Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > why does "Buffy" not count as HD?

Reply
Thread Tools

why does "Buffy" not count as HD?

 
 
anthony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2003
HDTV will be stunted if it's not used to present the best of cinema
from all ages... and that includes a major swag of films shot in
Academy ratio.
And the solution for home presentation will have to be to have a
decent-sized screen which won't make a film look "stunted" as someone
here described, due to the black-bars each side. That wouldn't be
"stunted" anyway, since the height will be the same for Academy ratio
movies -- the width will be different.
The clear analogy is with anamorphic movies shown on an
anamorphic-capable 4.3 ratio television.
My Loewe TV presents full-line display of anamorphic widescreen
movies, and the screen is large enough to match the size of most
present-day widescreen sets when it's in anamorphic mode. So I'm not
seeing a 'reduced' picture, just an appropriate ratio presentation.
And the all-black set is housed in a black cabinet so that when you're
viewing, the part of the screen being used is really the only thing
you notice. The black-bars disappear from consciousness........
And of course, for Academy-ratio movies, I've got the benefit of the
full height available.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
damnfine
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2003
"Joshua Zyber" wrote:
> Fair enough. I should have distinguished between the HD video master and
> the HDTV broadcast standards.


Which vary. In Australia, 576p is allowed to be called HD, sadly.


--
/^\damnfine/^\
"Who would have thought that a bad Austrian artist who's
obsessed with the human physical ideal could assemble such
a rabid political following?" - TheOnion.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Vincent J. Murphy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2003
On 11 Dec 2003 05:51:46 GMT, Waterperson77 <(E-Mail Removed)> scribbled:
>
> That is, 35 mm film has more resolution than HDTV, and therefore, anything
> filmed entirely on 35 mm film can be broadcast in HD. (such as the original
> Star Trek)


HDNet, an HD-only broadcaster, actually has created HD transfers of
episodes of Hogan's Heroes and Charlie's Angels (among others) from
the 35mm originals. Looks very nice.

But as others have pointed out: there's a difference between
shooting on 35mm and being HD.

VJM
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve K.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2003
Vincent J. Murphy wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2003 05:51:46 GMT, Waterperson77 <(E-Mail Removed)> scribbled:
>
>>That is, 35 mm film has more resolution than HDTV, and therefore, anything
>>filmed entirely on 35 mm film can be broadcast in HD. (such as the original
>>Star Trek)

>
>
> HDNet, an HD-only broadcaster, actually has created HD transfers of
> episodes of Hogan's Heroes and Charlie's Angels (among others) from
> the 35mm originals. Looks very nice.


Yes, they do look nice. There are slight black bars on the sides.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Waterperson77
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2003
>DNet, an HD-only broadcaster, actually has created HD transfers of
>episodes of Hogan's Heroes and Charlie's Angels (among others) from
>the 35mm originals. Looks very nice.


yes. I've seen HDNET's broadcasts of "Hogan's Heroes" when I had it, and it
looked nice.

But what baffles me entirely is that they broadcast it in 16:9 widescreen and
it still looked good, and didn't seem to be out of proportion!!! and didn't
seem to be cropped either!!!!! (going by the headroom).

It was as though it was composed for 16:9 widescreen!!!! But surely "Hogan's
Hereoe's" wasn't composed for widescreen , since it was made in the 60's for
tv, which was all 4:3 at that time.

so I'm completely baffled regarding HDNET's broadcasts of it.

If it is cropped on HDNET, then showing it full frame would be what some of the
people in this newsgroup claimed that there's never that much headroom on
something composed for 4:3

so I'm totally and completely baffled by it now.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Joshua Zyber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2003
"Waterperson77" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >DNet, an HD-only broadcaster, actually has created HD transfers of
> >episodes of Hogan's Heroes and Charlie's Angels (among others) from
> >the 35mm originals. Looks very nice.

>
> yes. I've seen HDNET's broadcasts of "Hogan's Heroes" when I had it,

and it
> looked nice.
>
> But what baffles me entirely is that they broadcast it in 16:9

widescreen and
> it still looked good, and didn't seem to be out of proportion!!! and

didn't
> seem to be cropped either!!!!! (going by the headroom).


HDNET's broadcasts of these shows are partially cropped, partially
stretched. I think they look atrocious, but to each their own.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Waterperson77
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2003
>HDNET's broadcasts of these shows are partially cropped, partially
>stretched. I think they look atrocious, but to each their own.
>


Thanks. That explains it. I'll have to check my videotapes again of the few
episodes I recorded from it.

I hadn't seen the show in so long until HDNET started rerunning it, I might
have forgotten how the original was supposed to look.

The HDNET broadcasts didn't seem bad to me at the time, but if they are
stretching and cropping it (and I'm sure you are correct), you are also correct
that it's atrocious.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Joshua Zyber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2003
"Waterperson77" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >HDNET's broadcasts of these shows are partially cropped, partially
> >stretched. I think they look atrocious, but to each their own.

>
> Thanks. That explains it. I'll have to check my videotapes again of

the few
> episodes I recorded from it.
>
> I hadn't seen the show in so long until HDNET started rerunning it, I

might
> have forgotten how the original was supposed to look.
>
> The HDNET broadcasts didn't seem bad to me at the time, but if they

are
> stretching and cropping it (and I'm sure you are correct), you are

also correct
> that it's atrocious.


Well, to be fair, doing it their way tends to look less awful than
simply cropping or stretching it all the way (look at ESPN for an
example of how NOT to show 4:3 content on an HD channel). Still, I'm not
fond of it.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Clyde Coffey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2003
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:57:01 GMT, "Joshua Zyber"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Mark Spatny" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed) nk.net...
>> > No, "HD" means something specific. It means a video master is

>prepared
>> > in either 1080i or 720p resolution. A program shot on film can be
>> > mastered to HD video, but film and HD are not the same thing.

>>
>> Technically, by that definition you are leaving out 1080 24P, which is
>> the HDTV mastering medium of choice.

>
>Fair enough. I should have distinguished between the HD video master and
>the HDTV broadcast standards.


1080p24 is also a broadcast format so where is the distinction?



 
Reply With Quote
 
Joshua Zyber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-15-2003
"Clyde Coffey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >Fair enough. I should have distinguished between the HD video master

and
> >the HDTV broadcast standards.

>
> 1080p24 is also a broadcast format so where is the distinction?


And in what venue is this broadcast format actually being broadcast?



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 4 12-21-2006 01:15 PM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
why why why does function not work Horace Nunley ASP .Net 1 09-27-2006 09:52 PM
Count(*) in a Subquery with multiple tables: How does SQL determine which table to generate the Count() from? Kaimuri MCSD 3 12-29-2004 06:38 PM
I am adding a new row to the datagrid dynamically but if i use the Count property of Item it is not showing the count of the new rows being added Praveen Balanagendra via .NET 247 ASP .Net 2 06-06-2004 07:16 AM



Advertisments