Is it because they crank up the luma and croma (which is what I always tell people). Is it the 60 half frames a second? Is it because it is filmed directly to video?

It never fails, whenever I have friends over they seem to think that some HD shows look far better than HDM, while I think they look more cartoonish. Discovery HD is the ONLY HD content that my wife watches and says looks HD!:( She has never been impressed by HD DVD or Blu-ray (except of course Planet Earth).


So what are the real technical explainations?

People are to used to video is the only thing I can come up with.
I don't agree by the way.

I'd say video look without any grain or director's intent (such as a gritty film). Everything is designed to be flimed for maximum wow factor. However, Planet Earth HD DVD/BR looks better than anything on discovery but for most people the difference isnt' noticeable.

I've said it many times in the past, HD Theater is people's idea of HD. Not this whole, faithful to orginial movie, intent.

Maybe higher frame rates (or field/refresh rates) - higher than 24fps.
Shot on HD video. Without film's 180 degree shutter? Without film grain (though I suppose it could have video noise - though I'm guessing they usually shoot in bright daylight so shouldn't have much noise). Using the full 16:9 screen. I haven't ever seen Discovery HD so I'm just guessing :). I've seen clips on the web and I think they probably do increase the saturation of colours/increase contrast (or at least grade it to make it look how they want - a bit like how they do with film).

I think it's the frame rate. It give a more "right out the window" appearance to me. Even the best HDM looks like film, as in you're seeing things how the director intended you to see them, not as it actually is. Therefore, there's a lot of artificial things added to a film picture, unlike say, Discovery HD, where they might turn up the color saturation, but they won't place a color filter or intentional grain in the picture.

Many of the IMAX transfers like Coral Reef Adventure also have this same saturated look. On my Plasma TV they llok very bright, colorful and and almost 3-D.

It used to be that high end HDTV stores always played these titles, because of the WOW factor.

Films usually have a fairly shallow depth of field whereas video generally has massive depth of field. Since HD video generally has somewhere between most to the entire frame in focus, that creates images with a lot of detail as more compared to some typical film frames.

Films usually have a fairly shallow depth of field whereas video generally has massive depth of field. Since HD video generally has somewhere between most to the entire frame in focus, that creates images with a lot of detail as more compared to some typical film frames.

I never noticed that, but now that I think about it, you are right. Thanks!

I never noticed that, but now that I think about it, you are right. Thanks!

A lot of people have the same reaction when they move from a standard P&S digital camera to an SLR. Even more don't like the fact that their photos are typically not sharpened enough in the camera. After all, why should they have to post process an image with a camera and lens set they just dropped $6k to be like a pro?

All the answers so far have been good - greater depth of field, lack of film grain, higher frame rate for capture, nature of the content (brighter colors, usually shot in daylight, usually with a lot of fairly slow moving objects in the scene) - but I would also offer that images captured with HD cameras tend to have higher contrast in the middle spatial frequencies than most film transfers to HD. So they end up looking sharper and "punchier."

Agree with GI Joe's summary. Discovery Theater's (or HDNet's, etc.) 1080i productions sure seem to be providing greater effective resolutions. Many of them are captured with HDCAMs, resolution-limited to 1440 lines maximum effective resolution (upconverted to 1920X1080i). Sony's HDCAM might also be delivering some image-sharpening contrast boost at low/mid-range resolutions, too, as in Adam Wilt's Figure 1 (http://www.dv.com/columns/columns_item.php?articleId=187202363). Here, using 1080i CRT RPTV display (64" at 8'), Discovery's "Sunrise Earth" episodes, HDCAM taped at 24 fps, appear fuzzier--even with Sunrise's mostly static shots--than most other travelogues/documentaries from HDCAM video output/delivered/viewed at 1080/60i. Sunrise tapes have rich colors, though. Earlier measurements (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9314235&&#post9314235) of 1080/24p HD-D5 master tapes indicated 800--1100-line resolutions for films (equivalent maximum effective horizontal resolution per picture width), with many telecined films at the low end of that range. More measurements would be needed to confirm, but it's possible that the best (resolution-wise) HD discs deliver maximum resolutions at the upper end of that range. Haven't seen similar spectrum analysis of HDCAM/etc. or live 1080i, although estimates are typically ~1450 lines maximum even for live HD. -- John

One of most obvious difference between video and film (HDM) is brightness. Video is just so much brighter than film, human eyes prefer brighter images. High brightness+higher contrast = eye candy. Same reasons CGI movies are more pleasant looking to most people, same reasons TV's default setting on torch mode. Next time you go to a movie theater, you will notice how dark that place is.

There is another factor: display limitation. Many displays still have trouble rendering dark scenes/low-level signals. However, feed them a bright signal and all is forgiven :). Try this experiment. Play one of these bright sources on a lousy flat panel and see it still shine.

Less is more. Less processing steps for video that is. There is no conversion from film to video and no chemical process in between.
Video also appears sharper because the ccd chip doesn't wobble about like a film does from frame to frame.