is all 16:9 really high Def?

Discussion in 'DirecTV TiVo Powered PVRs & Receivers' started by vdubuclet, Jan 16, 2006.

  1. vdubuclet

    vdubuclet New Member

    48
    0
    Jul 20, 2003
    Dallas
    In the guide on the HR10-250 I will see [HD] next to a program. For instance it was next to Murphy's Romance on HDNET. The movie came in at 16:9 (no bars) and my TV said the signal was 1080i. But the picture was very crappy. Since Murphy's romance was filmed in 1985 I can't see how this is an HD signal. Now when I wathced the NFL games this weekend, it was awesome, I could read the text on the players Tatoo's. Whats the dif?
     
  2. Finnstang

    Finnstang King of the North

    8,667
    0
    Sep 11, 2003
    Winterfell
    Murphy's Romance was upconverted to HD. Shows can be 16x9 but not HD, but all true HD is 16x9.
     
  3. vdubuclet

    vdubuclet New Member

    48
    0
    Jul 20, 2003
    Dallas
    So, If I am watching prime time shows ie (Desperate Housewives, My name is earl) that are in 16:9 and are broadcast on the digital channel (4.1, 8.1) are those upcoverted from the 4:3 analog feed or were they filmed in true High Def.
     
  4. Finnstang

    Finnstang King of the North

    8,667
    0
    Sep 11, 2003
    Winterfell
    Most newer shows like that are true HD. Both of the shows you mentioned are filmed in HD. I imagine that if you do the right research, you could find out if the show is really HD or just upconverted.
     
  5. dswallow

    dswallow Save the ModeratŠ¾r TCF Club

    53,707
    2,496
    Dec 3, 2000
    Long...
    Almost all the network prime time dramatic series are real HD, filmed and transferred or taped in HD.

    Much of the rest of the content varies; some is still SD and upconverted on the HD channel for the network.

    If you have a specific show you're asking about, I'm sure someone here could answer whether it's HD or not. After a while you'll become accustomed to identifying it just by looking.
     
  6. kdonnel

    kdonnel DVC-BCV

    5,715
    0
    Nov 28, 2000
    Metro...
    Film still provides a much higher resolution then 1920x1080i or 1280x720p.

    There is no reason that an older movie can not be shown in HD. Many times they do a poor job in the transfer though.
     
  7. TyroneShoes

    TyroneShoes HD evangelist

    3,604
    0
    Sep 6, 2004
    The Wizard of Oz (1939) was recently broadcast in HD, as one example. Looked like a good transfer, but was 4:3 because the wider ratios were not available back then.
     
  8. JimSpence

    JimSpence Just hangin'

    30,905
    36
    Sep 19, 2001
    Binghamton, NY
    Also, remember that the director may be looking for a softer look and thus the HD may look fuzzy. And, don't forget about DirecTV compression. :)
     
  9. Waldorf

    Waldorf Super Duper Member

    997
    0
    Oct 4, 2002
    Phoenix, AZ
    Downconverted, you mean. :D

    35mm film is a theoretical resolution of around 5300 x 4000 whereas HD is "only" 1920x1080.

    How many pixels in a frame of film?
     
  10. bdlucas

    bdlucas Right side up again.

    16,954
    0
    Feb 15, 2004
    Exurbia
    Just to be clear, as the article you quote explains, that's an upper bound for still photos (not movies) and is only reached under ideal shooting conditions that very often don't hold. The real-world resolution is generally much less. Also, as the article explains, the "number of pixels" captured on the film isn't so relevant - what's most relevant is the "number of pixels" you can see under typical viewing conditions, which is also much less. That's probably what you meant by "theoretical resolution", but I thought it would be helpful to emphasize that.
     
  11. bdlucas

    bdlucas Right side up again.

    16,954
    0
    Feb 15, 2004
    Exurbia
    Another thing to keep in mind is that the typical process for producing projection prints from the movie camera negative loses a great deal of resolution from what's captured on the original negative. In other words, no one ever sees anything anywhere near 5300x4000 resolution in a movie theater.

    Here's a site with some actual scans from original 35mm camera negatives ("OCN") and the interpostive ("IP") which is the first step in going to a print for a theater: http://www.cintel.co.uk/technology/4K-resolution-scanning.htm As I understand it typical theater prints involve at least one more resolution-losing step in going from the interpositive to the final print.

    Note in particular this image: http://www.cintel.co.uk/technology/images/composite_street signs.jpg. By comparing the 2K (meaning 2048x1536) scan of the original negative ("2K Neg") with the 2K scan of the interpositive ("2K IP"), you can see that 2048x1536 is quite adequate to capture all the detail that remains after going from the negative to the interpositive. This is a full 4:3 frame; after matting to 1.85:1 all the detail that remains is more than captured by 2048x1107 - interestingly, about the same as the resolution of HDTV! And that's just the interpositive; further loss of resolution is entailed in striking the actual projection print.

    In summary, assuming this site is representative and that I'm interpreting all this correctly: you're unlikely to see anything greater than HDTV resolution in a movie theater, or even in a positive struck directly from the camera negative.
     
  12. Waldorf

    Waldorf Super Duper Member

    997
    0
    Oct 4, 2002
    Phoenix, AZ
    I agree... Just wanted to get across the idea that film being telecined to HD isn't really considered "upconverted".

    Interesting story here about how Veronica Mars is shot on 16mm film and transferred to high definition video using a Thomson/Grass Valley Spirit DataCine.

    http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why/filmMaker/veronica.jhtml?id=0.1.4.3.6&lc=en

    There are also quite a few threads around the forum where we get into more detailed discussion about 3-2 pulldown regarding framerates and such.
     

Share This Page