Quote:
Originally posted by David McRoy
At the risk of rehashing this issue, the main reason HDNet looks better than HBO-HD is because HDNet shows electronic video-based HD while HBO-HD shows film-based HD from pan-and-scanned or cropped HD film transfers.
I stand by my contention that HBO-HD's look is due to either:
a)less resolution due to cropping or P & S to fill the 16:9 raster and/or,
b)less than stellar prints being used compared to, say, CBS-HD primetime film-based HD transfers
Also, note that for decades TV shows and commercials that are film-based are frequently transfered to video from the original camera negatives (then electronically made "positive") and film-to-video transfers done this way look stunning in SD or HD. I don't know for sure but I suspect that a lot of CBS-HD film-based shows may be done this way. I would defer to someone in the industry who knows for sure...someone like mmost or glimme. |
In regard to the first issue (why HD Net and HBO "look" different) someone else already answered this. You can't compare video and film. They are two different mediums, used for two different purposes, that have two distinctly different looks. The look of live video is appropriate for a live sports event or an awards show or even a soap opera, but it is not appropriate for creatively photographed, creatively lit narrative drama. Film, on the other hand is very appropriate for dramatic storytelling, but is not appropriate for sports events or the like, primarily because under normal shooting conditions it doesn't have the "wow" factor of infinite depth of field, as video does. My personal "rule of thumb" on this matter is that when you want to tell a story, and in doing so, want to control what the viewer sees and thus feels by highlighting selected elements of the image through lighting and selective focus techniques, as well as create a mood through creative use of lighting and color, film is the ultimate medium for that, with 24p HD being a less flexible second choice. When you are shooting something that doesn't require selective control of the image and want the "hyper reality" that can expand the scope of the shot, HD video (at a higher refresh rate than 24 fps) is an excellent choice.
Regarding the second issue, television programs by and large are transferred from original negative (although not for "decades," more like for the past 15 years or so) and posted on videotape, whether standard def or hi def. There are some that are transferred directly from the assembled negative, such as West Wing, ER, Third Watch, NYPD Blue, and Citizen Baines. Features are usually transferred from an interpositive, which is a positive image printed on negative film stock, usually created for the purpose of making new negatives for release printing. Interpositive transfers are often even sharper than negative transfers, even though they are one film generation removed. This is because they are printed on a film stock that has finer grain than camera negative stocks, and because they have been "timed," or color corrected, during the printing process. They are used for transfer mostly to protect the original negative from excessive handling, but, as I said, they actually have other advantages. In television, Law & Order transfers (or at least used to transfer) from an interpositive, primarily because Universal had some original negative damaged in telecine on another show a number of years ago and was not willing to take the chance again. Although low contrast print stock that is optimized for telecine transfer is also available, I don't know of many who use it these days, aside from some made for TV movies that are also getting foreign theatrical release.