TCM HD looks fuzzier than its SD counterpart

UPDATE: Looking at Wicked, Wicked right now on TCM, I noticed they actually had a 2.85:1 movie fitted to the 16x9 screen. I redid my "blind" test 4 times. 3 of the 4 times I chose the HD channel as the better PQ, Once of those three times I know I was influenced by the higher Q sound. So the next two times I turned the sound down and tried it again. I chose HD two out of three times. So I guess it depends on the transfer now that they are actually presenting movies for the 16x9 screen.
 
Grand Prix was much better on the HD feed tonight (didn't see Thomas Crown).

The utility of the HD feed is going to increase gradually--remember, TCM has a vast programming library, WAY beyond almost what any other channel has to deal with.

I repeat--check out 2001 on Friday and let's see how that plays out.
 
Unfortunately, TCM HD will never be what some people expect. If not financially prohibitive, in many cases impossible for HD conversion...negatives long gone or in too bad of shape. I predict that at best, only 50% of the movies will ever be seen in true HD. The only way they can increase the percentage would be to drop films from the 30's and 40's and increase titles from the 60's and up. I personally hope they don't do that. I could imagine possibility that TCM HD would be a completely separate channel from the SD version.

I think you will see a lot of improvement in TCM HD, which, in spite of comments above, has been around for close to eight months now and just made available by Dish this week.

TCM now owns Warner Brothers and they have put in a bid of 1.3 billion dollars to purchase MGM - about to go belly up because the banks will no longer extend their line of credit and they have until 4 May to come up with the money or find a buyer.

The fact that they own Warner Brothers is extremely important to their now being HD. Warner has a project to scan and fully restore - as close to historically accurate as possible, no coloration, nothing added, nothing removed, with scan depths of between 4K and 12K [when using Technicolor negatives]. The initial results are nothing short of remarkable. TCM has also begun to re-shoot all of their drop-in material in HD, re-do all of their promos in HD, and will, whenever possible, be showing HD versions of all of material whenever it is available.

It is absolutely amazing what data is stored in the film used during the 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's when it is properly scanned and cleaned up. Warner Brothers, in conjunction with UCLA School of Film Preservation, and lots of others resources has devoted a lot of man-power and computer processing power to these film restoration projects, made a promise to maintain total accuracy, and the initial results are nothing short of incredible. Check out the 70th Anniversary Blu-Ray edition of the Wizard of Oz, or the restoration of Gone With The Wind.

I'm sitting in the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel as I write this and will be attending the first Turner Classic Movies Reunion and there is bound to be a whole lot of discussion of not only their transition to HD, but the financial woes of MGM and their bid to add MGM to the Turner Family.

The opening night event at the TCM Festival, tomorrow night, is a digital presentation of the 1954 Judy Garland version of A Star is Born at Grauman's Chinese Theatre. The Blu-Ray will be released to the public on Judy's birthday in June. [If you're a collector, as we are, it's available for pre-order now.]

While not everything is going to look "incredible" on TCM HD, the fact is there area a lot of other "HD" sources, both on Dish, cable, and broadcast television which are abominable in their content and, unless someone can find reliable source material, compare it to a reference print, and spend the time and money to coordinate the resources necessary to do a full and proper restoration, we will all have to put up with.

At the risk of being bombarded with negative responses, I would also suggest that anyone with an HD set, running HD content, whether from Dish or any other provider, invest in a GOOD HD / surround sound calibration DVD. They are worth their weight in gold and in just a few hours - when done properly, you will probably be blown away by the capabilities of that giant screen you spend a lot of money to purchase. After I properly calibrated our 52" Phillips in the living room, my Partner could not believe how good even older content looked.
 
UPDATE: Looking at Wicked, Wicked right now on TCM, I noticed they actually had a 2.85:1 movie fitted to the 16x9 screen. I redid my "blind" test 4 times. 3 of the 4 times I chose the HD channel as the better PQ, Once of those three times I know I was influenced by the higher Q sound. So the next two times I turned the sound down and tried it again. I chose HD two out of three times. So I guess it depends on the transfer now that they are actually presenting movies for the 16x9 screen.

TCM has committed to presenting all movies in their ORIGINAL FORMAT on both the SD and HD transmissions. Watch for repeats of their special on why it is important to maintain the original format of a picture and never pan and scan. It's part of their commitment to educate those who "auto-stretch" or "fill to available screen" all content they receive on their very expensive digital sets.
 
Thanks but when I wrote "So I guess it depends on the transfer now that they are actually presenting movies for the 16x9 screen", I meant actual HD content rather than windowboxed/pillarboxed as was what happened last night in the pictured I posted. The HD channel actually had a cropped version of the movie and the SD channel had a the full wide screen,
 
Agreed, after seeing so many films on TCM HD in the 4:3 aspect, finally, one film, I can't recall which, was in HD, but was presented much like some B&W films are aired on HDNET Movies: a zoom in to fill almost all the 16:9, but clearly HD and, yes some cropping, but overall much better presentation than anything I has observed on TCM HD since they were turned on for us on Dish.

According to a TCM employee, who works in the programming department, TCM has yet to show ANYTHING in HD since the channel launched 10 months ago. What you saw was a very good upconvert.
 
I took a look at the TCM HD distribution feed on Galaxy 14 using TSReader. It shows the channel running at around 7.7 Mbps. I checked TCM HD on Dish 129 and it is running at 4 Mbps. I checked TCM HD on Dish 72.5 and it is running at 6.7 Mbps.
In the same mux on Dish 129, Style is running at 13 Mbps and HLN is running at 11 Mbps. On Dish 72.5, Style is running at 11 Mbps and HLN is running at 10 Mbps.

So it seems that TCM HD is not getting very much bandwidth on Dish at this time.
 
The point is all things are equal with the pix taken under exact same conditions.

The answer is A was TCM HD. B was the SD

I am really trying to see how the folks who say they see TCM HD as a better picture come to that conclusion. I still say that those that do already know they are watching the HD channel and convince themselves they see improvement where there is none and in most cases, a fuzzier (softer) picture with skewed hues and boosted pedistal level washing out contrast. And in the example I showed, the HD channel did not have the OAR video.

So enjoy the new faux "HD" channel! I will watch the SD (real) version until TCM and/or Dish fix the crap they are feeding us at the moment.

See ya
Tony

Your setup is flawed in some way. The HD version is clearly better for the 7 movies I have compared over the last 2 days. There is more detail in the textures, and the colors don't bleed and the picture is not fuzzy. Get your eyes checked, and stop trying to desperately get people to side with you because you are angry for something you have no control over. It gets old fast.

EDIT: Comparing movie #8 now. You need to turn in your discussion card and move to the mountains and not bother anyone else. Hard to describe how wrong you are in your sentiment. :|
 
Last edited:
They are a sister subsidiary of Time Warner.

Thanks for your clarification to my thoughts, you are correct, but they are still commonly owned and that makes for an effective partnership when a broadcast facility, dedicated to the preservation and presentation of motion pictures can team with an original content provider and their resources.

Sometimes, after very long days, my fingers type faster than my brain thinks, and it's good to have the someone from the Community on here clarify those late-night thoughts!
 
I, for one, am very excited about TCM in HD. I have faith that TCM will not only preserve the OAR of all movies but also seek out and present HD versions of any of it's films whenever possible.

That being said, I have one request of TCM: please publicly announce a strategy or tentative timeline for the rollout of HD movies. Launching an HD channel with no HD and no mention of the HD channel on your own website just breeds misinformation and rampant speculation.

In the past, other channels have made similar announcements upon launch of their respective HD channels. For example TCM could say something like, "Our first true HD transfer will be ABC Movie on June 15th. We hope to have 25% of movies in HD by the end of 2010 and 75% of movies in HD by the end of 2011. HD Transfers will be noted on our website programming guide."
 
Your setup is flawed in some way. The HD version is clearly better for the 7 movies I have compared over the last 2 days. There is more detail in the textures, and the colors don't bleed and the picture is not fuzzy. Get your eyes checked, and stop trying to desperately get people to side with you because you are angry for something you have no control over. It gets old fast.

EDIT: Comparing movie #8 now. You need to turn in your discussion card and move to the mountains and not bother anyone else. Hard to describe how wrong you are in your sentiment. :|

So why the venom? Why the attack and libel?
I am not angry. Even as I type this. If you read anger in my post it was injected there by the reader.

Look, if my set-up is flawed, then I would notice this with all the other 100 HD channels I receive. I don't. It's only this one channel where he SD version looked FUZZIER to me when I checked it on the dates of my posts.

It's the same eye balls, good, bad, or otherwise that are comparing these pictures in an aptly-named blind test. I do not know what channel I am looking at until AFTER I pick what I feel is the picture I would rather look at for the next 2 hours.

I am not trying to get anyone to side with anyone. I am stating my observations and backing them up. I even posted where I chose the HD as the better PQ in a blind test on one of the movies I turned to.

I respect the fact that you think you see improvement in the HD channel over the SD. But you never answered the question I posed. When you chose HD as the clearer picture, was it a blind choice or did you know that it was the HD channel before you decided it was the better picture?

The people who actually answer my "pop quiz" split on which was which. There are other threads in other groups that I have not posted in that also bring up the same point. This means that there is some validity to my position that the HD channel is fuzzier (softer) than the SD channel and in my preference right now is to watch the SD channel over the HD. Yours may not be, but I do not resort to cyberbully tactics to get those who share your view to stop posting their observations to make me feel better as others in this thread might.
 
TCM HD looks like crap at the moment... They have the movie Escape from Witch Mountain On and it looks HORRIBLE.

In fact I would say at the moment the way it looks its the worst looking HD quality I have ever seen.

I dont know what happened the Diary of Anne Frank looked SO good the other night.
 

Can I put 1 single and 1 dual reciever on a DPP Twin Pro Plus LNB

i have a sat lite meter and i need tips for dish network 1000.4 wa

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts