Turner Classic Movies (TCM) in HDTV! - Page 45

Originally Posted by Shaded Dogfood;22033274
[I

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

Originally Posted by Urga

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

Originally Posted by helios

On Time Warner Cable:

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.

Originally Posted by Shaded Dogfood


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

Originally Posted by Stan54

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.

Originally Posted by bruin95

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

Originally Posted by Stan54

"......... 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?

Originally Posted by Stan54

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.

Originally Posted by keenan

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.

Originally Posted by Stan54

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.

Originally Posted by Urga

Cinéma " Chevalier "

Originally Posted by keenan

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.

Originally Posted by swSteve

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

Originally Posted by d3193


"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?

Originally Posted by Ken H

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.

Originally Posted by d3193

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.

Originally Posted by NetworkTV

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...

Originally Posted by d3193

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.

Originally Posted by keenan

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.

Originally Posted by Brian Conrad

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

Originally Posted by Brian Conrad

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.