of
a recent, very popular movie. Similar to the MPAA's threat that they
wouldn't make HD versions available unless component outputs were
forced down to SD quality. Or they might have just grabbed the
easiest source they had available, a DVD copy somebody picked up at
Wal*Mart.

It wouldn't be the first time WB has done something like that (easiest
source, not necessarily from Wal*Mart). Their TV series Babylon 5 was
shot 16:9 but framed so it would still look good in 4:3 as it was
originally shown. Then SciFi picked it up and touted that they would
show the widescreen version. What did WB give them? The 4:3 version
cropped top and bottom.

Del Mibbler
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 6:56:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Del Mibbler (mibbler@nycap.rr.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >It should *never* have filled the screen. All three LotR movies have a
> >2.35:1 aspect ratio, and should have bars at the top and bottom on a 16:9
> >TV.
> >
> >This would probably explain why it didn't look so good...it was zoomed to
> >fill the screen.
>
> Perhaps. Or maybe they didn't want to give away a true HD version of
> a recent, very popular movie.

This is a silly conspiracy theory as the HD showings on PPV and cable were
OAR and fine quality.

> Or they might have just grabbed the
> easiest source they had available, a DVD copy somebody picked up at
> Wal*Mart.

That wouldn't explain the lack of OAR, since the DVDs are OAR.

> It wouldn't be the first time WB has done something like that (easiest
> source, not necessarily from Wal*Mart). Their TV series Babylon 5 was
> shot 16:9 but framed so it would still look good in 4:3 as it was
> originally shown.

The WB network didn't show "Babylon 5"...it was a syndicated series.
Although Warner Brothers has the right to the home video releases of B5,
the production was not done by anybody directly associated with them.
JMS (and his crew) did all the work, and they did it the way they wanted.

But, I suspect you just have a bug up your butt about this, and are
bringing completely unrelated material into a thread for no good reason.

--
Jeff Rife | "What are you looking at? You're laborers; you
| should be laboring. That's what you get for
| not having an education."
| -- Professor Hathaway, "Real Genius"
April 10, 2005 11:18:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

There is resolution and there is aspect ration. Don't confuse the two. You
can have HD material broadcast as digital 720p and 1080i resolutions and
still have black bars. For example, the 35 or 65mm source was not filmed in
a wide aspect ratio. It is still HD it is still 720p or 1080i and it has
black bars at the side.

Richard.
April 10, 2005 11:18:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

If I may hazard a guess here ............... Unless the material was
originally shot in high definition (720 lines of resolution or more), it
will NEVER look as good as if it had been. My guess is that you can do all
the upgrading you want and transmit it in 1080p (not now happening) and it
will still not look as good as if it had been shot with high definition
cameras. Does anyone honestly think that I am in error on this point?


"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:a_e6e.1386$%v6.208@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> There is resolution and there is aspect ration. Don't confuse the two. You
> can have HD material broadcast as digital 720p and 1080i resolutions and
> still have black bars. For example, the 35 or 65mm source was not filmed
in
> a wide aspect ratio. It is still HD it is still 720p or 1080i and it has
> black bars at the side.
>
> Richard.
>
>
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 11:18:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Stan wrote:
> If I may hazard a guess here ............... Unless the material was
> originally shot in high definition (720 lines of resolution or more), it
> will NEVER look as good as if it had been. My guess is that you can do all
> the upgrading you want and transmit it in 1080p (not now happening) and it
> will still not look as good as if it had been shot with high definition
> cameras. Does anyone honestly think that I am in error on this point?

No, but that that was never in dispute. Richard's point below is that it
is quite possible to have a 4:3 source that is true HD resolution. You
seem to be focused only on recordings that were done originally on video,
but many sources, especially older ones, were shot originally on film.
When that film is transferred to HD, the result can be a stunning HD
resolution image that happens to have a 4:3 aspect ratio.

> "Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:a_e6e.1386$%v6.208@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>>There is resolution and there is aspect ration. Don't confuse the two. You
>>can have HD material broadcast as digital 720p and 1080i resolutions and
>>still have black bars. For example, the 35 or 65mm source was not filmed
>>in wide aspect ratio. It is still HD it is still 720p or 1080i and it has
>>black bars at the side.
April 11, 2005 1:39:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Whether the recordings were done on video or film, if the recording was not
made in HD (at least 720 lines of resolution), you will never see it in true
HD. It may be broadcast in HD, but it will not be true HD because it was
not lensed and recorded in HD. Upgrading will probably improve the picture
and an HD transmission to your television set will reflect the upgrading,
but the picture will never be better than what was originally recorded.
High definition cameras must be used for true high definition.

Aspect ratio is another discussion altogether. (In that regard, we will be
looking at 4 x 3 for a long, long time.)


"Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:42599605$0$63586$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Stan wrote:
> > If I may hazard a guess here ............... Unless the material was
> > originally shot in high definition (720 lines of resolution or more), it
> > will NEVER look as good as if it had been. My guess is that you can do
all
> > the upgrading you want and transmit it in 1080p (not now happening) and
it
> > will still not look as good as if it had been shot with high definition
> > cameras. Does anyone honestly think that I am in error on this point?
>
> No, but that that was never in dispute. Richard's point below is that it
> is quite possible to have a 4:3 source that is true HD resolution. You
> seem to be focused only on recordings that were done originally on video,
> but many sources, especially older ones, were shot originally on film.
> When that film is transferred to HD, the result can be a stunning HD
> resolution image that happens to have a 4:3 aspect ratio.
>
> > "Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:a_e6e.1386$%v6.208@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> >>There is resolution and there is aspect ration. Don't confuse the two.
You
> >>can have HD material broadcast as digital 720p and 1080i resolutions and
> >>still have black bars. For example, the 35 or 65mm source was not filmed
> >>in wide aspect ratio. It is still HD it is still 720p or 1080i and it
has
> >>black bars at the side.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 2:42:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote (in part):

>The WB network didn't show "Babylon 5"...it was a syndicated series.
>Although Warner Brothers has the right to the home video releases of B5,
>the production was not done by anybody directly associated with them.
>JMS (and his crew) did all the work, and they did it the way they wanted.

You're right that I used WB to refer to both the network and the
studio in the same message. I should have been more specific. Not
that it matters, but WB the studio owns the show completely, not just
home distribution rights. Always did.
>
>But, I suspect you just have a bug up your butt about this, and are
>bringing completely unrelated material into a thread for no good reason.

I thought it was an appropriate analogy (about inappropriate cropping
to get the desired aspect ratio), but it's not worth belaboring.
Consider it dropped.

Del Mibbler
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 2:42:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Del Mibbler (mibbler@nycap.rr.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote (in part):
>
> >The WB network didn't show "Babylon 5"...it was a syndicated series.
> >Although Warner Brothers has the right to the home video releases of B5,
> >the production was not done by anybody directly associated with them.
> >JMS (and his crew) did all the work, and they did it the way they wanted.
>
> You're right that I used WB to refer to both the network and the
> studio in the same message. I should have been more specific. Not
> that it matters, but WB the studio owns the show completely, not just
> home distribution rights. Always did.

No, they don't. They owned the first-run distribution rights for the US
for the first 4 seasons, and own the home video distribution rights, but
Babylonian Productions owns the product, as far as I can tell:

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0105946/companycredits

--
Jeff Rife | "She just dropped by to remind me that my life
| is an endless purgatory, interrupted by profound
| moments of misery."
| -- Richard Karinsky, "Caroline in the City"
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 2:42:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife (wevsr@nabs.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> No, they don't. They owned the first-run distribution rights for the US
> for the first 4 seasons, and own the home video distribution rights, but
> Babylonian Productions owns the product, as far as I can tell:
>
> http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0105946/companycredits

Upon further investigation, it appears that Warner Brothers didn't actually
distribute the show in the US...Prime Time Entertainment Network (PTEN)
did so, but leased WB-owned satellite space (and possibly other facilities)
to do it. WB got their name on it because that's what they do with these
sorts of deals.

Heck, I've seen some old movies with *three* new logos on the front before
the original studio logo because distribution rights keep getting sold.

--
Jeff Rife | "But as much as everybody loves you, there is
| one question that keeps coming up...how dumb
| WAS she?"
| -- Tempus to Lois Lane
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 3:03:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Stan wrote:
> Whether the recordings were done on video or film, if the recording was not
> made in HD (at least 720 lines of resolution), you will never see it in true
> HD. It may be broadcast in HD, but it will not be true HD because it was
> not lensed and recorded in HD. Upgrading will probably improve the picture....

Film has much higher resolution than HD video. When a film is
transferred to HD video, the result is clearly "true HD". You use the
term "upgrading", but in reality HD video is a downgrade from film
resolution.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 4:17:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Stan wrote:

> Whether the recordings were done on video or film, if the recording was not
> made in HD (at least 720 lines of resolution), you will never see it in true
> HD. It may be broadcast in HD, but it will not be true HD because it was
> not lensed and recorded in HD. Upgrading will probably improve the picture
> and an HD transmission to your television set will reflect the upgrading,
> but the picture will never be better than what was originally recorded.
> High definition cameras must be used for true high definition.
>
> Aspect ratio is another discussion altogether. (In that regard, we will be
> looking at 4 x 3 for a long, long time.)

Pay attention to what Jim is trying to tell you. 35mm film has better
true resolution that HD video. There are caveats such as the film should
be in good condition, properly cleaned up, how grainy the film is (which
is often an effect the film maker was going for), and so on. Most HD
scripted shows are shot on 35mm film, not video.

Alan F
April 11, 2005 5:18:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I am not talking about film versus video. I am referring to cameras. High
definition cameras capture more detail than the cameras of years gone by.
The lenses and mechanism are much superior although it is difficult to
imagine sometimes when you see a beautifully preserved old film.

Before going any further, I will state that I am no expert. I only know
what I read and have come to believe.

A pre-digital age television camera could not capture a high definition
picture. Neither could a movie camera of that age. (Although the excellent
film of that age could record perfectly the less than perfect picture it
received.) The sensitivity and definition capability of the HD cameras
exceeds the capability of non HD cameras.

Do you still think that I am wrong in this regard? (By the way, if you ARE
an expert, please, say so and I will defer on general principles.)


"Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:yPadne1y6KZLZ8TfRVn-gA@comcast.com...
> Stan wrote:
>
> > Whether the recordings were done on video or film, if the recording was
not
> > made in HD (at least 720 lines of resolution), you will never see it in
true
> > HD. It may be broadcast in HD, but it will not be true HD because it
was
> > not lensed and recorded in HD. Upgrading will probably improve the
picture
> > and an HD transmission to your television set will reflect the
upgrading,
> > but the picture will never be better than what was originally recorded.
> > High definition cameras must be used for true high definition.
> >
> > Aspect ratio is another discussion altogether. (In that regard, we will
be
> > looking at 4 x 3 for a long, long time.)
>
> Pay attention to what Jim is trying to tell you. 35mm film has better
> true resolution that HD video. There are caveats such as the film should
> be in good condition, properly cleaned up, how grainy the film is (which
> is often an effect the film maker was going for), and so on. Most HD
> scripted shows are shot on 35mm film, not video.
>
> Alan F
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:03:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Stan wrote:
> I am not talking about film versus video. I am referring to cameras. High
> definition cameras capture more detail than the cameras of years gone by.

> Do you still think that I am wrong in this regard?

Well, I didn't say that you were wrong in my first reply to you, but you
are certainly moving in that direction. <g>

The optics that are in use in cameras have been at about the same level
of quality for many years, even decades. The optics are simply not the
limiting factor. The limiting factor is the film or video sensor that is
used to capture the image. So an SD image will have lower resolution
than an HD image, and an HD image will have lower resolution than a film
image.

The bottom line is that your opening premise ("High definition cameras
capture more detail than the cameras of years gone by.") is false. HD
cameras capture more detail than SD cameras - regardless of whether or
not they came from "years gone by". And HD cameras capture less detail
than film cameras - again regardless of whether or not they came from
"years gone by".

Obviously, that is a generalization and there are exceptions, but in
general the 35mm film cameras that have been used to shoot commercial
film and television have been able to produce a better-than-HD image for
many, many years now.

> A pre-digital age television camera could not capture a high definition
> picture.

True.

> Neither could a movie camera of that age.

False.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:04:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Stan (ssum9160@adelphia.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> A pre-digital age television camera could not capture a high definition
> picture.

This is true, because by definition they only scanned 480 lines for the
visible frame (525 total) for NTSC. The optics, however, could handle far
more than this if they would be mated to a higher resolution imaging device.

> Neither could a movie camera of that age.

This, however, is completely wrong.

Even a lowly consumer 35mm camera of the 1960s could capture a frame with
resolution of 2048x1365 with no trouble. Consumer 35mm cameras of the 1980s
could easily generate 4096x2730 with high-quality film.

The lenses and film used in 35mm movie cameras for "real" movies are light
years ahead of consumers systems in terms of quality...the film grain was
the #1 limited factor, and it keeps 35mm film at about that same 4K
resolution...it just happens more often with movie film than with a consumer.

Let's not even talk about 65mm film systems. There is *nothing* digital
that even approaches their quality for capturing images--still *or* moving.

--
Jeff Rife | "Five thousand dollars, huh? I'll bet we could
| afford that if we pooled our money together...
| bought a gun...robbed a bank...."
| -- Drew Carey
April 11, 2005 6:06:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:18:30 GMT, "Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com>
wrote:

>There is resolution and there is aspect ration. Don't confuse the two. You
>can have HD material broadcast as digital 720p and 1080i resolutions and
>still have black bars. For example, the 35 or 65mm source was not filmed in
>a wide aspect ratio. It is still HD it is still 720p or 1080i and it has
>black bars at the side.

By definition, a High Definition TV signal has a 16:9 aspect ratio.
The only 4:3 source material that might be in HD is old film, as you
describe. But if new content is 4:3, even on HD channels, you can bet
it is SD resolution.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 7:47:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:a_e6e.1386$%v6.208@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> There is resolution and there is aspect ration. Don't confuse the two. You
> can have HD material broadcast as digital 720p and 1080i resolutions and
> still have black bars. For example, the 35 or 65mm source was not filmed
> in a wide aspect ratio. It is still HD it is still 720p or 1080i and it
> has black bars at the side.

Yes, and I sometimes see TV pictures that I think may be 4:3 aspect HD. The
occasional network commercial, for example. The entire break will be framed
for 4:3 and most of the commercials will be obviously SD, of varying
quality. Then there will be one that looks really, really good and I wonder
if it is not HD. Since everything from that digital channel shows up on my
TV set as 1080i or 720p, there is no way to know for sure, except just
judging by the way it looks.

mack
austin
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 4:53:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

The station is broadcasting 1080i 24x7 but up-converts SD material.

It should be obvious to your eyes what is SD and HD.

Steve


"Boothbay" <harri85274@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113054731.725681.145400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "If you see side bars on a program that is suppose to be hdtv, then it
> isn't. Its SD." So how come when I checked out that statement, I did
> see the side bars, but my reciever says i1080 and also the program. How
> come SD can get that high resolution?
>
April 12, 2005 5:22:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Just to be certain that I understand you folks .............. are you saying
that the optics in the newly developed high definition Hollywood movie and
broadcast television cameras are no better than the Hollywood movie and
broadcast television cameras of the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's? Would
the engineers involved in the technology agree?


"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cc4862fb80c6b8e989c98@news.nabs.net...
> Stan (ssum9160@adelphia.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > A pre-digital age television camera could not capture a high definition
> > picture.
>
> This is true, because by definition they only scanned 480 lines for the
> visible frame (525 total) for NTSC. The optics, however, could handle far
> more than this if they would be mated to a higher resolution imaging
device.
>
> > Neither could a movie camera of that age.
>
> This, however, is completely wrong.
>
> Even a lowly consumer 35mm camera of the 1960s could capture a frame with
> resolution of 2048x1365 with no trouble. Consumer 35mm cameras of the
1980s
> could easily generate 4096x2730 with high-quality film.
>
> The lenses and film used in 35mm movie cameras for "real" movies are light
> years ahead of consumers systems in terms of quality...the film grain was
> the #1 limited factor, and it keeps 35mm film at about that same 4K
> resolution...it just happens more often with movie film than with a
consumer.
>
> Let's not even talk about 65mm film systems. There is *nothing* digital
> that even approaches their quality for capturing images--still *or*
moving.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife | "Five thousand dollars, huh? I'll bet we could
> | afford that if we pooled our money together...
> | bought a gun...robbed a bank...."
> | -- Drew Carey
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:00:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Stan wrote:
> Just to be certain that I understand you folks .............. are you saying
> that the optics in the newly developed high definition Hollywood movie and
> broadcast television cameras are no better than the Hollywood movie and
> broadcast television cameras of the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's?

Not enough better to talk about in this conversation. There have been
improvements, but the optics haven't been the limiting factor for a
long, long time. The limiting factor has been sensor (film, tube, ccd
etc) technology, not the optics.

> Would
> the engineers involved in the technology agree?
>

In terms of the limits of imaging technology, yes, I expect that they would.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
!