HDNet Movies Picture Quality [Text View]

Jerry G

05-12-05, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Paul Bigelow
It starts with the source material and works its way down.

Unless one has an original print of the movie (or the one used for transfer) speculation on how a movie "should" look, is still speculation.

The resolving power of HD and the WOW! razor sharp appearance of live sports and certain movie transfers can really stand out in contrast to movies which may have source print issues or soft focus.

Overall though, I find HDNet movies to look outstanding.

All of this undscores the need for film preservation -- there are some movies which may *never* look good.

Paul

This is all so very true.

Yet, it amazes me how over and over again, more and more people seem to forget this or have no understanding of this when they evaluate what they see and start to go into a rage over perceived poor quality.

Comparing HD Video to an HD film transfer is just not a fair or appropriate comparison. Yet it's done all the same and we constantly hear that this and that movie didn't have the "Wow" look of last weekend's football game. That "wow" expression has done more harm than good. I wish it was never ever mentioned by whoever thought it up.

Channels such as HDNet that tend to show older movies will often not look as good as channels that show newer movies. So, over and over again we hear that HDNet Movies just didn't look good. Yet, it's the poor source quality that affected the HD transfer. If these same people would consider the quality of the promo graphics between movies, they would see just how stellar the quality of HDNet Movies really is.

dahester

05-12-05, 12:06 PM

HDNet Movies is IMO the only channel really worth archiving, due to the excellent picture quality on both Dish and TWC (TWC is probably doing some minor cherrypicking, but it's not noticeable and they appear not to be downrezzing at all, knock on wood).

Although HBO is not quite as good on Dish, it actually looks better today than it did six months ago when Dish had random grey blocks showing up. HBO's picture quality _is_ amazing when you consider the bit rates they achieve without downrezzing to 1280x1080 (8-10Mbps with 14Mbps peaks). If anyone has seen some of the BEV channels, like TMN-HD, you'll see that you can get gross MPEG artifacts at higher bit rates.

HDNet Movies is high enough in bit rate (17.4 Mbps) to easily show the quality differences in film transfers (i.e. their MPEG artifacts are minimal). They are a class act, and I hope Mr. Cuban will closely monitor the distribution quality control, especially w/r/t DirecTv. Speaking of DirecTv, I recently stepped into a store where they piping HDNet to all the TVs. Atrocious picture quality, riddled with macroblocking! This is NOT what HD is supposed to be; it's completely unacceptable. I still can't believe what I saw. You'd be better off renting DVDs.

-Dylan

Ken Ross

05-12-05, 01:07 PM

Well to be fair, HDNet on D* generally looks very good. HDNet Movies is another story, but it is tough to tell whether it's an issue with the transfer or the compression. In general HDNet Movies just looks way too soft. I've seen many old movies on Voom, most of which were shockingly good and detailed. Even the B&W moives were a treat.

Capybara 320

05-12-05, 01:17 PM

Glimmie

05-12-05, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Capybara 320
I think you may be dead wrong about this. From what I have heard, HDNet does ALL their own xfers for HDNet Movies. No exceptions! The deal is the owner/studio gets a very high quality xfer to keep, but HDNet doesn't pay the copywrite owner anything for airing it. Please, some knowledgable experts chime in.

HDnet technical operations are done through The Colorado Studios. This a highly "efficient" operation that runs very lean. An HD telecine system is out of the question for them.

The only network doing their own HD transfers was HBO and that was due to the studio's refusal to pay for HD transfers in 1999 when HD's future was very iffy.

Today all HD transfers with possibly the exception of a few done by HBO are by the studio's themselves. However the studios with the exception of Warner Bros have no hardware. They farm the transfers out to various Hollywood facilities. The only other studios to ever do transfers in house was Sony at their HDTV center which was shut down in 2002 and Universal that same year. Hint, they can't afford to do it in house versus sending it out. They don't want to retool every three years like the facilities have to. Another industry inside tip - don't by stock in post production facilities. You won't make anything.

I watched GOM myself and yes it was soft. But this was simply the print quality the transfer facility was provided with along with depth of field and dim lighting. That was the director's creative choice. You can't do better then the print. HDnet was previously over enhancing (during transmission IMO) to try and get that "video" look. I'm glad they backed off on that. "Towering Inferno" was awful. It was way too crisp and looked unatural. If it's a soft film, so be it. And keep in mind some films are delibertly shot with softer lighting for an effect. If that was the director's intention, then that's the way I want to see it.

Afterall, are you watching a story or looking at a test pattern?

Gary Murrell

05-12-05, 07:01 PM

HDnet does not do their own transfers, they are from the studios

Hdnet issues are with the source material, I understand that, I mean look at "The Getaway" that was on many times before, it looks friggin sweet

I mentioned JFK, but that is the way the film is supposed to look

-Gary

Star56

05-13-05, 03:30 AM

Yes...my point earlier was that Stone went for the funky look of JFK.

The HD version is clearly superior to the last released DVD version...that was a good enough reason to archive it.

rkunces

05-13-05, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Star56
Yes...my point earlier was that Stone went for the funky look of JFK.

The HD version is clearly superior to the last released DVD version...that was a good enough reason to archive it.

JFK did have some wierd looking shots but on the whole I thought it was pretty good, not tremendous pq wise. Cropped however? I don't have the DVD so I can't make the comparison but for some of the wierd shots I wouldn't be surprised.

Steve_in_L.A.

05-13-05, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Jerry G
Channels such as HDNet that tend to show older movies will often not look as good as channels that show newer movies. So, over and over again we hear that HDNet Movies just didn't look good. Yet, it's the poor source quality that affected the HD transfer. If these same people would consider the quality of the promo graphics between movies, they would see just how stellar the quality of HDNet Movies really is.

and...

Originally posted by Ken Ross
Well to be fair, HDNet on D* generally looks very good. HDNet Movies is another story, but it is tough to tell whether it's an issue with the transfer or the compression. In general HDNet Movies just looks way too soft. I've seen many old movies on Voom, most of which were shockingly good and detailed. Even the B&W movies were a treat.

After 6 months with VOOM and now a month with Dish, my gestalt feeling is exactly the opposite of Jerry's. What's become clear to me is the studios have NOT gained any comfort over the HD piracy issue and consequently a large majority of mainstream movies we are seeing on "HD" channels are essentially anamorphic DVDs. JFK on HDNET the past several nights is a good case in point.

It now seems to be only rare exceptions that are actually HD, and the most prominent example of those were the VOOM movie channels. Most of their old prints were astonishing, the detail pulled you right in, like you were standing on the set with the actors even though it was half a century old. If you're not getting that effect, it seems clear to me it's not HD.

The common thread seems to be the age and perceived value of the films. Not a hard and fast rule, but in general newer properties that still have life in them are simply not being released in true HD. Older films in which no studio currently has a major interest are the ones that are showing up in true HD.

For anyone who's ever wondered, why does Discovery HD seem so much more startling in terms of PQ than HBO HD movies or HDnet movies, that I think is the answer.

Ninety-nine percent of the world simply cannot tell the difference between the broadcast of what is essentially DVD quality and what is HD. Most people don't even have HD monitors, many who do have direct-view CRTs that are simply too small to show these differences, and most of the rest of the HDTV users are not analytical like the members of this board, they're thrilled enough with DVD not to know or care. Since very, VERY few people were privileged to see VOOM's real HD, it is now becoming clear to me that very few people know what real HD is except from the HD video in Discovery and the like. My 2 cents.

Jerry G

05-13-05, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Steve_in_L.A.
For anyone who's ever wondered, why does Discovery HD seem so much more startling in terms of PQ than HBO HD movies or HDnet movies, that I think is the answer.

Let me see if I understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that HD film transfers on HBO, HDNet Movies, or any other HD movie channel should look the same as HD Video looks on Discovery HD's channel?

Ken Ross

05-13-05, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Steve_in_L.A.
After 6 months with VOOM and now a month with Dish, my gestalt feeling is exactly the opposite of Jerry's. What's become clear to me is the studios have NOT gained any comfort over the HD piracy issue and consequently a large majority of mainstream movies we are seeing on "HD" channels are essentially anamorphic DVDs.

Steve, you may have hit the nail on the head. The Voom movie channels were SO much better than what you typically see on HDNet Movies, that it's hard to believe that some of the movies we're seeing on HDNet are 'really' true HD.

So we may be blaming the broadcaster when, in reality, it's the transfer.

It's funny, I remember a discussion we had a few years ago when people were complaining about banding on plasmas. I mentioned that in some cases, it's actually in the source. I had a DVD that showed this banding on my new (at the time) plasma. Most would have blamed the plasma until I put that same DVD on my 34" Panny CRT HDTV. Same banding!

So, we may in some cases be talking about "STUDIO HD LITE"!! ;)

Glimmie

05-13-05, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Steve_in_L.A.
and...

After 6 months with VOOM and now a month with Dish, my gestalt feeling is exactly the opposite of Jerry's. What's become clear to me is the studios have NOT gained any comfort over the HD piracy issue and consequently a large majority of mainstream movies we are seeing on "HD" channels are essentially anamorphic DVDs. JFK on HDNET the past several nights is a good case in point. It is the rare exception that is actually HD, and the most prominent example of that rare exception was the VOOM movie channels. Most of their old prints were astonishing, the detail pulled you right in, like you were standing on the set with the actors even though it was half a century old. If you're not getting that effect, it seems clear to me it's not HD.

The common thread seems to be the age and perceived value of the films. Not a hard and fast rule, but in general newer properties that still have life in them are simply not being released in true HD. Older films in which no studio currently has a major interest are the ones that are showing up in true HD.

For anyone who's ever wondered, why does Discovery HD seem so much more startling in terms of PQ than HBO HD movies or HDnet movies, that I think is the answer.

Ninety-nine percent of the world simply cannot tell the difference between the broadcast of what is essentially DVD quality and what is HD. Most people don't even have HD monitors, many who do have direct-view CRTs that are simply too small to show these differences, and most of the rest of the HDTV users are not analytical like the members of this board, they're thrilled enough with DVD not to know or care. Since very, VERY few people were privileged to see VOOM's real HD, it is now becoming clear to me that very few people know what real HD is except from the HD video in Discovery and the like. My 2 cents.

There is some mis-information here!

DVD's are not used for broadcast period. First, there are numerous technical problems with trying to feed a DVD player into a broadcast plant. Show me a "professional" DVD player made for broadcast use. You won't find one! Second, there are licensing issues. DVD's are not licensed for distribution. Doesn't matter if you have leased a showing of JFK on your network. You just can't run a DVD. That's a different version in legal terms. You would be supplied with a video tape in one of a few popular broadcast formats. I do know radio stations use CD's extensivily. There are many professional CD players for that purpose. But Radio is a different business.

As an employee with 20+ years of technical expereince at no less than five different Hollywood transfer facilities, I can tell you there is no mandate from the studios for down rezzed HDTV transfers. An HDTV transfer is just that. If the studio doesn't want something released in HDTV, it simply won't be. They don't need to play games like you suggest, it's their material. They don't have to realease it at all if they choose not to. There are many films in this catagory. An optimum transfer is from an IP. You can't always have that. Next is a new print. You don't always get that either. Somestimes yoiu are stuck with a faded projection print. So you do the best you can. Furthermore a colorist is a subjective task. Some are better than others. Some facilities have better equipment and engineering capabilities than others.

Most of the films being complained about here are older titles, many from the 1970s. This is exactly where you get substandard prints from the studio vaults. The cost of an HD transfer alone is $80,000 no matter what the element. To strike a new print from an IP (if there still is one) is another $20,000. Go back to the cut negative? Out of the question cost wise for a B film title. The only time this is ever done is high value re-releases such as Disney does. There you have the payback to justify it. But GOM or JFK on HD net does not justify those numbers.

And FWEIW, I have seen just as many "soft" HD films on Voom as with HDnet, HBO, and Showtime. If you understand the qualities of film, you cane easily see GOM was HD. Just because the overall image is soft, there are still attributes that stand out in HD that won't in DVD. Look at closeups for example. HD looks smooth. DVD will look crisp and enhanced because there simply aren't enough pixels to smooth out the image. As an owner of a 135in screen I can tell you even at 720P, there is a big difference between so called "soft HD" and DVD. HD still wins. Now on a 32in screen, that difference is much less.

Comparing Discovery HD to creativily shot film is like comparing Rap music in a Honda with 15in woofers to a symphony concert in a classic hall. The Honda "thumper" has a lot more deep bass so I guess that the better source of music. It's more than just sharpness when judging the quality of an image.

Ken Ross

05-13-05, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Glimmie
Most of the films being complained about here are older titles, many from the 1970s. This is exactly where you get substandard prints from the studio vaults. The cost of an HD transfer alone is $80,000 no matter what the element. To strike a new print from an IP (if there still is one) is another $20,000. Go back to the cut negative? Out of the question cost wise for a B film title. The only time this is ever done is high value re-releases such as Disney does. There you have the payback to justify it. But GOM or JFK on HD net does not justify those numbers.

And FWEIW, I have seen just as many "soft" HD films on Voom as with HDnet, HBO, and Showtime. If you understand the qualities of film, you cane easily see GOM was HD. Just because the overall image is soft, there are still attributes that stand out in HD that won't in DVD. Look at closeups for example. HD looks smooth. DVD will look crisp and enhanced because there simply aren't enough pixels to smooth out the image. As an owner of a 135in screen I can tell you even at 720P, there is a big difference between so called "soft HD" and DVD. HD still wins. Now on a 32in screen, that difference is much less.

I've seen a far higher consistency of excellent transfers on Voom. Much higher. If it's actually the HD transfers that HDNet Movies is using, then I guess they may be using a lousy transfer facility. I am certain the overall quality on HDNet Movies is significantly less than it was on the Voom original movie channels.

Jerry G

05-13-05, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Ken Ross
I've seen a far higher consistency of excellent transfers on Voom. Much higher. If it's actually the HD transfers that HDNet Movies is using, then I guess they may be using a lousy transfer facility. I am certain the overall quality on HDNet Movies is significantly less than it was on the Voom original movie channels.

Hi Ken. Never having had Voom, I can't compare PQ on Voom versus Dish. But I have certainly seen many really excellent looking films on HDNet Movies via Dish. I'vd sometimes watched with amazement at how good some of the movies look. As I recall, you have a 50" Fujitsu plasma, and I have a 50" Pioneer, so we're using similar high quality displays in our evaluation of PQ. For me, I sometimes get tired of trying to compare. If something looks really good to me, that's all I ultimately really care about. And aside from an occasional older movie that doesn't look that terrific on HDNet Movies (which I attribute to the source of the transfer), I really enjoy looking at most of the movies I watch on HDNet.

Glimmie

05-13-05, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Ken Ross
I've seen a far higher consistency of excellent transfers on Voom. Much higher. If it's actually the HD transfers that HDNet Movies is using, then I guess they may be using a lousy transfer facility.

But keep in mind HDnet had no choice in the transfer facility. The studio makes that choice and for old B titles it's typically on a multi year contract. Now A title transfers supervised by the director or DP have some say in where the job goes but only on Oscar grade stuff.

Of course if HDnet wants to, in mnay cases they can request a print and farm the transfer out themselves. But not only will they have to pay for the transfer, they will have to destroy it after their contracted showings are up. They can't keep the new and "better" transfer because the material still belongs to the studio. Now if it's truley better the studio may offer something for it but not the full cost of the transfer because they already have one and not too many people care about the slight difference in quality.

Sorry guys and gals, Mark Cuban, Voom, Dish, or just about any other DBS/cable service have that kind of money. Again the only reason HBO was doing their own transfers is because the studios would not pay to vault HDTV masters in 1999. Today that's different as HDTV has proven it's financial viability and HD-DVD is very close.

Charles R

05-13-05, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Steve_in_L.A.
What's become clear to me is the studios have NOT gained any comfort over the HD piracy issue and consequently a large majority of mainstream movies we are seeing on "HD" channels are essentially anamorphic DVDs. JFK on HDNET the past several nights is a good case in point.

For some reason he disagrees (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=4829328#post4829328) with you... a few tidbits:

"There has NEVER been an upconvert on HDNet or HDNet Movies and there NEVER will. We have turned away show after show for not meeting our quality standards."

"Sorry to vent like this, but accusing HDNet or HDNet Movies of upconverting is like accusing me of trying to rip off my customers. Them is fighting words."

"So let me be clear. WE NEVER UPCONVERT anything and we never will."

Steve_in_L.A.

05-13-05, 09:01 PM

Charles, yes, I know of his exchanges on this forum. And, when I read them I was heartened to hear about his commitment to quality. I respect the fact that he apparently bothers to take the time to come in here and because of it I was actually EXPECTING better from HDNET, so it wasn't like I started out biased against it.

****************
Let me see if I understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that HD film transfers on HBO, HDNet Movies, or any other HD movie channel should look the same as HD Video looks on Discovery HD's channel?
****************

No, I'm aware that Discovery is sourced from video and film looks quite different. What I'm saying is, for the past year or 2 I've given the benefit of the doubt to folks like yourself who have lots of reasons why what many people have been reporting (that certain HD programming really shines over everything else) should be interpreted with caution. But, the point of my post was, I've now had a fair bit of experience of my own and I've noticed what appears to be a pretty solid trend. And, to add conviction, others are reporting very similar observations.

If HDNET's version of JFK (for example) is in fact true HD by some mysterious measure related to bit rates or something, then I suggest to you that it is deliberately softened HD, perhaps equivalent to sourcing the film from one of those nth generation theatrical prints that have been demonstrated repeatedly in this forum to lose something like 50% or more of the resolution of the camera negative. In such a case, HDNET is accomplishing both goals - putting out something they can call HD without lying but also making sure it's of such low quality that it defeats the pirates. Either way, I am beginning to doubt the hand waving from folks in this forum who say all this is incidental, accidental, imaginary, or inherent in this or that technical process. I know something about business practices and I know a fair amount about these companies' concerns about HD and piracy, and my observations make a connection that frankly seems pretty damn obvious to me now. Could I be wrong? Sure. What do others see?

Ken Ross

05-13-05, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Jerry G
For me, I sometimes get tired of trying to compare. If something looks really good to me, that's all I ultimately really care about. And aside from an occasional older movie that doesn't look that terrific on HDNet Movies (which I attribute to the source of the transfer), I really enjoy looking at most of the movies I watch on HDNet.

Jerry, that's the sane way to approach it. Unfortunately I'm insane....just ask my wife! ;)

Ken Ross

05-13-05, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Steve_in_L.A.
If HDNET's version of JFK (for example) is in fact true HD by some mysterious measure related to bit rates or something, then I suggest to you that it is deliberately softened HD, perhaps equivalent to sourcing the film from one of those nth generation theatrical prints that have been demonstrated repeatedly in this forum to lose something like 50% or more of the resolution of the camera negative. In such a case, HDNET is accomplishing both goals - putting out something they can call HD without lying but also making sure it's of such low quality that it defeats the pirates. Either way, I am beginning to doubt the hand waving from folks in this forum who say all this is incidental, accidental, imaginary, or inherent in this or that technical process. I know something about business practices and I know a fair amount about these companies' concerns about HD and piracy, and my observations make a connection that frankly seems pretty damn obvious to me now. Could I be wrong? Sure. What do others see?

I don't think Steve's comments should be dismissed out of hand. There are far too many HD transfers that have you checking your display to ensure that it's actually set at 1080i. Hell, just watch one great HD transfer (Gladiator, Braveheart etc.) and then look at the myriad of lousy ones. Something is odd. Is it the quality of the transfer studio as was suggested by one poster, is it deliberate as Steve suggests, is it bandwidth.....whatever it is, it aint good. But I think Steve makes some logical, thought-provoking points.

I'll say this, I've long been accusing D* of the issues with HDNet Movies. Now that I've seen this same channel on E*, I apologize to D* (or perhaps I should be condemning both). The quality on E* isn't much better. So what is it? Are both services so drastically lowering the quality on THIS channel? It seems more logical to assume it's the quality of the transfers. Can we say for sure? No, but it does make you think.

Gary Murrell

05-13-05, 09:29 PM

If any of you guys think that the TRUE HD films on HBO/HDNET/Showtime and the even better than broadcast D-Theater tapes are not better than anamorphic dvd then someone needs to visit the eye doctor, this is not most of you mind you, I have the dvd of just about every film that has aired on Hdnet movies, never a time has the dvd been close

A large front projection system shows the HD movies for what they truely are

I remember back when I had much smaller 50" or so HDTV and me and my brother would discuss how HD is a waste and doesn't show enough of a increase over DVD, upon stepping up to a CRT PJ system I am ashamed to ever have discussed such ignorance

speaking of JFK, it is a soft muddy film, but one look at the even great DVD shows that the 1080i version smokes it, DVD just plain sucks, comparing dvd to HD it's basically near equal to comparing VHS to DVD

I did not back up the JFK to D-VHS because it is not the Director's cut that features more footage of the best actor in the world "Gary Oldman", too bad it wasn't the director's cut

glimmie is right, true HD films are smooth as butter and detailed as hell, totally destorying their dvd versions and thats all there is to say

I must also say that there has never been a program that was shot with HD cameras that I have viewed that came close to my best HD movie prints, like "Starship Troopers" and "U-571" D-Theater tape

Film has enough rez to keep everyone happy for many years :D

Studio HD-lite is preposterous

-Gary

Charles R

05-14-05, 12:37 AM

I remember back when I had much smaller 50" or so HDTV and me and my brother would discuss how HD is a waste and doesn't show enough of a increase over DVD, upon stepping up to a CRT PJ system I am ashamed to ever have discussed such ignoranceI agree. I have a 55" HD set in the den and I'm using a basic 480p DVD player (not even bothering to upscale the image) and a good DVD transfer looks very nice. Certainly not as nice as the best HD but I find the image pleasing. Now put that same DVD in my Denon 3910 and upscale it to 1080i at 110" in the theater and the image looks hardly viewable compared to anything HD.

Unfortunately just like DVD the satellite guys in most cases aren't equipped to provide the required image to make a lot of our systems shine. Sadly, we are such a small percent of the market that as much as I don't like it I find it rather easy to understand their logic. Hopefully at some point image quality will become a bottom line factor and it will get better. If not we should have HD DVD by the time we give up hoping!

Gary Murrell

05-14-05, 12:55 AM

Yes I agree Charles but for around 2$ with 169time I can record a True HDTV flick to D-VHS right now and Blu-Ray very soon, thats alot less than a 30$ HD-DVD, thats why I am so mad at the lowering of quality of HDTV been delivered to us

Honestly I think it will only go down hill, look at what standard 480i has gone to on satellite and there is DVD out there thats kills it, but no one seems to care, I really think very few people care about quality

-Gary

Charles R

05-14-05, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Gary Murrell
Yes I agree Charles but for around 2$ with 169time I can record a True HDTV flick to D-VHS right now and Blu-Ray very soon, thats alot less than a 30$ HD-DVD, thats why I am so mad at the lowering of quality of HDTV been delivered to usI'm not so sure that's a fair price comparison. If you distribute the cost of the HD receiver, modification and D-VHS deck not to mention the monthly subscription fees it's a lot more than $2. For just movie viewing I'll take HD media anyday with the possible exception of DirecTV's media server.

I have a half dozen or so movies on my HD TiVo ($5 a pop PPVs) since they look a whole lot better than the DVDs and I would like them pristine too. But outside of PPVs I pretty much see TV as series, sports and general interest stuff.

My guess is it will get better for a variety of reasons. Not the least being the fact that the hardware will get more sophisticated. It's way too early in the HD life cycle not to believe it won't be improved. The improvements will come in all of the required steps with at least one or two of the steps enabling us to view a better image.

As an example... taking DirecTV at their word they will have room for 150 national channels (at close to pristine bandwidth). I certainly don't see 150 channels even being available at that time so why throttle them? Hopefully, when everything is settled out... everyone is HD the battle ground will become how good it looks versus what channels you carry.

Ken Ross

05-14-05, 09:29 AM

Well, let's not dismiss the ability of a 'tiny' high quality display such as the 50" Fujitsu plasma I use, to reveal some subtle differences. Using this plasma I can easily tell the difference between CBS HD from my OTA feed and CBS HD on D*. I can also see subtle differences from one STB to another and can see a huge difference between a GOOD HD transfer and its DVD counterpart.

So the 'small' guys can be very privy to what's going on if the display quality is there. With that said (and I'm surely not one of those guys that ever said there wasn't much of a difference between DVD & HD), there are so many unimpressive HD transfers out there, it just makes you wonder.

As I said before, when you see a good transfer you realize how bad so many other transfers are. But we still don't know what the cause is or if it's deliberate.

bobbehr

05-14-05, 10:03 PM

Man, as a voOm guy going to E* and the new 942, My Fair Lady today looked better than ANY film sourced programming I had seen in 3 months of voOm.

bobbehr

05-14-05, 10:20 PM

O.K. right now on E* DiscoveryHD's Destination definitely looks like ass, but MLS soccer on HDNET looks much better than World Sport's soocer on voOm ever looked. It always had a artificial green tinted swimming grass thing going. OTA tuner in the 942 nowhere near as sensitive as the voOm box though.

barth2k

05-15-05, 11:07 AM

Re poor HD transfer: while watching a movie in a theater, I've never once thought "man this movie looks really soft; not much better than a DVD". My main beef with film in theater is that they dim the projector bulb so the picture is too dark. That and occasionally when I see a film that's been out for a while, the worn out print gives the picture a weird shimmering look, like viewing it through steam or smoke. So I don't think it's so much a matter of film vs HD video. It's just lousy HD transfer or using a really bad print.

Steve_in_L.A.

05-15-05, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by barth2k
Re poor HD transfer: while watching a movie in a theater, I've never once thought "man this movie looks really soft; not much better than a DVD".
Interesting point because I HAVE had that experience. Seems to me it's largely a matter of preconceived expectations. I used to assume theatrical prints were great because of the "facts" I learned about film (highest resolution of any format currently in existence, greater contrast range, etc). Then I read all the discussion over the past couple years both here and in magazines about how bad theatrical prints can actually be. A little imagination tells you that indeed, theatrical prints must be several generations removed from the camera negative; in fact, since they need 2000 to 4000 prints just for the US, simple math tells you they may be considerably more than 2 generations removed. Knowing something about photographic film tells me that does indeed equate with massive loss of fine detail.

After thinking this through, I started evaluating theatrical prints and guess what, some of them do look DVD soft to my eye. I particularly noted it on occasions when trailers looked stellar in terms of detail, like true HD or higher, only to have the feature look quite soft by comparison.

Alan Gouger

05-15-05, 03:01 PM

I can see heavy use of Noise Reduction on the transfers. It leaves a trailing ghost at times on faces. I dont know if this is something used during the transfer or on the broadcast side.

Star56

05-15-05, 03:21 PM

Again....On my 42" plasma JFK on HDnet was far superior to the DVD. The difference is obvious. JFK maybe HD lite...but it is far better than the DVD. In fact I have never seen a DVD that can match the PQ of the HDnet version and you don't need a 100' display to see the difference. I wish my DVD's looked as good as the HD versions.

Alan Gouger

05-15-05, 05:36 PM

Star
At 8.5 feet wide you can clearly see the softness everyone is talking about. Especially compared to the HD titles on HBO/Showtime. Something is going on:(

HDNet on the other hand is God!

mcuban

05-15-05, 06:37 PM

We dont do the transfers. The studios do.

We have turned down movies for not meeting quality standards and continue to do so.

We wont even accept shows shot in 16mm and converted to HD.

To suggest , as I think someone did, that we are dumbing things down as a concern re piracy ...well, do a search for what I think about piracy. We are not piraphobics at all.

To suggest that we want or push to get anything but the very best quality product is just assinine. Do you think i want anyone not completely thrilled and satisfied ?

Its the equivalent of me coming on here and ranting about people having 720p screens and suggesting that upconverting to 1080i is going to lose something in translation or suggesting that everyone needs to re calibrate their screens to get the best possible picture.

There are going to be variances from film to film based on the quality of the source material, the quality of the transfer, the intent of the director and cinematographer and the size, quality and configuration of your TV set, not to mention the encoding and distribution impact of your provider.

m

zmeister

05-15-05, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by mcuban

There are going to be variances from film to film based on the quality of the source material, the quality of the transfer, the intent of the director and cinematographer and the size, quality and configuration of your TV set, not to mention the encoding and distribution impact of your provider.

m

Mark.

Does HDNET have any say whatsoever on the encoding & distribution of your video?

Gary Murrell

05-15-05, 07:01 PM

Mark has spoken, just like what I said, studio or Hdnet movies Lite is absurd

Thanks for your reply Mark

-Gary

Glimmie

05-16-05, 01:02 PM

Here another example:

I watched this on Voom last year. It was soft and grainy. Well it looked exactly the same on HDnet last week.

I happen to know this was an early 1035 transfer at the defunct Sony HD center. This was most likely an analog tape archive as well. Yes early HD machines in 1991 were actually analog with only 20mhz Y bandwidth with something like a 45db S/N.

So who wants to step up to the plate and pay for a new print? Again we assume the IP is in a vault somewhere. It may be lost or destroyed.

I think HDnet, HBO, Showtime, and future Vooms should keep on doing exactly whgat they have been. That is providing the best quality within their control.

Again are we watching a story or analyzing test patterns?

TheFerret

05-16-05, 02:22 PM

Glimmie

05-16-05, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by TheFerret
I get this, I really do. What I don't get is if the original movie or the copy used for transfer is of such filth then why bother in the first place to transfer, and why bother to even present? An insult is an insult regardless of where it comes from.

Define "filth". Does that mean any film that does not look like a face close up of a snake on DHD is filth?

Some here consider the flat unlimited depth of focus HDTV video "filth".

scowl

05-16-05, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by mcuban
We wont even accept shows shot in 16mm and converted to HD. I would have agreed with this policy until I saw Veronica Mars in HD this season. Much of that show was sharper and more detailed than anything I've seen on Smallville. That was the most resolution I've ever seen in 16mm.

txfilmguy

05-16-05, 07:04 PM

For the record, neither HDNet nor HDNet Movies will accept downrezed masters. There have been instances where a studio has tried to write a downrezing clause into a contract, and HDNet has refused to do business with those studios. The picture broadcast is simply the best available HD transfer of the film in question. In the case of some films, specifically Oliver Stone's JFK, the films are shot on lesser formats than 35mm. JFK was shot on 35mm, 16mm, and even Super8 for some scenes to recreate the home movies shot of the Kennedy assasination. This is part of the director's artistic vision, and of course anything less than 35mm is not going to look as good in High Def. High Def will make good film look great, but it can also exploit the worst parts of grainy or soft film as well. If you have any beef with JFK, take it up with Mr. Stone.

Jerry G

05-16-05, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by scowl
I would have agreed with this policy until I saw Veronica Mars in HD this season. Much of that show was sharper and more detailed than anything I've seen on Smallville. That was the most resolution I've ever seen in 16mm.

I never saw that 16mm show, but do your observations necessarily hold for every 16mm film? There was a series on Showtime a few years ago that just didn't look that good in HD. Turned out it was shot on 16mm. Mr. Cuban's stated policy of not accepting 16mm may still be a good one. Perhaps it's better to reject the rare 'apparently' good 16mm HD transfer than to accept many that will cause a riot in this forum.

TheFerret

05-16-05, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Glimmie
Define "filth". Does that mean any film that does not look like a face close up of a snake on DHD is filth?

Some here consider the flat unlimited depth of focus HDTV video "filth". Glimmie, I am talking about any movie-house not really caring about the intended transfer and as a result submit a poor copy for the transfer.

scowl

05-17-05, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by Jerry G
I never saw that 16mm show, but do your observations necessarily hold for every 16mm film? Oh hell no. Veronica Mars is the only exception I've seen in a TV series. If I thought hard I could come up with some movies that were shot on Super 16 and looked very good in the theater.

Thinking... thinking... OK "Thirteen" (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0328538/combined) looked as good as most 35mm films I've seen lately. I didn't know it was shot on 16mm until I read it later. The print was from a digital intermediate however. Would Mark Cuban say that's cheating?

But I don't think you can exclude a film or TV series just because it was shot on 16mm. You can however exclude if it looks like any series shot on 16mm today (except for Veronica Mars!).

Gary Murrell

05-17-05, 02:50 AM

16mm sucks!!

one thing I must add is that I can spot heavy NR use and I am fairly certain this is the problem with the "Ghosts of Mississippi" on HDNet, NR applied by Warner Brothers not HDNet Movies

NR causes a ghosting effect and is easily visible on this transfer, NR and Edge enhancement when will the drone's making these transfers learn these crappy effect's ruin pix quality

-Gary

Cheezmo

05-17-05, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by mcuban
Its the equivalent of me coming on here and ... suggesting that everyone needs to re calibrate their screens to get the best possible picture.

m

And what would be wrong with that? :D

vurbano

05-17-05, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by txfilmguy
For the record, neither HDNet nor HDNet Movies will accept downrezed masters. Thats great. Im all for it. Too bad they do busioness with providers that downrezz though. Im sure HDnetmovies looks great, just not on Directv. Its a shame I wont even tune to it. On D* HBOHD, SHOHD and HDnet look ok. HDnetmovies on the other hand is just plain bad.

TheFerret

05-17-05, 10:05 AM

Excellent point, vurbano. What good is it to have a great master or copy for transfer if the consumer service delivering the final image like to short-sheet its customer's beds?

Ken Ross

05-17-05, 10:29 AM

Doesn't look much better on E* either.

scowl

05-17-05, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Gary Murrell
16mm sucks!! I agree. 35mm sucks too. I've seen far too many soft and grainy films that were shot on 35mm film. :rolleyes:

Wolfie

05-17-05, 03:24 PM

Watched snippets of "Zeus and Roxanne" last night and it was a beautiful picture, so I've come to the conclusion that it is the content, not the provider.

Wolfie

trbarry

05-18-05, 01:59 AM

If HDNET's version of JFK (for example) is in fact true HD by some mysterious measure related to bit rates or something, then I suggest to you that it is deliberately softened HD, perhaps equivalent to sourcing the film from one of those nth generation theatrical prints that have been demonstrated repeatedly in this forum to lose something like 50% or more of the resolution of the camera negative. In such a case, HDNET is accomplishing both goals - putting out something they can call HD without lying but also making sure it's of such low quality that it defeats the pirates. Either way, I am beginning to doubt the hand waving from folks in this forum who say all this is incidental, accidental, imaginary, or inherent in this or that technical process. I know something about business practices and I know a fair amount about these companies' concerns about HD and piracy, and my observations make a connection that frankly seems pretty damn obvious to me now. Could I be wrong? Sure. What do others see?

It is obvious that copyright owners have at least some economic incentive to create and distributel multiple quality levels of a given property, holding something in reserve. And the fact that HDNet has had to turn down some explicit requests to do this would confirm this.

It is very easy to lose some detail. For one thing, a 1920x1080 telecine cannot create a full detail 1920x1080 movie. You need to oversample from a higher resolutions to do that.

And you don't really have to dial in some bad quality. You can, for instance, just specify you need a bunch of extra noise reduction. This also amounts to extra detail reduction. And of course you can just make only a mediocre print available from the start.

Basically you don't have to ask for a bad movie but just not bother to pay a bit extra for a better one. I guess the only way to measure how much this is done is to compare the obvious available results. And I believe it happens, though HDNet is not available to me to compare.

- Tom

Gary Murrell

05-18-05, 02:06 AM

"Zeus and Roxanne" was sweet looking, one of the best I have seen

-Gary

TheFerret

05-18-05, 07:15 AM

Tom, of course you are right about the idiots wanting to reinvent the wheel, over and over again. This is the final solution when one loses all creativity and cannot come up with something original.

John Mason

05-18-05, 08:53 AM

"We need to maintain the supremacy of the theater over the living room," says Sony Pictures Digital President Yair Landau. "You don't want to be in a position where, as people start getting high-definition televisions, they say, 'This looks as good as what we see in the theater.' "
From HDTVFanAtic's/USA Today thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=5640694#post5640694) about digital cinema this morning. -- John

Steve_in_L.A.

05-18-05, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by trbarry
It is obvious that copyright owners have at least some economic incentive to create and distributel multiple quality levels of a given property, holding something in reserve. And the fact that HDNet has had to turn down some explicit requests to do this would confirm this...It is very easy to lose some detail. - Tom
Tom, well said, this is more or less what I was thinking too. It's not about setting out to sabotage PQ, rather it's the opposite - they have to push really hard in order for the PQ to come out as anything above mediocre in today's environment. That's more or less what I've realized after spending the time sampling the offerings currently on the table.

Not trying to throw a tantrum here. As discussed in many threads, it's amazing in some ways that we're getting any HD at all, and things are moving along nicely. I just think it's important to make these observations on what real end users might expect to see.

Also not trying to bash HDnet. My message was about all providers of HD movies, just so happened this thread that raised the issue I was seeing has HDnet in the title. But, the phenomenon Tom describes above clearly applies to HDnet along with everyone else.

You guys realize that a court ruling just threw out industry efforts in the US to close the "analog hole" that every content provider was apparently salivating over. Those of you who know how large commercial organizations think and operate will realize that this will likely put the brakes on the roll out of HD. This, and John Mason's quote above, are all part of the same phenomenon I was getting at in my first post above. My prediction - we are going to be seeing "soft" HD, and mostly 16:9 crops of wider films (another nice little technique for denying pristine full copies of a film to pirates) for quite some time to come, I fear. Content providers are running scared.

Glimmie

05-18-05, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by vurbano
Thats great. Im all for it. Too bad they do busioness with providers that downrezz though. Im sure HDnetmovies looks great, just not on Directv. Its a shame I wont even tune to it. On D* HBOHD, SHOHD and HDnet look ok. HDnetmovies on the other hand is just plain bad.

The owner of HDnet tells you they don't downrez or accept material that is delibertly compromised.

I have told you as a management level engineer with 20yrs Hollywood television facility experience there is no mandate to downrezz from the studios. I have designed and built many transfer rooms. I don't recall specifying any device to soften the image. I don't know any colorist that doesn't check lens focus before laying down to tape.

But yet people here with no clue as to how the business operates still maintain there is some conspiricy to cheat viewers out of good HD.

I don't know what else to say. I guess some of you people know a lot more than the professionals who do this for a living.

Fine, then tune out. I'm sure the board rooms will rock at E* and D* over the loss of six customers who think their HD is no good.

Glimmie

05-18-05, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by John Mason
From HDTVFanAtic's/USA Today thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=5640694#post5640694) about digital cinema this morning. -- John

Never going to be an issue. Show me an average group of teenagers or college students that would rather sit home in dad's HT room versus going out to the cineplex.

As for the older crowd which includes me, check the demographics. We aren't the ticket buying customers anyway.

TheFerret

05-18-05, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Glimmie
Never going to be an issue. Show me an average group of teenagers or college students that would rather sit home in dad's HT room versus going out to the cineplex.

As for the older crowd which includes me, check the demographics. We aren't the ticket buying customers anyway. I am sure Art could speak volumes about his children and his dual-G90 home theater.

VideoGrabber

05-19-05, 02:08 PM

Glimmie wrote:
> I happen to know this was an early 1035 transfer at the defunct Sony HD center. This was most likely an analog tape archive as well. Yes early HD machines in 1991 were actually analog with only 20mhz Y bandwidth with something like a 45db S/N. <

Thanks! This is interesting information, and explains a lot.

> I think HDnet, HBO, Showtime, and future Vooms should keep on doing exactly whgat they have been. That is providing the best quality within their control. <

I agree, though I take exception with HBO airing 2.35 AR content at 1.78, even when it is open matte (the lesser of 2 evils).

> Again are we watching a story or analyzing test patterns? <

I think most of us are watching a story, but when the PQ of HD varies as much as it does these days, we're just wondering what the reason for that variation is. You've provided a lot of that explanation, which is appreciated. In the absence of solid information, from people like yourself who know what they're talking about, conspiracy theories will run rampant.

As long as we know that what we're seeing is the best that's available, we can just chalk it up to the known constraints and enjoy the film (and flag it in our databases as "not reference quality"). Otherwise there will be complaints and speculation as to the reasons.

- Tim

VideoGrabber

05-19-05, 02:14 PM

Sony Pictures Digital President Yair Landau commented:
> "You don't want to be in a position where, as people start getting high-definition televisions, they say, 'This looks as good as what we see in the theater.' " <

Too late! Viewing at home on my CRT projector already looks better than what I see 90% of the time at 90% of the theaters in my region.

But then, he was talking about digital HDTVs, and that may be another story.

- Tim

VideoGrabber

05-19-05, 02:23 PM

Glimmie responded to Vurbano:

> The owner of HDnet tells you they don't downrez or accept material that is delibertly compromised. <

I think you missed what vurbano was trying to say. Not that it was downrezzed at the source, but rather it is compromised in the satellite transmission process, to varying degrees depending on the service provider.

vurbano's comment about HDNet:
> Thats great. Im all for it. Too bad they do busioness with providers that downrezz though. Im sure HDnetmovies looks great, just not on Directv. <

My emphasis added.

Back to Glimmie:
> I have told you as a management level engineer with 20yrs Hollywood television facility experience there is no mandate to downrezz from the studios. <

That's good enough for me. :) Thanks.

- Tim

mangopony

05-19-05, 07:39 PM

COVERkreator

05-19-05, 08:16 PM

Wow Veronica Mars is 16mm!! I watch a couple of episodes in HD blown up to 80" wide this past season and the colours and lighting were great. I didn't see the normal 16mm artifact I normally see in TV shows. Thank you Victor Hammer!

EDIT: Looking at it again it is clearly 16mm. The grain was harder to notice. The indoor/flashback scenes are more noticeable. The majority of outdoor scenes I couldt tell it was 16mm.

vurbano

05-20-05, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by VideoGrabber
Glimmie responded to Vurbano:

> The owner of HDnet tells you they don't downrez or accept material that is delibertly compromised. <

I think you missed what vurbano was trying to say. Not that it was downrezzed at the source, but rather it is compromised in the satellite transmission process, to varying degrees depending on the service provider.

vurbano's comment about HDNet:
> Thats great. Im all for it. Too bad they do busioness with providers that downrezz though. Im sure HDnetmovies looks great, just not on Directv. <

My emphasis added.

Back to Glimmie:
> I have told you as a management level engineer with 20yrs Hollywood television facility experience there is no mandate to downrezz from the studios. <

That's good enough for me. :) Thanks.

- Tim

Thankyou Tim. Glimmie completely misunderstood the post. What HDnet does is A+ first rate.

John Mason

05-20-05, 11:40 AM

HD does not 'vary' as much as we think (or some think). Older movies do vary very much so in 'quality'..meaning mostly color and resolution. It is just the way it is. Watch a good movie and enjoy it for its' content (story line and acting). I get so absorbed in a really good movie (not to many around) that the resolution of same hardly ever enters my mind.
Find I can easily disregard image resolution or color with a good film. But then exceptional PQ also seems to enhance the viewing experience.

Two years later, after similar discussions about telecine image quality in another thread (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=2486368#post2486368), it's still unclear what we're actually getting--or what's possible. Back then it was pointed out that 1300h resolution (effective or resolvable) for 1080/24p master tapes with the widely used Panasonic HD D5 deck, along the complete telecine-to-home path, was quite good.

720p-advocate Joe Kane wrote that 1080p transfers only provided about 720p resolution. WSR editor Gary Reber, aided by research with a cinematographer and member sspears' analyzer measurements (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=2498224#post2498224), was writing that 800h maximum resolution was typical and 1100h exceptional. (1080's standard sampling limiting resolution is ~1707h, and oversampling makes 1920h resolvable detail possible.)

And consultant Matt Cowan had earlier detailed ( pdf paper (http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf)) how >4000h resolution on film negatives becomes roughly 720p resolution on commercial theater screens. A later SMPTE article agreed with that conclusion.

So...while HDNet tranfers look good on average, can't say I've ever seen one from any source that matches live 1080i HD, although a few static scenes on some productions come close IMO. Live 1080i, of course, is being sampled at 60 fields (half frames) per second instead of film's 24 fps, delivering more new information to our eyes than film's simply repeated frames (2:3 pulldown) needed for 1080i delivery. Also, live 1080i, if delivered at, say, 1600h-1700h without too much filtering along the way, might wind up on some screens at ~1400h after decoding.

Earlier comments about wide variations in print quality used for telecines correspond to what I see. But that differs a bit from what an East-coast colorist (telecine operator) wrote here last year: that negatives are now routinely used for telecines. Hmm. -- John

Adam Tyner

05-20-05, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by John Mason
But that differs a bit from what an East-coast colorist (telecine operator) wrote here last year: that negatives are now routinely used for telecines. Hmm. -- John Everything I've read elsewhere indicates interpositives are the preferred (and I believe the most frequently used) source material.

scowl

05-20-05, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by COVERkreator
Wow Veronica Mars is 16mm!! I watch a couple of episodes in HD blown up to 80" wide this past season and the colours and lighting were great. I think every episode of Veronica Mars went through some digital ehancement to clean up some of the grain and sharpen it up. Many of the flashbacks obviously had digital effects added (like one or two objects "colorized" in B&W shots).

Glimmie

05-20-05, 01:35 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Mason
But that differs a bit from what an East-coast colorist (telecine operator) wrote here last year: that negatives are now routinely used for telecines. Hmm. -- John
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Adam Tyner
Everything I've read elsewhere indicates interpositives are the preferred (and I believe the most frequently used) source material.

That is most correct. No studio is going to release a cut negative for home video transfer. It's simply too valuable if damaged. Think about it, damage the negative that's it. Reshoot?

Television shows and filmed commercials do transfer from negative and have been since the mid 1980s. This is because the finished show is done on tape so no prints are needed beyond the negative. And the risk here is only a camera reel at a time which is not impractical to reshoot if needed. This is why many 1980s shows cannot be re- released in HD. The entire post production process was done in SD, in fact most of it was composite NTSC on analog 1 inch tape. There are exceptions however. "Law and Order" was posted electronically but then the negative was cut to match the vidoe version so they have an archived film master on the shelf. These will be easy to re-release in HDTV. The 70s stuff was not done electronically because the technology did not exist yet. So "Charlie's Angels" and "Hogan's Hero's" can be re-transferred to HDTV like is done on HDNET. One problem though, they were framed 4x3 for TV.

The only other was you get home video from a negative is if the film is timed electronically by the Digital Intermediate process. In this case the camera negative reels are scanned at 2K or better resolution, the color correction and editing is done on that data and the finished data set is shot back out to film on laser recorders. Keep in mind this is not HDTV. It's 2048x1556 at 10bit log 444 RGB. In this case the same digital data can be downrezzed to HDTV and SDTV so you get the benifits of the raw negative. However this is not always the case. Even with DI, the home video version may not be set by the time the theater version is recorded out to film. This huge amount of data at 12 megabytes per frame cannot be archived economically. So it is deleted and when home video finally comes along, it is again a telecine transfer from an IP.

The final problem is while an IP is perferred you can't always get one. The vault may only have a projection print. The IP may have been lost over the years and same goes for the negative. And on top of that IP's fade so an old IP has it's problems.

VideoGrabber

05-20-05, 03:29 PM

John Mason wrote:
> Two years later... it's still unclear what we're actually getting--or what's possible. <

I understand where you're coming from, John, but think I'd have to disagree. I'd say it's fairly clear, from a variety of reports, that what we're actually getting now tends to range from 800-1100, with an occasional excursion into 1300 territory. D-VHS tends to be better than satellite, OTA, and cable-delivered content, even when in the minority of those later situations it is transmitted unmolested.

What's possible on a practical level for analog is ~1770, and closer to 1900 for digital displays. But we'll have to wait for some of the HiDef DVD formats to see those, because even the highest bit-rate MPEG2 (D-VHS with ~24 Mbit/sec video payload) isn't adequate to handle the full resolution properly, and thus requires detail-degrading filtering. This, of course, assumes high-quality source material to start with, and won't be possible (or at least, financially practical) on many older films.

Even after the HiDef DVD formats become available, there's no guarantee that various filtering and "enhancement" won't be used that will degrade the delivered resolution significantly below what is "possible". It depends to a large extent what the industry views as the "average target display", just as many current DVDs are "enhanced" to compensate for limitations in most average displays today.

- Tim

trbarry

05-20-05, 04:08 PM

The only other was you get home video from a negative is if the film is timed electronically by the Digital Intermediate process. In this case the camera negative reels are scanned at 2K or better resolution, the color correction and editing is done on that data and the finished data set is shot back out to film on laser recorders. Keep in mind this is not HDTV. It's 2048x1556 at 10bit log 444 RGB. In this case the same digital data can be downrezzed to HDTV and SDTV so you get the benifits of the raw negative. However this is not always the case. Even with DI, the home video version may not be set by the time the theater version is recorded out to film. This huge amount of data at 12 megabytes per frame cannot be archived economically. So it is deleted and when home video finally comes along, it is again a telecine transfer from an IP.

You'd think that might change soon, as data storage gets cheaper. For instance at 24 fps that 12 MB / frame would translate into just over 1 TB / hour. But at current hard drive prices you could save all that for a few hundred dollars, probably cheaper (and certainly more versatile) than doing another telecine later. Save the IP too if you don't trust the drives.

- Tom

John Mason

05-20-05, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by VideoGrabber
I'd say it's fairly clear, from a variety of reports, that what we're actually getting now tends to range from 800-1100, with an occasional excursion into 1300 territory.
If pressed, that's pretty much what I'd list, too. But it seems remarkable that while projected film in theaters was measured resolution-wise in several cities (Cowan link above and SMPTE article), that published, professional peer-reviewed data on home HD actual resolution isn't available AFAIK. As 1080p displays emerge that seems more important. -- John

Gary Murrell

11-19-05, 01:25 PM

I would like to bring this thread to light again and discuss some more

I have recently changed my opinion of HDNet Movies

Finally as my collection has grown, over the past few months I have been comparing the same films shown on HDNet Movies to Showtime and HBO, my source is E*( everyone here knows that by now :) )

I have recently compared showing's of these movies from HDNet Movies to the same film on Showtime and HBO(bitrates are listed):

Shawshank Redemption
-HDNet Movies 17 Mbps
-Showtime 12 Mbps

The Showtime airing totally destoys this same film shown on HDNet Movies, HDNet is very mushy and lacking in detail compared to the Showtime version, it looks smeared almost, but has it beat over 5 Mbps in bitrate, the Showtime Airing is clearly superior

Sling Blade
-HDNet Movies 17.5 Mbps
-HBO 10.5 Mbps

The HBO version is in another league above the same film from HDNet, it's detail level totally smokes the HDNet version, the HDNet version is so soft and muddy and has horrid DNR that is ruining the picture

Flight of the Intruder
-HDNet Movies 17 Mbps
-HBO 11 Mbps

This is almost a virtual tie, I would give the slight edge to HBO because of more detail, HDNet has slightly less grain, otherwise they are virtually identical to casual HD Film viewers

Here is my take on things concerning HDNet

something is going on somewhere down the chain where detail is being lost with processing, with every film that shows up on HDNet you can never see Film Grain(test this out for yourself folks), I have never seen film grain on HDNet Movies and that indicates there is some DNR going on somewhere and that is a big problem

I have a reference quality 9" CRT display that Plainly and very clearly shows HD Films with such definition that one can see the very very faint film grain that is inherent in all filmed movies and that is never seen with films on HDNet

Even the best looking stuff ever on HDNet Movies like Blade Runner and Casualties of War is still lacking something, I swear they look like Video instead of Film

Here lately I have become tired of recording and getting worked up over films shown on HDNet, they are dissapointing me more and more, and I will be the first to say that the whole channel from top to bottom is unbeatable in quality and selection of film's, their schedule is even great

I would just like to suggest that HDNet maybe look into improving HD picture quality (just recently like Discovery did, big difference) the movies look to me more like soft video rather than gorgeous detail filled "Films" on HBO/Showtime

I would like to hear from some other heavy recorders comparing films shown on various providers, my bet is that 9 out of 10 will go to HBO/Showtime because something is just wrong here

Another upcoming test is "Of Mice and Men" the recent Showtime airing was a lushous detail filled print, I can only wonder what HDNet will look like, soft DNR video

HDNet Movies is the best channel out there and this is a shame indeed

-Gary

HDTVFanAtic

11-19-05, 03:37 PM

As has been discussed over and over, HDNET does not have telecine flag on E*- HBO and Showtime do. As I understand it, you are going between 24fps to 30fps depending on which side you want to look at will lower that 17Mbps down 3.4Mbps or so. You know from backdoor sources that Mr. Cuban is aware of this.

As has also been noted, E* uses a CBR of slightly above 17Mbps for HDNET Movies. As you are also well aware of, the rates are all over the road as can be seen from HBO, Showtime and the like.

This is not different than recording a cassette onto a CD. It has specs of 20-20k 16bit 44.1 but it still has the quality of a cassette - tape his and all.

Thus, I am not sure why any of this might surprise you.

BTW, FWIW, I did notice that Sho did NOT put the HDTV logo on Of Mice and Men at the beginning of it - which signifies Upconvert.

Gary Murrell

11-19-05, 03:48 PM

"Of Mice and Men" was one of the best damn HD prints I have ever seen, I was thrilled to add it to my collection, it was one of the best pickups from the last 2/3 months

I failed to see the point of your post as to why HD prints of the same movies look so drastically different from different station sources??

from all the facts HDNet should still be better, someone that gets these sources untouched(cable) should post, I already know the result though from researching opinions on the matter, something just isn't right with HDNet Movies and it isn't entirely E*

-Gary

HDTVFanAtic

11-19-05, 10:06 PM

I failed to see the point of your post as to why HD prints of the same movies look so drastically different from different station sources??

17Mpbs on HDNET - telecine flag = 13.5MBps HBO/SHO equivilant

HBO-HD uses slightly over 14Mbps on their CBand Distribution so it theoritically has all the bandwidth that HDNET is giving you.

All HDNET caps regardless of transfer are set to a constant 17MBps on video - regardless of if they are 8Mbps or 15Mbps.

Thus it is more than theoritical - it is very much possible.

And we all know how many special versions of DVDs always come out - I doubt HDNET is getting the absolute cream of the crop that we will see in the 3rd-4th releases of BlueRay/HD-DVD.

Even you stated how bad several D-Theater Transfers looked.

When you strip away the telecine flag and the 17Mbps fixed bitrate AND SINCE THERE ARE NO NULL PACKETS, YES DIGITAL COMPRESSION/EXPANSION (MANIPULATION) IS GOING ON HERE, then its is very feasible some transfers from other sources could look as good if not better.

mcuban

11-20-05, 09:23 AM

I think you may be dead wrong about this. From what I have heard, HDNet does ALL their own xfers for HDNet Movies. No exceptions! The deal is the owner/studio gets a very high quality xfer to keep, but HDNet doesn't pay the copywrite owner anything for airing it. Please, some knowledgable experts chime in.

We used to have to do transfers in the early days, now we dont.

We do have quality control on ever movie that comes in. Softness is not a quality control issue, its a directors intent issue. Some people on the forum may want everything crisp with lots of contrast. Some feel that is their "right" because thats what they got their high def set for.

I actually prefer movies that pop. Its nice to get the wow factor on a movie. The reality though is that not every movie is shot with that in mind. MANY movies in fact are shot with some artistic intent, with how it looks on HD never coming into the equation.

Our goal is to make sure the transfer is good to great relative to the original. We turn down movie after movie for not meeting our standards. And thats after excluding any upconverts, no OAR, no standard def video, no 16mm, etc.

As far as how it appears on any particular provider, its gotten much better and hopefully it will continue to improve.

What i have learned on this forum is that people who like to look for problems, will always find them. There are always going to be the "Im dumping D* , it doesnt look as good as DVD types. Or who will argue about the resolution.

Thats fine. Thats what makes the forum interesting and entertaining at times.

The reality is that the audience for High Def movies is changing. We are quickly moving from the early adopter, love the technology phase to the mainstream phase.

that wont change our quality standards, if anything it means that others will hopefully dumb down as they chase ratings and other goals.

WE will continue to focus on what makes HDNet Movies special

1. Day and Date releases of original movies shot 1oo pctin HD (Bubble in January is next)
2. The Highest Possible Picture Quality , with no upconverts, all OAR, no SD dv movies, no 16mm movies
3. Great Movies... We just did a comparison of our IMDB ratings for our movies to TMC, HBO and Showtime and we were higher than all 3.
4. HD Premieres. We want to show as many great movies as we can that have never been seen before in HD

We will keep on raising the bar. Despite the guesses of some , who like to speculate otherwise, NO network obsesses on picture quality like HDNet Movies does.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain wrong.

as always, thanks for all the feedback on the forum.

Matt_Stevens

11-20-05, 09:46 AM

Mr. Cuban, you say no 16mm, but does that include Super16? There is a difference and frankly, when Super16 is done right it can completely fool almost anyone into thinking it is 35mm. This is why I shot my short film on Super16. The 35mm blowup print looked great.

guptown

11-20-05, 10:25 AM

Thanks Mr. Cuban for all your efforts in presenting us with the best variety as well as quality in HD movies programming. There are alot of perfectionists/videophiles on this board that love to nitpick but I think that even the most hardcore agree that HDNet Movies is outstanding!

trbarry

11-20-05, 10:42 AM

We do have quality control on ever movie that comes in. Softness is not a quality control issue, its a directors intent issue. Some people on the forum may want everything crisp with lots of contrast. Some feel that is their "right" because thats what they got their high def set for.

Mark -

Excessive softness, graininess, darkness, or various bizarre colors may sometimes indeed be the directors intent. But it is a logical trap to rationalize all those things by just assuming it was the director.

An acid test and easy refutation is the existence of any copies of the same movie and resolution that are not soft. In this case some have posted above that those copies DO exist. In those cases it is pretty obvious it was not the director's artistic choice.

And in those cases a bit more research by someone with your power and credentials could probably turn up the real reason. ;)

- Tom

Gary Murrell

11-20-05, 12:50 PM

Fanatic all those facts STILL do not explain the extreme drastic difference in HD showings of the same Title

Tom has got it exactly right, these soft showing are HDNet are time after time outdone by other showing's on other networks

Believe me Mark I am the biggest fan of your HDNet's and have been viewing and supporting them for 4 years now, I could not thank you enough for these networks and I appreciate them so very much

I am just wondering why time after time the same films shown on HDNet compared to other networks are always much much softer than other networks

My 2 most extreme examples are the mentioned, "Sling Blade" and "Shawshank Redemption" these are unwatchable compared to HBO and Showtime examples respectively

I am just trying to get a handle on what is going on here, are there THAT many HD prints of a given movie out there??, are they that much different in quality??, who knows??

I first saw "Sling Blade" on HDNet and accepted that it was soft in nature, then up it comes on HBO and it killed that theory, this has happened time after time:

The Professional
Wild Things
Sling Blade
Flight of the Intruder
Shawshank Redemption

I could go on and on

It is possible that you guys are being sent sub par transfers compared to HBO/Showtime, but why would studios do that?? and why would such drastic differences exsist between HD Prints in the studios possesion??

This is what I cannot understand

-Gary

Adam Tyner

11-20-05, 01:35 PM

This is what I cannot understandCan you post some sample shots of the same movie across channels (and ideally, across providers)?

cpalmer2k

11-20-05, 01:51 PM

Perhaps it is in the TAPE and not the transfer... I believe HBO/Showtime, etc use HD-D5, whereas I believe HDNet deals primarily with HDCam

Wizziwig

11-20-05, 04:57 PM

I think the differences have to do with the quality of their mpeg2 encoders and not the transfers.

As HDTVFanAtic already pointed out, HBO/SHO transmit all movies at 23.976 fps using the original progressive film frames. Each mpeg2 frame contains flags which tell your receiver to repeat some of the fields so that the 23.976 fps content can be up-converted to interlaced 29.97fps for your display. This duplication of fields/frames is done in your receiver/STB so no redundant data is transmitted.

HDNet (both channels) doesn't use these flags and instead transmits everything as 29.97fps video. Each frame is composed of interleaved fields that may come from different frames of the original progressive source.

The end result is that HDNet is wasting a lot of bandwidth retransmitting fields from previous frames (instead of using repeat flags) and getting less efficient compression of each frame because it contains interlaced data (possibly from different frames of the original progressive source).

Ignoring the above differences, there may also be other issues at play, such as additional filtering to remove high frequency noise (grain), different quantization matrix on the encoder, etc.

As a side note, Dish Network is still transmitting HDNet untouched (ignoring occasional transmission errors) so you're seeing all the original bits that HDNet is sending.

Gary Murrell

11-20-05, 06:42 PM

HDTVFanAtic

11-20-05, 06:53 PM

there is without a doubt filtering going on somewhere, every movie shown on HDNet has slight smearing of the image when there is movement, very slight like when DNR is enabled

Again Gary, of course something is going on. There is no other way to get the constant 17Mbps bitrate without null packets otherwise.

If it were possible, don't you think the OTA TV stations would do it without wasting space with null packets?

I agree, M Cuban has gone to great lengths to get OAR and 5.1. I do laugh at times when I see the HD Premiere logo on films that have been on others in HD - although that is very seldom. They did not use the HD Premiere logo last night on Windtalkers - so they are trying to be truthful.

You will notice that in the long post, M Cuban did nothing to dispute or address what I stated. Wizziwig has also confirmed as such.

That simply has to be where the problem is.

You waste bandwidth in the distribution because of no telecine flag. Then you expand lower quality transfers up to get a constant 17Mbps and change Video Feed.

If the transfer was say, 12Mbps, then expanded to the 25-29th frame, then expanded up to 17Mbps etc, you have all kinds of digital manipulation. And just like blowing up a picture on a computer to an oversized image, you will begin to see the flaws from the lower bitrate in the beginning.

And let's remember there have been major advances in MPEG2 encoders in the last 18 months. Things that used to look as good as they could at 17Mbps can now look at good at much lower rates.

That's my thinking on it and thus far there is no evidence to the contrary.

Wizziwig

11-20-05, 11:10 PM

Gary Murrell

11-21-05, 05:34 AM

Aka, that was the film, not a fault with the provider or network

Fanatic do you have "Sling Blade" from HDNet Movies, I did not capture it

Windtalkers has also been on Showtime Before, but looked very very good on HDNet(it still had some slight smearing effect on movement, like when adding DNR)

I would have lots of stuff to compare but I sold alot of my collection 6 months back :(

on my Display with 9" CRT's (Mitsubishi 65813) the difference between the same films shown on HDNet VS. HBO/Showtime is startling, screen caps shown on here would most certainly show a difference

-Gary

mcuban

11-21-05, 10:40 AM

I've seen a far higher consistency of excellent transfers on Voom. Much higher. If it's actually the HD transfers that HDNet Movies is using, then I guess they may be using a lousy transfer facility. I am certain the overall quality on HDNet Movies is significantly less than it was on the Voom original movie channels.

i think you hve good old days syndrome.. Your recollections of Voom dont match reality.

HDNet Movies was the first on the market looking to buy movies in HD that werent part of studio output deals to HBO and Showtime. So many movies that appeared on Voom, first appeared on HDNet.

They didnt get any better sitting on a hard drive somewhere

m

mcuban

11-21-05, 10:45 AM

Wizziwig I think you have set things straight as to what me and others are seeing

to me HDNet Movies looks like video instead of Film

there is without a doubt filtering going on somewhere, every movie shown on HDNet has slight smearing of the image when there is movement, very slight like when DNR is enabled

That is why I suggested that HDNet take a look at their transmission, if they would send out true 23.976 fps like HBO/Showtime they would smoke everyone no contest, no one comes close to HDNet and I wish these minor picture quality differences would be corrected

-Gary

Guess what. i watch my own network. I watch it on Directv. Thats what I get at home. I have it from a cable provider in a condo i have.

Other than when the distributor is experimenting with codecs/bitrates or whatever, which happens far, far less than it did a year ago, our movies look as good as anything on any other network. Better than most.

The studios dont make different prints for different providers. There are only 2 variables from print to view and thats the transmission and the 2nd is encoding. The possible third is at the home when user equipment can have an impact. Disks fragment on hard drive. STBs over heat causing lip synch issues. Noise impacts output from STB to monitor.. Lots of little things can impact, but the good news is that 99.99 pct of subscribers wont know (other than lipsynch issue which is ALWAYS a STB issue. NOTHING leaves HDNet broadcast center out of synch)

the.01 pct ? They always find what they are looking for.

John Mason

11-21-05, 10:54 AM

We'd better get our definitions right (video/film look), because the folks compiling typical word usage for the Oxford dictionary are keeping records. :-)

Puzzles me how a 24p telecined film, delivered with pulldown at 1080i, can have a video 'look'. The video look, IMO, implies the smooth motion of 60i/p original capture, and usually greater sharpness from less 'artistic' lens filtering, the greater image-rate capture, lack of telecining, and other factors. While 24PsF (segmented frame) HDCAM tape is video, it's crafted to emulate film.

Distinguishing PQ differences between MPEG repeat-frame delivery, which reduces the required bit rate, and instead originating with a constant 17-Mbps video payload, is another puzzler. Gotta say huh? Considering the long list of other factors distinguishing PQ differences outlined above, this seems like over-analysis.

Related obliquely to this, noticed in some recent tech papers that Canon has created a special zoom lens to better duplicate the film 'look' when recording motion pictures digitally, typically with 2/3-inch image sensors, (not newer 35-mm-size digital-movie-camera sensors). Canon worked with film photography directors to deliberately 'un-sharpen' HD-camera images so they appear more like film. Canon's Larry Thorpe outlined these factors in this article (http://broadcastengineering.com/mag/broadcasting_hdtv_lenses_mtf/index.html), and co-authored a more detailed piece in the Oct./Nov. Motion Imaging Journal (SMPTE.org). -- John

Darrin

11-21-05, 01:07 PM

This is a very interesting thread and I will continue to follow it. Being a BIG fan of HDNET, I can't argue Gary's findings. I just attribute it to the transfer because from time to time, I will see something that really looks awesome. I was a little dissapointed with They Live but just chalked it up to a bad transfer.

I will do a comparison when it is shown on UHD next month to see how it compares.

Gary Murrell

11-21-05, 01:19 PM

Mark, you know I don't where my shades will viewing films, that is not the issue here

but my case is rested, as it is not going to get anywhere

Facts have been clearly laid out here as to what is being done incorrectly with HDNet's Delivery, it would be a simple fix and is nothing major

HDNet movies rules, but the picture quality is on a everyday basis is smoked by Showtime and HBO, comparing identical titles shown on both HDNet and HBO/Showtime shows such a vast difference that is not easy to overlook, it's just downright unpleasant to view these films they are so soft sometimes

This was considered by me to be a transfer issue also Darrin, until time after time I saw the same film from various networks and always without question these soft transfers on HDNet were smoked by HBO/Showtime

I have seen on other forums, folks always saying that HDNet Movies is the best network out there but it doesn't look the best(that is the consistent talk of this network)

It is always said to be softer than HBO/Showtime, I have heard this from newbie's and videophiles alike from many many forums including:

DBSTalk
HT Forum
HT Spot
Satellite Guys

and even from pro HDTV calibrators

I do and will continue to pay for (and enjoy) the fabulous HDNet Networks, but things could be a little better on HDNet Movies

-Gary

R11

11-21-05, 01:23 PM

For whatever it's worth... I have been watching HDNet Movies from Day One on D* and although the PQ has improved substantially from the early days when D* was severely manipulating/short-shifting the feed, it still remains a distant second tier channel in PQ compared to HBO-HD IMO. For whatever reasons, my experience is that the PQ on HDNet M is consistently lower than the PQ on HBO-HD (on D*). Just thought I'd throw out my vote as long as mark was listening (or at least reading ;)).

ron

Glimmie

11-21-05, 02:03 PM

Perhaps it is in the TAPE and not the transfer... I believe HBO/Showtime, etc use HD-D5, whereas I believe HDNet deals primarily with HDCam

At this time I would expect any broadcaster to be playing off a server of some type. Could be MPEG2 on the low end up to intraframe DCT only on the high end. But it's bit rate won't be above typically 80mbs.

All the major studios transfer to HDD5, always have. Some now are going to HDCAM-SR. HDCAM is most popular for TV shows. There are HDCAM dubs made in some cases.

It was Showtime that initially built an HDCAM playout system in early 2001. However I'm sure by now that's been replaced with a server.

Glimmie

11-21-05, 02:10 PM

My initial complaints towards HDNET was the pictures were too sharp. "Towering Inferno" was way over enhanced. However I have no clue where it happened. Over the past two years though, it has toned down. I find HDNET quality very good keeping in mind it depends on the transfer quality to which they have no control over.

Image enhancement can be done anywhere in thr transfer process and thats where it typically is. However the same hardware can be used in a dub pass or even in line during broadcast. The most popular box, the Digital Vision DVNR1000 www.digitalvision.se/products/dvnr.htm is HDSDI in and out so it's pretty easy to sitck in line. You could even put one in your HT chain.

The bottom line is even a excellent transfer can be butcherd by a careless dub through one of these video processors along the distribution path. It's doubtful any netwrok has a DVNR in line. They are too expensive to use on the broadcast chain. Furthermore they are not set and forget. They need program material specific setups and tweaks.

Matt_Stevens

11-21-05, 03:38 PM

Glimmie

11-21-05, 03:57 PM

I think there is a problem here and it may in fact be they send the stuff out interlaced.

But then so does every other movie channel. HBO, Showtime, Dish PPV, DirecTV PPV, Voom (both then and now). Only ABC and Disney owned cable channels like ESPN use 720P. Fox at 720P? do they even run HD movies? Any HD transfer done in the past two years is 1080/24P (actually 24sF but that doesn't matter here). For 1080i, 2/3 is simply added.

I also doubt HBO is still doing many transfers themselves anymore. The studios now see value in HD archives on the shelves and will pay to have it done. Therfore it is quite possible that HDnet, HBO, and Showtime will use a dub from the same master when the license a run. And a digital dub should be just that. The compression systems in broadcast machines for all practical purposes of broadcast are transparent. There is a minor hit going from HDD5 to HDCAM but I doubt anybody will see that at home once ATSC MPEG2 gets a hold of it.

DrCrawn

11-21-05, 04:36 PM

Personally, I can't comment on the comparisons to other channels, but I've seen seen good transfers and great transfers, but unfortunately a few really awful ones too, most recently Boyz in the Hood. Then I watch something like Navy Seals , or Network with fantastic PQ, and I remember why there are no other channels quite like these available.
For me, personally without DTheater or other HD channels like HBO to compare to, out of sight out of mind, ignorance is bliss, take your pick. I do, of course, hope that the PQ continues to improve on these channels, and that that remains a priority.

TVOD

11-21-05, 04:41 PM

I admit I don't have HDNet at home, so I can't comment on the PQ directly. However, I do have some questions:

1) How is HDNet distributed to the satellite and cable providers? If this is satellite, what is the format? I assume it would be MPEG 2 at some high bit rate, but it could be lower for direct distribution like Fox and PBS. I know on some MPEG encoders there are settings which can influence picture sharpness (other than data rate and structure).

2) Is there processing in-line, such as noise reduction?

3) Are the movies played directly from tape or from a server? If it's from a server, what data rates are being used? Although HDCAM does limit resolution at 1440 pixels, I doubt that would be noticable.

I assume all providers are interlaced so they are compatible with all material. Switching between frame rates for distribution would seem impratical. I also assume a pulldown flag would only be required if the video didn't match the original material's frame rate. 24 frame encoding will reduce bandwidth, but won't the repeated frames caused by pulldown also have a data reduction effect on MPEG B & P frames?

The most popular box, the Digital Vision DVNR1000One of the few things I can claim is that I installed the first one in Hollywood in a telecine suite with a Digi 4, I think in 1990. Everyone else at that time thought spending $45,000 on a grain reducer was insane, but I guess that's changed.

Gary Murrell

11-21-05, 05:12 PM

For example I just watched "Spanglish" on HBO today, no transfer of this calibre and lush detail has ever been seen on HDNet Movies, my point about film grain is a very valid one, a good HD Print on a top notch display (with nothing going on to the transfer) will show film grain as plain as my hand in front of my face

I have NEVER seen film grain on HDNet Movies, never ever have I seen it!! that is the prime indication to me that something is a miss

another example I forgot to add to the list is "Wild Things" from HBO kills the HDNet showing in every manner, it isn't even close

"Of Mice and Men" is going to be another great test, this was one of the best HD prints I have ever seen on Showtime a few weeks back, this is going to be a good comparison

I am sure there are others that have been on both networks, including 4 or 5 titles that have aired on the top notch MonstersHD which again destory the HDNet showing's

-Gary

djdrock

11-21-05, 08:50 PM

Gary's points about The PROFESSIONAL and SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION and others has yet to be addressed my Mr. Cuban. Those films and others have looked much softer on HDNet Movies. I was stunned at how horrible THE PROFESSIONAL looked when I first saw it. I popped my D-VHS recording of the HBO airing and as expected, it was much much sharper. Not because of any edge enhancement. It just had a lot more detail.

Exactly. I started this thread in May, and nobody from HDNet, not even Mark has addressed the comparison issues of the movies that Gary mentioned. I too, have noticed the same thing time and time again. HDNet can dance around it all they want to, but there are PQ issues. Period! I just did a count of all of my archived movies, 147 to be exact, and only 4 from HDNet were worth archiving. Countless movies, The Virgin Suicides, Urban Cowboy, etc...all movies I have wanted to see in HD for a long time were not even worth watching, let alone archiving. The time has come for me to cancel my subscription to HDNet. I appreciate what the channel has done for HD as a whole, and wish them the best.

Gary Murrell

11-21-05, 09:49 PM

I pretty much agree with DJ

The ocassional gem will pop up on HDNet like Casualties of War, but still it was lacking in that detail and pop and of course Film Grain

I just wanted to suggest that HDNet take alot into the broadcasting path and all relevant points, somewhere in the chain detail is being lost and they need to deliver 23.976 fps

-Gary

Glimmie

11-21-05, 09:53 PM

Exactly. I started this thread in May, and nobody from HDNet, not even Mark has addressed the comparison issues of the movies that Gary mentioned. I too, have noticed the same thing time and time again. HDNet can dance around it all they want to, but there are PQ issues. Period! I just did a count of all of my archived movies, 147 to be exact, and only 4 from HDNet were worth archiving. Countless movies, The Virgin Suicides, Urban Cowboy, etc...all movies I have wanted to see in HD for a long time were not even worth watching, let alone archiving. The time has come for me to cancel my subscription to HDNet. I appreciate what the channel has done for HD as a whole, and wish them the best.

OK please enlighten us. What exactly was so bad with those movies technical quality that you couldn't watch?

Does HDnet still broadcast test patterns? That's you measure of their signal quality - that is if your setup is good enough to see it. If the test signals pass the mustre, then the problem is the material supplied by the studios. And that will be all over the map on these older 1970s films.

Rgb

11-22-05, 06:46 AM

Is there a definitive list of all movies aired on HD-Net Movies? All HD Net channels?

Matt_Stevens

11-22-05, 08:49 AM

Glimmie, those movies were very very soft. Shockingly soft. Softer than the DVD's.

And Glimmie, I meant HDNet Movies needs to send their signal 23.976.

Gary Murrell

11-22-05, 08:49 AM

HDNet Movies doesn't show the test patterns

HDNet has above average picture quality, and movie material shown on there(trailers etc.) tends to look superb

yes 4 out of 10 movies/or so on HDNet Movies tend to look softer than DVD, shockingly so I might add

Last year I did a comparison of "The Terminator" vs the New DVD that was released, this was on my previous Big $$ 8" CRT front projection system, the scaled DVD beat the HDNet Movies showing of "The Terminator", it was just too soft to compete with the scaled DVD :(

-Gary

Darrin

11-23-05, 09:12 AM

I really started thinking about this since I stumbled onto this thread a few days ago. Now I truly appreciate Marc Cuban's position towards HD and what he has done, but to dismiss the opinions of people as "people will see what they want to see" is a bit troubling to me. There has to be some valid reason for such a difference in PQ between the same transfers from different networks.

I did a direct comparison of an Officer and a Gentleman and the DVD. I thought the DVD looked quite a bit better then what I saw on HDNET! This is a DVD!!

I just assumed it was a subpar transfer but the color fidelity on the DVD was SOOO much better then the HDNET version. Does anybody know if Officer and a Gentleman was ever shown on HBO or Sho? Btw- after comparing the two, I decided to just tape over the copy I made since it was pointless since I already had the DVD that looked better.

I was very excited about One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest when I saw it coming up. After comparing to the DVD, yet again....same results! I would say the HDNET version actually had a little more noise in the pic too.

I don't think this is nitpicking. I think it is happening somewhere in the line of distribution and SERIOUSLY needs to be looked at.

scott_bernstein

11-23-05, 10:57 AM

I was very excited about One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest when I saw it coming up. After comparing to the DVD, yet again....same results! I would say the HDNET version actually had a little more noise in the pic too.

I don't think this is nitpicking. I think it is happening somewhere in the line of distribution and SERIOUSLY needs to be looked at.
Yes, I did the same test yesterday and the DVD (2002 release) was better by leaps and bounds -- the HDNet Movies picture was very very soft (and to make sure it wasn't just an anomaly in the particular showing I was watching, I checked out another showing of it) -- so soft that the picture looked almost "smudgy" if that is a good way to describe it.

I recieve it over Time Warner Cable, and I do not think it is a distribution issue, because the picture quality of films like "Mutiny On The Bounty" the night before looked absolutely stunning.

I wonder if it's just something about the version of the transfer that the studio has sent them? I mean, we all know that they keep going back and re-transferring old films for better "remastered" quality and new DVD releases....

Seriously, though, while some people may complain about (seemingly) arcane things such as frame rate, it should be clear to anyone, including Marc Cuban, that there is something very wrong with certain transfers they are getting -- with "...Cuckoo's Nest" being a prime example, which loses hands-down to the last DVD release.

Scott

Gary Murrell

11-23-05, 12:05 PM

that is our main complaint, every film shown on HDNet looks as it filtering or DNR is being applied and lots of it at that, watch the DOA remake on there to see what I mean :(

Cuckoo is another horrid example

-Gary

trbarry

11-23-05, 01:34 PM

When comparing HD to DVD everyone should be careful to remember they are officially encoded in a different color space and your equipment may be calibrated better for one or the other, sometimes changed by a DVD/DTV setting somewhere in configuration. But HD is supposed to be using BT709 and DVD is BT601 color. They look a bit different.

But that would not create softness. There is something else going on that needs some study if anyone at HDNET believes there is really a problem.

- Tom

R11

11-23-05, 02:23 PM

You know, it's funny. I remember when after a year or so of much complaining here, ER finally went HD (several seasons back now). The PQ was so soft that many people accused them of simply trying to pass off upconverts as HD. When others suggested that perhaps the quality of the transfers was to blame, several members from positions seemingly "in the know" swore up and down that there was no difference in transfer quality from different sources. They of course claimed that the lack of PQ was a function of "directors intent".... Well, surprisingly enough, HD ER magically began looking much improved a period of time later. Money put towards quality transfers is well spent IMO.

ron

trbarry

11-23-05, 02:33 PM

... magically began looking much improved a period of time later.

Yep. That is indeed the intent of many of our posts here. ;)

- Tom

Tom Monahan

11-23-05, 02:37 PM

I'll take a little softness over the edge enhancement on most dvd's. EE reminds me I am watching video instead of film and hate it with a passion.. No EE makes the projected image more filmlike in my opinion. By the way, to my eyes Casualties of War looked awesome on my 92" screen and am thrilled to have it recorded on DVHS. It smoked the dvd.

Matt_Stevens

11-23-05, 02:59 PM

Casualties Of War is a recent HDNet showing that looked good. Very good, in fact. It blows The Professional and Cuckoo away.

darinp2

11-23-05, 04:53 PM

Gary Murrell

11-23-05, 04:54 PM

of course there are gems like Casualties I mentioned earlier, but 8 out of 10 just do not look right and those other 2(like Casualties) still have no film grain present, so there is filtering going on somewhere, I think that is the main issue here, somewhere in the chain is filtering or DNR
ALL Films on HDNet look smudged and have slight ghosting/trailing behind moving images, this is a negative aspect of filtering or DNR and can be spotted a mile away

-Gary

Gary Murrell

11-23-05, 05:00 PM

I wish I could gets folks to understand this(others who are claiming problems have seen this):

There is so much of a difference between these film showing's shown on HDNet Movies and HBO/Showtime that my 45 year old mother and non enthusiast brother BOTH notice the difference and have commented on it upon viewing them, it is that bad

comparing "Sling Blade" and "Shawshank Redemption" for example is like comparing DVD to D-Theater D-VHS, the difference is even more than that

HDNet Movies is painfully soft and worst of all is the DNR look that every movie has

I will put something together here
someone PM me that can provide a screen cap from these movies:

Sling Blade from HDNet Movies
Shawshank Redemption from Showtime

-Gary

R11

11-23-05, 05:39 PM

Yep. That is indeed the intent of many of our posts here. ;)

- TomMine too! :) I think everyone posting here agrees that HDNM is building a great library of titles. It's definitely worth pushing and complaining a bit to try to get the PQ standards up to a par that matches them.

C'mon Mark, you're the King of HD man! You should be taking this personal. :D.

ron

djdrock

11-23-05, 05:42 PM

Gary and others, you are right. Casualties of War was excellent. Very excellent as a matter of fact. I remember missing this one on the schedule, and flipping through the channels I caught it. I disinctingly remember checking the guide to see what channel it was on and could not believe how good the PQ was when I saw it was in HDNet. Anyways, I hope they get things straightened out...somehow...someway. I will be watching this thread in hopes that the technical side of these issues can be resolved so that I can reorder HDNet. I truly believe that Mark has nothing but the best intentions with this channel, and wants nothing but the best for his customers. With this in mind, I am sure that sometime the issues will be resolved.

Tom Monahan

11-23-05, 10:30 PM

I sure hope tomorrows airing of Open Range looks more like Casualties than One Flew. The beautiful cinematograpy of that film could look amazing if not softened too much.

John Mason

11-24-05, 10:22 AM

Haven't A-B compared film versions from one source to another, but kudos to anyone that eventually boosts overall telecine fidelity from sources by pointing out valid differences. Assume potential reformatting to 1280X1080 by DirecTV is being factored into comparisons. Published screen image comparisons are always interesting, but the many variables always seem to complicate what's seen on individual computer screens. As posted earlier, here's dr1394's spectrum analyzer chart (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=5466046#post5466046) (appended jpeg), obtained with a low-cost computer shareware program, that shows the very limited detail in a 720p crowd scene (followup post to link). If hardware such as Tektronix's 5000 analyzer or their PQA300 (http://www.broadcastpapers.com/testmeasurement/testmeasurement.htm) Picture Quality Analyzer can average and plot details through an obviously detailed scene sequence, that would help dispell the subjectivity involved in PQ evaluations. But renting or buying such hardware is costly. -- John

WiFi-Spy

11-25-05, 12:39 AM

Gary Murrell

11-25-05, 09:45 AM

Wi-Fi, not what I have seen on my display

the Showtime version totally spanked the HDNet version in detail and sharpness

-Gary

trbarry

11-25-05, 10:29 AM

speaking of shawshank

the HDnet one is way sharper

i will post screen shots tomorrow

Yes, please do!

And also please explain how they were captured. What you are saying is completely contrary to other posts above and if we are all getting different results we should figure out why.

I sadly do not have access to HDNet on Comcast so I can't check myself.

@Gary - Could you also post screen shots to compare?

- Tom

Gary Murrell

11-25-05, 11:31 AM

I sold my Showtime capture of Shawshank on D-VHS a few months back :(

I still have the HDNet Movies showing

my source is E* BTW

if someone recording from E* would get together with me(PM) we could show this issue in full light via screen caps

-Gary

Matt_Stevens

11-25-05, 01:04 PM

Whatever.

OPEN RANGE looked good, though there was, once again, no film grain. It did have a slightly DVNR look to it. Still, it's vastly superior Edge Enhanced to death to the DVD. No contest there.

WiFi-Spy

11-25-05, 02:03 PM

SHowtime:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2003/shawsho5cx.th.jpg (http://img20.imageshack.us/my.php?image=shawsho5cx.jpg)

HDNET:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/4425/shawhdnet9ed.th.jpg (http://img20.imageshack.us/my.php?image=shawhdnet9ed.jpg)

both are from Cable

shah8

11-25-05, 02:17 PM

Man, the HDNet Movie version pretty clearly beats it in that setup...

WiFi-Spy

11-25-05, 02:21 PM

Yes, please do!

And also please explain how they were captured. What you are saying is completely contrary to other posts above and if we are all getting different results we should figure out why.

I sadly do not have access to HDNet on Comcast so I can't check myself.

@Gary - Could you also post screen shots to compare?

- Tom

the screen shots were captured with a program called MpegVCR (it has a free trial)

Jerry G

11-25-05, 02:30 PM

I sold my Showtime capture of Shawshank on D-VHS a few months back :(

-Gary

Oops. Doesn't this give the studios more ammunition to support their anti piracy measures?

You do know that some of the Showtime personnel read this forum, don't you?

Matt_Stevens

11-25-05, 03:08 PM

The Showtime cap looks compressed much more. I have both on D-VHS I think and will compare them today.

trbarry

11-25-05, 03:22 PM

I think if you legally record a single copy of something you can legally sell it under the doctrine of first sale. But some would disagree and this thread is probably not the place to discuss it, plus that discussion may be against forum rules anyway.

In any event I think I prefer the HDNet pic in the cap above. The two are not exactly the same frame, both have interlace artifacts from capturing a slightly moving interlaced image, and the two have slightly different color. I have a new DLP projector and it is not yet calibrated to my PC so I don't know which color scheme might be more correct. But given all the above I think the two pictures have similar levels of detail and certainly do not demonstrate any HDNet specific problem to me.

If these were typical then I think we would owe Mark an apology. C'mon guys, can anybody prove it? ;)

- Tom

Matt_Stevens

11-25-05, 03:27 PM

Easy. Post THE PROFESSIONAL screen caps. Night and day.

WiFi-Spy

11-25-05, 04:47 PM

I have the old Professional brodcast

can someone post a screenshot of the new one?

Gary Murrell

11-25-05, 05:44 PM

Believe me that Showtime Shawshank is better, lots of scenes don't show it, but I can see the muddy pix of HDNet right on that screen capture

Shawshank shows a huge difference in lots of scenes, Sling Blade does also

there are prolly 50 examples of movies that have been on these networks, not once has HDNet ever won

Wi-Fi see if you can get the exact frame on both captures, get one from where Red first walks into the room to see the Parole board(fairly close/waist up in on Morgan Freeman)

Open Range looked good, but had the look of DNR/Filtering, no film grain whatsoever, when I see film grain on HDNet Movies I will know things are corrected

No film grain on HD prints = filtering or DNR

-Gary

Gary Murrell

11-25-05, 06:32 PM

Gosh give it a break with the piracy ****

I sold my entire D-VHS setup(including 3 decks) and entire collection and all recorded tapes to a nice fellow who has enjoyed them very much, the entire 100 tape collection was never advertised at all, I just made someone a great deal because I was getting out of D-VHS, very few movies in the collection had I not already bought on DVD and years before in VHS

That is not piracy, end of discussion

-Gary

TVOD

11-25-05, 07:15 PM

Why is there such a drastic difference in the color between the Showtime and HDNet caps? I assume the cable companies decode and re-encode. If it's a completely digital path (which is reasonable for HD), then one would assume that it's not from the same transfer, or that it's been tweaked elsewhere, or there is an error in one or both distribution paths. MPEG encoders are good at changing colors - usually not for the better - but that is far more than what is typical in my experience.

VideoGrabber

11-25-05, 07:30 PM

Gary wrote:
> ALL Films on HDNet look smudged and have slight ghosting/trailing behind moving images, this is a negative aspect of filtering or DNR and can be spotted a mile away <

This statement is flat-out NOT true. Now if you had qualified that with "on e*", I couldn't argue with you because I don't have Dish-HD. But e* is only one distributor of HDNet Movie content, and via my HD cable service the "smudging" and "ghosting/trailing behind moving images" is simply NOT there. At least not on ALL films, as you claim. Granted, there are a few that aren't as good... quality does vary, after all. But there are a lot of excellent transfers as well that blow that theory out of the water.

"The Court Jester" looked great, and that was from a 1955 film. "First Target" which recently aired again was quite sharp, though since it was a "for TV" production, it may have started out as an HDCam master, for all I know. OTOH, "Protocol", which I just noticed again, was about as soft a transfer as they get. And I have seen a few of those, that after the expectations you build up for detail with most films on HDNet, leaves you rubbing your eyes and wondering if you need to have your prescription changed. :D

I've had the same kind of experiences on HDNet, which you have no problems with. E.g. many episodes of Smallville are just dazzling and tack sharp, while others are soft, with no fine detail. It's not HDNet... it's different director's visions on different episodes. Completely out of HDNet's control.

> Believe me that Showtime Shawshank is better... <

With all due respect, I suspect most of us would prefer to have real objective validation, rather than just taking your word for it.

> 4 out of 10 movies/or so on HDNet Movies tend to look softer than DVD, shockingly so I might add <

That hasn't been my experience at all. Source = Charter cable, displays = BG808 and Sony FW900 24" HD-monitors (2304x1440 capable, 140 MHz BW, shows every pixel of detail). I have seen a few that substantitate your softness claims, but they've been pretty rare. I could probably come up with about 3-4 in the last 16 months (Protocol and Mean Streets are two that spring immediately to mind), which is way less than 40%.

But perhaps your scaler is a lot better than my Lumagen Vision, so we're comparing apples & oranges?

> No film grain on HD prints = filtering or DNR <

Ah. Well, it's possible those doing the film transfers aren't as fond of film grain as you are, and feel that it's the top priority to maintain; or feel that using just enough filtering to tame it makes for better overall PQ, with less artifacting with the limited bit-rates they have available? In any event, unlike yourself, I don't consider film grain to be the holy grail. In fact, in some cases film grain can be a real detriment, as it creates a moving background "noise" pattern, that's hard to ignore.

I'm not claiming that there are no problems on HDNet Movies, or that some material couldn't be better. I am dubious that HDNet is the cause though, not just because their quality standards are very high, but that they have no reason to themselves vary the quality of their distribution; and think that Gary is grossly exaggerating the problem (at least as it pertains to HDN Movies... maybe e* is shite ;)).

- Tim

Gary Murrell

11-25-05, 09:26 PM

Removing Film grain from a movie is seriously tampering with it, any movie with a good HD master and a capable video display is going to show the slight grain inherent in any movie that ever ever been shot on film, I have never seen HD films with film grain removed but from one channel "HDNet Movies"

I have a feeling most folks don't even know what true film grain looks like, not added artistic grain, I am talking the ever so slight grain that is in all film, this is seen VERY easily with D-VHS D-Theater tapes shown on a top notch display and is seen even with most all films shown on HBO/Showtime/MonstersHD etc.

that(grain) is never seen on HDNet Movies, Matt has indicated the same finding's, no grain= something a miss

in case you haven't been reading the last few pages, Sadly I am not the only one seeing these problems, there are many others and there are plenty folks PM'ing me about this same issue

"Sling Blade" on HDNet Movies looked like hammered ****, it had no detail whatsoever, no Film Grain, horrible smearing/laggy video like heavy DNR has been applied, HBO showing on the other hand hits you right in the face the second you see it, there is that very fine faint Film Grain and HBO/Showtime never has a DNR look too it

"Open Range" last night is about as best as HDNet Movie's gets, but and this is a big BUT, it still doesn't look right

Every movie shown on HDNet Movies(upon close inspection) shows very faint effects of Noise Reduction or filtering somewhere in the chain, Open Range clearly shows these effects with still shots when characters are talking(A VERY VERY slight smearing/lagging of slow movement) this is easy to spot when closeups on faces(facial details lag)

Another spot of interest is grass for example, one can easily spot the DNR look when looking at grass, "Open Range" also shows this example badly

Are there that many transfers of movies out there??, why is HDNet always getting the short end of stick??

it is in the delivery folks

I have been comparing movies from all networks for years now on these source components:

JVC 5u D-VHS deck
JVC 30k D-VHS deck
MyHD 130 with DVI
Dish Network 942
Dish Network 6000

displays are:

Mitsubishi WS-65813
Barco 808s

All HD movies have been viewed on the same equipment and displays, all that equipment shows the same damn thing, HDNet Movies has some problems that need to be addressed

it's not a display issue
it's not a source component issue
it's not a provider issue
(E*'s HDNet Movies is passed thru untouched, HBO/Showtime even have 3 Mbps lower Video)

I do not change one thing when watching and comparing these HD films, no variables are involved

no one is addressing mine and other members findings that Identical titles shown on these various networks are always smoking HDNet Movies

-Gary

WiFi-Spy

11-25-05, 10:12 PM

lets see some screen shots that support your claims.....

im gonna post a Days Of Thunder comparision in a few minutes

WiFi-Spy

11-25-05, 10:53 PM

CINEMAX Cable

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/2275/dayscinemax28op.th.jpg (http://img297.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dayscinemax28op.jpg)

HDNET Movies Cable

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/6528/dayshdnet13de.th.jpg (http://img297.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dayshdnet13de.jpg)

I would say that its almost the same

trbarry

11-25-05, 11:35 PM

All HD movies have been viewed on the same equipment and displays, all that equipment shows the same damn thing, HDNet Movies has some problems that need to be addressed

it's not a display issue
it's not a source component issue
it's not a provider issue
(E*'s HDNet Movies is passed thru untouched, HBO/Showtime even have 3 Mbps lower Video)

I do not change one thing when watching and comparing these HD films, no variables are involved

Gary -

I believe you see a difference but none have been obvious so far in the screen shots. Is it possible that your display/stb can do inverse pulldown in the presence of repeat flags, somehow making a better picture than with a telecined movie not using those flags?

- Tom

TVOD

11-25-05, 11:39 PM

Grain reduction is almost always used for transfers. The trick is to leave enough grain in to cover up the artifacts.

VideoGrabber

11-26-05, 03:41 AM

Gary commented:
> E*'s HDNet Movies is passed thru untouched <

Really? That's a pretty bold claim. And seems extremely unlikely. How do you know that with such certainty? I'd be curious to know what the authoritative source of that information was, because if true, it does eliminate the final variable. Thanks.

And like HTnut, I'm glad to see this thread too. I'd just like to avoid unsubstantiated allegations, which will do nothing to isolate root causes. And Gary, you have to admit your hyperbole does get rather flamboyant at times. :)

- Tim

Matt_Stevens

11-26-05, 09:23 AM

THE PROFESSIONAL was on last night. I switched from it to my old HBO recording and there was a clear difference. It wasn't a bias on my part. The HDNet version was simply softer. This is on a 95" screen 720p delivery via a Sanyo Z2 projector. Tele-Media / Adelphia cable.

Gary Murrell

11-26-05, 10:42 AM

I think Fargo has been on Showtime and HDNet Movies also

Particular comparisons between identical movies show a difference, but I am here to say that IMO HDNet Movies without question always has a slight DNR look

Watching "The Professional" last night was not a good HD experience, I would prefer to slap in my Superbit DVD, as it looks much better using SDI>Iscan HD scaler, sadly this happens time and time again

Obviously I am not the only person here that see's and think's this, there are at least 10 other folks who agree with our finding's here on the board

something is just slightly off with HDNet Movies that is putting them just a step below the competition

there is no bias here from me either, I want HDNet Movies to be the best looking network out there and I am complaining(along with others) in this thread to try and get HDNet to look into some small issues that would make them the best

first of all HDNet need's to send 23.976 fps, this is the first step

Wizziwig reported that the HDNet's are still sent thru untouched by e*, they have them placed on 1 8PSK transponder for those 2 channels, the bitrates are over 17 Mbps

again I must say, lets say Dish is recompressing HDNet Movies and lets say the bitrate is 14/15 Mbps because of the Telecine flags issue, Showtime and HBO are smoking HDNet Movies everyday with a bitrate of 11/12 Mbps

Im sorry but that doesn't give any favor to HDNet Movies, It actually points out that with even lower bitrates HBO/Showtime are easily beating HDNet Movies

Given that the situation is different(E* sending thru HDNet Movies untouched) and the much more compressed HBO/Showtime are beating them day after day, it points to a more serious issue in the delivery from HDNet

Like I said there are no variables, most folks on here are comparing from Cable which most likely passes everything thru untouched and again indicates the problems with HDNet

-Gary

Matt_Stevens

11-26-05, 12:50 PM

Is there any official word on why HDNet Movies does not do 23.976?

Gary Murrell

11-26-05, 01:55 PM

We all keep looking for a answer but no one is replying :(

we are all here paying subscibers that are more than willing to help HDNet and offer feedback for them to further improve their channel and it's picture quality, sadly the critisism is not being accepted very well and the fact is that these issues are fairly easy to spot, validate and for that matter be corrected

23.976 fps issue is a 100% stone cold fact, the DNR/filtered look of the channel sadly cannot be validated but by our picky eyes only

23.976 fps should help things very much though

-Gary

fire407

11-26-05, 04:34 PM

I too think that HDNet-Movies is too heavily filtered. The full contrast range is gone, plus you get the added smearing from too much noise reduction. You can't just blame old prints either. I have a tape of Breakfast at Tiffany's(1961) from Showtime that is far sharper and better looking than anything on HDNet-Movies now.

Darrin

11-26-05, 05:07 PM

Watching "The Professional" last night was not a good HD experience, I would prefer to slap in my Superbit DVD, as it looks much better using SDI>Iscan HD scaler, sadly this happens time and time again

-Gary

Funny as I have been going through this movie a good part of the day now. I am VERY dissapointed with the quality of this movie!! It looks like a decent DVD transfer (and I talk from expierience because I have been comparing the two and the HDNET only SLIGHTLY edges out the DVD). This is one of my favorites and I wasn't lucky enough to get it from HBO when it aired. It just has no detail and for a film that isn't that old, I KNOW it should look better. As one poster mentioned "contrast" THAT is the key word. It looks like a very artificial, washed out image. Now, I did catch a bit of Windtalkers and thought it looked quite good.

I don't really care for Casulties of War so I skipped that one. Interesting though, I caught a preview for The Goonies (which I was VERY excited about when I first heard it was coming to HDNET). I remember this one always having a grainy, washed out look to it in any standard def format I have ever seen it in. Well, from the preview, I think it is going to KICK ASS!! It looked (again, from the preview) VERY good. Let's hope that Marc DOES take this personally and truly look into the reason why they are not sending these down at 23.976.

One more thing. I caught a bit of The Untouchables yesterday. I don't know if it was the transfer or (again) some of these picture quality "anomolies" that we are NOT supposed to be seeing but it looked pretty crappy. Not worth the tape imo.

Glimmie

11-26-05, 05:47 PM

23.976 fps issue is a 100% stone cold fact, the DNR/filtered look of the channel sadly cannot be validated but by our picky eyes only

23.976 fps should help things very much though

-Gary

What are you talking about here? No cable. DBS, or OTA station is sending out 24P. Never have. There are numerous complications with doing that in a dual standard plant, that is NTSC and ATSC, Furthermore many STB's won't accept 24P. I tried it on several boxes two years ago.

3/2 can be reversed from 1080i that was origionated from 1080p/24. I realize it's not done prperly on most consumer boxes. But that is not resulting in soft images. It does produce judder.

And this throws your whole argument out as well. If the picture is superior on HBO and Showtine, they too are sending out 1080i. So how is HDnet going to improve the sharpness by sending 24P. It's not.

The transfer is what it is. While enhancement and noise reduction could be done in the broadcast plant, it's most likely not. The equipment is very expensive. If there are differences and I agree there are, it's due to MPEG encoder differences. And those are not that significant IMO.

trbarry

11-26-05, 06:02 PM

What are you talking about here? No cable. DBS, or OTA station is sending out 24P. Never have. There are numerous complications with doing that in a dual standard plant, that is NTSC and ATSC, Furthermore many STB's won't accept 24P. I tried it on several boxes two years ago.

Glimmie -

I believe HBO, Showtime, and at least one NBC I've seen send 60i but using proper repeat flags for telecined movie material. This not only compresses better but is all that the inverse telecine of some boxes can handle. I was suggesting the possibility that Gary's decoder was like this and would assume interlace and do some sort of fuzzy deinterlacing if it did not recognize proper flags in the MPEG-2 material. I believe some DVD players also behave like this, as discussed in a couple of Secrets of Home Theater shoot outs a couple years ago.

- Tom

Glimmie

11-26-05, 06:29 PM

Glimmie -

I believe HBO, Showtime, and at least one NBC I've seen send 60i but using proper repeat flags for telecined movie material. This not only compresses better but is all that the inverse telecine of some boxes can handle. I was suggesting the possibility that Gary's decoder was like this and would assume interlace and do some sort of fuzzy deinterlacing if it did not recognize proper flags in the MPEG-2 material. I believe some DVD players also behave like this, as discussed in a couple of Secrets of Home Theater shoot outs a couple years ago.

- Tom

Well yes that's possible and is done. But the ATSC stream is still 60i. My is we won't ever see 24P transmission as long as NTSC is still around.

trbarry

11-26-05, 07:00 PM

My is we won't ever see 24P transmission as long as NTSC is still around.

I agree, assuming I'm parsing that statement correctly. ;) 24p doesn't play well with trying to mix in many different sources. But 60i (or 720 60p) with proper flags is sort of the universal solvent here for broadcasting.

- Tom

Darrin

11-26-05, 07:05 PM

What are you talking about here? No cable. DBS, or OTA station is sending out 24P. Never have.

Being in the industry, you have a great understanding how things in the hd world work. A lot of us don't....but....we know what we see and I can only assume it is somewhere in the delivery chain and NOT the transfer. There is an almost "uniform" look to most if not all of hdnet movies. While some absolutely look better then others, the "look" is very contrasty and just plain artificial looking.

Again, I just finished watching Harry Potter with the children (from the middle point
going back to last week). I have NEVER seen a 185:1 transfer shown on Hdnet movies that can come close to this movie!! Same thing for Showtime. I had NO desire to see the Ben Affleck movie, Paycheck. One day I was bored and watched it and was VERY impressed with the picture quality. The movie was entertaining but the pq was so good, I taped it. If the pq was consistent on hdnet movies, I probably would be taping a lot more:(

Although I can't wait for The Goonies. Btw, I'm not saying every single movie shown on HDNET looks BAD. Actually, NONE of them look bad, just not very good.

Amadeus looked fantastic and from the previews, so does Shakespeare in Love.

djdrock

11-26-05, 07:09 PM

We all keep looking for a answer but no one is replying :(

we are all here paying subscibers that are more than willing to help HDNet and offer feedback for them to further improve their channel and it's picture quality, sadly the critisism is not being accepted very well and the fact is that these issues are fairly easy to spot, validate and for that matter be corrected

Exactly! Come on HDNet...

To me, it seems that if it the fps were an issue at all, it would effect all movies, and movies like Casualties of War would not turn out good at all.

Gary Murrell

11-26-05, 07:36 PM

Plenty of folks agree here, so I am glad it is not just me :)

Of course Glimmie no provider is going to send 24p, I was merely saying that HDNet needs very badly to send out their product with telecine flags

I am trying to think of all the movies that I have seen on the various networks that have been on HDNet Movies also:

Wild Things
The Professional
Of Mice and Men
Fargo
Taxi Driver
Sling Blade
Shawshank Redemption
Flight of the Intruder
Home Fries
Crocodile Dundee II
Extreme Maasures(this is another classic example of Showtime Spanking HDNet)
Blue Steel
Days of Thunder
Carrie
The Big Town

lots of titles to compare between networks
plenty morealso, I just can't think of them right now :)

bottom line is that HDNet Movies without question has a mushy DNR look to everything that is shown on there, even the top notch showing's like: Casualties of War/Days of Thunder/Open Range/The Messenger

Many Many times I have much prefered my Scaled DVD version to the mushy garbage on HDNet, "The Terminator" from a year ago is a prime example of this

I have been going thru thousands of archived posts in this forum, I am amazed at the amount of threads about poor picture quality on HDNet Movies, I have heard "my DVD is better" hundreds of times

just give us a "We are going to look into this" HDNet

-Gary

Gary Murrell

11-26-05, 08:06 PM

and I have definitive proof of HDNets utter softness and DNR look and what I have failed to mention is a over saturation issue

this is not pretty, nor is the comparison :(

I have on the top a screen capture from a showing of "The Professional" from Guytv on Dish Network, this is the kicker, GuyTV is currently 1280x1080i on Dish Network with a 10 Mbps bitrate

next we have the recent showing of "The Professional" from HDNet Movies, of course they are full 1920x1080i, with bitrate of 17 Mbps(around 14/15 Mbps with the telecine flag issue)

GuyTV airing of "The Professional" 1280x1080i/10 Mbps Video
Http://home.bigsandybb.com/gmurrell/pro1280.bmp

HDNet Movies airing of "The Professional" 1920x1080i/15 Mbps Video
Http://home.bigsandybb.com/gmurrell/pro1920.bmp

This is mind blowing, a friggin HD-Lite 1280x1080i showing is spanking a full 1920x1080i showing on HDNet Movies :mad:

This difference is staggering, this is basically how much difference there is between identical titles on HDNet and HBO/Showtime, yes it is this drastic and this is what I have been speaking of

Save these to your desktop and open both at once in the windows paint, flash between each frame and the difference is very much so, this is what I see on my display

talk amongst yourselves :)

-Gary

GeorgeLV

11-26-05, 08:30 PM

Shakespeare in Love is by far the best transfer I've seen on HDNM. Unless D* has moved it to a different transponder, HDNM has definitely changed something for the better.

WiFi-Spy

11-26-05, 09:17 PM

Im betting Dish is at fault for this whole flame war ... everything I have seen from HD-Net movies on cable was/is allways really sharp.

I have some Qs for someone at HDnet .... how do you send the feeds to your providers? at what point is the bitrate set? do HDnet and HDnet movies get sent out the same way? at the same bitrate?

Matt_Stevens

11-26-05, 09:41 PM

THE PROFESSIONAL looked soft on my Adelphia cable feed, just like the cap above. It's an example of what some of us are seeing and wish we weren't.

trbarry

11-26-05, 09:46 PM

Gary -

It seems you have posted 960x540 pics and it is probably not possible to reasonably compare them after scaling. Could you post them again at full original rez?

(Note high quality jpeg probably is just as good but saves lots of space.)

- Tom

Art Sonneborn

11-26-05, 09:55 PM

Well you see the sad truth. Pretty much however you cut it ( comression, lower resolutiion, filtering) we are not getting HD really.

I just got Comcast so I could dispense with the blocking artifacts from bit starvation over DirecTV and it is nearly a sbad with my local comcast a sit is with DirecTV.

Art

Adam Tyner

11-26-05, 09:57 PM

Of course Glimmie no provider is going to send 24p, I was merely saying that HDNet needs very badly to send out their product with telecine flags

So when you said:

That is why I suggested that HDNet take a look at their transmission, if they would send out true 23.976 fps like HBO/Showtime they would smoke everyone no contest

they need to deliver 23.976 fps

...you didn't actually mean that they need to deliver 23.976 fps? :)

Just ribbing on you, though. I'm curious to see what the response to your comparison shots will be.

Gary Murrell

11-26-05, 10:17 PM

yes Adam what I meant was the whole telecine flag issue, I don't understand why everyone fills the need to take jabs at me when all I am trying to do is get everyone better picture quality

Art has a real mans display(a G90 Stack), we should all bow at his feet when he gives a report of picture quality :D

Tom let me get those true untouched/unscaled 1920x1080 caps up, I will try and get them up before my Wings game at 10:30

I can say that the difference is even worse on my display than these screen caps show

WIFI I would be willing to bet my 600$ Dish 942 that this is NOT in any way shape or form a Dish Network problem, I can gurantee that without question

-Gary

Gary Murrell

11-26-05, 10:29 PM

Also Wi-Fi please give us a report of what the video bitrate is with the latest movie you have recorded on HDNet

use tsreader lite to check, I would love to hear this info from you

-Gary

Darrin

11-27-05, 12:40 AM

Im betting Dish is at fault for this whole flame war ... everything I have seen from HD-Net movies on cable was/is allways really sharp.

I don't really see a flame war here but...

Anyways, I am looking at HDNET on CABLE and see the EXACT same thing many others are seeing. So that pretty much blows that theory out of the water.

Btw, I would be MUCH happier with the hdlite (VOOM) version of The Professional then the 1920x1080 HDNET version, because quite frankly...the latter is piss poor!

darinp2

11-27-05, 01:00 AM

Gary,

Can you get just a short clip of that piece from "The Professional" on GuyTV onto tape or into a .ts file? I could show both and WiFi-Spy could come over and we could do a comparison of each on a big screen at speed. I have a 720p DLP now, but I'm hoping to have a Sony Ruby (1080p SXRD) within about 3 weeks.

--Darin

Gary Murrell

11-27-05, 01:16 AM

guys I could send you some .ts clips as files on DVD-R's then you could send them to tape or etc.

the Guytv is 1280x1080i at around 11 Mbps video(telecine flags)
the HDNet is 1920x1080i at around 17 Mbps video(without telecine flags)

thats shows how truely pathetic things are that a 1280x1080i 11 Mbps version would beat a 1920x1080i 17 Mbps version and badly at that

-Gary

TVOD

11-27-05, 01:52 AM

It appears to me the primary difference between the 2 images of The Professional is vertical resolution which is 1080 format on both. Assuming these are from full resolution caps using both fields, there is obviously some vertical filtering - perhaps just line averaging - occurring somewhere on the HDNet image. If this problem is in the transmission downstream of HDNet, it would show up on the test images.

The large difference in color between the two images in the earlier post makes me wonder if HDNet processes some of the tapes they receive.

darinp2

11-27-05, 01:57 AM

guys I could send you some .ts clips as files on DVD-R's then you could send them to tape or etc.
I know of a site where you could probably send them and I'll send you a PM.

--Darin

Gary Murrell

11-27-05, 03:19 AM

TVOD:

the caps were insured to be the exact same frame

HDNet always has a much much lower greyscale in temp(meaning overly red) on all their movie's shown, I have noticed this in the past many many times and it is pretty consistent with every movie shown, look at how much more red the pavement is in the comparison caps
Shawshank is the same way, as is Sling Blade which is WWAAYY off (towards the red end)

It is a true shame that a 1280x1080i HD-Lite image is better than what HDNet sends out

That should be enough right there to let folks know that something is up and it needs to be addressed, when 1280x1080i movies(that aren't even true HDTV) are smoking HDNet something is wrong

Someone needs to get me this exact frame from the HBO showing, PM me if you have it and I will host it, or send me the small .ts section and I will cap the same frame using the procedure as these 2 caps

-Gary

Darrin

11-27-05, 09:02 AM

I think it's pretty obvious there is a problem and it's NOT people just "seeing what they want to see" as Marc tried to indicate. I am hoping that Marc checks back in on this thread and hopefully weighs in on some pretty strong evidence (the pix posted by Gary are pretty hard to refute, ESPECIALLY for Marc!).

This should be addressed, period. Either Marc know's what the problem may or may not be...or...he don't. Some of the stuff I watch on HDNET (not movies) looks mindblowingly good, there is no reason HDNET MOVIES should be any less.

VideoGrabber

11-27-05, 09:58 AM

Gary Murrell wrote:
> Wizziwig reported that the HDNet's are still sent thru untouched by e*, they have them placed on 1 8PSK transponder for those 2 channels, the bitrates are over 17 Mbps <

Thanks, Gary. However, just because e* is sending them out at (or close to) the rate they get them in, does NOT guarantee that they haven't done any processing to them.

> that(grain) is never seen on HDNet Movies, <

One of the things that diminishes the force of the points you're trying to make is that you love to speak in absolutes. For examples of film grain on HDNet Movies, see: The Company of Wolves, Mr. Saturday Night, and Every Which Way But Loose. If you can't see it there, then it's e* that has eliminated it. But I will agree with you that on a number of films that have aired recently where I would have expected to see it, it wasn't there.

> Sadly I am not the only one seeing these problems, there are many others and there are plenty folks PM'ing me about this same issue <

Good info to have. Do they also have e*, or are there cable-co viewers with unmolested feeds amongst the group of those complaining? Ah, Matt has cable (thanks for jumping in, Matt)... so it's not exclusive to e*.

> there is no bias here from me either, I want HDNet Movies to be the best looking network out there and I am complaining(along with others) in this thread to try and get HDNet to look into some small issues that would make them the best <

That's cool, and I share the sentiment. I have no doubt of your sincerity. One problem I have though is none of the WiFi-Spy posted frame grabs support your observations.

Matt commented:
> THE PROFESSIONAL was on last night. I switched from it to my old HBO recording and there was a clear difference. It wasn't a bias on my part. The HDNet version was simply softer. <

Was the airing on HBO at 2.35, or 1.78? The reason I ask is because I was checking out Flight of the Phoenix the other night on HBO, looking closely to see what extra detail they might have beyond what HDNet Movies was delivering, and observed during the lead-in portion with the credits, actors, etc. that there was no really sharp-edged detail. (I.e., it all looked just a tad soft, even from 1' away on a 24" monitor that can resolve 2304 horizontal.) But as soon as they transitioned into the movie proper, they did their usual hack and slash zoom job to a 1.78 AR (33% zoom), and suddenly there was the film grain and "detail".

Comparisons with Showtime usually won't have this problem (OAR preserved), but HBO and Cinemax frequently will (i.e., comparing apples & oranges).

"Originally Posted by Gary Murrell:"
> Watching "The Professional" last night was not a good HD experience, I would prefer to slap in my Superbit DVD, as it looks much better using SDI>Iscan HD scaler <

I'll just mention that I pulled my copy of The Professional from HDNet Movies that aired last December, and it looked the same as what was airing the other night.

Darrin added:
> I just finished watching Harry Potter with the children (from the middle point going back to last week). I have NEVER seen a 185:1 transfer shown on Hdnet movies that can come close to this movie!! <

Was that the Azkaban episode that's currently airing on HBO? If so, you need to keep in mind that the OAR on that was 2.35, and HBO cropped it to 1.78 (OTOH, Potter 1 and 2 were open matte). In those situations, you will always see more "sharpness" and film grain, because they've zoomed in.

Back to Gary:
> Plenty of folks agree here, so I am glad it is not just me <

Of course, that doesn't make any of you right. ;) Or wrong, for that matter.

> I am trying to think of all the movies that I have seen on the various networks that have been on HDNet Movies also... <

LOTS of stuff that aired on Showtime has later appeared on HDNet Movies, during the last year. I know when Thunderheart (1992, Val Kilmer) appeared on HDNet Movies, I checked it out hoping it might be OAR (1.85), vs. the 1.78 that aired on HBO previously. Both were the same AR, and they both looked essentially identical.

Ah, just got down as far as Gary's comparison shots. Yay! :) Well done (other than the fact that they're quarter-frame. Also, I had to trim about 12 scan lines off the top of the HDNM to make them "flippably comparable"). There is definitely more detail in the GuyTV shot, though some of the increase in apparent sharpness comes from factors other than actual detail. I.e., there's also more contrast, and some edge-enhancement visible if you zoom in 3x. Check out the subtle ghosting around the word Diner. But I'm really surprised no one has pointed out the diagonal arm holding up the stop light. Boy does that look ratchety on GuyTV. :eek: Or the stair-stepped cross-walk painted lines. I.e., some is artificial sharpness that fools the eye into thinking there's more detail... but not all of it. There is some legitimate detail in the GuyTV shot that's missing from the HDNM, possibly due to vertical filtering for 1080i?

It is a little hard to compare though, considering that Dishes' 1280 signal gets upscaled to 1920 in the box, then you've down-scaled it to 960; vs. the HDNM that starts at 1920 and then halved. And BTW, I can get almost (but not quite) the same "detailed" look in the HDNM shot after scaling back to 1920, by applying an appropriate amount of sharpening in IrfanView, which boosts contrast and hardens edges.

> Art has a real mans display(a G90 Stack), we should all bow at his feet when he gives a report of picture quality <

All Art has said is that d* and his local Comcast feed both suck. :) Nothing specific to HDNM.

> I don't understand why everyone fills the need to take jabs at me when all I am trying to do is get everyone better picture quality <

Hang in there Gary... we're just trying to temper some of your more extreme comments. Better PQ is what we're all looking for.

> this is NOT in any way shape or form a Dish Network problem, I can gurantee that without question <

And there you go again. It might not be an e* problem, but you can't guarantee that.

TVOD commented:
> Assuming these are from full resolution caps using both fields, there is obviously some vertical filtering <

Yes, that's what I was thinking as well.

And one last comment from Gary:
> Someone needs to get me this exact frame from the HBO showing <

Did the HBO showing air at 2.35 OAR? Because if not, then there's no validity in comparing a zoomed 1.78 version with an inevitably softer 2.35 original.

- Tim (whew! that was fun) :D (should have tackled it piecemeal)

Darrin

11-27-05, 10:29 AM

[QUOTE=VideoGrabber]> Sadly I am not the only one seeing these problems, there are many others and there are plenty folks PM'ing me about this same issue <

Good info to have. Do they also have e*, or are there cable-co viewers with unmolested feeds amongst the group of those complaining? Ah, Matt has cable (thanks for jumping in, Matt)... so it's not exclusive to e*.

Well, add me to the list of cable people who absolutely see what Gary is seeing.

Matt commented:
> THE PROFESSIONAL was on last night. I switched from it to my old HBO recording and there was a clear difference. It wasn't a bias on my part. The HDNet version was simply softer. <

Was the airing on HBO at 2.35, or 1.78? The reason I ask is because I was checking out Flight of the Phoenix the other night on HBO, looking closely to see what extra detail they might have beyond what HDNet Movies was delivering, and observed during the lead-in portion with the credits, actors, etc. that there was no really sharp-edged detail. (I.e., it all looked just a tad soft, even from 1' away on a 24" monitor that can resolve 2304 horizontal.) But as soon as they transitioned into the movie proper, they did their usual hack and slash zoom job to a 1.78 AR (33% zoom), and suddenly there was the film grain and "detail".

The Professional was one of the few exceptions aired on HBO in 235:1.

Darrin added:
> I just finished watching Harry Potter with the children (from the middle point going back to last week). I have NEVER seen a 185:1 transfer shown on Hdnet movies that can come close to this movie!! <

Was that the Azkaban episode that's currently airing on HBO? If so, you need to keep in mind that the OAR on that was 2.35, and HBO cropped it to 1.78 (OTOH, Potter 1 and 2 were open matte). In those situations, you will always see more "sharpness" and film grain, because they've zoomed in.

No, the film was open matte. No crop/zoom going on there.

VideoGrabber

11-27-05, 10:59 AM

Darrin wrote:
> Either Marc know's what the problem may or may not be...or...he don't. <

You might want to get the man's name right (it's Mark). ;) And there's no reason the president of the company would need to be familiar with all the nitty-gritty technical details. Glenn Valenta (Sr. Engineer) or Glenn Moore (Tech. Mgr. Broadcast Center) might be more appropriate folks to contact, but I'm not about to bother them until we have something more definitive to present.

> Some of the stuff I watch on HDNET (not movies) looks mindblowingly good, there is no reason HDNET MOVIES should be any less. <

Whoops! There you go with the biggest fallacy right there. That telecined film can and/or should look as crisp and sharp as the video-sourced material on HDNet. It ain't gonna happen (in most cases), and there is a good reason that HDNM will be less.

Those are comments that the folks at HDN have heard many times, I'm sure, and if that's what you're looking for or expecting, then your comments will be dismissed out of hand (because your expectations are unrealistic). What Gary (and Matt, and others) are trying to pitch though is that the same films aired from different sources, at the same ARs, are softer on HDNM than the competition. If we can demonstrate that, and eliminate other variables like potential processing by e*, then I suspect the tech. team at HDN will be all ears (or at least willing to listen, and perhaps offer some explanation).

> Well, add me to the list of cable people who absolutely see what Gary is seeing. <

It would be more useful if you could add what cable system and region being served.

> The Professional was one of the few exceptions aired on HBO in 235:1. <

Thanks! Actually, HBO has aired quite a few films in 2.35 OAR, in a certain range of dates originally processed (or depending on requirements from certain studios), in spite of their preference for 1.78. Glad to hear that Leon: The Professional was one of them.

> No, the film was open matte. No crop/zoom going on there. <

Are you sure about that? If I get a chance, I'll try and confirm it one way or the other, but I had it in my notes from someone here in the Forum that Azkaban was not open matte, and "badly cropped". I'd be really happy to discover that was not true. Like I said, I'll try and check, but it'll probably be a day or two before I can get around to it.

- Tim

TVOD

11-27-05, 12:06 PM

There is definitely more detail in the GuyTV shot, though some of the increase in apparent sharpness comes from factors other than actual detail. I.e., there's also more contrast, and some edge-enhancement visible if you zoom in 3x.I wonder if HDNet considered this transfer too enhanced and used a filter to reduce this effect. I've done that on projects, and the trick is to reduce mid frequency peaking while maintaining the high frequency levels. HDNet always has a much much lower greyscale in temp(meaning overly red) on all their movie's shown, I have noticed this in the past many many times and it is pretty consistent with every movie shown, look at how much more red the pavement is in the comparison caps
Shawshank is the same way, as is Sling Blade which is WWAAYY off (towards the red end)6500k is the standard that I think everyone uses for video transfer. I've seen colorists that just add lots of red gamma (technically a lower gamma value) to overly warm everything. If the color on the HDNet is significantly different than the same transfer on another network, then this could indicate that HDNet is altering the look of some of the delivered tapes. The difference in sharpness would appear to support that.

This seems to be on a show by show basis. The example above from Showtime looked a bit anemic, so maybe HDNet felt a need to "punch it up" a bit. On the other hand, the Cinemax example looked chromatic, so perhaps in this case HDNet didn't feel a need to alter it.

Marc Alexander

11-27-05, 12:13 PM

I'm not convinced HDNet is doing anything to affect the PQ. All of the differences I've seen in the past can be attributed to different TRANSFERs.

Re: SHAWSHANK - The differences between the HDNet and SHOW versions are the same differences between the DVD versions - http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5985149&&#post5985149

I have found some transfers to be identical between HDNet vs. SHOWTIME and VOOM. FARGO being the most recent.

I think the source of their transfers is what should be in question. This is likely where the DNR is being applied (I have noticed a lack of grain on HDNet).

Gary Murrell

11-27-05, 01:59 PM

I am sorry Tim but I capture the movies exactly how Dish Network send them out, the r5000-hd grabs exactly what Dish is sending out, no conversion of 1280 to 1920 before the capture, to understand this capture device one can understand that all set top box's and anything in the chain as far as variables are removed 100%

the reason guytv has artifacts is the 1280x1080i delivery of Dish Network(down rezzing from 1920x1080i)

This is getting stupid, time and time again folks from cable are chiming in and saying they are seeing the same exact thing, but yet again this has gotten back around, "oh it's a E* issue"

I am sorry but this is dead wrong

We are also not comparing zoomed in prints of one channel and OAR on others, that would be stupid wouldn't it??

there are plenty of us on here from many different providers that are all Cappers that get our captures exactly how providers send them out, there are no set top box or display variables when one captures these movies onto d-vhs or pc(they are just files, that cannot be altered by hardware no matter what the capture device is), to understand this hobby is to understand the pure nature of our capturing

Someone from CABLE that has a capture of "Sling Blade" from HDNet Movies please post a screen shot

heck post some screen shots of whatever you want so we can compare providers

this is funny me(and others) trying to plead our case, if we had everyone in a room with a display like Art's G90 stack we could pretty much eliminate all doubts in about 5 mins.

-Gary

Glimmie

11-27-05, 02:14 PM

I'm not convinced HDNet is doing anything to affect the PQ. All of the differences I've seen in the past can be attributed to different TRANSFERs.

Absolutly! In most cases these are the same exact transfer. A typical feature transfer costs $80K. The studios pay for it and keep the digital master dubs on the shelf for rental to program suppliers. So it's the same image quality being delivered to the program distributors.

And I think we are also seeing differences in MPEG encoders. The last time I read about it a few years ago HDnet was sending out 19.3 ATSC from their broadcast center. In fact their whole plant was based on MPEG2 even using an MPEG2 server. This is not very commen but is very cost effective for a small operation. HBO and Showtime at least run baseband video and compress only on the feed. They may be sending 45mbs which is pretty standard for closed loop transmissions. In any case it gets converted to MPEG2 someplace. Dish and DirecTV may actually be decoding to baseband video and re-encoding. In this case a higher intermediate bit rate will result in higher end quality. The threads here pointing out some channels are 1280x1080 would require decoding to baseband video and re-encoding.

Keep in mind HBO/Showtime/Dish/DirecTV are deep pocket companies with generous engineering budgets. They have probably upgraded their transmission encoders many times since 1999. While Mark Cuban may be very wealthy personally, he proabaly doesn't have the resources to do this on a service that is probably losing money.

So just keep it up! He just may get discouraged enough to shut it down!

trbarry

11-27-05, 03:22 PM

So just keep it up! He just may get discouraged enough to shut it down!

Well, Mark can easily speak for himself here if he chooses but I don't think he got where he is by being a quitter. So I'd be very surprised if he gave up because a bunch of guys bitched in a forum thread. And if we actually come up with any compelling evidence and some specific reasons there is a problem I'll bet they get fixed.

Did anybody ever post a full rez unscaled comparison that shows a problem yet? Did I miss it above somewhere? And I'd dearly love to see about a 30 second matched pair of captured transport streams with an obvious problem if there's any way to get them.

The only thing I could really tell from those qtr rez pics was that HDNet seemed to have a bit less contrast, not really any lower resolution otherwise though that obviously effects MTF. But I'm not sure and can't rule out scaling effects.

- Tom

Gary Murrell

11-27-05, 04:03 PM

I would love to host up many actual .TS examples, but I do not have the capability to do that, I guess I could send out the .ts files to everyone on DVD-R

but then all I would get is that this is a E* issue

I want to hear from cable folks that know for a fact that their provider sends thru everything UNTOUCHED, I want to hear what the bitrate is on HDNet Movies from those folks, use TSReader Lite

I desperatly want these issues corrected on HDNet Movies as they ARE the best network out there

If my screenshots are not trusted someone post and tell me exactly how they want me to take the screen grabs, what program to use?? certain scenes in films??

All I want to do is help and get to the bottom of these issues, I think that Glimmie has hit the nail on the head about these issues

I can say that I fill that this is not a transfer issue(Studios do not have multiple HD masters laying around) and I can with (99% certainty) say that this is NOT a Dish Network issue, too many other folks are seeing the same on other providers

Like I said above someone from cable needs to give video bitrate readings of HDNet Movies, if Dish Network's differ, I will know for ONE that they are recompressing(just like they do with the vastly superior HBO/Showtime)

-Gary

TVOD

11-27-05, 04:04 PM

Absolutly! In most cases these are the same exact transfer. A typical feature transfer costs $80K. The studios pay for it and keep the digital master dubs on the shelf for rental to program suppliers. So it's the same image quality being delivered to the program distributors.Not to mention the framing exactly matches - something that typically doesn't happen between different transfers. This is why I'm wondering if HDNet is doing some processing on their own.

If it's an mpeg encoder difference, then that would not explain why some HDNet material exactly matches other networks. Mpeg encoders have improved, but the PQ changes are more subtle. The biggest improvement from the early encoders is size and power consumption - the original ones were huge. If HDNet is using Mpeg servers, then it would only require upgrading the ingest encoder, which run about $50K. That's less than 1 HD tape machine.

darinp2

11-27-05, 04:29 PM

I would love to host up many actual .TS examples, but I do not have the capability to do that, I guess I could send out the .ts files to everyone on DVD-R

but then all I would get is that this is a E* issue

I want to hear from cable folks that know for a fact that their provider sends thru everything UNTOUCHED, I want to hear what the bitrate is on HDNet Movies from those folks, use TSReader Lite
I believe I can get a clip out of "The Professional" from somebody who could get it off cable. If you post a small .ts file with www.yousendit.com then it will give the person you send it to (and yourself if you include an email address you can access) a link to get the file. Then you could just give somebody else that link and they could download the file also. No need to post it to www.yousendit.com more than once that way. I don't know what would happen if you gave a ton of people the link and they went to download the file, but I've had at least 2 people download the same file that I posted there.

--Darin

Darrin

11-27-05, 07:12 PM

I believe I can get a clip out of "The Professional" from somebody who could get it off cable. If you post a small .ts file with www.yousendit.com then it will give the person you send it to (and yourself if you include an email address you can access) a link to get the file. Then you could just give somebody else that link and they could download the file also. No need to post it to www.yousendit.com more than once that way. I don't know what would happen if you gave a ton of people the link and they went to download the file, but I've had at least 2 people download the same file that I posted there.

--Darin

Let me know if you want me to upload a clip capped from cable.

Darrin

11-27-05, 07:26 PM

"You might want to get the man's name right (it's Mark). ;) And there's no reason the president of the company would need to be familiar with all the nitty-gritty technical details. Glenn Valenta (Sr. Engineer) or Glenn Moore (Tech. Mgr. Broadcast Center) might be more appropriate folks to contact, but I'm not about to bother them until we have something more definitive to present."

Umm...ok. Actually, I think there is EVERY reason the president of this particular company would be familiar with how his network delivers content. Just check out Mark's (NOT Marc's) blog (http://www.blogmaverick.com), and you will see he is a very tech savy guy.

> Some of the stuff I watch on HDNET (not movies) looks mindblowingly good, there is no reason HDNET MOVIES should be any less. <

"Whoops! There you go with the biggest fallacy right there. That telecined film can and/or should look as crisp and sharp as the video-sourced material on HDNet. It ain't gonna happen (in most cases), and there is a good reason that HDNM will be less.

Those are comments that the folks at HDN have heard many times, I'm sure, and if that's what you're looking for or expecting, then your comments will be dismissed out of hand (because your expectations are unrealistic). What Gary (and Matt, and others) are trying to pitch though is that the same films aired from different sources, at the same ARs, are softer on HDNM than the competition. If we can demonstrate that, and eliminate other variables like potential processing by e*, then I suspect the tech. team at HDN will be all ears (or at least willing to listen, and perhaps offer some explanation)."

This reminds me of the old addage " Some people just talk to hear themselves talk". I guess I should have specified FILM based material. If you watch HDNET, you will see quite a bit.

> Well, add me to the list of cable people who absolutely see what Gary is seeing. <

It would be more useful if you could add what cable system and region being served.

> The Professional was one of the few exceptions aired on HBO in 235:1. <

Thanks! Actually, HBO has aired quite a few films in 2.35 OAR, in a certain range of dates originally processed (or depending on requirements from certain studios), in spite of their preference for 1.78. Glad to hear that Leon: The Professional was one of them.

> No, the film was open matte. No crop/zoom going on there. <

"Are you sure about that? If I get a chance, I'll try and confirm it one way or the other, but I had it in my notes from someone here in the Forum that Azkaban was not open matte, and "badly cropped". I'd be really happy to discover that was not true. Like I said, I'll try and check, but it'll probably be a day or two before I can get around to it."

I was mistaken as this film was in fact NOT an open matte. Being such an advocate of oar, you think I wouldn't have made that mistake;) Still, very good quality for a crop job. Ok, I will replace that film with Meet the Fockers (or even Spanglish) as films I have recently seen that have outstanding PQ that HDNETM can't even come close to.
- Tim[/QUOTE]

Marc Alexander

11-27-05, 07:32 PM

I can say that I fill that this is not a transfer issue(Studios do not have multiple HD masters laying around) and I can with (99% certainty) say that this is NOT a Dish Network issue, too many other folks are seeing the same on other providers

I have to disagree, as evidenced with SHAWSHANK there are definitely multiple HD transfers titles. New HD transfers often coincide with new DVD releases. I have also seen differing transfers between the premium channels and D-Theater titles.

Marc Alexander

11-27-05, 07:34 PM

Since I believe FARGO to have used the same transfer on both SHOW and HDNet, perhaps that is the title you should use to prove HDNet is doing something additional to the transfers they are provided.

Darrin

11-27-05, 07:39 PM

Since I believe FARGO to have used the same transfer on both SHOW and HDNet, perhaps that is the title you should use to prove HDNet is doing something additional to the transfers they are provided.

Well, personally I can't comment on this since I never saw the Shotime version but I did watch the HDNETM version. For what it's worth, I thought the pq was quite good.

Gary Murrell

11-27-05, 08:24 PM

The Showtime Fargo looked the same as HDNet only there was that slight film grain on the Showtime airing and the slight extra detail that HDNet is missing

but the HDNet airing faired very very well, it was just softer

I must add one more thing, when someone says that HD movie material will never look as good as HD camera material I tend to think there something is a miss in what films they have been viewing or their provider or something else

No HD Cam material has or ever will come close to a good HD print of a top notch film movie, D-Theater D-VHS shows this be be very evident, No HD cam material will ever get close to "Alien" or "The Mummy" or "I Robot", these are all top notch prints that have the most amazing HDTV picture quality that has ever been witnessed

many many films on Showtime and HBO have that same quality, "Starship Troopers" from Showtime is the best HD image I have ever seen, It is friggin mind blowing

No film that has ever been shown on HDNet has that snap too it like D-Theater and many many titles on HBO/Showtime

Just recently on HBO was "City by the Sea", now that is a HD picture :)

-Gary

Paul Bigelow

11-27-05, 08:50 PM

Funny Face (1957) has an odd look to it. It's almost as if someone has incorporated a judicious amout of noise reduiction giving the picture a blurry, processed image.

Paul

Gary Murrell

11-27-05, 09:16 PM

Yes I noticed that one today also Paul

IMO that is my main complaint with HDNet Movies, every film shown has this look in various degrees, some being very slight(Casualties of War) others being horrid(Sling Blade)

-Gary

WiFi-Spy

11-27-05, 09:26 PM

post a full res screen shot of sling blade

Gary Murrell

11-27-05, 10:37 PM

I have Sling Blade from HBO

problem is that I have not taken captures in a long time and some how I am not having any luck with them anymore :(

does anyone know a free program that will take a full resolution screen capture from a .ts file

sadly everything seems broken on my PC, I was lucky to get those Professional caps

-Gary

Clarence

11-28-05, 07:38 AM

does anyone know a free program that will take a full resolution screen capture from a .ts fileI use http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ for ts screen captures

Gary Murrell

11-28-05, 12:52 PM

Good old VLC, I never even thought to use that

thanks Clarence

-Gary

Matt_Stevens

11-28-05, 01:02 PM

I watched THUNDERHEART recorded from I think Showtime the other night. What an incredible transfer. Very nice. I wonder how it compares to what was shown on HDNet Movies.

Gary Murrell

11-28-05, 03:55 PM

I forgot about Thunderheart, I actually have it from HBO, used to have it from HDNet movies

I remember Thunderheart looking very well on HDNet but don't have it anymore to do a direct comparison to my HBO version

-Gary

JohnFR

11-28-05, 09:29 PM

Gary, I don't know if you have checked the output of your Dish receiver, but I have the old Dish 6000 and the black levels from component output are wrong. The pic is too bright and there's no real compensating for it. Makes the pic look softer and flat because the blacks aren't "black."

GeorgeLV

11-28-05, 09:37 PM

Gary Murrell

11-28-05, 09:57 PM

John I remember the 6000 oh to well, it's component output is spanked by the new 942 receiver and the MyHD card

I capture the raw transport streams and have played them back on a host of devices, the best decoder I have ever seen is in the JVC 5u D-VHS deck, the 5u shows what a HD picture truely is, trash or treasure
the MyHD is very good also but has some brightness and chroma issues

I have even compared these HDTV movies piping them into my Mitsubishi 65813 via firewire, it's internal decoder is top notch also

-Gary

WiFi-Spy

11-28-05, 11:34 PM

I have found some transfers to be identical between HDNet vs. SHOWTIME and VOOM. FARGO being the most recent.

I think the source of their transfers is what should be in question. This is likely where the DNR is being applied (I have noticed a lack of grain on HDNet).

just look at the Days Of Thunder pics I post a page back.... allmost exactly the same on HDnet and Cinemax via cable.

WiFi-Spy

11-28-05, 11:35 PM

Gary Murrell

11-29-05, 01:15 AM

Look at the name on Robert's gear just at the bottom of the frame, on the cinemax grab is is slightly sharper, setup the pics where you can swap between with one click of the mouse, it is subtle but the Cinemax is slightly sharper, the black letters are a little more blurry on the HDNet grab

also the Chevy logo(and it's black border), look at the fine piece's of fuzz on the Cinemax grab, they are more blurry on the HDNet grab

and again look at the grey background between Robert and the other crew members(mainly right under the bill of Roberts cap), the Cinemax shows more grain, the HDNet looks slightly mushy with less grain visible

subtle things but they are there none the less

but boy I wish everything on HDNet was this close, Days of Thunder is the cream of the crop from HDNet

I wish I had access to more titles aired on multiple networks, I would love to post a bunch of grabs to prove our point's

-Gary

HDTVFanAtic

11-29-05, 01:29 AM

dr1394

11-29-05, 02:59 AM

While I agree this is not a E* issue, it should be noted that E* is doing something to the HDNET Movies feed. While I have great respect for Ron/dr1394 and he is the source of stating that E* and Cable are feeds are identical, the video rate comes in around 17.05Mbps for E* and 17.15Mbps for cable. Thus, while close, they are not identical. If you follow the other threads, all my posts questioning how "identical bit for bit" files and still have .10-.12Mbps differences in bitrate have gone unanswered. I have many examples of the same clips from E* and Cable that all follow this path.

It would be wise not to state that E* is passing the signal unaltered - as that can be proven false. However, what you are seeing is clearly bigger than what E* is doing.
The files you sent me from E* and cable were (except for the GOP timecodes) bit for bit identical. What more is there to say? Just because TSReader reports a slightly different bitrate is meaningless. Here's the output of the DOS utility FC (File Compare) on the bitstreams you sent me. The first part is the occurance of the first few GOP timecode difference in the binary MPEG-2 video files. The second part is the same GOP timecode differences in textual format.

Comparing files dish.mpv and CABLE.MPV
0000005C: DA AF
0000005D: 78 69
0000005E: 87 A0
0000005F: 00 80
00108D98: DA AF
00108D99: 78 69
00108D9A: 8E A8
00108D9B: 80 00
00225FCC: DA AF
00225FCD: 78 69
00225FCE: A7 C0
00225FCF: 00 80
00320738: DA AF
00320739: 78 69
0032073A: AE C8
0032073B: 80 00
0042D2DC: DA AF
0042D2DD: 78 69
0042D2DE: C7 E0
0042D2DF: 00 80
005158B4: DA AF
005158B5: 78 69
005158B6: CD E6
005158B7: 00 80
0062DC60: DA AF
0062DC61: 78 69
0062DC62: E5 EE
0062DC63: 80 00
0071DC2C: DA AF
0071DC2D: 78 6A
0071DC2E: ED 06
0071DC2F: 00 80

Comparing files dish.txt and CABLE.TXT
***** dish.txt
* -------- GOP Start Code at 88 ---------
* Open GOP at 22:39:04.14 drop flag: 1
* Using VBR VBV model.
***** CABLE.TXT
* -------- GOP Start Code at 88 ---------
* Open GOP at 11:54:13.01 drop flag: 1
* Using VBR VBV model.
*****

***** dish.txt
* -------- GOP Start Code at 1084820 ---------
* Open GOP at 22:39:04.29 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 338784 bits VBV after decoding: 7656608 bits
***** CABLE.TXT
* -------- GOP Start Code at 1084820 ---------
* Open GOP at 11:54:13.16 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 338784 bits VBV after decoding: 7656608 bits
*****

***** dish.txt
* -------- GOP Start Code at 2252744 ---------
* Open GOP at 22:39:05.14 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 440928 bits VBV after decoding: 7554464 bits
***** CABLE.TXT
* -------- GOP Start Code at 2252744 ---------
* Open GOP at 11:54:14.01 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 440928 bits VBV after decoding: 7554464 bits
*****

***** dish.txt
* -------- GOP Start Code at 3278644 ---------
* Open GOP at 22:39:05.29 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 511584 bits VBV after decoding: 7483808 bits
***** CABLE.TXT
* -------- GOP Start Code at 3278644 ---------
* Open GOP at 11:54:14.16 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 511584 bits VBV after decoding: 7483808 bits
*****

***** dish.txt
* -------- GOP Start Code at 4379352 ---------
* Open GOP at 22:39:06.14 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 381536 bits VBV after decoding: 7613856 bits
***** CABLE.TXT
* -------- GOP Start Code at 4379352 ---------
* Open GOP at 11:54:15.01 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 381536 bits VBV after decoding: 7613856 bits
*****

***** dish.txt
* -------- GOP Start Code at 5331120 ---------
* Open GOP at 22:39:06.26 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 432608 bits VBV after decoding: 7562784 bits
***** CABLE.TXT
* -------- GOP Start Code at 5331120 ---------
* Open GOP at 11:54:15.13 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 432608 bits VBV after decoding: 7562784 bits
*****

***** dish.txt
* -------- GOP Start Code at 6478940 ---------
* Open GOP at 22:39:07.11 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 353952 bits VBV after decoding: 7641440 bits
***** CABLE.TXT
* -------- GOP Start Code at 6478940 ---------
* Open GOP at 11:54:15.28 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 353952 bits VBV after decoding: 7641440 bits
*****

***** dish.txt
* -------- GOP Start Code at 7461928 ---------
* Open GOP at 22:39:07.26 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 487904 bits VBV after decoding: 7507488 bits
***** CABLE.TXT
* -------- GOP Start Code at 7461928 ---------
* Open GOP at 11:54:16.13 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 487904 bits VBV after decoding: 7507488 bits
*****

Let's put this one to rest. E* does not alter the bitstream from HDNet.

Ron

VideoGrabber

11-29-05, 03:39 AM

dr1394 wrote:
> Let's put this one to rest. E* does not alter the bitstream from HDNet. <

Thanks, Ron! It doesn't get any more definitive than that. That's one (important) potential variable eliminated. (And thanks! too, to whomever [HDTVFanAtic?] provided the comparison caps.)

So that leaves only transfers, and HDNM processing to account for differences between airings on other services (HBO, SHO, MAX). IMO, that will break down into two categories: gross differences, that Gary's been highly critical of, from different transfers; and quite subtle differences, like the Days of Thunder cap examples, which are due to HDNM processing choices (or gear).

In the later case, HDNet engineering might be persuaded to make some changes that would allow them to regain their "edge" (so to speak), which is probably minor vertical filtering. Or possibly some component in the signal processing chain that's the "weak link". But that's the lesser of the two issues.

The former case is more difficult, as it involves either switching sources, or having whoever does their transfers step up the quality, once they're made aware that (discriminating) viewers can tell the difference. Alternately (and this doesn't seem too likely), HDNM is making setting choices on a per film basis, and adjusting to provide what looks to them like the best parameters for each film.

- Tim

Gary Murrell

11-29-05, 12:28 PM

We are finally getting somewhere here

Thanks Dr.(Ron) for that report, E* has now been eliminated as my so called Variable that I had been claiming wasn't one for days on end

if HDNet would take a simple look into their chain, I think they could greatly improve picture quality, Discovery HD Theater did this a few months back and things got MUCH better

you know I was just thinking that the other day, The transfers look like filtering is being used, that or DNR, HDNet says no DNR is being used and I would probably agree with that

they also need to address the telecine flag issues

Is anyone technical from HDNet reading this??

I am not going to give up on you guys, HDNet is the best network and their picture quality needs to match their very high standards

Ron may I ask ??
where are the errors coming from in the E* transmission of HDNet Movies ?

there are usually one every 30 mins or so and they are major enough to trip up all decoders except the one's in the Dish receivers

-Gary

TVOD

11-29-05, 12:42 PM

It looks to me that Cinemax image has slightly more mid frequencies. The left background gray area has more grain on Cinemax, while Hdnet has more grain in the gray area on the right. The left dark area of the face on HDNet has a tiny bit more detail and grain than Cinemax.

I would say these are subtle mpeg encoding differences. Based on the static images, the HDNet image looks slightly flatter in response - the grain in the Cinemax image seems to have more of a mid frequency feel to it. OTH, a moving image might be different.

HDTVFanAtic

11-30-05, 12:23 AM

The files you sent me from E* and cable were (except for the GOP timecodes) bit for bit identical. What more is there to say? Just because TSReader reports a slightly different bitrate is meaningless. Here's the output of the DOS utility FC (File Compare) on the bitstreams you sent me. The first part is the occurance of the first few GOP timecode difference in the binary MPEG-2 video files. The second part is the same GOP timecode differences in textual format.

Comparing files dish.mpv and CABLE.MPV
0000005C: DA AF
0000005D: 78 69
0000005E: 87 A0
0000005F: 00 80
00108D98: DA AF
00108D99: 78 69
00108D9A: 8E A8
00108D9B: 80 00
00225FCC: DA AF
00225FCD: 78 69
00225FCE: A7 C0
00225FCF: 00 80
00320738: DA AF
00320739: 78 69
0032073A: AE C8
0032073B: 80 00
0042D2DC: DA AF
0042D2DD: 78 69
0042D2DE: C7 E0
0042D2DF: 00 80
005158B4: DA AF
005158B5: 78 69
005158B6: CD E6
005158B7: 00 80
0062DC60: DA AF
0062DC61: 78 69
0062DC62: E5 EE
0062DC63: 80 00
0071DC2C: DA AF
0071DC2D: 78 6A
0071DC2E: ED 06
0071DC2F: 00 80

Comparing files dish.txt and CABLE.TXT
***** dish.txt
* -------- GOP Start Code at 88 ---------
* Open GOP at 22:39:04.14 drop flag: 1
* Using VBR VBV model.
***** CABLE.TXT
* -------- GOP Start Code at 88 ---------
* Open GOP at 11:54:13.01 drop flag: 1
* Using VBR VBV model.
*****

***** dish.txt
* -------- GOP Start Code at 1084820 ---------
* Open GOP at 22:39:04.29 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 338784 bits VBV after decoding: 7656608 bits
***** CABLE.TXT
* -------- GOP Start Code at 1084820 ---------
* Open GOP at 11:54:13.16 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 338784 bits VBV after decoding: 7656608 bits
*****

***** dish.txt
* -------- GOP Start Code at 2252744 ---------
* Open GOP at 22:39:05.14 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 440928 bits VBV after decoding: 7554464 bits
***** CABLE.TXT
* -------- GOP Start Code at 2252744 ---------
* Open GOP at 11:54:14.01 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 440928 bits VBV after decoding: 7554464 bits
*****

***** dish.txt
* -------- GOP Start Code at 3278644 ---------
* Open GOP at 22:39:05.29 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 511584 bits VBV after decoding: 7483808 bits
***** CABLE.TXT
* -------- GOP Start Code at 3278644 ---------
* Open GOP at 11:54:14.16 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 511584 bits VBV after decoding: 7483808 bits
*****

***** dish.txt
* -------- GOP Start Code at 4379352 ---------
* Open GOP at 22:39:06.14 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 381536 bits VBV after decoding: 7613856 bits
***** CABLE.TXT
* -------- GOP Start Code at 4379352 ---------
* Open GOP at 11:54:15.01 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 381536 bits VBV after decoding: 7613856 bits
*****

***** dish.txt
* -------- GOP Start Code at 5331120 ---------
* Open GOP at 22:39:06.26 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 432608 bits VBV after decoding: 7562784 bits
***** CABLE.TXT
* -------- GOP Start Code at 5331120 ---------
* Open GOP at 11:54:15.13 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 432608 bits VBV after decoding: 7562784 bits
*****

***** dish.txt
* -------- GOP Start Code at 6478940 ---------
* Open GOP at 22:39:07.11 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 353952 bits VBV after decoding: 7641440 bits
***** CABLE.TXT
* -------- GOP Start Code at 6478940 ---------
* Open GOP at 11:54:15.28 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 353952 bits VBV after decoding: 7641440 bits
*****

***** dish.txt
* -------- GOP Start Code at 7461928 ---------
* Open GOP at 22:39:07.26 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 487904 bits VBV after decoding: 7507488 bits
***** CABLE.TXT
* -------- GOP Start Code at 7461928 ---------
* Open GOP at 11:54:16.13 drop flag: 1
* Picture: 487904 bits VBV after decoding: 7507488 bits
*****

Let's put this one to rest. E* does not alter the bitstream from HDNet.

Ron

Sorry, every cable feed of HDNET Movies I have comes in at .10Mbps higher thyan E* and the file sizes are bigger.

You cannot have different size files of identical frames and call them bit for bit identical.

The portion you examine might be, but they clearly are not overall identical.

Furthermore wizziwig (MPEG2Repair author) had caps on avs a year ago showing the white specs on dark scenes of HDNET Movies via E*that were not showing up on cable feeds - an artifact again showing E* is doing different.

They are not identical and E* is manipulating them it in some way.

However, the softness factor is something else entirely that is seen across cable and satellite.

dr1394

11-30-05, 02:45 AM

Sorry, every cable feed of HDNET Movies I have comes in at .10Mbps higher thyan E* and the file sizes are bigger.

You cannot have different size files of identical frames and call them bit for bit identical.

The portion you examine might be, but they clearly are not overall identical.

Furthermore wizziwig (MPEG2Repair author) had caps on avs a year ago showing the white specs on dark scenes of HDNET Movies via E*that were not showing up on cable feeds - an artifact again showing E* is doing different.

They are not identical and E* is manipulating them it in some way.

However, the softness factor is something else entirely that is seen across cable and satellite.
The demuxed MPEG-2 video elementary stream files (not the Transport Stream files) were bit for bit identical over the entire file (6447 frames or about 3.6 minutes).

If you demux your clips, you should be able to reproduce my results.

Ron

GeorgeLV

11-30-05, 02:59 AM

Sorry, every cable feed of HDNET Movies I have comes in at .10Mbps higher thyan E* and the file sizes are bigger.

You cannot have different size files of identical frames and call them bit for bit identical.

The portion you examine might be, but they clearly are not overall identical.

Furthermore wizziwig (MPEG2Repair author) had caps on avs a year ago showing the white specs on dark scenes of HDNET Movies via E*that were not showing up on cable feeds - an artifact again showing E* is doing different.

They are not identical and E* is manipulating them it in some way.

However, the softness factor is something else entirely that is seen across cable and satellite.

Just to reiterate what dr1394 is saying, the video and audio elementary streams are bit for bit identical. There can be any number of other information packed into the transport stream (closed captions, EPG data, etc.) that has no bearing whatsoever on the video quality.

HDTVFanAtic

11-30-05, 12:32 PM

Just to reiterate what dr1394 is saying, the video and audio elementary streams are bit for bit identical. There can be any number of other information packed into the transport stream (closed captions, EPG data, etc.) that has no bearing whatsoever on the video quality.

Again, I am speaking of the video only.

The other PIDs have no bearing on the video bitrate or mpv file.

And back on the original subject, HDNET Movies and MonstersHD have shared 1 title in common. MonstersHD has about .4Mbps higher bitrate - but also uses the telecine flag - but a comparison of the two show the difference.

Gary Murrell

11-30-05, 06:08 PM

Dr. says they are bit for bit identical, demux like he said and I bet you come to the same finding's

I think I have seen 2 or 3 titles that have aired on both HDNet and Monsters, one of the Dead movies and a Nightmare movie also, they both were much better on MonstersHD

It has been confirmed by many folks that E is not screwing with HDNet Movies

so lets get off this E* is messing with stuff bullshit "cop out" and get to the real reason HDNet is lacking in detail, is overly soft and looks filtered

and why networks with 3 Mbps less video are beating them everyday, day in and day out

-Gary

GeorgeLV

11-30-05, 07:16 PM

They Live is on HDNM right now and it seems to be one of the worst offenders in the overyly soft/dnr department.

Gary Murrell

11-30-05, 08:03 PM

Yes it was a major disappointment for me and my family being huge Carpenter fans, it is a mushy mess

-Gary

Star56

12-01-05, 05:51 AM

Yes it was a major disappointment for me and my family being huge Carpenter fans, it is a mushy mess

-Gary

??? It was sharp as a tack on my 42" plasma.

Honest....

John Mason

12-01-05, 08:42 AM

??? It was sharp as a tack on my 42" plasma.

Honest....
If it's an EDTV plasma, just to follow the leg-pulling :-), most reports indicate downconverted 1080i on EDTVs does look 'sharp'. That's due to downconversion's boost of contrast at critical mid-range frequencies, partially handled by EDTV. From some comments (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=4778947#post4778947) by Mark Schubin, here's a summary of that:
That's a limiting-detail discussion. There's also sharpness. The psychovisual sensation of sharpness is proportional to the square of the area under a curve plotting contrast ratio against detail fineness. All such curves (normally called "modulation-transfer function" or MTF curves) have a shape somewhat like the right side of a bell shaped curve, i.e., high at the left, sloping down slightly on a "shoulder," dropping faster after the shoulder, and then flaring out at the bottom in a "toe." The shoulder area is what is most significant for
sharpness. If the shoulder can be made higher and broader, sharpness
increases even when images are viewed after recording on an analog VHS cassette. The toe area, being low in contrast ratio, is relatively insignificant, which is how Sony got away with dropping all resolition over 1440 pixels per line in the professional HDCAM format (JVC and Panasonic do similar in D9 HD and DVCPRO HD, respectively). Figs. 4 & 5 (http://broadcastengineering.com/mag/broadcasting_hdtv_lens_design/) illustrate this MTF-curve broadening.

Just to add to the thread's HDNet controversy, wonder how "Gorillas in the Mist" will appear to most? Caught a preview while surfing through HDNet Movies yesterday and encountered one of those jaw-dropping video crispness moments usually seen with live/taped 1080/60i (not 24p sourced, even though Gorillas was). The preview scene, showing Weaver lounging in the grass with gorillas, had extraordinarly rich greens and exceptional detail, no doubt aided by filming in bright light, with considerable surrounding detail (vegetation), and very slow movement.

Here's the schedule:
Gorillas in the Mist - New for December!
Rating: PG-13
Year: 1988
Cast: Sigourney Weaver, Bryan Brown, Julie Harris
Director: Michael Apted
Synopsis: The story of the life of Diane Fossey, world-renowned expert on the African gorilla, from her first contact with gorillas in the wild to her murder by poachers.
Run Time: 2:09
Air Dates: 10:00 PM ET / 7:00 PM PT - Sat, Dec 3rd - HD Premiere
2:15 AM ET - Sun, Dec 4th / 11:15 PM PT - Sat, Dec 3rd - HD Premiere
3:30 PM ET / 12:30 PM PT - Sun, Dec 4th - HD Premiere
8:00 PM ET / 5:00 PM PT - Thu, Dec 8th - HD Premiere
12:30 AM ET - Fri, Dec 9th / 9:30 PM PT - Thu, Dec 8th - HD Premiere
11:30 AM ET / 8:30 AM PT - Fri, Dec 9th - HD Premiere
9:45 PM ET / 6:45 PM PT - Wed, Dec 14th - HD Premiere
1:45 AM ET - Thu, Dec 15th / 10:45 PM PT - Wed, Dec 14th - HD Premiere
12:30 PM ET / 9:30 AM PT - Thu, Dec 15th - HD Premiere

--John

John Mason

12-01-05, 11:30 AM

It looks to me that Cinemax image has slightly more mid frequencies. The left background gray area has more grain on Cinemax, while HDNet has more grain in the gray area on the right. The left dark area of the face on HDNet has a tiny bit more detail and grain than Cinemax.

I would say these are subtle mpeg encoding differences. Based on the static images, the HDNet image looks slightly flatter in response - the grain in the Cinemax image seems to have more of a mid frequency feel to it. OTH, a moving image might be different.
That’s interesting. Guess my eyes aren’t that well trained as I can’t spot any significant differences. But mid-frequency emphasis recalls this excerpt from a book:

“…an image reproduced with a high simultaneous contrast ratio may be judged sharper than another image that has higher measured spatial frequency content.” – C. Poynton, Digital Video and HDTV, 2003, Elsevier Science

Looks like, because of costs, there’s little chance here of hardware/software (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6591557&&#post6591557) measurements of ‘spatial frequency content’ of these and similar HD images. But images that appear ‘sharper’ to many but still minimize higher frequencies/resolutions are intriguing.

Such images might appear more frequently as digital movie production expands. As outlined in a Oct/Nov. Motion Imaging Journal (SMPTE.org) article, cinematographers helped Canon create a digital-movie camera zoom lens designed to reduce mid-frequency image sharpness, making digital images look more like 35mm prints on large screens, preferred by the film users; (see graph (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=610599). But Figure 2 (http://opd.usa.canon.com/html/industrial_bctv/Whitepapers/SMPTEFallConferenceFINALTechPaperOct21st04.pdf) (pdf 2004 SMPTE paper) is the same graph, published version, as the not-very successful ASCII attempt ("graph") linked to the AVS test forum.

Here’s how some authorities distinguish sharpness, resolution, details, and even ‘crispness’ with HD images.

Resolution. Consultant Matt Cowan, in his pdf paper (http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf) comparing digital and film cinema, mentions the confusion. He writes that resolution is an optical system’s figure of merit for fine spatial frequencies. Test pattern measurements with alternating B&W lines provide a limiting resolution, often at 5% modulation. These measurements are in terms of spatial frequency; with HDTV, temporal frequency is also a factor: 720p’s 60 frames per second versus 1080i’s 30 fps (60 interlaced TV fields per second).

Poynton, in his 2003 HD book (quote above), writes that generally resolution delineates picture detail. In imaging science it’s measured visually with B&W square wave cycles per picture width or picture height (vertical resolution). For optics and film, spatial resolution units are line pairs/mm, where each pair is a cycle (one black line, one white). In video, resolution (unqualified) usually refers to the number of resolvable alternating B&W lines across an image width equal to the picture height, or TV lines (TVL). For 16:9 HD, multiplying TVL by 16/9 converts to lines/picture width. In computing resolution is the row/column pixel count, according to Poynton, although he mentions this interpretation neglects specifying whether the pixels are resolvable.

Sharpness. Here’s Cowan’s description: Sharpness is a descriptive term that relates to the amount of picture information available to the viewer. Sharpness is a combination of not only limiting resolution, but how much contrast is available at various resolutions below limiting resolution. Sharpness measures have been devised which relate to the area under the MTF curve. The linked graph above shows (attempted to anyway) a related MTF (modulation transfer function) curve. “There is more to making a good picture than resolution. Sharpness, when properly tuned (i.e. not exaggerated) will result in crisper images delivering more detail, and give the impression of higher resolution," Cowan writes.

Detail. Similar to sharpness, as used, Cowan notes, and is often used to describe relatively fine information in images. Details are usually seen at several-pixel widths, coarser than resolution limits. “A sharp picture is often more detailed,” he writes.

Alan Gouger

12-01-05, 11:50 AM

??? It was sharp as a tack on my 42" plasma.

Honest....

Looked bad here also.

Whats strange is some titles like "No Mans Land" & "Open Range" are some of if not"THE" best 235:1 broadcasts Ive seen.

Darrin

12-01-05, 01:07 PM

You want to talk about soft?? Take a look at North Dallas Forty!! Now I'm sure the transfer is partly at fault but it is bad. The Untouchables looked pretty bad to me and I would have expected that to look quite good. Personally, I think it would cost HDNET too much money to change/upgrade their equipment at this point. I am glad this thread has gotten a lot more attention as it is something that I think really needs to be addressed.

Glimmie

12-01-05, 01:17 PM

Personally, I think it would cost HDNET too much money to change/upgrade their equipment at this point.

Upgrade what equipment?

It is pointed out here that some features are very good and some are soft. That is not a broadcast chain issue. I sincerely doubt HDNET downgraded their equipment over the past year either.

These are print quality issues period. HDnet has little if any control over that. The minor differences quoted here between the programming suppliers is no doubt MPEG encoder differences. But these differences are very subtle.

Darrin

12-01-05, 02:28 PM

But these differences are very subtle.

Maybe from your perspective, but as far as quite a few other's are concerned, they are MORE then subtle. Comparing a few screens of Days of Thunder is obviously not a telling us much.

To my eyes, there is something more going on here. Being in the industry, I'm sure you are going to defend any question of equipment. Maybe it is mpeg encoder based, but it's there.

We really need to do more comparisons to proof the point, otherwise we will be looked at as a bunch of non-appreciative basta$#'s who want nothing less then perfection.

Gary Murrell

12-01-05, 06:16 PM

Glimmie

12-01-05, 06:50 PM

Dude these are not SUBTLE issues, this is a downright spanking of HDNet by HBO/Showtime/MonstersHD on a everyday basis

This is NOT a provider issue and this is NOT a transfer issue, those are the facts

not one movie that has been shown on HDNet looks exactly right, comparing to D-Theater and HBO/Showtime/MonstersHD, HDNet has a mushy filtered/DNR look with too much contrast and NO FILM GRAIN at all, along with a redness in the greyscale

the main indicator to me that something serious is up is that complete lack of film grain

the provider and transfer cop outs are getting old quick, we have proven it's not provider issues, now to prove it's not a transfer issue

Sphere is coming up in Jan, I have a glorious HD copy of that from HBO complete with slight film grain and a knockout image, this will be another chance to compare

Of Mice and Men also soon

-Gary

What are you calling the "provider"? Do you mean the studio?. I can almost promise you there are not duplicate transfers of different quality. There are many digital dubs which should be identical. Now it's possible there are "good" and "better" transfers of the same film but the studios should have purged the older versions. As it's very expensive, an average of $80K a title, there is not much incentive for remastering within the same technology period. That is to say remaster something on HDD5 to HDCAM-SR because it puts twice the data on tape.

The shots of "The Professional" posted here look to me like MPEG encoder differences. HDnet could very well soften the image with some low pass filter either in the digital or even analog domain. But why? You know Mark is very pro-HD so why would he delibertly soften his images? And please no MPAA crap here! There is no directive for anyone to soften broadcast HD movies.

And keep in mind that some of the movies look quite good. So it's very unlikely to be a transmission plant problem.

Based on my expereince in a major transfer facility which also owns a film lab, "North Dallas Forty" was simply a crappy print. Who ever transferred it could have added some aperature correction but that's a subjective call and in this case would probabaly make it look even worse. You would end up with sharp edges on everything fading into the soft object background.

TVOD

12-01-05, 06:56 PM

not one movie that has been shown on HDNet looks exactly right, comparing to D-Theater and HBO/Showtime/MonstersHD, HDNet has a mushy filtered/DNR look with too much contrast and NO FILM GRAIN at all, along with a redness in the greyscaleSo I guess the questions are: Does HDnet massage the image from it's source tapes - such as color correction, NR or ASC? Does HDNet use MPEG preprocessing filtering? What Mpeg encoder they are using?

TVOD

12-01-05, 07:09 PM

Sharpness is a descriptive term that relates to the amount of picture information available to the viewer. Sharpness is a combination of not only limiting resolution, but how much contrast is available at various resolutions below limiting resolution. Sharpness measures have been devised which relate to the area under the MTF curve.Mid-frequency overpeaking is a big cause of the edge enhancement look most people here dislike. Mid-frequency loss can create an image that looks soft, but still has a high limiting resolution.

Gary Murrell

12-01-05, 08:24 PM

After my Wings game, I will have another comparison up

once again it will be comparing a HD-Lite to a true HDTV image from HDNet Movies

It will be "The Big Town" from:

GuyTV with horrid video bitrate of 10 mbps and 1280x1080i resolution
HDNnet Movies with video of 17 mbps bitrate and 1920x1080i

I will be anxious to see how this plays out

I have have some caps up ASAP

any wagers ?? :)

-Gary

Wizziwig

12-01-05, 10:10 PM

Wow, quite a lot of activity in this thread. Looks like Ron already addressed these issues but maybe I can clarify:

Sorry, every cable feed of HDNET Movies I have comes in at .10Mbps higher thyan E* and the file sizes are bigger.

You cannot have different size files of identical frames and call them bit for bit identical.

The portion you examine might be, but they clearly are not overall identical.

Furthermore wizziwig (MPEG2Repair author) had caps on avs a year ago showing the white specs on dark scenes of HDNET Movies via E*that were not showing up on cable feeds - an artifact again showing E* is doing different.

They are not identical and E* is manipulating them it in some way.

However, the softness factor is something else entirely that is seen across cable and satellite.

The problem with the gray blocks was on HBO/SHO shortly after E* started to recompress those channels to fit 3 on a transponder. They have since fixed the problem but are still compressing these channels. To get a clean feed of HBO/Sho you need to look at Cable/C-Band.

HDNet (both channels) have never been touched by E* to my knowledge. They are passed bit-for-bit as received from HDNet. We're talking about MPEG2 elementary stream payload here (the actual video data). Whatever size differences you might see are coming from the transport layer which contains various headers, padding, etc. that have no affect on video (think of it as the wrapper around the video).

To Gary and everyone else posting screen captures:

Although these samples are useful, I think the issue we are seeing is much more noticeable in moving video. If anyone from HDNet is actually reading this thread, please contact one of us with capture equipment so we can provide you with video samples. My collection of movies isn't as larger as Gary's, but I could probably find something I captured from both HBO and HDNet.

Does anyone know how 'Full Metal Jacket' compared? I know I have that from both providers and I think it was same OAR. I'll try to find my backups to see if screenshots would be useful.

-Mark

Gary Murrell

12-01-05, 10:37 PM

I would be glad to provide captures to anyone

here is "The Big Town" example, this one is much more drastic

Again we are comparing a 10 Mbps 1280x1080i movie to a 17 Mbps 1920x1080i and the former spanks HDNet again

GuyTV 10 Mbps Video/Resolution 1280x1080i:
http://home.bigsandybb.com/gmurrell/Big1280.bmp

HDNet Movies 17 Mbps Video/Resolution 1920x1080i
http://home.bigsandybb.com/gmurrell/Big1920.bmp

Look at the film grain on the dollar bills, the Guytv version is plenty detailed and film grain can be seen, the HDNet version is mushy and has no detail and the contrast is all out of whack creating a Milky Image, this shows what we see day in and day out on HDNet

Also look at how much fuzz you can see on thr playing table on the GuyTV version

AGAIN REMEMBER THIS IS COMPARING HD-LITE TO HDNET's TRUE HDTV IMAGE

I have seen comparisons from Networks that are even worse than this, Shawshank and Sling Blade come to mind

My last 2 comparisons are comparing garbage HD-Lite with horrid bitrate to a high bitrate 1920x1080i image, this is a disgrace that these HD-lite offerings are beating HDNet, this is on a everyday basis

It is almost to the point that I would consider saying that HDNet Movies might as well be HD-Lite, being I am getting it from a provider that passes untouched this is a major concern here, they are lacking in detail and have a mushy look

We have yet to hear anything from anyone at HDNet

-Gary