Looks the same as the previous cap comparison - loss of vertical resolution (maybe 1/2) and some mid-frequency horizontal. Since some movies are very close and others have this detail difference, I suspect it's processing on a show by show basis. It looks alot like the processing used where a blurred image is lightly mixed with the original, lowering the contrast and decreasing edge enhancement outline effects. It wouldn't surprise me if this is HDNet trying to have a unique and more filmlike appearance, but being counterproductive in the process.

It wouldn't surprise me if this is HDNet trying to have a unique and more filmlike appearance, but being counterproductive in the process.

And it would greatly surprise me if they were.

The dollar bill differenece based on my expereince looks like MPEG encoder differences. And I gotta tell you it's not that bad. I think some here are being far too critital of these movies. Time will tell.

My request to HDnet is not to install any image enhancement devices in the transmission path. That will only make it worse. Just send the image as you get it which I am confident is already being done. If the transfer is soft they have the option of rejecting it. But as only a very small percentage of viewers are complaining, such an action would not be good business practice.

Thanks Tim for that reply and Thanks to HDNet for monitering this thread

HDNet is the best network there is and I would gladly pay 10 fold what I do now for it, I would love to see these picture quality problems corrected, they are the best and their picture quality should match that

with a little tweaking by them I think that can be done with ease

once again this is NOT a transfer issue, meaning the problem is not with what HDNet is being provided, there is just a little something wrong somewhere in the chain that can be fixed and we will have better quality in the end

-Gary

If these issues get resolved this channel would be the all time Ono Ono #1 :)
It already is regarding movie titles:)

Tonight is The Goonies. One of my favorites. My fingers are crossed.

Guys "Naked Gun" and "Hour of the Gun" have both been on HDNet and HBO for Naked and GuyTV for Hour, those would be 2 other great examples for grabs, Hour is a older movie that would be interesting to see how it turned out

to bad I didn't record these, back when "Naked Gun" was on HBO my recording was hosed :mad: so I can't compare the HDNet airing, Naked looked jaw dropping on HBO though

most examples that I have can come up with show basically what the 2 I have posted have shown

-Gary

And it would greatly surprise me if they were.

The dollar bill differenece based on my expereince looks like MPEG encoder differences. And I gotta tell you it's not that bad. I think some here are being far too critital of these movies. Time will tell. The very noticeable loss of vertical is not typical of the HD mpeg encoders I've used (Tandberg, Motorola, Harris, Mitsubishi), although I'll admit I haven't used the specific one HDNet is using. Contrast and level changes in an mpeg encoder are also not typical. I have seen slight color shifts toward green because of negative DC offsets in the color difference channels. The loss of vertical is not from simply losing a field, as it looks too smooth. It could be they are using a super custom quantizing matrix, but that would be unusual too. The example in post #152 showing nearly identical vertical detail would indicate either a different encoder, or different processing on that particular movie. The case where the color was much warmer is interesting. If it can be shown that it was from the same transfer, it would demonstrate that someone massaged it.My request to HDnet is not to install any image enhancement devices in the transmission path. That will only make it worse. Just send the image as you get it which I am confident is already being done. If the transfer is soft they have the option of rejecting it. But as only a very small percentage of viewers are complaining, such an action would not be good business practice.It is possible to improve PQ with post-processing, but it's unusual for a network to change the look of a delivered show. I think with episodics it's not permitted. There is still alot of variance in the looks of shows, and in my opinion, some colorists who are a bit heavy handed on the enhancement. It isn't as bad now as it was in the SD days when so many URSA transfers had TONS of enhancement - they made me cringe. If this problem is post-processing, then I would very much agree to end the this practice.

Im disappointed. Goonies is not looking very good at all. Very soft. DVD quality.

For shame, all these soft movies :(

Folks will not believe the difference if HDNet does some fixin' :)

-Gary

Ok

I have a good one for you guys, which image is which in the following captures from one of my all time favorite movies:

A:
http://home.bigsandybb.com/gmurrell/revenge2.jpg
B:
http://home.bigsandybb.com/gmurrell/revenge1.jpg

what image is from which provider??

-Gary

Look at the eye.

HDNet is seriously lacking in detail, edge enhancement doesn't bring stuff like that out
It sure helps though. Here's your GuyTV shot:

http://home.bigsandybb.com/gmurrell/Big1280.bmp

and here's your HDNet Movies image after I added a tiny bit of sharpening:

http://home.pacifier.com/~scowl/hdtv/Big1920Sharpened.bmp

There are certainly details missing (take a close look at the G in the dollar bill) but it's closer. I'm sure they add some edge enhancement to make up for the 1920->1280 downscaling.

I could have added even more sharpening to create artificial details to the table felt and make the GuyTV version look like it was less detailed. That's why the bills are a better way to compare details since we know what those are supposed to look like.

Any takers on the Revenge shots ?? and I will reveal the networks

Scowl I understand what you are saying, would Dish actually add edge enhancement during the downconversion??,
GuyTV from Voom is 1920x1080i and is not sent to Dish as 1280x1080i

-Gary

I wanna say the top is D* and the Bottom is E* but it's probably a trick question.

A few more guess and I will reveal, this is fun :D but will fail to be funny when all is said and done :(

-Gary

The top Revenge is HDNet adding a setup level to one that's already there. Probably the same thing in The Big Town.

HDnet movies had a big problem with adding extra setup levels when they first started. I thought they had taken care of that.

Yep I remember them old days, I had HDNet Movies on both D* and E* then

brightness levels were fubar

-Gary

A few more guess and I will reveal, this is fun :D but will fail to be funny when all is said and done :(

I thought it was a rhetorical question. If these are from the same places as "The Big Town" then it looks obvious that they are just flipped (with the top one here being from the same place as the bottom image of the craps table).

--Darin

Scowl I understand what you are saying, would Dish actually add edge enhancement during the downconversion??
I suspect they would to make the downconversion less obvious to the casual viewer. Just look at how much it improved that one image I enhanced.

The image from Revenge on top is from HDNet

the bottom image is from DVD, scaled to match the HD image from HDNet :)

when we say not much better than DVD we are not kidding :( :mad:

I will take the Revenge DVD over HDNet any day

what a shame

-Gary

If you look closely at the HDNet image, you can see the individual beads in the guy's necklace. This is blown up 200% so people don't go blind:

http://home.pacifier.com/~scowl/hdtv/revengeneck.jpg

The necklace on the DVD is just a white line.

http://home.pacifier.com/~scowl/hdtv/revengeneck2.jpg

Yeah, not a lot of difference but I gotta point out what I see. :)

Not a lot of difference is right. You would have to point that out to everyone because no one would notice it on their own. True HD would reveal the fibers in the shirt and texture of his skin. Its all gone and smoothed over.

You got it Alan :(

you got me Scowl I didn't even notice that

-Gary

WOW!!! I pegged the top image as the HDNETM but didn't realize the bottom was from an upscaled DVD!! Now THAT has gotta tell people something. This is very dissapointing as HDNETM has such a KILLER lineup of flicks. At this point, I RARELY archive from HDNETM anymore for this reason. Again, this is SO obvious and I really hope it is not overlooked.

Great work Gary!!

Before anybody gets too worked up about the DVD comparison remember Gary is comparing a 720x480 DVD image to a scaled down 960x540 HDNet image, not a full 1920x1080 image.

I do believe that HDNet is too soft in many movies (and we will probably figure out why) but this particular one is not a fair comparison. It's like showing a fifth of booze is not much more than a cup, after pouring it into a 10 oz glass.

- Tom

Let me scale the DVD up to 1920x1080i and show the true HD grab, the difference will be the same Tom, Revenge is the bottom of the barrel from HDNet

I am still working to get some 1920x1080i grabs up

-Gary

you got me Scowl I didn't even notice that
Obviously I shouldn't have to blow an HD image up 200% to show a difference but at least we know it wasn't exactly the same as the DVD.

Let me scale the DVD up to 1920x1080i and show the true HD grab, the difference will be the same Tom, Revenge is the bottom of the barrel from HDNet

I am still working to get some 1920x1080i grabs up

-Gary

Just download the trail copy of Womble's MpegVCR

Let me scale the DVD up to 1920x1080i and show the true HD grab, the difference will be the same Tom, Revenge is the bottom of the barrel from HDNet

I am still working to get some 1920x1080i grabs up

Gary -

I hope you can find a way to do that. It's hard to prove something has little resolution when you are first throwing away 3/4 of the pixels. I tend to use DVD2AVI (or DGIndex), VirtualdubMod, and Irfanview free utilities since then I can easily step through the frames one at a time if needed. But there are many other ways to get a full sized image capture.

PM me if you have questions getting started on these.

- Tom

Thanks Tom
I will see what I can do, I used to use Virtualdubmod as my grabber, it now gives me a error

Edit: seems to be working now, no errors :)

-Gary

Before anybody gets too worked up about the DVD comparison remember Gary is comparing a 720x480 DVD image to a scaled down 960x540 HDNet image, not a full 1920x1080 image.

Dumb question here I guess. Assume this fits in later with your 'tossing away' 3/4 of images. Don't tinker with computer processing of HD here. But do recall, from an earlier thread I started, that 960X540 likely means 960 lines per picture height, which in turn means 960 X 1.78 = 1708 line/HD picture width, the typical limiting resolution (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5667245&&#post5667245) of 1080i/p without oversampling or special filtering. And since 540 lines is only half a 1080i TV frame (one TV field), merged by the eye/brain neurons during interlaced viewing to 1/30-sec TV frames, truer image '960X540' capture/display (publication) would require deinterlacing to 1/60-sec frames for full vertical resolution--even though that's not what those with non-progressive displays see. What the actual horizontal resolution is seems to be the focus here ('crispness' versus softness), although don't believe it's anything like 960/PH or 1708/PW in equivalent movie detail, but more likely 800--1100 lines/PW (per some sublinks in the link above) after telecine/storage/transmission/decoding. So, is all that what 960X540 means? :-)-- John

But do recall, from an earlier thread I started, that 960X540 likely means 960 lines per picture height, which in turn means 960 X 1.78 = 1708 line/HD picture width, the typical limiting resolution of 1080i/p without oversampling or special filtering.

John -

You sure? I think 960w x 540h means 540 lines / picture height and 540*1.78=960 lines / picture width. Half of max HD 1080i pixels in both dimensions, qtr rez.

But who knows, I'm never comfortable thinking in terms of "picture lines".

- Tom

John -

You sure? I think 960w x 540h means 540 lines / picture height and 540*1.78=960 lines / picture width. Half of max HD 1080i pixels in both dimensions, qtr rez.

But who knows, I'm never comfortable thinking in terms of "picture lines".

- TomThat is correct. This would translate to a horizontal resolution of 540 TVL. Obviously this is a theoretical figure as there are no perfect filters - very good ones though.

Just download the trail copy of Womble's MpegVCR

Don't take captures with any of the Womble products (VCR or Wizard). They have some issues in their decoder when dealing with interlaced sources. You'll get some random color smearing, etc. I suggest the trial copy of VideoRedo.

If you don't mind demuxing your transport files to .mpv/ac3 files, I could send you a little program I wrote that dumps specific frame-ranges from elementary mpeg2 files. That's what I use when working on my MPEG2Repair utility.

I found my old recordings of 'Full Metal Jacket' (HBO and HDNet). Unfortunately my current TV (36" CRT) isn't good enough to see much difference, but I'll try to come up with some full-resolution frames for you guys to look at.

-Mark

Hey thanks Mark, I really enjoy your Mpeg2repair, I should send you a little $

-Gary

Off topic now but I just watched Open Range on HDNet Movies. Christ, it was soft and had blocking artifacts all over to boot. This is just making me sick. We don't even have any opportunity to see movies at all in HD without them being cut to crap with commercials. :( :( :(

Art

Art what was your source on that?? cable??

-Gary

Art what was your source on that?? cable??

-Gary

No for this is was DirecTV. In the past at least in still or slow moving material it was sharp even if in fast motion it might break up. This was soft and broke up all over the place.

Art

What a shame

All I can say that Blu-ray and HD-DVD cannot arrive soon enough, I don't give it **** whichever one it is, I will prolly buy both :D

the amount of money we are spending every month for this garbage HD could be put to go use in buying True HDTV optical formats or if only JVC cared about D-Theater and had made it a competing format we could have had that

-Gary

Mentioned earlier above seeing a remarkably crisp, colorful promo segment for Gorillas in the Mist, likely on HDNetM but perhaps on HDNet. But viewing the feature, captured on DVR, the fidelity seemed diminished considerably--noticeably softer and with a faint whitish haze, (taking into account this was supposed to be a tropical environment.) For greater accuracy, direct A-B comparisons would be necessary. -- John

You sure? I think 960w x 540h means 540 lines / picture height and 540*1.78=960 lines / picture width. Half of max HD 1080i pixels in both dimensions, qtr rez.

But who knows, I'm never comfortable thinking in terms of "picture lines".


That is correct. This would translate to a horizontal resolution of 540 TVL. Obviously this is a theoretical figure as there are no perfect filters - very good ones though.
:) Methinks there's some leg pulling afoot. Still, I'll play, just to see what I might be missing here...

Tom seemed to imply initially that only 1/4 of the potential HD detail was being published above as images (3/4 thrown out). Couldn't fathom, if that's the case, all this commentary about HDNet image quality based on that! Also, why would the standard format designation, widthXheight, be reversed for 960X540? Where else in the technical literature does this format reversal (heightXwidth) appear?

Of course, 960 lines horizontal resolution (assuming 540X1.78) might be considered normal resolvable detail from a telecine and tape storage (800--1300), if you accept sspears' earlier analyzer measurements (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=2498224#post2498224) as valid--and specified in HDTV lines/PW, not lines/PH

So that leaves the 960 figure (from 960X540) as specifying vertical resolution. That's 160 lines greater than the static vertical resolution (800 lines) measured during the mid-'90s ATSC approval tests (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=326565#post326565). Suppose 960 lines vertical resolution might be feasible with double vertical oversampling and downconversion, but hadn't heard this type of oversampling was SOP for 1080/24p master tapes. And, the point I raised above, how does still-image capture of an interlaced signal factor in (without deinterlacing)? -- John

[QUOTE=John Mason
Of course, 960 lines horizontal resolution (assuming 540X1.78) might be considered normal resolvable detail from a telecine and tape storage (800--1300), if you accept sspears' earlier analyzer measurements (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=2498224#post2498224) as valid--and specified in HDTV lines/PW, not lines/PH

So that leaves the 960 figure (from 960X540) as specifying vertical resolution. That's 160 lines greater than the static vertical resolution (800 lines) measured during the mid-'90s ATSC approval tests (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=326565#post326565). Suppose 960 lines vertical resolution might be feasible with double vertical oversampling and downconversion, but hadn't heard this type of oversampling was SOP for 1080/24p master tapes. And, the point I raised above, how does still-image capture of an interlaced signal factor in (without deinterlacing)? -- John[/QUOTE]

24P is just that. There is no 540 or 960 line anything in 1080/24P. The 24sF HDSDI transport stream alternates lines but that has no effect on the final progressive image.

A Thomson Spirit 1 can develope 40% modulation at 28mhz. That's the true test of it's performance. Looking at ATSC and DVHS sources is not indictivitave of the telecine performance but rather the MPEG encoder used.

Tom seemed to imply initially that only 1/4 of the potential HD detail was being published above as images (3/4 thrown out). Couldn't fathom, if that's the case, all this commentary about HDNet image quality based on that! Also, why would the standard format designation, widthXheight, be reversed for 960X540? Where else in the technical literature does this format reversal (heightXwidth) appear?

John -

If you right click on one of Gary's images above and choose properties (at least using my Opera browser) it will show 960x540, meaning 960 wide x 540 high. I'm assuming that is some property of how Gary is capturing them and not really how HDNet movies are sent. But I don't get that channel. My comments were mostly addressing the fact that a 960x540 image has already lost 3/4 of the resolution of a fully detailed 1920x1080 image so it is not of much use for detail comparison.

- Tom

Or, more specifically, 1/2 horizontal, and 1/2 vertical. I've never been sure if this is a loss of 1/2 or 3/4 of the resolution, as video is two dimensional. I've usually tried to refer to them separately.Suppose 960 lines vertical resolution might be feasible with double vertical oversampling and downconversion, but hadn't heard this type of oversampling was SOP for 1080/24p master tapes.Oversampling can increase depth of modulation as the sinc rolloff characteristic is pushed out further. However, as Glimmie pointed out, not all of that will be realized at ATSC compression rates because of the large high frequency coefficients in the quantizing matrix.A Thomson Spirit 1 can develope 40% modulation at 28mhz.Funny company- one part owns the most film lab facilities in the world, while another strives to make film obsolete.

After perusing most of this thread, I realize that it's very difficult to come up with a reference point when talking about HDNET, so I've managed to post the following: a near 1920x1080 jpeg (1804x1015) of the resolution screen from the HDNET TEST PATTERN broadcast with these properties: 1920x1080i resolution, 29.97 fps frame rate, and bit rate 19.39 Mbps (DISH6000 STB). It's taking up a lot of screen real estate, but the capture does not sacrifice the original res.


In terms of resolution this jpeg accurately replicates the original MPEG2 ts file. As I understand, the numbers next to the converging lines x 100 roughly indicate resolution.




http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/sierrabob/snapshot_ts_1920x1080i.jpg

Thanks for the clarification, Tom. Didn't realize that 960X540 came from a right-click on images here. And happy to read 960X540 is back to W x H again; the H x W discussion really threw me off track.

Mentioned initially I'd started a thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5517189&&#post5517189), which you contributed to, that involved "960X540" in another context. But that thread was about low-pass optical filters associated with camera lenses, limiting horizontal resolution deliberately--part of the confusion here. Concluded in that thread that 960 X 1.78 = 1708 lines/picture width converted from lines/picture height (TV lines or TVL), which is 1080i's limiting resolution after standard filtering (linked earlier above).

TVOD's comment about 1/2 horizontally and 1/2 vertically for 960X540, referring to 1920X1080 resolution, makes sense, too. In video terms, resolution is considered horizontal, so some might interpret 1/4 as being 1920/4. Maybe computerese shouldn't be mixed with video terms without explanation. With a totally computer-origination source (non-sampled) you could have 1920X1080 pixels (columns X rows). But a sampled 1080i source might resolve only, say, 1550 X 800 with a static image--with the full 1920X1080 signal being present, just not fully resolvable as a 'pure' computer image might be.

Glimmie's comment:
24P is just that. There is no 540 or 960 line anything in 1080/24P. The 24sF HDSDI transport stream alternates lines but that has no effect on the final progressive image.

A Thomson Spirit 1 can develope 40% modulation at 28mhz. That's the true test of it's performance. Looking at ATSC and DVHS sources is not indictivitave of the telecine performance but rather the MPEG encoder used. Is that saying the .ts images here are all 24PsF as captured by those here, and the fact they're delivered via 1080/60i (30i) to all those capturing HDNet images doesn't factor in? Or is that referring to their 24p status before interlacing and final transmission to homes? Believe inverse telecine of 1080i (extracting 24p movie frames) is still not common with most 1080i home equipment. Anyone?

Regarding the Spirit 1's (telecine machine) 40% modulation at 28 MHz. Wish we could see a complete plot, but that appears to be very close, at ~1/2 contrast, to 1080i's resolution limit, at least from this rough graph (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=3323534#post3323534), where I plotted your data point at 1450 lines early last year. Downloaded the Spirit2's pdf spec recently and believe it--another curious single-point performance figure--was similar. Not sure if we're getting any Spirit2 telecines, supposedly with a double-resolution 4k scan option for potential downconversion to 1920X1080, from the studio's--or farmed out--telecine sources for programmers such as HDNet.

So if the widely used Spirit 1 delivers horizontal resolution at about half-contrast at ~1450 lines/PW, then presumably when it's recorded on a Panasonic HD-D5 cassette deck, also widely used, the resolution becomes less than ~1300 lines, which you indicated some time back was 'good' for HD-D5 performance. The 1080/24p master tapes telecined to HD-D5 by sspears measured 800--1300 lines/PW (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=2498224#post2498224) with a spectrum analyzer. That's all before any MPEG-2 encoding for transmission, if I understand your post. So, perhaps the comments by WSR editor, Reber, and a cinematographer collaborating with him, that 800--1000 line resolution for telecined movies on home screens is close.

As mentioned previously, it's strange that private reports such as consultant's Matt Cowan's (http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf) and an SMPTE paper, based on ITU data, detail the actual resolution of film prints on theater screens, yet there's no equivalent published reports of resolution reaching home screens.
******************
A welcome image from sierrabob. Assume if I changed my computer output rez from 800X600, my new Dell 1600X1200 LCD display could resolve it better. On my 9"-CRT RPTV screen, the best I've resolved so far, is 7.5 X 100 X 1.78 = 1335 lines/PW. That's apparently a limitation of my cable STB and RCN Cable, since Time Warner and another STB only provide 1290 lines, and one CableCard TWC subscriber (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5911408&&#post5911408) measured 1600 lines from this test pattern.

Maybe, since standard AVS posts at full rez usually aren't possible (but can be with external storage/linkage), just extracting a segment of detail, such as a 1/4 image segment containing the earlier dollar bill images, and showing a highly condensed full image elsewhere for perspective, would be more accurate. Then again, perhaps something like that's already taking place. -- John

Glimmie's comment:

Regarding the Spirit 1's (telecine machine) 40% modulation at 28 MHz. Wish we could see a complete plot, but that appears to be very close, at ~1/2 contrast, to 1080i's resolution limit, at least from this rough graph (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=3323534#post3323534), where I plotted your data point at 1450 lines early last year. Downloaded the Spirit2's pdf spec recently and believe it--another curious single-point performance figure--was similar. Not sure if we're getting any Spirit2 telecines, supposedly with a double-resolution 4k scan option for potential downconversion to 1920X1080, from the studio's--or farmed out--telecine sources for programmers such as HDNet.

So if the widely used Spirit 1 delivers horizontal resolution at about half-contrast at ~1450 lines/PW, then presumably when it's recorded on a Panasonic HD-D5 cassette deck, also widely used, the resolution becomes less than ~1300 lines, which you indicated some time back was 'good' for HD-D5 performance. The 1080/24p master tapes telecined to HD-D5 by sspears measured 800--1300 lines/PW (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=2498224#post2498224) with a spectrum analyzer. That's all before any MPEG-2 encoding for transmission, if I understand your post. So, perhaps the comments by WSR editor, Reber, and a cinematographer collaborating with him, that 800--1000 line resolution for telecined movies on home screens is close.

-- John

We keep coming back to this archived spectrum analyzer test which I don't support.

First, he used program material, not calibrated test plates. If you don't know the resolution of the test material, you can't base performance of a system or product using it.

Second, he was using a DVHS as a source. I don't see where he was using an HDD5 with a master tape. This is hardly conclusive of the source quality. From the posts in that thread it appeares it was a discussion on DVHS quality, not source equipment capabilities.

It just bothers me when the consumer magazines such as WSR start poking their noses into the professional side and make claims which are not supported by the industry. If they want to report on how the transfers are done why not interview someone at one of the many facilities that do it. Post names to support the facts, that's responsible journalism.

A Thomson Spirit 1 can develope 40% modulation at 28mhz. That's the true test of it's performance.

Glimmie -

I don't know telecine models. Can you say what corresponding numbers are for the new 4k telecine machines?

- Tom

We keep coming back to this archived spectrum analyzer test which I don't support.

First, he used program material, not calibrated test plates. If you don't know the resolution of the test material, you can't base performance of a system or product using it.

Second, he was using a DVHS as a source. I don't see where he was using an HDD5 with a master tape. This is hardly conclusive of the source quality. From the posts in that thread it appeares it was a discussion on DVHS quality, not source equipment capabilities.

It just bothers me when the consumer magazines such as WSR start poking their noses into the professional side and make claims which are not supported by the industry. If they want to report on how the transfers are done why not interview someone at one of the many facilities that do it. Post names to support the facts, that's responsible journalism.
You keep claiming he used DVHS as a source, when clearly from his post, and the context within the thread, he was referring to telecined 1080/24p master tapes stored on HD-D5 cassettes. Oh well. I've often posted the link to dr1394's spectrum analysis of a 720p crowd scene using a freeware/~$80 software package; if it's impossible to do the same thing with a high-end H-P analyzer, which sspears used, perhaps analyzing a video sequence, then....? --John

I think the difference is between the capability of the telecines versus real world images with all the limiting factors combined. Zoom for normal framing on a feature with a Spirit 1 limits resolution as it's basically a DVE. Joe Kane's figure of 800-1300 pixel resolution was from D5 masters, and I think that sounds about right. While I don't always agree with him (he HATES 1080i), I have enjoyed his demos at NAB and CES.

I maintain that flatness in the mid and upper mid frequencies are far more important than the limiting resolution. Aperture correction can help restore losses as long as there isn't an over-emphasis of some frequencies (typically lower mids).

As far as consumer commentary, I've found the viewing public is becoming increasing sophisticated and are capable of providing valuable feedback. While there is always some misunderstanding and speculation (most viewers are not able to see uncompressed or even D5 or SR tapes on a BVMA32E1WU (http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/DisplayModel?m=0&p=8&sp=20073&id=80823)), I find many to be well informed. The fact this thread exists demonstrates that the viewers are finding fault that that may have escaped the engineering professionals.

When Blu-Ray/HD DVD becomes reality with (hopefully) improved data rates and codecs, it's likely that the gap between what is seen in a professional setting and at home will become quite narrow.

Glimmie -

I don't know telecine models. Can you say what corresponding numbers are for the new 4k telecine machines?

- TomHere is the web page (http://thomsongrassvalley.com/products/film/spirit_4k/) for the Spirit, and another for the Cintel (http://www.cintel.co.uk/products/film-restoration.htm)

You keep claiming he used DVHS as a source, when clearly from his post, and the context within the thread, he was referring to telecined 1080/24p master tapes stored on HD-D5 cassettes. Oh well. I've often posted the link to dr1394's spectrum analysis of a 720p crowd scene using a freeware/~$80 software package; if it's impossible to do the same thing with a high-end H-P analyzer, which sspears used, perhaps analyzing a video sequence, then....? --John

Here are the exact quotes I am refering to:

POST #126


sspears
Dreamer

Registered: Feb 1999
Location: Sammamish, WA, USA
Posts: 3739

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing has been offered above to dispute the importance of my original question about how the measurement was done and the accuracy involved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Joe and I measured the output of the JVC analog and then the JVC (1394) -> Samsug 165 (DVI) -> DVI DAC. The scope photos will probably be on-line at some point.

The roll-off on the analog outputs are just as Greg described. When fed to an external DVI DAC (DVI In, VGA out), the response was virtuallyt flat. This was looking at the 1 to 30 MHz multiburst.

We used a Tek 1735 HD WFM to perform the measurements.


POST #127


sspears
Dreamer

Registered: Feb 1999
Location: Sammamish, WA, USA
Posts: 3739

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you're right that Joe Kane's meaning is that 800-1300 lines on a master is final resolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A spectrum analyzer was used to look at high frequency information. This was done on the Restaurant scene and on several motion pictures. This is how the 1300 vs. 800 was calculated.



dr1394 is analyzing the received bit stream. He is posting numbers based on the MPEG stream. He is not claiming these numbers are that of the source material. This is perfectly valid.

Where did sspears get hold of an HDD5 master? I'm not saying he didn't because it's possible depending on where he works but these aren't just sent out to anyone for obvious reasons. And I can promiss you they aren't sent out to home video magazines for evaluation.

But let's assume for the moment he did. He looked at "Harry Potter 3" scene xxxx on a spectrum analyzer. He found no significant energy beyond 22mhz. From this data we can state there is no resolution above 22mhz in this movie on this scene.We can't say the telecine chain is not capable of it. We can't say the VTR is incapable of recording it. We can't even say film is not capable of capturing it because perhaps it was not there in the form of photons to begin with.

My point is these numbers being thrown around here as the limiting resolution of the transfer chain are completly unsupported by proper scientific measurment. In layman's terms they are bogus.

Tom,
Regarding your Spirit 2 query, here's an extract from the resolution spec from the pdf pages (http://www.gvg.net/products/film/spirit_4k/pdf/spirit_4k_ds.pdf) (page 4). Nice classroom exercise to compare this with 40% modulation at 28 MHz (Spirit 1) as charted in my 'rough graph' link earlier. And for extra credit, plot how an HDNet-delivered transfer of a resolution-test film might look, after compression to ~17 Mbps video payload, from one Spirit machine compared to the other; then how both would look delivered at 36-45 Mbps via 1080 DVDs or, say, an optical-fiber-to-the-home network...okay, not using vintage bandwidth-limited CATV gear. :-)
Not more than 3 dB down at
24 MHz in center and corner for
35 mm –3 perf/–4 perf and 16
mm (film losses not taken into
account),
--John

Tom,
Regarding your Spirit 2 query, here's an extract from the resolution spec from the pdf pages (http://www.gvg.net/products/film/spirit_4k/pdf/spirit_4k_ds.pdf) (page 4). Nice classroom exercise to compare this with 40% modulation at 28 MHz (Spirit 1) as charted in my 'rough graph' link earlier. And for extra credit, plot how an HDNet-delivered transfer of a resolution-test film might look, after compression to ~17 Mbps video payload, from one Spirit machine compared to the other; then how both would look delivered at 36-45 Mbps via 1080 DVDs or, say, an optical-fiber-to-the-home network...okay, not using vintage bandwidth-limited CATV gear. :-)

--John

FYI, 40% at 28mhz is approx 6db down.

Tom,
Regarding your Spirit 2 query.......

None of this has any relevance to most recently made pictures, as most of them are finished via a digital intermediate (using 2K film scans, for the most part) and there is no telecine transfer at any point. The HD master is created directly from the film scan files. "Harry Potter 3," previously mentioned in this thread, would fit into this category.

FYI, 40% at 28mhz is approx 6db down.

Glimmie -

Sorry, but I don't know how to do the math on this. What % MTF would be 3 db down at 24 mhz?

And, for that matter, what mhz corresponds to 1920 alternating black & white lines? I think I already knew that one once but certainly can't remember it today. ISTR that the megaherz conversion is complicate by including horizontal overscan time or something for legacy CRT reasons.

Sorry to pester but I continually confuse computer & TV terminology.

- Tom

Sorry, but I don't know how to do the math on this. What % MTF would be 3 db down at 24 mhz?

And, for that matter, what mhz corresponds to 1920 alternating black & white lines?
Here's the plot I made from Glimmie's data point early last year:

MTF
1.0 *
-
-
-
-
0.8 * +
- *
- +CMOS(Green)
- *CCD(Green)
- +
0.6 * +
-
- +
- *
- *
0.4 +
- X CMOS(Green)
- Spirit telecine
-
- *
0.2
-
-
- *CCD(Green)
-
0.0--------------|---------------|---------------|--------------|
500 1000 1500 2000
HORIZONTAL LINES
------------------10---------------20---------------30----------37|
FREQUENCY (MHz)


I added approximate HD lines/PW to the original plots (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=3323534#post3323534) of CCD vs. CMOS TV-camera sensors, using, I think, some Greg Rogers graphs in a WSR review. Might make it easier to play pin the Spirit 2 plot on the graph (Spirit now plotted is, apparently, for Spirit 1), if anyone wants to. Better yet, how about a plot from the manufactuter, ThomsonGrassvalley, like the CCD camera sensor, showing a wider MTF/frequency range. Corrections welcomed. -- John

Glimmie -

Sorry, but I don't know how to do the math on this. What % MTF would be 3 db down at 24 mhz?

And, for that matter, what mhz corresponds to 1920 alternating black & white lines? I think I already knew that one once but certainly can't remember it today. ISTR that the megaherz conversion is complicate by including horizontal overscan time or something for legacy CRT reasons.

Sorry to pester but I continually confuse computer & TV terminology.

- TomHD uses a clock frequency of ~74 Mhz, so 1920 pixels would equate to half that - ~37 Mhz. 28/37 * 1920 = ~1450 pixels. These frequencies can vary if other standards are used for active pixels vs H & V intervals.

Okay, let's check my assumptions on this. First I believe the "lines of horizontal resolution" on the chart above is lines / screen, not lines / per pixel height or one of those adjustments. So, apart from usual real world losses the max would be 1920 with an MTF of 1, or 100% contrast if none was lost and we started from 1920 alternating black and white lines or pixels.

Second, "3 db down" means the log base 10 of the MTF is -.3, with every decibel representing a log base 10 of 1/10. So 3 db down means about 50% contrast (MTF) and 6 db down would be only about 25% contrast, starting from 100% if we still had pure black and white lines. That is log10(.25) ~= -.6.

Is all this correct so far?

I'm not sure where the 28/37 above comes from.

- Tom

I have to say guys, HDNet is looking a better lately

I am seeing film grain on lots of stuff, no kidding :)

"Of Mice and Men" is identical to Showtime in picture quality and detail, and is the same in regards to film grain

previews for "Silence of the Lambs" are also very detailed, sharp and have film grain

"Diner" also looked very good today, I haven't seen it on since Dec. 2004, so I can't remember how it faired back then

please continue to tweak stuff HDNet, things will only get better

-Gary

Okay, let's check my assumptions on this. First I believe the "lines of horizontal resolution" on the chart above is lines / screen, not lines / per pixel height or one of those adjustments.
Yes, Tom, I put the horizontal graph axis (above MHz) in lines/PW, as mentioned. The "Spirit" data point at 40% DOM (depth of modulation) and at 28 MHz (original 2004 data from Glimmie), at ~1450 lines/PW (my plot). Glimmie posted just above this represents 6 dB down.
So, apart from usual real world losses the max would be 1920 with an MTF of 1, or 100% contrast if none was lost and we started from 1920 alternating black and white lines or pixels.
The lines/PW markings on the graph go out to 2000, which should be flush right for easier comprehension, which is just beyond 1920 and 37 MHz, maximum theoretical 1080i/p resolution.

Second, "3 db down" means the log base 10 of the MTF is -.3, with every decibel representing a log base 10 of 1/10. So 3 db down means about 50% contrast (MTF) and 6 db down would be only about 25% contrast, starting from 100% if we still had pure black and white lines. That is log10(.25) ~= -.6.

Is all this correct so far?
Good question. Here's the already plotted Spirit 1 data compared to the Spirit 2 data from the pdf link above:

SPIRIT 1 SPIRIT 2
28 MHz 24 MHz
40% DOM - -
6 dB down 3 dB down
May seem remote from HDNet's picture quality, but everything starts with telecining (plus print/image quality), how much of the telecined PQ the storage medium (e.g., HD D5 cassettes) can handle, and what happens to the PQ, resolution-wise, after a ~270-Mbps D5 cassette recording is MPEG-encoded and shrunk to ~17 Mbps (video payload) for delivery to homes. -- John

I have to say guys, HDNet is looking a better lately

I am seeing film grain on lots of stuff, no kidding If there were some changes made because of this thread, I wonder if we'll ever know. It's been a while since we've seen some direct response from HDNet. One thing about HDNet is the concern for technical quality goes to the top - not something that happens at many (probably most) networks.

I have no idea if they have made any changes, but Diner definitely looked grainy during its appearances last year (or whenever it was) on HDNet Movies. That was something that struck me about it almost immediately. Off the top of my head, Hail! Hail! Rock and Roll is another one with a good bit of film grain.

Yes, Tom, I put the horizontal graph axis (above MHz) in lines/PW, as mentioned. The "Spirit" data point at 40% DOM (depth of modulation) and at 28 MHz (original 2004 data from Glimmie), at ~1450 lines/PW (my plot). Glimmie posted just above this represents 6 dB down.

The lines/PW markings on the graph go out to 2000, which should be flush right for easier comprehension, which is just beyond 1920 and 37 MHz, maximum theoretical 1080i/p resolution.


Good question. Here's the already plotted Spirit 1 data compared to the Spirit 2 data from the pdf link above:

SPIRIT 1 SPIRIT 2
28 MHz 24 MHz
40% DOM - -
6 dB down 3 dB down
May seem remote from HDNet's picture quality, but everything starts with telecining (plus print/image quality), how much of the telecined PQ the storage medium (e.g., HD D5 cassettes) can handle, and what happens to the PQ, resolution-wise, after a ~270-Mbps D5 cassette recording is MPEG-encoded and shrunk to ~17 Mbps (video payload) for delivery to homes. -- John

John -

Well, I guess if 3 dB down means about 50% contrast for the Spirit2 at 24 mhz (about 1300 lines) then on your chart it would be about on the curve of the CMOS camera, about equal in MTF to that, given only the one data point to look at. That makes it better than the CCD but nowhere near what I had been hoping for. And whatever that CCD plot is on your chart looks totally incapable of doing HD in any sort of detailed fashion.

But I still may be misinterpreting these. ??

- Tom

I'm not sure where the 28/37 above comes from.A reference to :A Thomson Spirit 1 can develope 40% modulation at 28mhz... FYI, 40% at 28mhz is approx 6db down.

HDNET Movies via E* has been a disaster here all day. Constant remuxer errors and the like - even though its a strong signal and never waivers.

Same here for HDNet Movies, Dish was having some trouble with HD overall today

everything on 61.5/148/110 was trashed

but nothing has changed Rez/Bitrate wise, that is the good news :)

by the way, this don't happen often, but you guys have totally lost me in this thread ;)

PS:

I finally got that 148 up and going, you are very right about HBO/Showtime on that bird, they are much better

-Gary

Side by side comparison - HDNET and HDNET Movies, both on 110 TP 7 are freezing at the same time - no loss in signal.

It's not happening on any of the other HD Channels - only 110/TP7. Been going on since 2pm today - atleast once every 15 minutes and often more.

They claim no one else has reported the problem and they have no reports on issues with the channels.

Just remember, they rate so high in Customer Service.

It's also happening on Showtime on 148(haven't checked HBO from 148 or HBO/Show from 110), and on some of the Vooms

-Gary

Finally got around to taking some captures from "Full Metal Jacket" that aired on HBO and HDNet. These are direct captures from the mpeg2 transport stream and saved as lossless PNG (jpeg is always lossy and therefore unsuitable for this task).

To be fair to both providers, I chose these at random. I didn't try searching the movie for cases where HDNet looked worse.

http://www.ihud.com/file.php?file=101205/1134257611/fmj1a.png (HBO)
http://www.ihud.com/file.php?file=101205/1134257812/fmj1b.png (HDNET)
http://www.ihud.com/file.php?file=101205/1134257896/fmj2a.png (HDNET)
http://www.ihud.com/file.php?file=101205/1134257983/fmj2b.png (HBO)
http://www.ihud.com/file.php?file=101205/1134258064/fmj3a.png (HBO)
http://www.ihud.com/file.php?file=101205/1134258167/fmj3b.png (HDNET)

A couple things I noticed:

1) HDNet should definitely look into progressive encoding of the frames (using field repeat flags). This is how DVD's are encoded and it's how HBO/SHO get good quality at lower bit-rates. Interlaced encoding causes artifacts in compression and is much less efficient for film content. This problem is very evident in these shots if you know what to look for.

2) HBO is more grainy. I can't say if that's something in the source or a limitation of the reduced bitrate (often half of HDNet). If it's in the source, then HDNet is doing some additional filtering to remove this noise and detail.

Wizzywig -

Were the HBO caps originally 1280 wide and then horizontally scaled to 1920?

- Tom

110 Transponder 7 feed problems fixed sometime Saturday afternoon.

Still same issues that existed prior to Friday.

Wizzywig -

Were the HBO caps originally 1280 wide and then horizontally scaled to 1920?

- Tom

No, both originally aired and recorded at 1920x1080. Both were captured before Dish started re-encoding any of their HD channels so this is exactly what was being sent out by HBO/HDNet. Keep in mind this is an older movie so the quality isn't the best for either channel. Can someone compare this to the DVD?

-Mark

No, both originally aired and recorded at 1920x1080. Both were captured before Dish started re-encoding any of their HD channels so this is exactly what was being sent out by HBO/HDNet. Keep in mind this is an older movie so the quality isn't the best for either channel. Can someone compare this to the DVD?

-Mark

The reason I was asking about scaling is that one of each pair of images demonstrates a problem I thought was maybe a horizontal scaling artifact. On one of each pair all sharp near vertical lines have a problem. This causes jaggies on diagonals and probably softness when viewed at a distance. I don't know whether this is scaling, caused by interlaced encoding, or just blocking, but it should be obvious from the attached pics.

http://www3.impacthosting.com/trbarry/lines1a.png

http://www3.impacthosting.com/trbarry/lines1b.png

- Tom

edit: can I make those attached images appear inline or do I have to post them somewhere else first? (which I just now did)

Well, I guess if 3 dB down means about 50% contrast for the Spirit2 at 24 mhz (about 1300 lines) then on your chart it would be about on the curve of the CMOS camera, about equal in MTF to that, given only the one data point to look at. That makes it better than the CCD but nowhere near what I had been hoping for. And whatever that CCD plot is on your chart looks totally incapable of doing HD in any sort of detailed fashion.
But I still may be misinterpreting these. ??

Tom, put off plotting the Spirit2 MTF point on the graph above because a few points are still puzzling. Glimmie's '04 data for the Spirit 1 was 40% DOM at 28 MHz. Plotted that above at 0.4 and ~28 Mhz. Can't sync your seemingly accurate analysis of the 'dB down' for both the Spirit 1 and Spirit 2 with Glimmie's statement the Spirit 1's MTF is about -6 dB. Perhaps Glimmie or TVOD can clear this up? You'd think any scientific calculator would confirm these basic calculations, but no luck here; maybe there's a formula?

There's sure is a falloff of 'full' 1920X1080 delivery with the original CCD/CMOS-chip plots, and likely full plots of the two Spirits. But, of course, with sampled signals, the Nyquist limiting resolution of 1080i/p is typically ~1700 lines. While trying to resolve the 'DOM plotting' issue above, again came across Sony's HDCAM pdf paper (http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/production/productsite/files/24PTechnicalSeminar2.pdf) covering this whole area of HD image sharpness versus resolution, encompassing early RCA Lab studies. Fig. 2 in that paper shows Sony's HDCAM approach to match image sharpness and 'texture,' encompassing a limited band of frequencies/resolutions, but not the highest resolutions that don't make it from film negatives to theater screens either, as this paper and Matt Cowan's study (http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf) outlines. Sony's HDCAM, as Fig. 9 shows (dotted line), cuts frequencies above 1440 lines/PW. Fig. 16 shows an image sharpness measurement technique, which compares areas under MTF curves. Sony's 24p HDCAM plot shows greater image sharpness (larger rectangle) than that of a projected theater print--(for Sony's late '90s study). Perhaps the plots of telecine hardware used for HDNet's studio-delivered and other 1080/24p movie masters aren't much different from HDCAMs (sans 1440 filtering). -- John

John -

I'm not sure the ~1700 line limit completely applies to something sampled at 4k and then downsampled. But in any event I'd be positively orgasmic to get 1700 lines at, say, 90% MTF (I think same as 90% DOM = 90% contrast) on a quality 1080p display. We have never seen any such thing even for the best digital intermediates but it makes a nice target.

However I think maybe this part of the discussion is hijacking Gary's "fix HDNet" thread so we should probably move it elsewhere if there is more to say. (like a nice resolution, MTF, DOM, detail, telecine FAQ)

- Tom

One place where I have seen artifacts like my top picture posted a couple posts back is when the field order (top/bottom fields or TopFirst) gets messed up.

- Tom

Tom, djdrock posted initially in this thread, asking about HDNet transfers. And, I guess, transfer gear ought to factor in someplace. :-) Agree that 1700 line rez (Nyquist limit) would be nice to see (live HD?), but as I understand it, ~15% MPEG decoding loss factors in, leaving 1700 - 255 = 1445 lines, an often mentioned HD 'limit'--unless oversampling is used. And still have to pin down if telecine/HD-D5 storage typically starts out with ~1700 lines, or actually 800--1300 lines, less ~15%. -- John

One place where I have seen artifacts like my top picture posted a couple posts back is when the field order (top/bottom fields or TopFirst) gets messed up.

- Tom

I see what you mean. I looked through a couple of my other HBO_HD recordings from the same time period and they all exhibit the same jaggies. Even new transfers like "The Ring". I think this sort of issue could actually make the image appear artificially sharper, as the pixels are more defined. Sort of how most people think LCD projectors look sharper because of the screen-door-effect. I've also seen reversed field order but it didn't quite look like this. Maybe it's just some minor blocking because of insufficient bandwidth? It's not a de-interlacing artifact on my end because these shots all come from progressively encoded frames.

-Mark

I see what you mean. I looked through a couple of my other HBO_HD recordings from the same time period and they all exhibit the same jaggies. Even new transfers like "The Ring". I think this sort of issue could actually make the image appear artificially sharper, as the pixels are more defined. Sort of how most people think LCD projectors look sharper because of the screen-door-effect. I've also seen reversed field order but it didn't quite look like this. Maybe it's just some minor blocking because of insufficient bandwidth? It's not a de-interlacing artifact on my end because these shots all come from progressively encoded frames.

-Mark

So this is an HBO artifact then, and no help to HDNet.

I don't know whether this should make a picture seem sharper or softer, though I see your point. There have been studies showing that you can make something look a bit sharper just by adding random noise or grain after upscaling. For this reason I sometimes wonder if we couldn't make cheating decoders that add a small random high frequency component as part of the inverse discrete cosine transform and get a similar but more accurate and maybe less identifiable effect. But I haven't tried it.

- Tom

E* doesn't know how to leave anything alone.

HDNET and HDNET Movies are back like there were last Friday and Saturday - major freezes on both channels (on 110 transponder 7) at the same time. Began Thursday afternoon.

Interestly, the same movies that were on the last time they started testing have been repeated most of the day.

Simply ridiculous.

Edit - called E*. Same clueless CSRs as last week. Say they know of no problems and no other reports - just like they said to everyone last week. They say they will write it up and submit it to the real engineers :(

It never ends.

HDNET and HDNET Movies are back like there were last Friday and Saturday - major freezes on both channels (on 110 transponder 7) at the same time. Began Thursday afternoon.

Wonder if the freezeups and stuttering I'm now encountering with CNN (SD news) is related? Have never seen this with CNN via NYC's Time Warner Cable. It's raining here now, so if they've changed satellite downlinks.... Not my STB, apparently; a cold boot didn't help.

On HDNet etc. quality in general, perhaps it's becoming crucial to indicate setups being used for viewing. Many view HDNet as it's delivered, 1080/60i on CRT-based displays (60 fields per second). But supposedly inverse telecine (24p extraction) is gradually becoming more common with progressive fixed-pixel displays (for 1080i, not the easier 480i). That, and the displayed frame rate, may make a difference in motion judder and overall image quality--a separate issue from the quality of studio-delivered telecines or any potential 'tinkering' along the delivery path. Add on to that, for fixed-pixel display, whether the deinterlaced 1080i is using the common pure bob technique to 540p for deinterlacing--halving vertical resolution--or a more sophisticated deinterlacing, available in several 'flavors'. -- John

I was watching Naked Gun on HDNET last night, and the freezes were constant, and some were 10-15 seconds! Sometime during a movie there would be two freezes in less than a minute! And quality of the transfer sucked 2. What a shame these Naked Gun movies were some of my favorites in the 80s and early 90s..... I know E is 'working' on fixing Voom issues, but what about HDNet freeze issues, I am pretty new with E, has this been a problem since the beginning of HDTV on E* or something just started recently?

I was watching Naked Gun on HDNET last night, and the freezes were constant, and some were 10-15 seconds! Sometime during a movie there would be two freezes in less than a minute! And quality of the transfer sucked 2. What a shame these Naked Gun movies were some of my favorites in the 80s and early 90s..... I know E is 'working' on fixing Voom issues, but what about HDNet freeze issues, I am pretty new with E, has this been a problem since the beginning of HDTV on E* or something just started recently?

just recently, it was fixed and then yesterday it started back

I haven't seen a problem like this(before last weekend) on the HDNet's for God knows how long

-Gary

HDNET was freezing during the 'THE GOONIES' on CHARTER cable in RENO.

Mark

"Goonies" on HDNet Movies on Adelphia cable in CT looked fantastic last night with no issues whatsoever. Recorded "Naked Gun" but have not looked at it yet.

I was getting the freezes yesterday also. Haven't checked today. Quite annoying.

Provider-Dish Network

I was getting the freezes yesterday also. Haven't checked today. Quite annoying.

Provider-Dish Network

I too got freezes both on HDNet and HDNet Movies last night on MDM cable. :rolleyes:

I started watching "The Naked Gun" but was so unimpressed with the PQ, I watched Fantatic Four instead.

Watched The Goonies last night via D*. No freezing but PQ only looked to be ever so slightly better than DVD quality.


ron

at 1280x1080i with 9 Mbps video, no wonder it looked awful

Goonies looked pretty darn good on E*, what little I viewed

-Gary

which leads me to ask Gary if he'd recorded any improvement on Voom. After all, we all god replies that E* had their 'meetings' about a week-and-a-half ago. What was the result of these meetings?

No Voom happening's yet, Dish decided to cut Voom back to 15 channels, thus fitting those 15 at 1920x1080i in the same space as 21 in 1280x1080i

-Gary

No Voom happening's yet, Dish decided to cut Voom back to 15 channels, thus fitting those 15 at 1920x1080i in the same space as 21 in 1280x1080i

-Gary

I don't think Dish ever said in any official capacity they were going to put them back to 1920x1080i. The recent events with CBS NYC being sideconverted to 720p may indicate that Dish will stay HD-lite for a while to match up with DirecTV in HD LiL.

so with HDnet movies sending out 1080i/60 with no Telecine flags.... is that the agreed apon reason for the soft picture? compared to Cinemax/HBO/SHo's 1080i/60 with the flags?

I recorded "Of Mice and Men" tonight to compare to my recording of this film from Showtime a few weeks back. The Showtime presentation is FAR FAR better. The HDNET Movies presentation looks mushy, out of focus, and as soft as Dirk Nowitzki's defense. The detail on Showtimes airing is terrific with film grain clearly visible. If Mark Cuban thinks HDNet Movies doesn't have a problem here, he is in DEEP DEEP denial.

Tom

so with HDnet movies sending out 1080i/60 with no Telecine flags.... is that the agreed apon reason for the soft picture? compared to Cinemax/HBO/SHo's 1080i/60 with the flags?

no

something else is going on.

Figure that 30 frames versus 24 frames is a 20% savings - so even with a video bitrate of slightly above 17Mbps, that should still net you an effective video bitrate of 13.6Mbps with telecine flags in place.

The highest Cinemax bitrate I've ever seen was Scent of A Woman at 12.62.

In over 1,000 HBO movies, I've seen maybe 10 that hit in the mid to low 13s on the video and a very old Caddyshack airing that hit 13.62 which is the highest I have seen.

Out of well over 500 Showtime movies, I have seen some bitrates in the 14s....and even have a Breathless, Troll and School of Rock that hit 15, but those are very uncommon these days.

So something else is going on in the transfer and/or digital filtering.

If Marc would tell us what the exact chain is he uses, then I am sure we could figure it out - although I am sure he probably considers that information proprietary - but there is a weak link in his chain.

So, no, its not the telecine flags as the copies most are comparing are well below a video bitrate of 13.6Mbps.

in the movie SIDEWAYs hi def version was in fact very soft due to "directors intent" - making for very poor HI DEf showing via Comcast HD

apparently they wanted this softer 1960's/70's look - and the odd thing is the reason some of those era movies were soft - was sometimes due to color fading issues with technicolor prints

ultra-sharp is a safer strategy

apparently they wanted this softer 1960's/70's look - and the odd thing is the reason some of those era movies were soft - was sometimes due to color fading issues with technicolor prints
Most of the soft movies from that era used lots of soft lighting and were shot through tons of filters. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid was even shot through a fog filter. By the early 80's they were even filling sets with fog and smoke for no apparent reason. Meanwhile Kodak and other film manufacturers were busting their butts to increase the sharpness and resolution of their films!

It was just one of those wacky trends that could not be stopped and had to die on its own. Now that we judge movies by sharpness (usually) these movies look like they've been damaged. Nope, they always looked that way. :eek:

If Marc would tell us what the exact chain is he uses, then I am sure we could figure it out - although I am sure he probably considers that information proprietary - but there is a weak link in his chain.
I assume you mean MARK as in MARK CUBAN, not MARC as in MARC ALEXANDER. :cool:

I recorded "Of Mice and Men" tonight to compare to my recording of this film from Showtime a few weeks back. The Showtime presentation is FAR FAR better. The HDNET Movies presentation looks mushy, out of focus, and as soft as Dirk Nowitzki's defense. The detail on Showtimes airing is terrific with film grain clearly visible. If Mark Cuban thinks HDNet Movies doesn't have a problem here, he is in DEEP DEEP denial.

Tom

Tom this happens everyday, day in and day out when comparing stuff

"Heartbreak Ridge" is a new all time low in picture quality :mad:

OMG it looks so bad :confused:

I have never seen so much DNR, ghosting/smearing on movement like crazy

I have basically given up on getting excited over stuff on HDNet

you guys at HDNet have got to do something

-Gary

hdnet is one of the few reasons I keep Directv (since I can't get it on comcast). given the decline in quality (and overall reduced res of hd content), I'm not sure that hdnet offers the value anymore that it first did when their image quality was the bar that others strived to reach... it's a shame

Off topic now but I just watched Open Range on HDNet Movies. Christ, it was soft and had blocking artifacts all over to boot. This is just making me sick. We don't even have any opportunity to see movies at all in HD without them being cut to crap with commercials. :( :( :(

Art
I just watched (and archived) this last night on TWC. It looked great IMO. One of the best in terms of PQ I've ever seen broadcast. Perhaps something is wrong with my eyes? Art, who's your provider?

Guys, HEARTBREAK RIDGE on HDNet Movies sucked compared my D-VHS copy from HBO made some time ago. I was flipping back and forth and the difference was immediately in my face.

MARC CUBAN! Stop denying there is nothing wrong! There is! As much as I love HDNet, it's got a big problem. You are a hero to us for your support of High Def, but you have got to fix this problem now.

Screen shots for THE PROFESSIONAL were posted on another website that clearly show how wretchedly soft the HDNet version is compared to what was shown on HBO.

no

So something else is going on in the transfer and/or digital filtering.

If Marc would tell us what the exact chain is he uses, then I am sure we could figure it out - although I am sure he probably considers that information proprietary - but there is a weak link in his chain.

So, no, its not the telecine flags as the copies most are comparing are well below a video bitrate of 13.6Mbps.

For the Nth time HDnet has no conrtrol over the transfer process. They are supplied either an HDD5 or HDCAM tape to which they can:

1) Make air copies of and run from a broadcast VTR.

2) Load into a server to play out from. The sever may have in internal bit rate of anywhere from 15mbs to 200mbs and may or may not be MPEG based depending on who makes it. There are quite a few broadcast server platforms, all proprieatry as they don't need to interchange media with anything else.

The last I read, the HDNET server was based on MPEG2 19.4mbs. But that information is a few years old. If this is still the case then all material is encoded once on ingest. Based on that I don't see any way they can be softening it.

As for this comment:
If Marc would tell us what the exact chain is he uses, then I am sure we could figure it out
I think that's a bit arrogant. No wonder he is silent. I have over 20 years expereince in broadcast engineering / operations and post production and would not make such a statement. There is no way to diagnose a system this complex with a simple description of the hardware in use.

What I see here and I'm sure his engineering staff sees as well is a bunch of young enthusiastic hobbiests specualting on a technical problem. Howevere it's quite a leap from hacking apart receeived MPEG streams to designing and implementating a broadcast operations center. Equally a leap to think you can diagnose the technical problem - if there is one in the first place - using these crude tools.

The problem has been reproted. If HDnet feels it needs attention, they will no doubt respond. People here can cancel the service if they don't feel they are getting the quality they are paying for. Beyond that you are just pounding sand.

This is why I backed out of thet Spirit telecine phase of this discussion. I fail to see the benefit of a few home viewers trying to prove these state of the art machines are not true HD machines. It's silly and a waste of time. This is what the industry has to offer. Take it or leave it.

From 12-02-05 post 255:> We have yet to hear anything from anyone at HDNet <

That doesn't mean they're not listening! :) Several members of their engineering team, along with Mark, are monitoring this thread, and looking into the issues being raised. I don't have permission from their Sr. Engineer at HDNet Engineering to copy our entire private communications here, but I don't think Glenn would mind my sharing his comment, "Please rest assured that we will do everything in our power to make sure our content is delivered to our viewers at the best of quality we can obtain". So don't think this is being ignored. We are being taken seriously.

- TimIt sure has been quiet for any direct response from anyone at HDNet in a thread that's 12 pages long. Quote:
If Marc would tell us what the exact chain is he uses, then I am sure we could figure it out

I think that's a bit arrogant. No wonder he is silent. I have over 20 years expereince in broadcast engineering / operations and post production and would not make such a statement.Other much larger networks have discussed their equipment and what they did to fix problems. Too many people here are seeing this issue for it not to be legitimate.This is why I backed out of thet Spirit telecine phase of this discussion. I fail to see the benefit of a few home viewers trying to prove these state of the art machines are not true HD machines."True HD" is not really well defined. HDCAM is only 1440 pixels, so is it true HD? Many on here report on how much they like the images produced from this format, so I guess it qualifies. Although zooming with a Spirit 1 reduces limiting resolution, the scaling is so good that the depth of modulation remains high at the remaining upper frequencies. I think it's fair to say that the Spirit 1 was not able to take advantage of full 1080 resolution with typical zooming, but I don't know if the losses would be noticed on a feature transfer, especially after being compressed to 19 Mb. Obviously the 4K addresses these issues, as well as improved DI. OTH I think one could debate if the Shadow was really HD.

Bottom line is that as there typically isn't multiple HD transfers of the same feature (like the SD days), there is something unique at HDNet affecting PQ. Whether it's the compression or possible pre-processing is only speculation at the moment, and it will remain to be seen whether HDNet provides the discerning viewers here some feedback. If the degradation is the result of a proprietary process, it's not something I think anyone would be interested in stealing.

From 12-02-05 post 255: Other much larger networks have discussed their equipment and what they did to fix problems.
Where? So me some posts where a cable network or broadcaster has disclosed details of their technical plant design.

Too many people here are seeing this issue for it not to be legitimate.
Oh I see it too. But there is far too much armchair engineering being presented here. I would need to see the source material as well as various points in the transmission path to even begin to speculate on where the problem is.

"True HD" is not really well defined. HDCAM is only 1440 pixels, so is it true HD? Many on here report on how much they like the images produced from this format, so I guess it qualifies. Although zooming with a Spirit 1 reduces limiting resolution, the scaling is so good that the depth of modulation remains high at the remaining upper frequencies. I think it's fair to say that the Spirit 1 was not able to take advantage of full 1080 resolution with typical zooming, but I don't know if the losses would be noticed on a feature transfer, especially after being compressed to 19 Mb. Obviously the 4K addresses these issues, as well as improved DI. OTH I think one could debate if the Shadow was really HD.

Bottom line is that as there typically isn't multiple HD transfers of the same feature (like the SD days), there is something unique at HDNet affecting PQ. Whether it's the compression or possible pre-processing is only speculation at the moment, and it will remain to be seen whether HDNet provides the discerning viewers here some feedback. If the degradation is the result of a proprietary process, it's not something I think anyone would be interested in stealing.

The technical parameters of HD are very well defined. It's easy to do a proof of performance on any piece of HD hardware. But what people in these forums try to do is apply those standards to the creative process which cannot be defined. It is highly subjective and always will be. That's why we have performance proofs. So we can at least prove what the hardware is capable of. That doesn't mean that any image photographed will meet those parameters. What I see is people wanting some certification that says "this movie has true HD resolution". Well you can't define it that way. The film has the resolution, the transfer equipment may as well. But that doesn't mean the pictures on the media will. That is a subjective creative call.

So me some posts where a cable network or broadcaster has disclosed details of their technical plant design.I was thinking back to the responses from CBS regarding their green grid problem (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=543319&page=1&pp=30&highlight=green+grid). It wasn't really a description of their system, but they did acknowledge the problem and posted what they traced it to. General plant designs are not typically top secret.The technical parameters of HD are very well defined. It's easy to do a proof of performance on any piece of HD hardware.This is more on the order of semantics, but what qualifies as "true HD" can be subjective. Is HDV true HD? It does support 1080i and the aspect ratio is correct, but many would argue it falls short of real HD quality (at least for now). I think it's like another term that is thrown around alot - "broadcast quality" I suppose VHS is broadcast quality because it ends up on the air, but it certainly doesn't come close to what SD is capable of. Saying that an image is not "real HD" because of limitations with the original elements is not completely without merit - this observes that the image does not take full advantage of the available resolution, contrast or other qualities that the system can offer. This is true whether the cause was artistic intent or technical limitation.

Obviously there are objective methods for proof of performance. The problem with objective measurements is that they may not tell the entire story. It may be the parameter that is being measured isn't directly related to the problem. A good eye can detect problems subjectively, which sometimes is difficult to confirm objectively. MPEG encoders are based on perceptual limitations, and their quality is not always consistent with measurements.

An interesting quote from Mark Cuban in an article (http://www.cableworld.com/cgi/cw/show_mag.cgi?pub=cw&mon=032105&file=hidefgamble.htm) says:The bigger point for Cuban is that the infrastructure for his networks is able to accommodate the best HD picture quality today, and will be able to handle emerging HD formats tomorrow.
To that end, Cuban warns against building an inflexible HD facility. "What's available now is the worst HD quality we'll ever see," he says. "There's room for improvement in picture quality, thanks to advances in compression formats and other techniques."I can't help but wonder if an organization that prides itself on quality may have taken the wrong path in trying to improve the product. I've seen that before.

An interesting quote from Mark Cuban in an article (http://www.cableworld.com/cgi/cw/show_mag.cgi?pub=cw&mon=032105&file=hidefgamble.htm) says:I can't help but wonder if an organization that prides itself on quality may have taken the wrong path in trying to improve the product. I've seen that before.
He is also aware of issues that may or may not be in his control, from his blog,

That said, I have also spoken and written about the importance of picture quality to HDTV consumers. The thing about HDNet and viewers of any High Def content, they want the best picture quality possible. The more they watch HDTV, the more demanding they are of quality. The greater the investment in a home theater system, the more demanding they are of better picture quality. The picture quality capabilites of new HDTVs will continue to improve as prices go down, UNFORTUNATELY, the picture quality of content delivered to those TV sets will probably never match the capabilities of those HDTV sets.

Put aside that new sets are being sold that are capable of displaying 1080p. Put aside that the cameras that will enable the capture of HD content in 1080p are a ways off. The reality of today, and for the forseeable future, is that there is a HUGE disparity of picture quality between what will be delivered to all those HDTV sets from cable, satellite , DVD, HD DVD or Blu Ray and what those sets are capable of. (Sony, Panny, where are our HDCam and D5 lossless codecs ???)

http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000680073045
The NY Times does it again… - Blog Maverick - www.blogmaverick.com _

I'm surprised he would say some of these things. The Sony 1500 cameras are capable of dual link HD for 1080/60P. With MPEG 4's roughly doubling MPEG 2's efficiency, and Blu-Ray & HD DVD capable of 25 Mb/sec, images should be pretty transparent - especially at 24P. On 45-50 Mb MPEG 2 I have not seen any visible degradation from uncompressed video.

If uncompressed video was such a huge improvement, then the D6 format would have succeeded. Instead the proven HDCAM SR format is the quality format of choice. As encoders improve, lower data rates should yield even better images.

4K and higher scans from OCR for DI delivered on MPEG 4 or VC 1 optical discs at 1080/24P will likely be as good or better than release prints (typically 4th generation in traditional film workflow) for subjective image quality - especially with the improvements in display technology. Many think we're already there compared to their local cineplexes. What remains to be seen is how distribution channels like cable, satellite and OTA will respond to their new higher quality rivals. 4K theatrical digital projection will give theaters the edge, but the economics are questionable for now.

In the mean time, I think Mr. Cuban needs to address the quality issues presented here. Simply stating that none of the delivery methods are that good doesn't explain why many here see his service as lagging in quality compared to the competition. I would speculate these issues are within his control.

I think that's a bit arrogant. No wonder he is silent. I have over 20 years expereince in broadcast engineering / operations and post production and would not make such a statement. There is no way to diagnose a system this complex with a simple description of the hardware in use.

I also have over 20 years experience in broadcasting.

If you search threads on avs you will find that I worked for months behind the scenes with CBS to help rid them of their green pixel problem which was finally minimized as much as it could be because of my work showing it happen on 4 different stations across the country during the same CSI. And it was exactly where I first thought the problem was - the Harris IRD.

I have also been responsible for getting to the bottom of the green stripe on ABC which they have now admitted is a network issue and they have ordered new encoders for the entire network feed.

If you check the LA Thread you will find that I was responsible for getting the HD audio fixed on KCBS 2 weeks ago (you live in LA - why weren't you on top of it) and a problem with the ABC affiliate in Atlanta fixed (something the poster stated had been happening for 2 years and the station would not fix it) within 3 days. Funny how I stated what piece of equipment the problem was with immediately after the poster complained of the problem. So much for being impossible.

I could go on....but, since CBS has changed their GOP and B Frames on their feeds this year and ABC is replacing their encoders due largely to work I did - not to mention all the local issues - yes, maybe I am a little arrogant.

Your point?

Sure, there might not be anything obvious. But then again, there could be something that either me or another might have a lightbulb go off on.

FWIW, I personally believe they have some type of processing on the chain that is doing this - that they felt was helping the picture - until too many titles appeared on other sources and showed different. To put it in less technical terms that the average joe could understand - TNT upconverts their SD thinking it made the picture look better. It might have, except after spending time with it you realize everyone is fat. It was original done to make things better but it had consequences that might have made it worse.

You have dbx equalizers and compressor/expanders in your system. You know that you can make audio sound better if you use it correctly - however, you can mess it up more thinking you are fixing it. The old dbx 3bx and 4bx expanders were famous for that as they slowly went bad and began to cause a pumping effect.

If I were HDNET I would put on a top of the line Teranex unit in the chain to clean things up at the last possible time prior to transmission. Maybe something like that is in the chain that is causing an issue (though I have never seen a Teranex cause a softening issue).

If the chain was listed (as they are so proud of their remote units - one might wonder why this isnt done) then this theory could be quickly seen if something out of the ordinary was in there or not.

Whatever that piece of equipment is that HDNET is (if there) probably using would become very obvious if the chain was ever made public. That is why I made that statement which I don't believe is arrogant - but would be the likely place to start to look for a problem - moving on to other areas if its not there.

Finally, I do know from people that have talked extensively with HDNET that their biggest problem is the dreaded NIH (Not Invented Here) attitude. While I have the greatest respect for MC and what he's trying to do and has done, it doesn't surprise me given that attitude that they are not acknowledging much here. They would rather correct it themselves and not admit to needing help - or that anything was wrong that they didn't know.

I wish DiscoveryHD would get ~their~ act together. They have had field order problems since inception, and now they have degraded their quality with some sort of media server.

Has anyone commented on the green dots in the left overscan area on HBO-HD? Maybe it is some watermarking or codes for copy control?

I wish DiscoveryHD would get ~their~ act together. They have had field order problems since inception, and now they have degraded their quality with some sort of media server.

Has anyone commented on the green dots in the left overscan area on HBO-HD? Maybe it is some watermarking or codes for copy control?

I think the Discovery HD media server only adversly affects their old catologue of programming (mpeg doesn't do too when reencoded over many generations), but the new stuff, like Equator, is/will be fine.

I haven't noticed anything in the overscan margins on HBO, but my local NBC has a yellow line of the left and ABC has their infamous green stripe on the right (confirmed national problem).

Whatever that piece of equipment is that HDNET is (if there) probably using would become very obvious if the chain was ever made public. That is why I made that statement which I don't believe is arrogant - but would be the likely place to start to look for a problem - moving on to other areas if its not there.

Finally, I do know from people that have talked extensively with HDNET that their biggest problem is the dreaded NIH (Not Invented Here) attitude. While I have the greatest respect for MC and what he's trying to do and has done, it doesn't surprise me given that attitude that they are not acknowledging much here. They would rather correct it themselves and not admit to needing help - or that anything was wrong that they didn't know.

Surely by now if they did have a video processor in line they would have bypassed it? I do remember when HDnet had the opposite problem, That is extreme sharpening such as in the "Towering Inferno"

SO the fact that we are still seeing soft material leads me to beleive these are just poor transfers probably from poor prints. Aren't most of these "soft films" on HDNET from the 1970s?

I'll throw something else out there.... Perhaps they are upconversions. Some of these movies are suspicious for HD transfer because of the cost versus the marketing payback. A typical transfer costs $80K. So perhaps HDNET is getting SD masters and upconverting. And due to the age of some of these films, they could be 1 inch NTSC transfers, not even component digital versions. Just a thought.

HDNet says no upconverts

all Films from HDNet look soft to some degree, most certainly not just 70/80 's films

I have many films from 70's/80's from other networks and they look as good if not better than anything made today, Film is Film and looks unbelievable in every way with a Good HD Master

All these movies on HDNet, everything from oldies like "North Dallas Forty" to newer films "Detroit Rock City"(of which the DVD beats easily) and everything in between are just downright mushy and soft looking, everything looks heavily DNR'd, has no film grain, no detail, screwed up contrast levels and a reddish overcast

what a shame that have have given up on HDNet :(, Heartbreak Ridge was about the worst looking piece of trash I have ever seen, I have saw scaled LD's more enjoyable :mad:

-Gary

HDNet says no upconverts

all Films from HDNet look soft to some degree, most certainly not just 70/80 's films

I have many films from 70's/80's from other networks and they look as good if not better than anything made today, Film is Film and looks unbelievable in every way with a Good HD Master

All these movies on HDNet, everything from oldies like "North Dallas Forty" to newer films "Detroit Rock City"(of which the DVD beats easily) and everything in between are just downright mushy and soft looking, everything looks heavily DNR'd, has no film grain, no detail, screwed up contrast levels and a reddish overcast

what a shame that have have given up on HDNet :(, Heartbreak Ridge was about the worst looking piece of trash I have ever seen, I have saw scaled LD's more enjoyable :mad:

-Gary

Film is not all the same. You could have a beat up faded projection print to make a transfer from or a new IP struck from the cut negative. The quality spread is quite large.

Let's go even farther here. Perhaps HDnet is getting an HD tape but it's an upconversion done by the studios contractors. I know, I'm reaching here but you guys want to explore all possibilities don't you?

I am a geat fan of HDNET but you have too keep in mind they aren't HBO or Showtime. They simply don't have the clout with the studios the big dogs have. I applaud the comittment to quality they preach. But some of these issues may be beyond their control. What can Mark do if that's the case.

Surely by now if they did have a video processor in line they would have bypassed it?If it was part of the server injest process, then these files would have to be recreated. The fact that some features look better than others when compared to another channel would support that. They could be in an evaluation stage at this point.Perhaps HDnet is getting an HD tape but it's an upconversion done by the studios contractors. I know, I'm reaching here but you guys want to explore all possibilities don't you?Possible, but if the HD transfer already exists why would they do that? I'd be surprised if HDNet settled for that if a real HD transfer existed. The interesting part of this is the comparisons to the same HD feature shown elsewhere. Older features from poor elements is much easier to understand.

Glimmie, the main problem with HDNM has nothing to do with whether or not a given transfer they have is soft. No, the problem that ruins the viewing experience is when they perform excessive DNR. If, for instance, the characters standing relatively still in the frame you see a grain free picture. However, some of the films are DNRed so much that the moment someone turns their head slightly they turn into a detail-less flesh colored blob.

HDNet personnel are frequent contributors when they're trying to plug content, but they've been conspicuous by their absence in this thread. And, make no mistake, I'm as big a fan of HDNet and Mr. Cuban as anyone here, but it would be nice to hear from them on this issue.

Glimmie, the main problem with HDNM has nothing to do with whether or not a given transfer they have is soft. No, the problem that ruins the viewing experience is when they perform excessive DNR. If, for instance, the characters standing relatively still in the frame you see a grain free picture. However, some of the films are DNRed so much that the moment someone turns their head slightly they turn into a detail-less flesh colored blob.

Thats the issue here, I agree

-Gary

Thats the issue here, I agree

-Gary

and Fanatic makes 3......

Which is why I think any of us - whether 20 years experience or 1 year rookie could identify where the problem is if we knew the source path.

Surely by now if they did have a video processor in line they would have bypassed it? I do remember when HDnet had the opposite problem, That is extreme sharpening such as in the "Towering Inferno"

SO the fact that we are still seeing soft material leads me to beleive these are just poor transfers probably from poor prints. Aren't most of these "soft films" on HDNET from the 1970s?

I'll throw something else out there.... Perhaps they are upconversions. Some of these movies are suspicious for HD transfer because of the cost versus the marketing payback. A typical transfer costs $80K. So perhaps HDNET is getting SD masters and upconverting. And due to the age of some of these films, they could be 1 inch NTSC transfers, not even component digital versions. Just a thought.


Glimmie - you claim 20 years of experience in broadcast which I don't doubt.

Riddle me this. How do you keep a CBR of roughly 17Mbps Video and a total bitrate around 18.25Mbps with no null packets when the D5 transfers you receive come in all over the place?

HDNet says no upconverts

all Films from HDNet look soft to some degree, most certainly not just 70/80 's films

I have many films from 70's/80's from other networks and they look as good if not better than anything made today, Film is Film and looks unbelievable in every way with a Good HD Master

All these movies on HDNet, everything from oldies like "North Dallas Forty" to newer films "Detroit Rock City"(of which the DVD beats easily) and everything in between are just downright mushy and soft looking, everything looks heavily DNR'd, has no film grain, no detail, screwed up contrast levels and a reddish overcast

what a shame that have have given up on HDNet :(, Heartbreak Ridge was about the worst looking piece of trash I have ever seen, I have saw scaled LD's more enjoyable :mad:

-Gary

But Thunderheart was mind blowing sharp on HDnet a few months back. Roadhouse looked incredibly sharp to me.

Glimmie - you claim 20 years of experience in broadcast which I don't doubt.

Riddle me this. How do you keep a CBR of roughly 17Mbps Video and a total bitrate around 18.25Mbps with no null packets when the D5 transfers you receive come in all over the place?

I don't understand the question. HDD5 is not an MPEG format. It's an intraframe DCT algorithm. It offers no temporal compression. Furthermore it's output is full bandwidth meaning the decompression takes place on playback*.

It's easy, just allocate you bits at that rate. I have only worked with the Tandberg encoders but it's just a setup.

*There is a transport stream output at 270mbs but it's not error corrected and only useful for straight machine to machine dubs. And even at that there is potential generation loss due to errors.

Has anyone else noticed that while HDNet movies almost all look super soft/filtered, the opposite has happened at UHD. Everything on UHD has always looked absolutely horrible to me since day one, but I caught about an hour of Hong Kong Honeymoon (I think thats the name) with Marlin Brando and Sophia Loren the other night and it looked very good. Maybe Mark can find out what they did to make low bitrate HD look decent. But first I guess he has to admit he has a problem.

Glimmie - you claim 20 years of experience in broadcast which I don't doubt.

Riddle me this. How do you keep a CBR of roughly 17Mbps Video and a total bitrate around 18.25Mbps with no null packets when the D5 transfers you receive come in all over the place?
HDNet is configuring their encoder for real CBR. That is, there's zero stuffing in the video elementary stream. Here's a few frames from Blade Runner. Note the amount of zero stuffing on each frame.


@ Found Sequence Start Code at byte position 0.
* -------- Sequence Start Code at 0 ---------
* Picture size: 1920x1080 Frame rate: 29.97 Bitrate: 65.00 Mb/s
* VBV size: 7808 Kb Intra QM: default Non Intra QM: loaded
* Main Profile, High Level MPEG-2 bitstream.
* -------- GOP Start Code at 88 ---------
* Open GOP at 11:54:13.01 drop flag: 1
* Using VBR VBV model.
* -------- Intra frame at 96 ---------
* Temporal Reference: 2 VBV: 7995392 (+ 0) bits
* Intra DC: 10 bits Quant scale: non-linear
* Scan: alternate Intra VLC table: 1
* -------- User Data Start Code at 114 ---------
** Unknown type: 65 (error reporting turned off)
* Picture: 1010336 bits VBV after decoding: 6985056 bits
* Average rate: 32.389 Mb/s
* Frame number: 2 Average mquant: 3.70
* Zero stuffing: 780 bits
* -------- Bidirectional frame at 126388 ---------
* Temporal Reference: 0 VBV: 7995392 (+ 1158500) bits
* Intra DC: 10 bits Quant scale: non-linear
* Scan: alternate Intra VLC table: 1
* -------- User Data Start Code at 126406 ---------
** Unknown type: 65 (error reporting turned off)
* Picture: 276448 bits VBV after decoding: 7718944 bits
* Average rate: 31.184 Mb/s
* Frame number: 3 Average mquant: 3.73
* Zero stuffing: 659 bits
* -------- Bidirectional frame at 160944 ---------
* Temporal Reference: 1 VBV: 7995392 (+ 1892388) bits
* Intra DC: 10 bits Quant scale: non-linear
* Scan: alternate Intra VLC table: 1
* -------- User Data Start Code at 160962 ---------
** Unknown type: 65 (error reporting turned off)
* Picture: 288672 bits VBV after decoding: 7706720 bits
* Average rate: 30.057 Mb/s
* Frame number: 4 Average mquant: 3.27
* Zero stuffing: 622 bits
* -------- Predicted frame at 197028 ---------
* Temporal Reference: 5 VBV: 7995392 (+ 1880164) bits
* Intra DC: 10 bits Quant scale: non-linear
* Scan: alternate Intra VLC table: 1
* -------- User Data Start Code at 197046 ---------
** Unknown type: 65 (error reporting turned off)
* Picture: 927392 bits VBV after decoding: 7068000 bits
* Average rate: 29.944 Mb/s
* Frame number: 5 Average mquant: 1.96
* Zero stuffing: 860 bits
* -------- Bidirectional frame at 312952 ---------
* Temporal Reference: 3 VBV: 7995392 (+ 1241444) bits
* Intra DC: 10 bits Quant scale: non-linear
* Scan: alternate Intra VLC table: 1
* -------- User Data Start Code at 312970 ---------
** Unknown type: 65 (error reporting turned off)
* Picture: 342048 bits VBV after decoding: 7653344 bits
* Average rate: 28.959 Mb/s
* Frame number: 6 Average mquant: 2.74
* Zero stuffing: 685 bits
* -------- Bidirectional frame at 355708 ---------
* Temporal Reference: 4 VBV: 7995392 (+ 1826788) bits
* Intra DC: 10 bits Quant scale: non-linear
* Scan: alternate Intra VLC table: 1
* -------- User Data Start Code at 355726 ---------
** Unknown type: 65 (error reporting turned off)
* Picture: 489376 bits VBV after decoding: 7506016 bits
* Average rate: 28.245 Mb/s
* Frame number: 7 Average mquant: 2.25
* Zero stuffing: 75240 bits <--------------------------------- stuff to the CBR rate!!!
* -------- Predicted frame at 416880 ---------
* Temporal Reference: 8 VBV: 7995392 (+ 1679460) bits
* Intra DC: 10 bits Quant scale: non-linear
* Scan: alternate Intra VLC table: 1
* -------- User Data Start Code at 416898 ---------
** Unknown type: 65 (error reporting turned off)
* Picture: 1066976 bits VBV after decoding: 6928416 bits
* Average rate: 28.431 Mb/s
* Frame number: 8 Average mquant: 1.47
* Zero stuffing: 714 bits

Ron

HDNet is configuring their encoder for real CBR. That is, there's zero stuffing in the video elementary stream. Here's a few frames from Blade Runner. Note the amount of zero stuffing on each frame.

Ron

Thank you....you are getting to the point I was trying to make to Glimmie. Something has to give somewhere to get the CBR.

The bitrate from HDNET is not actually a high as it appears to be when looking at other sources.

First the telecine flag is not enabled as we know.

Second they are stuffing bits in the stream to fill up to a CBR - but as they are in the mainstream and not in a secondary PID, it is not as obvious.

HDTVFanAtic commented:
> While I have the greatest respect for MC and what he's trying to do and has done, it doesn't surprise me given that attitude that they are not acknowledging much here. They would rather correct it themselves and not admit to needing help - or that anything was wrong that they didn't know. <

I share that respect, and not to knock the fine folks at HDN, I have to back the FanAtic up on this one. Earlier this year they had a problem where all their prime-time programming one night got shifted forward some ridiculous amount (~15 minutes). I was flabbergasted. And it stayed skewed that way up until at least 3am, when I finally bagged it.

Not only did no one at HDN notice it (most of their setup is automated, and at least some of the time [I have to assume] no one is watching), folks from HDN that visited that thread first couldn't believe it, then couldn't explain it, and finally, when enough information had been supplied and they went back and looked... it was confirmed, and found that since some live feed had ended early, the automated sequence kicked in with a temporal shift. After some apologies, and assurances they were on top of the problem, and it wouldn't happen again... two days later, the exact same thing happened again. ;) So as good as they are, the HDN people are human, and do make mistakes from time to time.

There are a lot of variables involved in the PQ equation for a variety of differing films, and many of them have been raised here. But the one thing that you can't twist, turn, or dodge is when the same film is aired by a competitor and it looks better than the HDN presentation. :(

- Tim

But the one thing that you can't twist, turn, or dodge is when the same film is aired by a competitor and it looks better than the HDN presentation. :(

- Tim

That is the issue here and what HDNet needs to reply to

Time and Time again other networks stomping them in picture quality

-Gary

Slightly OT, is anyone else still getting random freezing and audio dropouts (5-10 seconds) on HDNet and HDNetM?

I am getting them on MDM cable in Seattle, but all other channels are fine, so this doesn't appear to be a local provider issue. I remember people talking about this as a widespread issue before. Anyone else experiencing this? The dropouts come and go, with no rhyme or reason. Thanks.

Slightly OT, is anyone else still getting random freezing and audio dropouts (5-10 seconds) on HDNet and HDNetM?

I am getting them on MDM cable in Seattle, but all other channels are fine, so this doesn't appear to be a local provider issue. I remember people talking about this as a widespread issue before. Anyone else experiencing this? The dropouts come and go, with no rhyme or reason. Thanks.

Not happening on DirecTV.

How's the PQ on Silence of the Lambs?

That is the issue here and what HDNet needs to reply to

Time and Time again other networks stomping them in picture quality

-Gary

Still checking in, and it seems that HDNet has not replied for weeks. Why am I not surprised? Maybe, just maybe, something saying "Based upon your comments, we believe that there are some issues, and we appreciate your patience while we look into it." Instead, all we have gotten is the typical "our network bla bla bla and we are dedicated bla bla bla and the transfers are bla bla bla".

How's the PQ on Silence of the Lambs?
This is in my top ten favorites and I stopped the DVHS recording if that tells you anything (not worth wasting a tape).:rolleyes:

It's an older transfer (dirty print)...appears to be the one used for the older DVDs. Surprisingly (or should I say not suprising, to those following this thread) devoid of grain. This transfer was quite grainy from what I remember (I have the newer DVD now). Also, there is noticeable blurring whenever the camera pans. I'm now convinced that HDNet is applying some form of DNR. Why they would do such a thing? Beats the hell out of me. :(

Maybe it is time to re-evaluate the value of paying $10/month for the HDNet tier.

Edit: It is possible that the blurring is due to TWC rate-shaping. Hopefully, others will comment with their observations.

Silence seemed to look good from what I seen, I will report more after I record it tonight at 2:00AM

-Gary

This is in my top ten favorites and I stopped the DVHS recording if that tells you anything (not worth wasting a tape).:rolleyes:

It's an older transfer (dirty print)...appears to be the one used for the older DVDs. Surprisingly (or should I say not suprising, to those following this thread) devoid of grain. This transfer was quite grainy from what I remember (I have the newer DVD now). Also, there is noticeable blurring whenever the camera pans. I'm now convinced that HDNet is applying some form of DNR. Why they would do such a thing? Beats the hell out of me. :(

Maybe it is time to re-evaluate the value of paying $10/month for the HDNet tier.

Edit: It is possible that the blurring is due to TWC rate-shaping. Hopefully, others will comment with their observations.

I'm a big Hdnet fan and do not have the complaints that many here have with HDnet.

But..the PQ of Silence was really soft on many shots...a few were sharp...but overall not impressive at all. Far far far inferior to Road House shown a few weeks ago.

Edit: It is possible that the blurring is due to TWC rate-shaping. Hopefully, others will comment with their observations.
That thought about rate shaping (RS) has also occurred to me. But then there seems to be a fuzzy line between RS and how much resolution the various STBs are capable of, too. While I measure 1290 lines maximum with my Time Warner Cable SA8300HD converter, (only 890 lines with a former SA8000HD), how much of that is RS, which NYC's TWC admits using for SD/HD, and how much is due to generic rather than tweaked firmware (member vegggas's theory) for the SA8300HD's video output chip? It appears, from HDNet test pattern (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6664456&&#post6664456) captures like this that 1800--1920-line maximum horizontal rez should be possible.

But then, depending on whether you're pro (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6668303&&#post6668303) or con (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6668622&&#post6668622) the validity of sspears' measurements (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=2498224#post2498224) indicating 800--1300 line rez typical maximums for telecines on 1080/24p HDD5-stored master tapes, typical horizontal resolution maximums for some STBs, seemingly <1300 lines, shouldn't make that much difference.

720p-advocate Joe Kane commented earlier on this measured resolution limit on master tapes (see quote (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=2487513#post2487513), also discussed at his site (http://www.videoessentials.com/D_TheaterQA.php)). Supposedly, at least for master tapes, newer hardware such as Sony's HDCAM-SR recorders, combined with 4k (double-resolution) telecines downconverted to 1920X1080, could boost telecined movie details. But how much of that detail, stored at 880 or 440 Mbps on HDCAM-SR cassettes, could survive after MPEG-2 compression to <17 Mbps video payload and home delivery is the question. Dr1394 posted (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=5072024#post5072024) that 23--30 Mbps (unfiltered) is the sweet spot for MPEG-2 video. -- John

looked more at Silence

it looked decent and great on some shots, but it had the usual DNR look that HDNet has

-Gary

John, I'm using CableCard precisely for the reasons you have mentioned. I dug the HDNet patterns out (DVHS recorded from Mediacom from 2 years ago). I played it back via firewire and DVI/HDMI (via LG LST-3410a). My Sony SXRD seems to resolve the entire pattern (my Mits CRT RPTV only yielded about 1150 lines horizontally).

My digital camera is pretty poor (2.0 MP) - http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/8334/cinemotion15wv.th.jpg (http://img432.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cinemotion15wv.jpg)

It appears that my local TWC is experimenting with rate-shaping (based on the unencrypted channel sharing I'm observing this morning vs. last week). Unfortunately, because HDNet is in a premium tier and encrypted, I can't see what's going on there. I assume this experimentation is part of their preparation for adding UniversalHD, so we'll see how things settle out after they add it.

Where? So me some posts where a cable network or broadcaster has disclosed details of their technical plant design.Here's an example (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6171709&&#post6171709) where a cable network detailed their plant and acknowledged the issues posted by forum members. HDNet has sure been quiet here lately. I'd just like to know if they are pre-processing with DNR, filters, color correction etc.

Marc does that set resolve all the way down to the bottom of 8 on that pattern to the right of the circle??, what about the top leg off the circle, does it resolve all the way down to 11??

if so that is sweet :)

my Mits 65813 gets a little past the 7 or roughly 1275 horizontal lines, my test pattern is untouched how it is sent from HDNet(Dish passes HDNets thru untouched)

-Gary

Marc does that set resolve all the way down to the bottom of 8 on that pattern to the right of the circle??, what about the top leg off the circle, does it resolve all the way down to 11??

if so that is sweet :)
Yes and yes. DVI/HDMI and firewire resolves all the way to 11 (it is a bit rolled off but it resolves it all). I still miss my Mits CRT though (except for the floor space it used to take up). I have to use a backlight because blacks are still not black with all the lights off.

Our reply is that we read the reports and we check our work.

More importantly, I watch our network almost every night. So call it first hand quality control.

That said, the people on this forum like to play detective. Its become a sport. Few of you can agree on what you see. A couple of you think you see things change when we have not changed things. Others think things have not changed when they have.

Honestly, i read the forums less now and dont even check this thread more than once every couple weeks to see if any one is saying anything new.

As always, despite posts to the contrary, we dont get tapes here. We get only HD elements.

Every HD element must pass QC before it gets into the system. We do turn down movies. Often.

We arent going to put our "chain" out for discussion because as I said earlier, none of you experts know which expert is really the expert. Combined with the accusations that some of the "experts" make that have no foundation, makes this forum considerably less useful than it used to be.

Every now and then we pick up a nugget, but things have gotten to the point where the goal is not to talk about HD programming, HD or otherwise, but for forum members to try to prove to each other who is smarter about the technology.


Our interest in quality has NEVER been higher. It will always be a first concern of ours. I wish we could dictate terms of configuration all the way to users eyeballs. we cant. we control what we can, and do the best that we can. We bring in 3rd parties to review and give us 2nd opinions. When we have problems , we try to correct them quickly.

m

thanks mark for taking the time to give us some info. Its nice to know you guys even read these forums, and care about the users/viewers. Unlike some other content providers *cough* HBO *cough*

now If only Comcast would give me HDnet :(

John, I'm using CableCard precisely for the reasons you have mentioned. I dug the HDNet patterns out (DVHS recorded from Mediacom from 2 years ago). I played it back via firewire and DVI/HDMI (via LG LST-3410a). My Sony SXRD seems to resolve the entire pattern (my Mits CRT RPTV only yielded about 1150 lines horizontally).

My digital camera is pretty poor (2.0 MP) - http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/8334/cinemotion15wv.th.jpg (http://img432.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cinemotion15wv.jpg)
It appears that my local TWC is experimenting with rate-shaping (based on the unencrypted channel sharing I'm observing this morning vs. last week). Unfortunately, because HDNet is in a premium tier and encrypted, I can't see what's going on there. I assume this experimentation is part of their preparation for adding UniversalHD, so we'll see how things settle out after they add it.
Nice to have a confirmation of HDNet's test pattern resolution (two years back), Marc A. And would sure expect the new SXRDs to resolve it, as formal reviews indicate. Assuming your cable system is still piping a downlinked full-rez pattern through, without excessive rate-shaping or other excessive tinkering, perhaps you'd see the same full rez if your CableCard setup would allow HDNet reception.

That's resolution with a pattern created by a generator (or computer graphics), which are non-sampled signals; (not subject to standard Nyquist filtering limitations of sampled signals to prevent aliasing, with about a 1700-line maximum for 1920X1080 sampled HD [~74 MHz] from TV cameras or telecines). So, seems it's still a question of whether for a live HDNet, CBS, etc. 1080i shows get reduced about 15% from ~1700 to ~1450 max rez during MPEG decoding. And also whether a telecined, HDD5-stored film starts out typically at, say, about 1000 lines maximum (film detail equivalent), as I outlined earlier above.

Maybe one of these years the SMPTE, or another organization, will find out and publish their results as they did for on-screen theater film (Feb/March '04, SMPTE Motion Imaging Journal, SMPTE.org), which paralled the conclusions of Matt Cowan's earlier report (http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf) also based on ITU data; that is, theaters deliver, on average, approximately 720p resolution. -- John

Our reply is that we read the reports and we check our work.

More importantly, I watch our network almost every night. So call it first hand quality control.

That said, the people on this forum like to play detective. Its become a sport. Few of you can agree on what you see. A couple of you think you see things change when we have not changed things. Others think things have not changed when they have.



Much like you and the refs in the NBA? That still did not make you wrong did it? And you showed it was the correct thing to always speak out no matter the consequences.



Honestly, i read the forums less now and dont even check this thread more than once every couple weeks to see if any one is saying anything new.

We arent going to put our "chain" out for discussion because as I said earlier, none of you experts know which expert is really the expert. Combined with the accusations that some of the "experts" make that have no foundation, makes this forum considerably less useful than it used to be.




Interesting you will tell me how much wire each HD Mobile truck carries but not what I really care about.

http://www.hd.net/mobileunitspecs-hd1.html

http://www.hd.net/mobileunitspecs-hd2.html


God forbid you would do this for what we really care about:

http://www.hd.net/pdfs/blockdiagram.pdf




Every now and then we pick up a nugget, but things have gotten to the point where the goal is not to talk about HD programming, HD or otherwise, but for forum members to try to prove to each other who is smarter about the technology.



No Marc, you taught us well with the NBA. You told us to question things when they were not right.

You have numerous people here all seeing the same thing. In fact, this is one of the FEW THREADS that EVERYONE AGREES WHAT THEY SEE.

Yet you refuse to address them. Just like you taught us from the NBA, when things are not right - speak out and question them - even if you get fined.

If a year ago it was a lovefest because of what you wanted to do - guess what - a year later we have become better educated consumers. You forced other up to your level.

So the bar has been raised.

It that means its not a lovefest anymore, so be it. That means you succeeded and educated the consumer.

And when actual caps are taken from your service and other services that show better quality on the other, then clearly something is wrong.




Our interest in quality has NEVER been higher. It will always be a first concern of ours. I wish we could dictate terms of configuration all the way to users eyeballs. we cant. we control what we can, and do the best that we can. We bring in 3rd parties to review and give us 2nd opinions. When we have problems , we try to correct them quickly.



When your 3rd parties miss the simple fact that you can get 20% better bitrate in the same stream using a telecine flag, it's time for new "experts" if you truly care about quality as you state - which we all assume you do.

Bottom line - we ALL want the same thing - HDNET to be the leader - not on par - with the other services.

As always, despite posts to the contrary, we dont get tapes here. We get only HD elements.


I don't get it. All HDTV is archived on tape by the studios. Now you could possible be getting a satellite or fiber feed from somewhere but the material still exists on tape. "elements" is a generic term for material supplied for edit or broadcast.

Colorado Studios does not even own a telecine let alone an HD chain so I doubt you are doing your own transfers in house.

Yes Mark many here hide behind aliaises. My employer which is owned by $10 billion plus entertainment company has strict policies on public comments and disclosure. Especially by senior level employees. I think DR1394 is in the same boat along with others.

I agree some here are treating HD as a boom box - the more bass the better. Never mind how it's supposed to sound.

But there are a few here on your side trying to help difuse this.

I wish we could dictate terms of configuration all the way to users eyeballs.

Ahh. I do understand where you coming from. I vaguley remember what you said from a show aired at HDnet that you give the providers (SAT and cable) high bitrate copies of the movies but get compressed before getting to the viewers HD set.

Now if we have D-Theater copies of these movies (like Open Range, Silence of the Lambs,Mutiny on the Bounty,etc) we (avs forum memebers)will be able to see how big the PQ difference there is between your original source and the one thats being broadcasted.

HiDef viewing sets are getting better and better and people like us will no longer be satisfied with "good enough" PQ from our provider.

I know Mr. Cuban can't do anything with all the compressing being done to the channels. From his point of view I understand his sentiments.

Xylon, the HDNet's are passed thru untouched on Dish and many Cable companies, most of us comparing these movies are watching HDNet untouched from the source

-Gary

Now if we have D-Theater copies of these movies (like Open Range, Silence of the Lambs,Mutiny on the Bounty,etc) we (avs forum memebers)will be able to see how big the PQ difference there is between your original source and the one thats being broadcasted.

HiDef viewing sets are getting better and better and people like us will no longer be satisfied with "good enough" PQ from our provide.The thing is, those of us with D-Theater decks know that even the uncompressed 19mbps of broadcast HDTV isn't enough. I am still hoping that the next HD DVD format will be at least as good as D-Theater.

Xylon, the HDNet's are passed thru untouched on Dish and many Cable companies, most of us comparing these movies are watching HDNet untouched from the source

-Gary

There is no way you can be sure of that. D* or E* could easily decode the incomming strean to baseband video and re-compress. There is no way to know that unless you have inside information from the program provider. When looking at MPEG streams at home, you could be seeing the new stream from the satellite or cable provider.

I would assume small independant cable companies (if there are any left) paas the stream untouched. Mainly because the equipment to decode and re-encode is very expensive. But DBS providers and large cable companies such as Comcast do have the resources.

it was already confirmed in this thread that HDNet from Dish is bit for bit identical to a feed from Cable that is known to be passed thru untouched

this was all confirmed by 1394

as usual "Of Mice and Men" was beaten pretty bad by Showtime, the level of detail between each channel is startling, HDNet is mush compared to HBO/Showtime and basically all other Movie networks

Dave, most folks would agree in saying that these new formats will not be as good as D-Theater in picture quality, I have to say I agree

D-Theater was/is a format that is untouched in quality

-Gary

The In-Laws is now the sharpest and graniest movie I've ever seen on HDNM.

As always, despite posts to the contrary, we dont get tapes here. We get only HD elements.

Every HD element must pass QC before it gets into the system. We do turn down movies. Often. All HDTV is archived on tape by the studios. Now you could possible be getting a satellite or fiber feed from somewhere but the material still exists on tape. "elements" is a generic term for material supplied for edit or broadcast.Is it possible that it's delivered as files already compressed for server ingest?We arent going to put our "chain" out for discussion because as I said earlier, none of you experts know which expert is really the expert. Combined with the accusations that some of the "experts" make that have no foundation, makes this forum considerably less useful than it used to be. Transport stream analysis and image capture comparisons to other networks are fairly objective observations. If the differences are being generated in the method that the HD elements are being delivered, then a stand alone QC would likely not detect the problem. I'm not sure why discussing plant design is such a big deal as one can read about that in many trade publications.

I guess killing the messenger does make the forum less useful than it used to be.

I am seeing some Film grain on HDNet Movies Folks :)

"Clear and Present Danger" looks to be VERY promising as does "Apocalypse Now", could be the movies or it could be minor tweaking by HDNet, I still see some slight ghosting/smearing of faces, but I am seeing some film grain and I have seen some pretty darn good looking previews in-between flicks on HDNet Movies, which always seem to look better than the actual films

True Untouched Film-HD transfers on a capable display show Film Grain as plain as my hand in front of my Face and I love every minute of it :D

-Gary

actually, HDnetmovies is the last channel any D* sub wants to record. Its just awful looking. I guess, to me, HDlite looks its worst in OAR for some reason. Honestly Id love to be able to see differences when they make changes. But my provider has butchered the channel to the point where they might as well turn it off.

actually, HDnetmovies is the last channel any D* sub wants to record. Its just awful looking. I guess, to me, HDlite looks its worst in OAR for some reason. Honestly Id love to be able to see differences when they make changes. But my provider has butchered the channel to the point where they might as well turn it off.

DiscoveryHD, HDNET and UHD still gives out decent bitrates (12 mbps and up) at 1280x1080i. PQ is still looks very nice. I will see what PQ we get when they air BSG2 next week.

I have discovered lately that even tough some cable HD is at 1920x1080i their bit rate now is a lot less than before resulting in more macroblocking/poor picture quality compared to HD-Lite with high bit rate.

17 mbps and up bit rates* from cable might be a thing in the past :mad:

*bit rate measured using ts reader after stripping nulls.

At least we still have free OTA :D

I am seeing some Film grain on HDNet Movies Folks :)

"Clear and Present Danger" looks to be VERY promising as does "Apocalypse Now", could be the movies or it could be minor tweaking by HDNet, I still see some slight ghosting/smearing of faces, but I am seeing some film grain and I have seen some pretty darn good looking previews in-between flicks on HDNet Movies, which always seem to look better than the actual films

True Untouched Film-HD transfers on a capable display show Film Grain as plain as my hand in front of my Face and I love every minute of it :D

That's intriguing, Gary. Believe we're both viewing 9"-CRT RPTVs (Philips here, Mits there), and we've both measured just under 1300 lines maximum horizontal rez using HDNet's test patterns.

Yet, can't say I've ever really noticed film grain from most sources. Maybe I'm just mentally filtering it out--or not looking for the right thing. Anyone have any authoritative references on film grain in typical 1080i-delivered telecines? I would have speculated that film grain's average equivalent line resolution--without gross film/telecine mis-processing--would be quite high, beyond the max 1300 lines we're supposedly viewing. Not suggesting it hasn't suddenly reappeared on HDNet; just trying to properly align the little gray cells :-). BTW, grain IMO seems fine to suggest a brief fuzzy dream sequence, flashback, etc., but a constant presence seems like a screwy misapplied technical manipulation to achieve some so-called artistic effect. -- John

Is it possible that it's delivered as files already compressed for server ingest?

Quite possible. That would save HDNET the cost of an ATSC encoder which at the time of their launch was > $80K. And/or the cost of an HDD5 VTR which is another $80K. HDCAM could be had for about $60K.

However this article http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/news/n-hdnet-2.shtml from 2001 tends to indicate they have some baseband sources so they would need an HD MPEG encoder.

That's interesting you say that. I saw a "preview" for both films and I thought (at least from the previews) they looked atrocious!!

Here is a comparison of Silence of the Lambs. Not sure what channel aired the original but you can CLEARLY see a difference. This really shows what EVERYBODY here is seeing, even if Mark thinks it is non-existent. I love the way we are just dismissed as pissers and moaners because we don't think HDNETM has the best pq.


http://img358.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sotlnewscene41pu.jpg (HDNET)


http://img422.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sotloldscene40bq.jpg (OLD SHOWING)




I am seeing some Film grain on HDNet Movies Folks :)

"Clear and Present Danger" looks to be VERY promising as does "Apocalypse Now", could be the movies or it could be minor tweaking by HDNet, I still see some slight ghosting/smearing of faces, but I am seeing some film grain and I have seen some pretty darn good looking previews in-between flicks on HDNet Movies, which always seem to look better than the actual films

True Untouched Film-HD transfers on a capable display show Film Grain as plain as my hand in front of my Face and I love every minute of it :D

-Gary

John I think you are right in saying that Film grain is subjective, if you look for it you can see it(on a capable display, of which you have ;))

CSI on CBS has the slightest film grain I have ever seen, if you can spot it on that you are seeing things pretty good

John, with CRT's, even a slight optical misfocusing of 1 or 2 lenses will destroy your very fine film grain like from CSI

I check my optical focus quite regularly :)

-Gary

That's interesting you say that. I saw a "preview" for both films and I thought (at least from the previews) they looked atrocious!!

Here is a comparison of Silence of the Lambs. Not sure what channel aired the original but you can CLEARLY see a difference. This really shows what EVERYBODY here is seeing, even if Mark thinks it is non-existent. I love the way we are just dismissed as pissers and moaners because we don't think HDNETM has the best pq.


http://img358.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sotlnewscene41pu.jpg (HDNET)


http://img422.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sotloldscene40bq.jpg (OLD SHOWING)
That is a rather dramatic difference.

Here is a comparison of Silence of the Lambs. Not sure what channel aired the original but you can CLEARLY see a difference. There is a large diffference in resolution between those images. Besides the grain, the black numbers on the "new" version is unreadable. I also noticed the new one has a letterbox matte while the old one doesn't. Was the new one from a preview?Quite possible. That would save HDNET the cost of an ATSC encoder which at the time of their launch was > $80K. And/or the cost of an HDD5 VTR which is another $80K. HDCAM could be had for about $60K.

However this article http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/news/n-hdnet-2.shtml from 2001 tends to indicate they have some baseband sources so they would need an HD MPEG encoder.The article mentions facilities to create promos, but they could be converted to MPEG 2 using software encoders. I wonder if the backhaul from the sports is also at 19Mb and spliced into the distribution stream.

If this is the methodology, then a hardware encoder (besides the ones at the remotes) would not be required for any of these sources. In 2001 I think the encoders were alot more. Those HUGE Mitsubishi boxes - around 3-4' high - were in the 100s of thousand dollar range when they first came out.

Most (8 out of 10 examples) show exactly what those screenshots show and it is a shame, we are not nitpicking, any decent display will show the drastic difference between the same films shown on various HD networks compared to HDNet

-Gary

Thanks for the interesting discussion here folks. I have a slightly off topic question, and I apologize if it has been mentioned before, but watching Open Range last night I saw an inconspicuous HDNetMovies bug appear briefly in the corner of the screen a couple times during the movie. Is this something new or has it always been there? I could swear I never saw it during movies I recorded to DVHS a few months back like THX1138 and Blade Runner. Thanks.

It has always been there, for a few seconds 2 times a movie or so, not a problem for me

-Gary

From another poster:

HBO vs HDNET

The pictures pretty well speak for themselves. If HDNET cannot see the difference, then we clearly have a problem - as its not us imagining it.

HD-Net
http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/1545/sotlnewscene56bj.th.jpg (http://img388.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sotlnewscene56bj.jpg)
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/9899/sotloldscene59dd.th.jpg (http://img375.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sotloldscene59dd.jpg)
HBO

HD-Net
http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/7918/sotlnewscene41pu.th.jpg (http://img358.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sotlnewscene41pu.jpg)
http://img422.imageshack.us/img422/2483/sotloldscene40bq.th.jpg (http://img422.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sotloldscene40bq.jpg)
HBO


HD-Net
http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/1342/sotlnewscene38fy.th.jpg (http://img356.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sotlnewscene38fy.jpg)
http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/3941/sotloldscene30gv.th.jpg (http://img491.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sotloldscene30gv.jpg)
HBO


HD-Net
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/8258/sotlnewscene10el.th.jpg (http://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sotlnewscene10el.jpg)
http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/4097/sotloldscene16og.th.jpg (http://img376.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sotloldscene16og.jpg)
HBO


300% Zoom: left HDNet - right old HBO

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/7012/sotl300zoom3wg8gv.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

As someone mentioned earlier, the letterboxing in the HDNet version suggests that it's not the same transfer as the HBO airing, which doesn't make this the same sort of apples-to-apples comparison that other users have posted earlier.

Yep thats basically what we are seeing with all these comparisons, I love HDNet to death but this thread is going nowhere fast :(

that picture with Lecter look at the white drawing against the wall, Film grain on HBO, none on HDNet

that is what tips most of us off that HDNet is using DNR/filtering, knowing or unknowing

I am tired of this being slammed down as a Transfer issue, if that is the case how come not one friggin time has HDNet been ahead of another channel and had a mouth watering transfer that spanks others ?? that has never happened, it's always other channels beating HDNet and bad

the question must be asked, when was Silence on HBO ??

-Gary

As someone mentioned earlier, the letterboxing in the HDNet version suggests that it's not the same transfer as the HBO airing, which doesn't make this the same sort of apples-to-apples comparison that other users have posted earlier.The color is so close that I would be tempted to say it is the same transfer. Same loss of grain and vertical detail, and on some images the look of a filter where a blurred image is added to the original. The bricks on the first one almost disappears on the HDNet copy. As this is vertical detail, video bandwidth is not an issue. The letterbox matte could have been added later.

If HDNet is not receiving tapes, then it could well be that's it's happening in the delivery process to HDNet. QC at HDNet wouldn't know if they don't have the original transfer for comparison. It could be that "massaged" tape versions that used the original transfer as a source also exist. I love HDNet to death but this thread is going nowhere fast :( If HDNet doesn't think it's a problem, then I doubt it will be resolved.

I am tired of this being slammed down as a Transfer issueI'm not arguing that it's always a transfer issue (and expressly said so in my post, which I'm assuming you're responding to) -- just suggesting that it may be in the case of Silence of the Lambs.

The color is so close that I would be tempted to say it is the same transfer.I can agree with that -- I remember the brightness and color saturation on the most recent MGM DVD looking quite a bit different than the previous releases, for instance.

I understand Adam, this case could very well be that issue, I was just commenting that everyone is saying this is a transfer issue and it is not that cut and dry

-Gary

the question must be asked, when was Silence on HBO ??

-Gary


Last time was 2Q or 3Q of 2004.

Plenty of times prior.

that picture with Lecter look at the white drawing against the wall, Film grain on HBO, none on HDNet
Look at the number on Lecter's uniform just to the right of that. On the HBO image I can see 1329-O. On the HDNet version, it's unreadable. I've tried every sharpening technique I know to enhance the number on the HDNet version but that "3" always looks like it could be some other number like "5" or "8".

I do think HBO is adding some sharpening since I was able to process the other HDNet stills to look nearly like the HBO ones but this a definite example of some detail that just isn't there.

Adam commented:
> the letterboxing in the HDNet version suggests that it's not the same transfer as the HBO airing, <

The OAR on this film was 1.85, which is what HDNM aired. HBO's version was zoomed (to fill the vertical) and cropped (on the sides) to 1.78, to fill the 16:9 frame.

- Tim

[NB: the above info is incorrect, as pointed out by TVOD below.]

In the first set of photos you can see the grout lines clearly of the brick work on HBO, on HDnet you cant..

Adam commented:
> the letterboxing in the HDNet version suggests that it's not the same transfer as the HBO airing, <

The OAR on this film was 1.85, which is what HDNM aired. HBO's version was zoomed (to fill the vertical) and cropped (on the sides) to 1.78, to fill the 16:9 frame.

- TimExcept that you can see more at the top and bottom on the HBO image than you can on the HDNet. Side to side is very similar. Mattes are usually not on the film itself, but rather added in the projector or the transfer. It looks like the matte was added after the transfer on the HDNet images. Adding a matte in this manner is probably not a good idea as one would not know how the telecine was framed to begin with, and that can change scene to scene (or even within a scene). It does give the impression that it is properly framed and matted for OAR, but could very well not be.

I noticed on the bricks in the background on the third set of images that the HDNet version is also losing horizontal detail. On the other hand, her face is more visible in the shadows. This suggests some sort of color correction and possibly some filters.

HDNet does have sort of a more milky look on their movies than other networks, it is also slightly reddish in tone and that just adds more to the muddy looking picture, HDNet Movies looks slightly washed out becuase of this

-Gary

The HBO version has some edge-enhancement. Check out the left side of the face in the first image.

The HBO version has some edge-enhancement. Check out the left side of the face in the first image.

Yes it does. But no edge enhancement technique can explain the why the color timing differences. (The HDNet Movies version looks shallow and shadow detail is lacking.)

The HBO version has some edge-enhancement. Check out the left side of the face in the first image.Could be from the original transfer.HDNet does have sort of a more milky look on their movies than other networks, it is also slightly reddish in tone and that just adds more to the muddy looking picture, HDNet Movies looks slightly washed out becuase of thisFrom the images, it's like looking through wax paper.

TVOD commented on matting:
> Except that you can see more at the top and bottom on the HBO image than you can on the HDNet. Side to side is very similar. <

Yep, you're absolutely correct. I didn't look closely enough. And my comment about zooming was flat-out wrong. My apologies.

- Tim

Caught a few snippets of "Silence of the Lambs" last night, wondering if it's been improved since the images discussed above. Haven't made detailed comparisons here.

Instead, still wondering when we'll see telecined images equal in maximum resolution to what's delivered with live 1080i. Apparently, without oversampling, that would be limited to telecines of negatives for TV productions--unless some telecined prints of some feature films (answer prints?), after storage on HDD5 cassettes, etc., could match the ~1700-line limiting resolution of 1920X1080i/p, then have the finest details survive compression at <17 Mbps delivery, plus an assumed 15% loss (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5667245&&#post5667245) (last paragraph) during MPEG-2 decompression. Maybe some members, enjoying inverse telecine from 1080i, minimizing motion judder from 24p capture with 48 or 72 fps viewing, and without the apparent <1300-line maximum of typical cable/STB delivery, are already viewing this 'full' (non-oversampled) 1080i/p telecine delivery. -- John

This is my 2 cents, SOTL last night looked like S***. I dont watch HDnet movies that much but that was the worst. If i was Mark Cuban I would run and hide with my tall between my legs. That could not even be called HD, more like SDlite. I dont get into all the tech stuff, i just turn it on and if it looks good then im happy. Watching that was like stealing my money!

This is my 2 cents, SOTL last night looked like S***. I dont watch HDnet movies that much but that was the worst.
I switched over to Silence of the Lambs after watching Con Air last night.

I concur... SotL on HDNet Movies looked like S.

Caught a few snippets of "Silence of the Lambs" last night, wondering if it's been improved since the images discussed above. Haven't made detailed comparisons here.I DVR'ed it... I was about to delete it, but I can post frames from the soft broadcast if anyone wants to see them.

Just returned from vacation. It looks soft. Very soft.

What happened to Mark Cuban? Now that we have proof (and have had it for weeks) he is no longer posting in this thread.

Yes it does. But no edge enhancement technique can explain the why the color timing differences. (The HDNet Movies version looks shallow and shadow detail is lacking.)
But other processing techniques could. If HDNet used edge enhancement and other stuff I think their content would look nearly as good as HBO's and the differences would be much less obvious. This might be a matter HDNet not being able to justify investing in new expensive equipment.

Instead, still wondering when we'll see telecined images equal in maximum resolution to what's delivered with live 1080i. Apparently, without oversampling, that would be limited to telecines of negatives for TV productions--unless some telecined prints of some feature films (answer prints?),4K Spirit HD resolution should exceed current live cameras. The Northlight scanner (http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/northlight.html) can do 6k for DI work. Feature transfers usually come from InterPositives (IPs), which are color timed contact prints using a special very fine grain and very wide latitude film stock.

But other processing techniques could. If HDNet used edge enhancement and other stuff I think their content would look nearly as good as HBO's and the differences would be much less obvious. This might be a matter HDNet not being able to justify investing in new expensive equipment.I'd be impressed if there's any equipment which could make this look as good as the content I get from other HD channels:

http://img419.imageshack.us/img419/5415/sotl9fr.th.jpg (http://img419.imageshack.us/img419/5415/sotl9fr.jpg)

This JPG was saved with best possible image quality setting. The original, lossless PNG also has the same softness with terrible macroblocking on her face. I get full 25Mbps bandwidth on Adelphia cable with a Motorola 6412 DVR.

I'd be impressed if there's any equipment which could make this look as good as the content I get from other HD channels
It's hard to tell without comparing it with a better version. So far some edge and detail enhancement has made the HDNet shots look better but there's no doubt some details just aren't there. Even the HBO shots haven't looked all that great.

4K Spirit HD resolution should exceed current live cameras. The Northlight scanner (http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/northlight.html) can do 6k for DI work. Feature transfers usually come from InterPositives (IPs), which are color timed contact prints using a special very fine grain and very wide latitude film stock.

Very few home video features these days come from DI workflows. First, there really aren't that many titles compared with the combined Hollywood studios output done with the DI process yet. And a DI doesn't always mean a direct digital downconversion. Sometimes the home video versioning is not decided at theaterical release and the DI data can't be backed up ecomomically. (please no Best Buy hard drive posts. DI is a different league in terms of data storage)

A lot of the films being discussed here are long since printed. No hope of DI for these. DI scanning and processing is far too expensive strictly for home video. If it can be done during the DI process, it makes sense but not as a dedicated proceedure for home video.

DI is still more expensive and slower compared to traditional film workflow, although I guess that's improving. I only mentioned it because high resolution scanning exists. A HD feature transfer on a 4K from an IP can have good depth of modulation at the highest frequencies comparable to present live cameras. The use of high quality primary lenses on features can create images better than live cameras. As a side note, in lieu of a fast network, my experience with sneaker net film out material is that using "Best Buy hard drives" (ie external IDE hard drives) became a common practice. Obviously that not for archiving.

I think that much of the "wow" factor that many refer to is from sources with little optical filtering and a fair amount of enhancement. The praised material from HDCAM is 1440 pixels horizontal max. IMHO flatness through the mids and upper mids contribute much more to the perception of image sharpness than the very highest frequencies. I really doubt if a feature was presently shown from SR, D5, or HDCAM on the same network with ATSC bit rates that anyone could tell the difference. As depth of modulation improves in the highest frequencies in future source elements and delivery systems, that could become more noticeable.

This HDNet image softening issue looks more in the mid frequencies from the images posted here. The vertical resolution looks almost cut in half. It sort of looks like there is attempt to reduce an over-enhanced appearance.

Sometimes the home video versioning is not decided at theaterical release and the DI data can't be backed up ecomomically. (please no Best Buy hard drive posts. DI is a different league in terms of data storage)

As a computer guy I'm sometimes amused by claims that cheap drives are not reliable enough to save things like this. So instead they discard it. ;)

- Tom

I think we are getting a bit off track with questioning the capabilities of the transfer systems.

HDnet movies has shown excellent quality images in the past. HBO and others seem to hve a slight edge in quality. These images were all made with Spirit 1s, Cintel C-Reality, and Sony's now defunct HD telecine. All were recorded to HDD5 or HDCAM.

If anything the quality will improve with newer technologies such as Spirit 2 and HDCAN-SR. But the fact that everyone seems content with the prior technologies makes this all a moot point.

The images posted from HBO likely came from a Spirit 1 telecine. Most here agree these are acceptable. So this issue is not a matter of what the Spirit 1 or assocaited equipment can do. The question is why the differences on the same frame from HDnet.

On older material circa 2001 transfer time such as SOTL I question if it's the same transfer. HBO did a lot of HD transfers in house around this time because the studios were unwilling to invest in HD transfers for their libraries. I heard HBO had to destroy those transfers. Perhaps the studios bought some of them once they decided to archive HD. Or perhaps HBO had disposed of them and the features were re-transferred by another vendor.

To summarize:

1) Do we know for sure it's the same transfer? I don't think we can know that here.

2) How exactly does HDnet receive the material? Mark has stated they don't get tapes yet I know for a fact that's the studio's HD archive medium of choice - HDD5. Now in his position he may not be involved in operations at that level or he may be very involved and correct in his statement. I has been suggested that perhaps the MPEG2 encode is done by a third party for HDnet. This does make sense. In this case HDnet would have no direct control over the image quality. These may just be crappy HD MPEG encodes. We do know that at least as of 2001 HDNET was an MPEG based facility and not a baseband video based operation like HBO or the major networks. Baseband HD systems are very expensive.

3) The main issue here seems to be loss of quality versus an earlier time in HDnet's Movie's history. This could be due to equipment upgrades on the encoding side that prove to be inferior to the former. Or a change in compression facility vendors if it's true that HDnet is delivered pre-compressed material.

In any event I think this has been beaten to death here. The examples posted are obvious. It's up to HDnet to respond either here or by simply adressing the problem. But if not, I'm still happy to get what we get.

To spite the issue here it's still a remarkable service Mark is providing with these olde rfilms in HDTV - even if they are not as good as some would wish.

This is my 2 cents, SOTL last night looked like S***. I dont watch HDnet movies that much but that was the worst. If i was Mark Cuban I would run and hide with my tall between my legs. That could not even be called HD, more like SDlite. I dont get into all the tech stuff, i just turn it on and if it looks good then im happy. Watching that was like stealing my money!

I recorded it last night on the HDtivo. Not sure its worth extracting though. It did look BAD. IMO

As a computer guy I'm sometimes amused by claims that cheap drives are not reliable enough to save things like this. So instead they discard it. ;)

- Tom

Then why isn't it being done? Go find me a 20mb RLL hard drive. Or better yet find me a controller card that will interfcae to it. Silly? yes today it is but such a scenerio was not silly in 1985. Will SATA be around in 2025? I think not. Yeah, I have heard it before here - just copy the data to the latest and greatest data storage format every 5 years? Who pays for that? What about errors? I remember the first digital video disk arrays. let's go down 100 layers back to back. What happened? it looks like crap!
Ahh rounding and error correction!

I can take a YCM and stick it in a salt mine for at least 50 years without concern for longevity - at a cost of pennies per day. The quality will be as good as the day it was printed. I will still be able to transfer it in 50 years, after all it's a simple photographic image. Until the data storage can do the same, storage of film archives as data will be very loosly adopted.

That's the reaosn it's not happening on a large scale yet.

1) Do we know for sure it's the same transfer? I don't think we can know that here.Can't say for sure with this limited information, but the above examples look so close in framing and color that it would imply that it is in that case. Also the same problem seems to extend past a single example.2) How exactly does HDnet receive the material?That's the key question, but not likely answered here - unless the experts really know who the experts are.3) The main issue here seems to be loss of quality versus an earlier time in HDnet's Movie's history.I think it's more the difference between HDNet's presentation and that on another network.
I can take a YCM and stick it in a salt mine for at least 50 years without concern for longevity - at a cost of pennies per day.The B&W color seperations are pretty stable, but what a royal pain it is to make them. At some point digital archive storage will be better, but that isn't today.

At some point digital archive storage will be better, but that isn't today.

Now that I tink about it there is a data stirage standard that's been in place for over 40 years and still used today in CNC manufacturing - paper punch tape!

Hey not the most effective packing density but easy to repair and due to that totally error free. :D

That's somebodie's new years eve homework assignment. How much punch tape is needed to store 2 Terabytes? remember that stuff is only 5bits across if I remember right ;)

So much for the quality control and rejection of transfers:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6813665

Now that I tink about it there is a data stirage standard that's been in place for over 40 years and still used today in CNC manufacturing - paper punch tape!I still see punch tape being used for storing film printing color timing.

That's somebodie's new years eve homework assignment. How much punch tape is needed to store 2 Terabytes? remember that stuff is only 5bits across if I remember right ;)http://www.library.cornell.edu/iris/tutorial/dpm/oldmedia/images/punchtape.jpg
one 32-MB card has the capacity of 78 kilometers of punch tape

"Technical Information - Tips for NC Programming"
http://www.miyano-jpn.co.jp/english/tech/index_02.htmlone 32-MB card has the capacity of 78 kilometers of punch tape.32Mb = 78 km

If my quick conversion is correct, 1 Gb = 1514 miles...
so 2Tb = 3,029,179 miles

A terabyte costs a bit less than $400 now. I'm not sure how (or why) that relates to paper tape, but I guess that's another option.

http://www.memorylabs.net/mapliima30ui.html

- Tom

edit: corrected cost

For those interested in doing other comparisons, HDNM has the following films on their January schedule, that have aired previously on other networks:

- Above the Law - HBO
- Freejack - HBO @235
- New Jack City - HBO
- Stay Tuned - HBO @235

- Against All Odds - SHO
- Moscow On The Hudson - SHO

Two from HBO even aired at their OAR of 2.35!

- Tim

Moscow also aired on GuyTV, a HD-Lite Voom channel on Dish

again I say if it is a print issue why is HDNet always 10 for 10 coming up on the short end of the stick?? thats because it is not a print issue at all

-Gary

Now here is a strange situation. I missed Of Mice and Men when it ran on Showtime. I really like the movie and would like to archive it, great. I hear the pq on hdnet is/was inferior to Showtime (surprise). One night, I was watching HDNET (not the movie channel) and they showed a preview from Mice and the PQ was beautiful!! I started thinking "I can't imagine the Showtime version being any better then this".

I check the schedule on HDNM and plan on capping. Sitting there...armed with a tape...waiting for the show. The PQ was HORRIBLE!!!! This was NOT the same thing I saw on the preview from HDNET channel. I stopped the recording. No need to archive something that looks (maybe) as good as a DVD.

My question is what is going on here? The PQ on that preview was CLEARLY (no pun intended) superior to what was actually shown. I just had to sit there scratching my head.

Darrin, that is true and perplexing. Many times the preview for a film will look crisp and clear, while the film itself will look soft. This happens all of the time on HDNet. It's mind boggling.

Darrin, that is true and perplexing. Many times the preview for a film will look crisp and clear, while the film itself will look soft. This happens all of the time on HDNet. It's mind boggling.

That is another item that should probably be documented with full rez screen caps if possible.

- Tom

Darrin, that is true and perplexing. Many times the preview for a film will look crisp and clear, while the film itself will look soft. This happens all of the time on HDNet. It's mind boggling.
I haven't had the opportunity to view these differences myself, so I come at this from a "Devil's Advocate" viewpoint. This issue noted in the above quote may be of great importance here, though. Would this or would this not lean more toward a transfer issue than a signal path issue? Or does it re-enforce the idea that there is something wrong in the path? This leads to a couple possibilities:

1) It is a transfer problem: The trailer was delivered at a better quality than the feature film. In this case, HDNET definitely has ammunition to complain to the studios. Evidence toward this might help resolve this issue if indeed the studios are pulling a fast one.

2) It is a signal path problem: The machines that are used to play back the promos do not follow the same path as the ones used to play the features. Perhaps the path after the master control switcher is not the problem so much as what lays between the playback sources and the switcher. Maybe something is wrong with the feature playback equipment itself.

3) The bandwidth is changing throughout the day on the various providers: While it would be a pretty big coincidence considering the number of providers people are viewing HDNM on, it must be considered. Is it possible the various providers are skimming bandwidth to bolster other channels during peak viewing times (during the feature presentation) while giving it back at other times (when the trailer airs)? To be fair, we must consider all possibilities.

I'm sure Mark is very interested in this issue. Any negative comments on his part may be that of frustration. He seems to really care about the product and has felt that it was excellent up to this point. Now others are questioning not only the quality of that product, but his integrity, as well. He got where he is by being hands on with everything, so I'm sure having others step up and relate that he's wrong isn't exactly welcome. However, if we can establish a real dialog, perhaps we can get to the bottom of what we're really seeing here.

There are many dedicated professionals here that truly care about HDNET (and HDTV in general) and truly want to help. Not everyone here is "just an armchair engineer". Some of us have have years of real television experience than can be of use here. Some of that comes from the local level, while some comes from large networks across both cable and broadcast. For obvious reasons, many of the professionals here can't reveal their identities (while most wouldn't reveal trade secrets, the risk of accidentally saying the wrong thing makes revealing where we work a risky proposition). That doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about. They simply can't tell you WHY they know what they're talking about.

So, Mark, we appreciate what you've done for HD and your dedication to everything you involve yourself with. We know you want to be the gold standard when it comes to HD quality. The bulk of the members here mean no disrespect when they question the quality of what they see on your network(s). They just care enough to hopefully help keep it as high as possible. Perhaps there really is no fix possible (assuming those people posting here are seeing the same thing). However, if there is fix, many here would be glad to help find out what it might be.

Now here is a strange situation. I missed Of Mice and Men when it ran on Showtime. I really like the movie and would like to archive it, great. I hear the pq on hdnet is/was inferior to Showtime (surprise). One night, I was watching HDNET (not the movie channel) and they showed a preview from Mice and the PQ was beautiful!! I started thinking "I can't imagine the Showtime version being any better then this".

I check the schedule on HDNM and plan on capping. Sitting there...armed with a tape...waiting for the show. The PQ was HORRIBLE!!!! This was NOT the same thing I saw on the preview from HDNET channel. I stopped the recording. No need to archive something that looks (maybe) as good as a DVD.

My question is what is going on here? The PQ on that preview was CLEARLY (no pun intended) superior to what was actually shown. I just had to sit there scratching my head.
Yes, made a similar observation earlier above about a preview, perhaps on HDNet and not HDNetM, regarding "Gorillas in the Mist." The preview was remarkably clear, colorful, and sharp. Then the movie seemed filtered and had a faint white haze--beyond filming in a hazy, humid environment, if that took place production-wise. -- John

1) It is a transfer problem: The trailer was delivered at a better quality than the feature film. In this case, HDNET definitely has ammunition to complain to the studios.

Well, Mark has said it himself that they have turned down MANY films due to poor transfers. The quality of the "preview" I saw was absolutely gorgeous. When I tell you the film that was shown wasn't even worth archiving, I'm not joking. It was a horrible mess. Now, before I (as well as many others) am dismissed for being part of the "never satisfied, always have something to complain about" crowd, on the flip side, last night Body Heat was aired with SURPRISINGLY good pq.

When I saw this on the schedule, I thought this would be a HORRIBLE mess because I recall the transfer was soft to begin with. It looked very good and I will in fact archive it. It looked MUCH better then Of Mice and Men. I really hope I am pleasently surprised by Clear and Present Danger and A Now: Redux because they are two of my favorites.

Hmmmm.......

Why doesn't anyone cap the the "Preview" that is so clear and do a frame comparison with the actual movie?

Hmmmm.......

Why doesn't anyone cap the the "Preview" that is so clear and do a frame comparison with the actual movie?

Ironically, I have only seen the preview one time.

A HD feature transfer on a 4K from an IP can have good depth of modulation at the highest frequencies comparable to present live cameras. The use of high quality primary lenses on features can create images better than live cameras.
Raised the question earlier above (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6811902&&#post6811902I) about telecines in general not equaling live 1080i (or HDCAM 1080i). But excluded oversampling, such as 4k DIs, since they clearly offer a 'crispness' advantage over 1920X1080 production. Also, unless someone can site specific instances, it doesn't appear that 4k downconversions for 1080/24p masters are being used for current broadcast movies.
I think that much of the "wow" factor that many refer to is from sources with little optical filtering and a fair amount of enhancement. The praised material from HDCAM is 1440 pixels horizontal max.

Often find myself that 1440-filtered HDCAM material appears similar to live 1080/60i (30i). (I'm viewing on a 9"-CRT RPTV that might resolve ~1600 lines/PW, although my cable systems/STBs limit effective resolution to ~1335 measured lines--1290 from Time Warner--using HDNet's pattern.) Broadly speaking, even though HDCAM tapes do give an impression of enhanced video (good live 1080i shots appear 'smoother' overall), it's not clear live 1080i is delivering significantly higher resolutions. Maybe I need a true-1080p display and CableCard-delivered 1080i, or other delivery sources, to sidestep current system/STB limitations.
IMHO flatness through the mids and upper mids contribute much more to the perception of image sharpness than the very highest frequencies. I really doubt if a feature was presently shown from SR, D5, or HDCAM on the same network with ATSC bit rates that anyone could tell the difference. As depth of modulation improves in the highest frequencies in future source elements and delivery systems, that could become more noticeable.
Yes, seems to get quite tricky differentiating between mid-range enhanced contrast, apparently giving an overall sense of image sharpness, even though higher frequencies/resolutions are missing to provide the actual presence of finer details.

Still, the 'wow' factor difference between live 1080i or the best HDCAM recordings and telecined films remains obvious. And the usual explanation that one source is film (24p or 24PsF) and the others are TV cameras or video tape (1080/60i) seems lacking.

For example, assuming TV film productions are using negatives for telecines, that implies there's >4k image resolution present in some scenes--unless heavy filtering is used throughout. Mentioned earlier possible use of answer prints--made in limited numbers for special showings--and according to consultant Matt Cowan's graph 6.5 (http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf), showing higher resolution falloff during film printing stages, answer prints provide details (MTF plot of an older film stock, Cowan notes) very similar to interpostive (IP) prints.

So, although I don't have the data at hand to back it up, assume there's enough inherent resolution on IPs or answer prints to match live 1080i cameras, and especially 1440-filtered HDCAM recordings. (As Cowan and others have pointed out, the projected results, resolution-wise, of release prints approximates 720p HD.)

Since film, live, and HDCAM-sourced images share hardware and delivery paths, that still leaves motion differences between 24p origination and 1080/60i (30i) origination for live and HDCAM TV. 1080/60i-capture sources deliver original 540-line TV fields (half frames) every 1/60 second, while 24p delivered within 1080/60i carries repeated TV fields achieved with 2-3 pulldown to match the 1080/60i (30i) broadcast format. Some display setups with inverse telecine can extract the 24p from 1080i, eliminating the motion judder of 2-3 pulldown if the 24p is displayed at an even multiple (48, 72, etc. fps).

On my RPTV, displaying 1080i as it originates without further processing, the smoother motion of direct 1080i capture is obvious. With 60-field-per-second viewing, the eyes/brain create 30-fps images, and the visually merged TV fields can deliver up to 800 lines/PH (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=326565#post326565) of vertical resolution (static).

To compare sourced-1080i resolution (live, HDCAM) with 24p sources, I try to compare details such as the stone walls shown earlier above, or blades of grass and other vegetation. Non-24p sources almost always seem to have finer detail-- not just the appearance of sharpness created by edge enhancement and boosted mid-frequencies aiding overall contrast. How much of the blurring can be attributed to motion judder will have to await upgrading here to 1080i inverse telecine--hopefully with video processing from HQV Realta chips or the equivalent.

This HDNet image softening issue looks more in the mid frequencies from the images posted here. The vertical resolution looks almost cut in half. It sort of looks like there is attempt to reduce an over-enhanced appearance.
Indeed a mystery. But, if it's solved, it appears there's still a way to go before we get the wow impact of live 1080i delivered from 24p sources. As mentioned, it's an interesting exercise to compare fine detail from IMAX film telecines on INHD or Discovery's "Sunrise Earth" 24PsF HDCAM captures with the best 1080/60i HDCAM tapes or live 1080i. -- John

The preview for SILENCE OF THE LAMBS also looks better than the actual film showing.

HDNet creates the previews from the HD tape they get from the studios.

By the way, ANY WHICH WAY YOU CAN was on recently and looked quite good. Much sharper than the films mentioned in this thread as sucking wind.

Matt I noticed the same thing and it just makes me even more upset :mad:

the previews for movies shown on HDNet and HDNet Movies look so much better than the actual films, that is where I first noticed Silence and I said "that looks good"

Untouchables preview looked very good also, the actual film was a mushy mess

the Clear and Apacolypse previews look stunning, I bet the Films will not be as good

I need to show some screen caps of this, being that I recently just got down the nack of taking full 1920x1080i screen grabs ;)

-Gary

I saw the Apoc Now preview this afternoon and said "WOW!" and then realized it will never look like that when it actually airs.

Of course, I have that one on D-VHS from Showtime's airing, so I don't need to worry.

Of course, I have that one on D-VHS from Showtime's airing, so I don't need to worry.

:( :(

-Gary

I saw the Apoc Now preview this afternoon and said "WOW!" and then realized it will never look like that when it actually airs.

Of course, I have that one on D-VHS from Showtime's airing, so I don't need to worry.

I would KILL for that one!

Darin, I will send you a list of people I do not like. :D

Of course, I have that one on D-VHS from Showtime's airing, so I don't need to worry.

Me too. The bidding starts at $50,000.00 :D

Seriously, after trying to watch a number of movies recently on HDNet Movies, there is something definitely wrong. Just too soft compared to what I used to see. I used to be really excited about movies on HDNet Movies. I no longer am. Given it's current state, I wouldn't complain if it disappeared from Dish's program lineup.

Mr. Cuban, I have always been a huge supporter of HDNet Movies. It was my favorite movie channel. Now, I pretty much ignore it. There are just too many experienced HD viewers who have noticed a significant and serious drop in PQ on HDNet movies. Please figure out what's wrong and fix it and let HDNet Movies regain the high stature it used to have.

HDNET Movies looks good to me on DirecTV. I can compare it to HBO-HD on Comcast and Discovery HD. It macroblocks a lot less than HBO. It compares very favorably to HDNET "Nothing But Trailers" which we all know is great. I am watching on a Mitsubishi 73713, best HDTV ever made IMHO.

HDNET Movies looks good to me on DirecTV. I can compare it to HBO-HD on Comcast and Discovery HD. It macroblocks a lot less than HBO. It compares very favorably to HDNET "Nothing But Trailers" which we all know is great. I am watching on a Mitsubishi 73713, best HDTV made IMHO.

Please send me some of whatever you're smoking.

No, I'll just continue to enjoy the movies. :) Maybe Dish or your local cable is messing it up. Sorry you guys aren't getting a good picture.

P.S. Mark, I believe you and thanks!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/keenanj/bud_02.jpg

Keenan, what is that?

It's a weed that grows wild in the North Coast regions of California... ;)

I take it you're not getting a good picture either and I know you have a great set also. I'm watching "Timecop" as I type this. Looks good to me. That explosion had way less macroblocking than HBO or OTA would have had.

No, I'm not, and it's disappointing...HDNet is very nearly the perfect channel for my tastes and to have the PQ that it's had lately is depressing. :(

Used to be able to look forward to a movie listed as coming up and be comfortable that it would be a great presentation..now, it's a crapshoot.

I take it you're not getting a good picture either and I know you have a great set also. I'm watching "Timecop" as I type this. Looks good to me. That explosion had way less macroblocking than HBO or OTA would have had.

Um, you're watching Universal HD.

"We’re bout to get taken to a dream world of magic with…
the Chronic (what?)
Cles of Narnia"
--Lazy Sunday

There is definitely a difference in transfers. Maybe therein lies the problem but the difference isn't that bad to me. Time to check out "Battlestar Galactica" on UHD at 6pm. I'll post my comparison.

Um, you're watching Universal HD.

"We’re bout to get taken to a dream world of magic with…
the Chronic (what?)
Cles of Narnia"
--Lazy Sunday

Um, My bad. Well UHD looks good. Let me switch to HDNM. "City Hall" is just ending the skyline shots look soft. Need to wait for another movie. Caught the closeup of Bridget Fonda, she looked sharp.

OK, switched to "The Untouchables" seems to have less contrast but is just as sharp in bright/daylight scenes. Contrast levels can definitely cause a difference in perceived sharpness- this is why DiscoveryHD looks so good. Because of the reduced contrast in not bright scenes the sharpness seems (probably is) less. Maybe they need to up their brightness/contrast levels in their tranfers. However in their defense it looks more like what a theater looks like. IE-Just saw the trailer for "King Kong" on UHD. It looked better than the theater. I just got HDNM a couple of months ago so if it was better than this it must have been really something!

As mentioned, it's an interesting exercise to compare fine detail from IMAX film telecines on INHD or Discovery's "Sunrise Earth" 24PsF HDCAM captures with the best 1080/60i HDCAM tapes or live 1080i. -- JohnI think Crest National is still the only place doing direct IMAX transfers, and that is not a Spirit. It's a Cineglyph- Dave Walker's totally made over MK IIIs.

Um, you're watching Universal HD.




Um, My bad. Well UHD looks good.


lol...this place is good for comedy at least once a day.

How are you supposed to even believe someones observations that goes against all conventional wisdom when they don't even know which channel they are watching?

That just MIGHT make a difference in the picture quality - as UHD is revered for it's outstanding quality, LOL.

Here is a full 1920x1080i screen grab from the Apocalypse Now Redux Preview on HDNet, anyone that has the Showtime airing should post a comparison, we can see a little later this month how things compare

this screen cap looks great, it has "Film Grain" and details galore

http://home.bigsandybb.com/gmurrell/HDTV/apocalypsesmall.jpg (http://home.bigsandybb.com/gmurrell/HDTV/apocalypse.jpg)

again this Screen-Cap is from the previews shown on HDNet Movies between movies and sometimes on the main HDNet Network

-Gary

That just MIGHT make a difference in the picture quality - as UHD is revered for it's outstanding quality, LOL.

Does UHD have a bug ??, if not how would you know what you are watching since you download everything ??

-Gary

Yup. That's what it should look like. I have it playing in my setup now (from Showtime).

"Dune" looks fabulous.

"Dune" looks fabulous.

Yes it does, it looks draw jopping :D, Above the Law looked pretty good also

-Gary

Yup, sharp with/from good brightness and contrast levels. Makes a big difference. Minimal macroblocking also. BTW, what is "draw Jopping"? :) I know, you didn't want to use the overused expression.

I am flabbergasted about how good Dune looks ;)

-Gary

I was just playing back some recently recorded SHO-HD and HDMV programs using VLC player on a 1920x1200 display. I didn't have any deinterlacing turned on, and I noticed that the HDMV movies were having all sorts of horizontal combing artifacts, but there were none from the SHO-HD movies. (Typically I would only expect this to happen with video sourced material, not from film transfers). I wonder if something is set wrong on the HDMV encoders such that it is optimized for 30fps interlaced video sourced content, and is not doing a good job on 24fps progressive film scans right now?

After the fantastic transfer of Dune finished on DirecTV the HDNM feed is showing the same content (Life on a Stick) as HDNet. Is this a provider problem or is it national?

HTPC, we have been talking about that is the entire thread, HDNet is not using telecine flags, they are wasting bandwidth thus lowering picture quality

-Gary

Does UHD have a bug ??, if not how would you know what you are watching since you download everything ??

-Gary


I only download what you put up on the web, Mr. Warezer. MPAA might be knocking on your door real soon.

And since I pay for most channels about 3x over, I won't worry about what you think.

Guess you missed the ignore button here to as you have mentioned it multiple times.

Another mis-statement.

Fact is, I don't need the stuff you upload all over the web. I am very self sufficient.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1707/abcdesktop1sk.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1565/bevdesktop0mz.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/5350/cbsdesktop0ck.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/3006/dtvdesktop1ov.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1764/dishdesktop6my.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/7126/foxdesktop3ki.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/7473/nbcdesktop0do.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/1629/pbsdesktop0mm.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

OK, are you guys being sarcastic about DUNE? I have not watched it yet, so I don't know.

Be nice. Calling people names is just. . . . . . . . .

Not all of us here can cap HD and appreciate it wherever they can get it.

No need to look down on people who can't.

Back on-topic, Dune on my cable looks very nice at 18 mbps.

Maybe something is going on at HDNM? I say this because a few films I looked at over the last few days looked VERY good. Body Heat, Sphere and Dune ALL looked good enough to make me archive them. I didn't get a chance to look at Above the Law (it's on again today), but heard that looks good (as well as Freejack). Maybe they have changed something? It's only a few films so I guess it remains to be seen.

OK, are you guys being sarcastic about DUNE? I have not watched it yet, so I don't know.

No sarcasm. It really looked very good on HDNet Movies (via Dish).

I thought "Freejack" Sunday looked pretty darn good, some of the detail was as good as that Apocalypse Now preview capture. I don't even like the movie but I was surprised at the PQ and got hooked watching it.....yet, the 5-10 mins of "City Hall" I caught earlier looked very soft and mushy..so who knows...haven't seen "Dune".

Dish Network feed.