HDNet Movies Picture Quality

Actually I think this is an original print issue. For example the PQ for Thunderheart (showing several times this month) is outstanding...very sharp...nothing soft here. Also Taxi driver looked great (crisp and clean).

THX1180 had some mindblowing sharp PQ. There is one scene where the male and female leads are embracing...a closeup of their heads reveal every mole, freckle and wrinkle...incredible PQ.

Then again....Ghosts did look soft...I agree.

It is either the source quality or the transfer is an issue.

In either case some HDnet movies are outstanding in the PQ department...others less so.

After trying to watch Ghosts of Mississippi the other night, I almost cancelled the D* HD pack because I've seen DVDs look better. But I guess I've noticed what Star56 is saying. The quality varies from movie to movie.

Yes, it's just that with D*, you will get the double wammy. Crappy transfer and lousy feed . Easily identified by their decidedly VHS-like look...

ron

On Dish, I find that Showtime HD and HDNet Movies have the best PQ of all the movie channels. And I love many of the older movies shown on HDNet Movies. One reason I never switched to Voom was because they didn't have HDNet.

It has to be a transfer issue. There have been many very sharp films shown on HDNet Movies. OTOH, some are so soft they make you wonder if they're really even HiDef. I know when "Mean Streets" was airing recently I was rubbing my eyes, thinking my vision had gone blurry, it was so soft.

Some film transfers are so bad in this aspect, that a decent DVD run through my scaler looks better. But that's outside of HDNet's control... unless you don't want to see those films at all. In my case, I shut down my recording of Mean Streets, because I already had a copy I recorded from Showtime (also flagged in my notes as Soft, though I didn't go back and do a comparison).

(My viewing is on an unmolested cable feed, so I'm not dealing with downrezing or recompression issues... yet.)

- Tim

JFK looked like hammered ****, on the average I would say Hdnet Movies is a little soft, but then comes along "Days of Thunder" and the mentioned "Thunderheart"

but I do flip by and see alot of soft mushy crap pretty often

Showtime is much much sharper on average

HDnet does not do their own transfers, other than 1 or 2 movies random movies in the past, I think

-Gary

Gary,
> then comes along "Days of Thunder" and the mentioned "Thunderheart" <<br />
Yeah, those were great, though I don't think Thunderheart was any better than when it aired on HBO a few months back. I was happy to see Days of Thunder looking so good though, because when it aired on Showtime it was an Upconvert, and an extremely bad one at that. One of the worst I've seen, and you'd honestly be better off with the DVD.

- Tim

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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 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.

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?

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"!!

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.

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.

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.

For some reason he disagrees 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."

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?

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

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.

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

Studio HD-lite is preposterous

-Gary

I 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!