Turner Classic Movies (TCM) in HDTV! - Page 45 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1321 of 1770 Old 05-17-2012, 11:14 AM
Senior Member
 
d3193's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New York City
Posts: 316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaded Dogfood;22033274
[I
View Post

Doesn't Ted still own the film library he bought when he bought and held (oh so briefly) MGM?[/i]

No. The library is owned by Turner Entertainment Co., which was sold to Time/Warner.
d3193 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1322 of 1770 Old 05-18-2012, 03:01 AM
Member
 
helios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urga View Post

TCM HD.Fr is the 1920x1080i , Governed output 15 Mb/s
What is in the US ?

On Time Warner Cable:

Code:
File Size Processed: 255.07 MB, Play Time: 00h:02m:55s
1920 x 1080, 29.97 fps, 80.00 Mbps (11.36 Mbps Average).
Average Video Quality: 46.26 KB/Frame, 0.18 Bits/Pixel.
AC3 Audio: 3/2 Channels (L, C, R, SL, SR) + LFE, 48.0 kHz, 448 kbps.
Ignore the 80.00Mbps, that is just the header information, the 11.36Mbps is around the average.

Unsure how it is being distributed, Time Warner seems to re-encode a lot of channels to about 11-12Mbps.

Fios TV hasn't added TCM HD yet, that would be a more interesting bitrate to see.

The channel makes for some decent non-HD / standard definition viewing, particularly for widescreen films that are letterboxed and pillarboxed on regular standard def TCM.
helios is offline  
post #1323 of 1770 Old 05-18-2012, 10:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Stan54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ME
Posts: 1,971
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by helios View Post

On Time Warner Cable:

Code:
File Size Processed: 255.07 MB, Play Time: 00h:02m:55s
1920 x 1080, 29.97 fps, 80.00 Mbps (11.36 Mbps Average).
Average Video Quality: 46.26 KB/Frame, 0.18 Bits/Pixel.
AC3 Audio: 3/2 Channels (L, C, R, SL, SR) + LFE, 48.0 kHz, 448 kbps.
Ignore the 80.00Mbps, that is just the header information, the 11.36Mbps is around the average.

Unsure how it is being distributed, Time Warner seems to re-encode a lot of channels to about 11-12Mbps.

Fios TV hasn't added TCM HD yet, that would be a more interesting bitrate to see.

The channel makes for some decent non-HD / standard definition viewing, particularly for widescreen films that are letterboxed and pillarboxed on regular standard def TCM.

I suspect the 11-12Mbps versus 15Mbps makes the difference. I, also, suspect that the prints beamed to the U.S. and France are the same. Some TCM prints come from other than 1st level sources, hence, some do not meet HD standards and require upconversion.
Stan54 is offline  
post #1324 of 1770 Old 05-18-2012, 12:29 PM
Member
 
swSteve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Redwood City, CA USA
Posts: 103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaded Dogfood View Post


Believe me, (TCM's) stewardship beats just about anyone else's.

I need to take issue with this.

TCM are NOT good stewards of these titles.

VOOM clearly did an outstanding job with old features.

They took the time to re-scan old titles and packaged them in an
exciting format: Monsters-HD, Westerns, Classics.

They respected the audience by announcing whether the source was
16mm or 35mm. Even the 16mm RODAN looked good on VOOM.

Their presentations were worth watching because we got to see
HD scans of 35mm films in whatever quality was available.
It was definitive. Just like attending an archive screening.

Most of the time quality was just fine. When it wasn't, we could
raise concerns about it on blogs such as this and perhaps
encourage a search for new elements.

We became dignified participants in the film preservation process.

In fact, Voom screenings and the resulting discussions remain a notable
reference point describing the condition of certain films at that point in time.


In contrast, TCM's shabby track record is an insult to
the audience interested in these films.

TCM says little or nothing about HD.
TCM has nothing to show us.


Now, TCM-HD is about to celebrate it's 3rd anniversary as a failure.


Voom lost a lot of money trying to put up satellites and getting
subscribers and eventually went bust. It was harsh.

But Voom will always be remembered for how well they presented old films.


Meanwhile TCM-HD will be forgotten for doing exactly the opposite.


Steve
swSteve is offline  
post #1325 of 1770 Old 05-18-2012, 05:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bruin95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan54 View Post

I suspect the 11-12Mbps versus 15Mbps makes the difference. I, also, suspect that the prints beamed to the U.S. and France are the same. Some TCM prints come from other than 1st level sources, hence, some do not meet HD standards and require upconversion.


Huh? The difference is not in the Mbps. The difference is that France is getting HD, and the U.S. is not.
bruin95 is offline  
post #1326 of 1770 Old 05-18-2012, 08:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Stan54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ME
Posts: 1,971
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruin95 View Post

Huh? The difference is not in the Mbps. The difference is that France is getting HD, and the U.S. is not.

Please explain how and why TCM transmits HD movies to France and SD movies to the US.

You might also explain why 15 Mbps doesn't make a difference.
Stan54 is offline  
post #1327 of 1770 Old 05-18-2012, 08:33 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan54 View Post

Please explain how and why TCM transmits HD movies to France and SD movies to the US.

It doesn't matter. TCM HD in the US is not broadcasting any content in HDTV. This is the reason why the content in Europe looks better; it's being broadcast in HD. Not sure how often this needs to be explained.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #1328 of 1770 Old 05-19-2012, 10:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Stan54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ME
Posts: 1,971
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ken, what on earth are you talking about when you say:
"TCM HD in the US is not broadcasting any content in HDTV" .............?

My cable box and tv think they are receiving a 1080i signal on that channel. TWC on screen info blurb claims the movie is HD. Movie film by its very nature is HD (pixel count). The best you have said so far is that TCM specifically downconverts its films prior to transmission. Frankly, that don't make no sense no how.

Since you only comment that, "it doesn't matter", it seems that you are simply holding on to a personal "feeling" about the video quality. With few exceptions, the films on this channel look at least as good as those on other HD channels.

Something is missing in all of our posts so far and that would appear to be a true understanding of what is and isn't happening on TCM.
Stan54 is offline  
post #1329 of 1770 Old 05-19-2012, 11:18 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan54 View Post

Ken, what on earth are you talking about when you say:
"TCM HD in the US is not broadcasting any content in HDTV" .............?

My cable box and tv think they are receiving a 1080i signal on that channel. TWC on screen info blurb claims the movie is HD. Movie film by its very nature is HD (pixel count). The best you have said so far is that TCM specifically downconverts its films prior to transmission. Frankly, that don't make no sense no how.

Since you only comment that, "it doesn't matter", it seems that you are simply holding on to a personal "feeling" about the video quality. With few exceptions, the films on this channel look at least as good as those on other HD channels.

Something is missing in all of our posts so far and that would appear to be a true understanding of what is and isn't happening on TCM.

The confusion is totally on your part. The fact you obviously do not understand does not mean things are different than has already been explained to you a number of times.

My personal feelings about these facts are absolutely of no matter and you would be wise to accept that at face value. Implying otherwise is an insult to me and only serves to further confuse you.

Yes, TCM has an HD channel. Yes, your cable box is passing an HD channel resolution from TCM HD. Yes, film is at least HD resolution or higher. All of this together does not mean you are getting native HD from TCM HD.

The films on TCM HD in the US are not being broadcast in HD. It's that simple. Either the video film masters used are SD masters or HD film masters used are being electronically downconverted to SD before broadcast. This has been confirmed by TCM to me directly. Why this is occurring has not been explained by TCM and is not known.

This is why the European version of TCM HD looks so much better; it appears from the screen shots they are passing native HD. If all things were equal, meaning both TCM HD in the US & TCM HD in Europe were broadcasting films in native HD, then yes, bandwidth would matter in terms of HD image quality. In this case it does not.

End of story.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #1330 of 1770 Old 05-19-2012, 11:27 AM
Advanced Member
 
hondo21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Jeannette, PA
Posts: 824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Stan54 apparently can't understand the fact that anything can be upconverted to HD (1080i) and broadcast, but that does NOT mean the source film or video was scanned with HD resolution to begin with.
hondo21 is offline  
post #1331 of 1770 Old 05-19-2012, 12:11 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by hondo21 View Post

Stan54 apparently can't understand the fact that anything can be upconverted to HD (1080i) and broadcast, but that does NOT mean the source film or video was scanned with HD resolution to begin with.

That's part of it. The other part he doesn't understand is that a HD broadcaster can take an HD source and transmit it in SD.

We've spent more than enough time going over this. Like I said, end of story.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #1332 of 1770 Old 05-19-2012, 12:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Stan54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ME
Posts: 1,971
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
"......... a HD broadcaster can take an HD source and transmit it in SD."

Time Warner Cable is receiving a signal that was transmitted at less than 720p / 1080i and, then upconverting that SD signal to 1080i?
Stan54 is offline  
post #1333 of 1770 Old 05-19-2012, 01:04 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 27,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan54 View Post

"......... a HD broadcaster can take an HD source and transmit it in SD."

Time Warner Cable is receiving a signal that was transmitted at less than 720p / 1080i and, then upconverting that SD signal to 1080i?

No, Time Warner Cable is not the broadcaster, Turner is, and they are transmitting an SD image using an HD resolution to transmit it to TWC, and while the end result has an HD resolution, it does not mean that the source material used was HD quality to begin with, it is just an upconverted SD image, which is what we are getting from TCM here in the US.

You can take an old VHS resolution of say 333x480 and transmit it using an HD resolution of 1080ix1920 but it does not make the end result an HD image, it makes it an upconverted VHS image only.

There are good upconversion processes and there are bad ones, apparently TCM is using a very process as the end result looks very good for upconverted SD material, confusing even some here at AVS into thinking they are seeing an HD image from an HD source print/master.
Keenan is offline  
post #1334 of 1770 Old 05-19-2012, 01:29 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan54 View Post

"......... a HD broadcaster can take an HD source and transmit it in SD."

Time Warner Cable is receiving a signal that was transmitted at less than 720p / 1080i and, then upconverting that SD signal to 1080i?

No.

Time Warner Cable = pay TV provider

TCM HD = broadcaster

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #1335 of 1770 Old 05-19-2012, 01:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JDLIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Marlborough, MA
Posts: 2,896
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Send a message via Yahoo to JDLIVE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan54 View Post

Something is missing in all of our posts so far and that would appear to be a true understanding of what is and isn't happening on TCM.

Yes, something is missing. It's been explained to you countless times in this thread and yet you continue to miss the point.
JDLIVE is offline  
post #1336 of 1770 Old 05-19-2012, 02:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Stan54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ME
Posts: 1,971
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

No, Time Warner Cable is not the broadcaster, Turner is, and they are transmitting an SD image using an HD resolution to transmit it to TWC, and while the end result has an HD resolution, it does not mean that the source material used was HD quality to begin with, it is just an upconverted SD image, which is what we are getting from TCM here in the US.

You can take an old VHS resolution of say 333x480 and transmit it using an HD resolution of 1080ix1920 but it does not make the end result an HD image, it makes it an upconverted VHS image only.

There are good upconversion processes and there are bad ones, apparently TCM is using a very process as the end result looks very good for upconverted SD material, confusing even some here at AVS into thinking they are seeing an HD image from an HD source print/master.

I understood Ken to say that the broadcaster (Turner) can take an HD SOURCE and transmit it (to Time Warner) in SD. ...... It seems reasonable to question that Turner would do that.

You make a different assertion. You say that the source material itself was of less than HD quality and that Turner uses sophisticated processes to upconvert SD material to very good (near HD) quality for transmission to Time Warner Cable and TWC passes along the upconverted version. (By the same token, Turner possesses HD versions of the material that it transmits to Europe.)

What you say is understandable, of course, but it does raise questions that I suspect none of us is in a position to answer.

Thanks for your time.
Stan54 is offline  
post #1337 of 1770 Old 05-19-2012, 02:20 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan54 View Post

I understood Ken to say that the broadcaster (Turner) can take an HD SOURCE and transmit it (to Time Warner) in SD. ...... It seems reasonable to question that Turner would do that.

No. What I said was that for the HD channel, TCM takes HD film transfers and downconverts them to SD before they get upconverted to HD and transmitted to providers in HD. We know this doesn't make sense, but it is most definitely happening.

Quote:


You make a different assertion. You say that the source material itself was of less than HD quality and that Turner uses sophisticated processes to upconvert SD material to very good (near HD) quality for transmission to Time Warner Cable and TWC passes along the upconverted version. (By the same token, Turner possesses HD versions of the material that it transmits to Europe.)

This is correct, but it is only one of the two scenarios that I referenced above.

1 - SD film master upconverted to HD, broadcast in HD.
2 - HD film master downconverted to SD, upconverted to HD, broadcast in HD.

Quote:


What you say is understandable, of course, but it does raise questions that I suspect none of us is in a position to answer.

No. The only unknown is why TCN chooses to not pass the HD film transfers they do have in HD.

As I've speculated a few times already in this topic, it's likely for a few reasons. One would be that most of TCM's film library isn't in HD at this time, and they want to wait until some point of critical mass before airing what they do have in HD as HD. A second is the technical infrastructure at the TCM broadcast center. A third is not wanting to confuse viewers about what's HD and what's not; if everything is SD as it is now, it's easier for most viewers to understand.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #1338 of 1770 Old 05-19-2012, 04:04 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 27,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan54 View Post

I understood Ken to say that the broadcaster (Turner) can take an HD SOURCE and transmit it (to Time Warner) in SD. ...... It seems reasonable to question that Turner would do that.

You make a different assertion. You say that the source material itself was of less than HD quality and that Turner uses sophisticated processes to upconvert SD material to very good (near HD) quality for transmission to Time Warner Cable and TWC passes along the upconverted version. (By the same token, Turner possesses HD versions of the material that it transmits to Europe.)

What you say is understandable, of course, but it does raise questions that I suspect none of us is in a position to answer.

Thanks for your time.

Just to clarify, when I used the term "source material" in my post I was referring to what ever elements TCM used to create the data for their broadcast, not the original film itself, "source material" was probably not the best word to use given the apparent confusion here, it was used only in the context of what ever was used to create the broadcast data itself.
Keenan is offline  
post #1339 of 1770 Old 05-19-2012, 05:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
Solfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Skylands N.J. & Hawaii Kai
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urga View Post

Cinéma " Chevalier "

Hi Urga,
Is this movie "Chevalier" also known as "A Knight's Tale"?
Did you take your photos of it recently?

I'm just asking because "A Knight's Tale" isn't listed on the [USA] TCM April or May schedules...
Solfan is offline  
post #1340 of 1770 Old 05-19-2012, 08:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Stan54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ME
Posts: 1,971
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

Just to clarify, when I used the term "source material" in my post I was referring to what ever elements TCM used to create the data for their broadcast, not the original film itself, "source material" was probably not the best word to use given the apparent confusion here, it was used only in the context of what ever was used to create the broadcast data itself.

Your explanation of "source material" is what I thought you meant. It was not the original film.
Stan54 is offline  
post #1341 of 1770 Old 05-20-2012, 12:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kjbawc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Posts: 3,013
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by swSteve View Post

I need to take issue with this.

TCM are NOT good stewards of these titles.

VOOM clearly did an outstanding job with old features.

They took the time to re-scan old titles and packaged them in an
exciting format: Monsters-HD, Westerns, Classics.

They respected the audience by announcing whether the source was
16mm or 35mm. Even the 16mm RODAN looked good on VOOM.

Their presentations were worth watching because we got to see
HD scans of 35mm films in whatever quality was available.
It was definitive. Just like attending an archive screening.

Most of the time quality was just fine. When it wasn't, we could
raise concerns about it on blogs such as this and perhaps
encourage a search for new elements.

We became dignified participants in the film preservation process.

In fact, Voom screenings and the resulting discussions remain a notable
reference point describing the condition of certain films at that point in time.


In contrast, TCM's shabby track record is an insult to
the audience interested in these films.

TCM says little or nothing about HD.
TCM has nothing to show us.


Now, TCM-HD is about to celebrate it's 3rd anniversary as a failure.


Voom lost a lot of money trying to put up satellites and getting
subscribers and eventually went bust. It was harsh.

But Voom will always be remembered for how well they presented old films.


Meanwhile TCM-HD will be forgotten for doing exactly the opposite.


Steve


Steve, you must have missed the post quoted below. TCM does not own the films they show. They are not "stewards" of these films. They CANNOT make HD scans of the films. They have to pay for all the films they show. If their providers don't have HD scans, there is nothing they can do about it. As has also been stated in this thread, at some time in the future, TCMHD will really be showing HD. I look forward to that. I like TCM very much, no one else shows what they show. And, even though it is uoconversions, WS films look very good on TCMHD, and are much better than having to zoom a LB film on a SD channel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by d3193 View Post


"I fear TCM exists as Ted Turner's hobby; I think he has grown to love film and is conscious of his responsibility to what he owns and is under his care."


I hope I'm not being pedantic in pointing out that TCM does not own any of the classic films it shows, and Ted Turner does not own TCM.

The films are owned by Turner Entertainment Co. and Warner Bros.
Ted sold all his networks (CNN, TBS, TNT and TCM) to Time/Warner many years back and no longer has any say in how they are run.

Those at WB responsible for maintaining and restoring the films in the library have to fight for funds like any other group in a large corporation. I know who some of these people are, and they are passionate about films. But they have to prove that their division overall can make a profit for the company. Unless some foundation or individual comes up with additional funds to do the job, that's the way it will be. That's how most of corporate America works.

What TCM does is show that there's a vast audience out there for classic movies, an audience that wants to collect them and will pay to do so. That allows WB to risk spending money on maintaining and restoring its library.

It's far from a perfect situation, but what's the alternative?

kjbawc is offline  
post #1342 of 1770 Old 05-20-2012, 07:57 AM
Senior Member
 
d3193's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New York City
Posts: 316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

As I've speculated a few times already in this topic, it's likely for a few reasons. One would be that most of TCM's film library isn't in HD at this time, and they want to wait until some point of critical mass before airing what they do have in HD as HD. A second is the technical infrastructure at the TCM broadcast center. A third is not wanting to confuse viewers about what's HD and what's not; if everything is SD as it is now, it's easier for most viewers to understand.

I believe the answer is number two: "A second is the technical infrastructure at the TCM broadcast center"
It is an expensive upgrade, but will happen eventually.
d3193 is offline  
post #1343 of 1770 Old 05-20-2012, 08:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by d3193 View Post

I believe the answer is number two: "A second is the technical infrastructure at the TCM broadcast center"
It is an expensive upgrade, but will happen eventually.

I don't buy it (no pun intended). It would be one thing if they weren't already sending out a native HD signal elsewhere and able to upconvert their output here. However, this situation implies something far smaller in the chain (like a router or encoder - though the latter would likely be after the switcher output, so less likely to be the cause) that is still SD, as opposed to something like a switcher or video server.

The master control switcher has to be HD, or they couldn't upconvert the material. The playback server has to be HD or nobody anywhere would get HD. That massively reduces the cost to go that one final step (being pretty much the most expensive parts) and actually puzzles me why they would invest in all the rest and not do it all. We're talking servers, switchers, encoders, satellite equipment and at least some routing equipment (to allow HD to be passed in at least one feed) - all HD and we have a device in our chain they simply haven't upgraded, rendering all the rest irrelevent?

That's like getting together your corned beef, potatoes, a bottle of wine and the dessert together, but leaving out the cabbage because it's not on special this week. That one ingredient devalues the entire product and is likely costing them retrans money they could get with a better product. I'd bet that's why we aren't see the "HD" feed on D*, for example.

Now, if you mean "expensive" as in "costs money at all", then, yes, it is something expensive - though likely less than that of the CEO's company car...
NetworkTV is online now  
post #1344 of 1770 Old 05-20-2012, 11:21 AM
Senior Member
 
d3193's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New York City
Posts: 316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I don't buy it (no pun intended). It would be one thing if they weren't already sending out a native HD signal elsewhere and able to upconvert their output here. However, this situation implies something far smaller in the chain (like a router or encoder - though the latter would likely be after the switcher output, so less likely to be the cause) that is still SD, as opposed to something like a switcher or video server.

The master control switcher has to be HD, or they couldn't upconvert the material. The playback server has to be HD or nobody anywhere would get HD. That massively reduces the cost to go that one final step (being pretty much the most expensive parts) and actually puzzles me why they would invest in all the rest and not do it all. We're talking servers, switchers, encoders, satellite equipment and at least some routing equipment (to allow HD to be passed in at least one feed) - all HD and we have a device in our chain they simply haven't upgraded, rendering all the rest irrelevent?

That's like getting together your corned beef, potatoes, a bottle of wine and the dessert together, but leaving out the cabbage because it's not on special this week. That one ingredient devalues the entire product and is likely costing them retrans money they could get with a better product. I'd bet that's why we aren't see the "HD" feed on D*, for example.

Now, if you mean "expensive" as in "costs money at all", then, yes, it is something expensive - though likely less than that of the CEO's company car...

I think your first paragraph is saying that TCM in Atlanta feeds TCM France. I don't know where you got that info from, but I doubt it is the case. However, I don't know where the French signal originates.

For the US, they have an SD system in place. Put an upconverter at the end of the chain, feed the now HD signal to the satellite, and you've not spent much money, but you have a TCMHD channel. Relatively inexpensive.
d3193 is offline  
post #1345 of 1770 Old 05-20-2012, 11:39 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by d3193 View Post

I think your first paragraph is saying that TCM in Atlanta feeds TCM France. I don't know where you got that info from, but I doubt it is the case. However, I don't know where the French signal originates.

It was mentioned earlier in this thread both feeds originate from the same location.

Quote:


For the US, they have an SD system in place. Put an upconverter at the end of the chain, feed the now HD signal to the satellite, and you've not spent much money, but you have a TCMHD channel. Relatively inexpensive.

No, they don't.

The have an HD system in place with one or more SD components in the middle of the chain. That's far different than an SD workflow that upconverts it all at the end of the line.
NetworkTV is online now  
post #1346 of 1770 Old 05-20-2012, 11:59 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 27,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 313
I don't think it's a technical issue at all, just about any technical problem can be overcome in the span of almost 3 years. I still think it's a rights issue, TCM US may have the rights for SD broadcast of this content but not the HD broadcast. A rights problem also fits with the timeline as broadcast contracts can last many years, technical problems can be solved in a much shorter time span, and the costs of broadcast rights will cost considerably more than any piece of electronics.
Keenan is offline  
post #1347 of 1770 Old 05-20-2012, 12:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

I don't think it's a technical issue at all, just about any technical problem can be overcome in the span of almost 3 years. I still think it's a rights issue, TCM US may have the rights for SD broadcast of this content but not the HD broadcast. A rights problem also fits with the timeline as broadcast contracts can last many years, technical problems can be solved in a much shorter time span, and the costs of broadcast rights will cost considerably more than any piece of electronics.

That may very well be the issue since nothing much else makes sense techincally.
NetworkTV is online now  
post #1348 of 1770 Old 05-20-2012, 12:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 3,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Given that Warner Brothers has kept a lot of their vintage movies off streaming I think they are being protective (sometimes overly) of their "classic" films. You can get some of them as copy protected "one off" DVD-Rs from their "classic films" service. Hence they may not want any HD versions broadcast so they can sell you a BD later on. I do note they now have made some "classics" available on Vudu.
Brian Conrad is offline  
post #1349 of 1770 Old 05-20-2012, 02:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rammitinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 17,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

Hence they may not want any HD versions broadcast so they can sell you a BD later on.

^^ This ^^.

TMC is probably the biggest "collectable"-programmed station out there.

The studios are not going to give people the opportunity to make (or pirate, for profit) too good of copies. Not in the US, anyway.
Rammitinski is offline  
post #1350 of 1770 Old 05-20-2012, 02:41 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 27,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

Given that Warner Brothers has kept a lot of their vintage movies off streaming I think they are being protective (sometimes overly) of their "classic" films. You can get some of them as copy protected "one off" DVD-Rs from their "classic films" service. Hence they may not want any HD versions broadcast so they can sell you a BD later on. I do note they now have made some "classics" available on Vudu.

This sounds like an even more likely reason, which sort of makes the whole idea of a TCM HD channel rather silly, the ultimate bait and switch, create an HD channel for the subscriber money but never put any HD on it. I guess DirecTV said they're not going to play that game.
Keenan is offline  
Reply HDTV Programming

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off