There is a BBC HD Co-Production being shown next week on 'Astra 1' satellite. I will be watching. Sadly very few people here have a dish pointed at the correct satellite. Less than 30,000 est. vs 7.5 million on Sky.
It would be nice if the BBC temporarily (6 hours / month) stopped the BBCi service and broadcast some HD on 'Astra 2', and offered people chance to buy a satellite DVB card beforehand. DVB card not wasted.
Yes it's a shame SES are only using Astra1 for it's support of High Def programming, granted across the whole of Europe there is a larger potential audience which I suspect is the bottom line.
I would hope that in the next 12 months the BBC does start FTA broadcasting from 2D even if it's only test transmissions.
While it's not that expensive to add a second dish or larger two LNB equipped dish for most people it's a non-starter.
HD emission - Europe has the great opportunity to get it right - with Mpeg4 pt 10 or VC1 compression which get around the blockiness and motion artefacts of Mpeg 2. But we also need all the rest that comes with TV - D-text, subtitles, AD and interactivity .... ( not all happen in the USA) so it will come but we have to get it right - soon!
saw this thread abit late but thougt i'd jump in withmy opinion.
I think it's a matter of education.. people don't know that a 16:9 TV isn't the same as a widescreen cinema screen and so don't expect to still see the bars.. They also don't understand when they get bars on the side on a 4:3 program when watching on a widescreen TV.
I want to see a movie or program how it was shot and if that means i get bars above and below or on the side i want them there.. it gives a clearer picture but most people don't understand what these are.
My dad thought they just put black bars at the top and bottom and called it widescreen
Just for the record, I did mean struggling for both audience and revenue stream in the sense of both of them, not SD vs HD.
As the others have said, ITV is light years away from HDTV and even Channel Four, which could be a co production contender at some time, seems more interested in developing more channels than HDTV.
As for the rest, even widescreen is not on the agenda for many of them.
So after Europe took the lead over the US in widescreen, the US is now shooting ahead.
Which is actually good news in a sense as it gives the HDTV promoters in the UK a much bigger programme choice to promote it.
saw this thread abit late but thougt i'd jump in withmy opinion.
I think it's a matter of education.. people don't know that a 16:9 TV isn't the same as a widescreen cinema screen and so don't expect to still see the bars.. They also don't understand when they get bars on the side on a 4:3 program when watching on a widescreen TV.
I want to see a movie or program how it was shot and if that means i get bars above and below or on the side i want them there.. it gives a clearer picture but most people don't understand what these are.
My dad thought they just put black bars at the top and bottom and called it widescreen
Indeed, when I bought my widescreen tv (a few years ago), I was shocked to find many DVD films in "Widescreen" still had black bars top and bottom. Add to that the fact that with analogue tv signals you have to stretch the image or put up with black pillars left & right. That was one of the main reasons I got Sky Digital installed.
saw this thread abit late but thougt i'd jump in withmy opinion.
I think it's a matter of education.. people don't know that a 16:9 TV isn't the same as a widescreen cinema screen and so don't expect to still see the bars.. They also don't understand when they get bars on the side on a 4:3 program when watching on a widescreen TV.
I want to see a movie or program how it was shot and if that means i get bars above and below or on the side i want them there.. it gives a clearer picture but most people don't understand what these are.
My dad thought they just put black bars at the top and bottom and called it widescreen
Just to clarify sherer I didn't originate this thread so I'm not to sure what you are refering to as it relates to my remarks within this thread.
I have a question - In the US the HD channels that are HD versions of SD channels - ie your main terrestrial networks. These channels I assume over any 24hr period have a mix of HD originated and SD originated. Do they upconvert the SD originated material to HD or shift the HD broadcast to SD for those programmes? (hope that made sense - I know that the channels like Discovery HD are different programming streams exclusively in HD but what about ABC / NBC / CBS / Fox etc).
Having had a couple of DVD players now along with a Widescreen tv, I am amayzed they still make movies in the narrow letterbox format. Problem is, you get black bars top & bottom of the screen - even on a Widescreen tv. Why are they still making movies in this format? I thought 16:9 was the new standard.
Dave
You have you jargon mixed up.
Letterbox is watching a 16:9 source on a 4:3 TV without losing the whole W/S picture.
Films in cinemas are rarely produced in 16:9 but in 2.35.1 , those black bars are meant to be there , if you zoom the picture in then effevtivly you are losing 25% of your picture.
If your really serious go by a projector , that way you can switch it to show different ratio material without the need for the black bars.
I have a question - In the US the HD channels that are HD versions of SD channels - ie your main terrestrial networks. These channels I assume over any 24hr period have a mix of HD originated and SD originated. Do they upconvert the SD originated material to HD or shift the HD broadcast to SD for those programmes? (hope that made sense - I know that the channels like Discovery HD are different programming streams exclusively in HD but what about ABC / NBC / CBS / Fox etc).
If the program originates as HD it is downconverted to SD for the SD version. SD is shown as is. I have never run into a situation where an SD program was being upconverted and being passed off as HD. I would think the channel, or network, might get into hot water for doing something like that. The quality differences would also be obvious.
The only time you may see upsampling of original SD material is, for example, in an HD program, say a documentary, news, etc, that slips in clips that were originally produced in SD. That could be done because the orginal clip was originally produced as SD video , whereas if it was produced with film an HD version could be made since film has beyond HD resolution, or even if it is from something that was produced with film it would not be worth the effort or expense to create an HD version of that clip. I'm guessing there as I have no idea of the expense and work involved in taking something originally produced with film and making an HD version of it.
Europe had the lead on WS, the US is now shooting ahead because of HDTV.
It's important to make the distinction between widescreen SD and widescreen HD. Europe, especially the UK, didn't have a lead in widescreen compared to America, it went well beyond that, since it was doing something America never did by offering widescreen SDTV.
I do always enjoy these discussions. Primarily because of the amount of misinformation and lack of knowledge that is spouted as gospel truth. Of course often what everyone says has an element of truth in it
The complexity arrises because there are so many cinema widescreen formats - both production and distribution ones - that have eveolved over the years (and none are exactly 16x9).
I suppose the best way to simply look at it is that there are 3 major grops of screen formats (around each one there is some variation).
4x3 - 1.33 - Academy ratio - the original cinema forat from the 30s and before.
16x9 - 1.85 (USA) - 1.66 (Continental Europe) - Widescreen format film - soft or had matt sperical (ie standard lens) - less of the 35mm film frame is used than 1.33 academy ratio.
2.xx - widescreen - often anamorphic but also 70mm and Super 35 (more below).
On a 16x9 modern TV screen the 1.33 will be a central 4x3 area; 1.85 and 1.66 will be the full 16x9 screen - though some image will be lost to be full 16x9 (as 16x9 is 1.77).
While a 2.xx ratio film will have black bars top and bottom even on a 16x9 screen (unless it is a 16x9 pan and Scan version of a 2.35:1 print). These film ratio was made famous and is often described as "panavision" but in simpler terms for use with a 35mm camera it is an anamporphic lens which works similarly to 16x9 SD TV pictures. A 4x3 squished image is unsquished to 16x9 - and pretty much all cinema delivery uses this technique for these films (save for 70mm delivery). Over the years there are many different ways to get this original on film and as film quality has improved there has been a move to what is called Super 35 where only a small strip of the 35mm negative is used for the image - this will then be optically processed for delivery in the same manner as any other 2.xx ratio film. This does leave the option for soft or hard matting of the image though to add to the confusion I believe there are film cameras that efectively pull down less film for each action of the shutter so saving film (and reducing the area that could be soft matted).
On a film set in the past you have seen 4x3 monitors for the director to watch these will often have various saftey areas drawn on. But you also need to remember that the video feed from a 35mm camera is a feed out of the eye piece and is not nescessarily what will be recorded onto the film (so to speak) depends on the camera and the matt etc.
Overall this is all very complex but the reality is that I for one like to see what the director initially intended and I also like my widescreen DVDs to be anamorphic to maximise the resolution and ease of use on my monitor.
Letterbox is watching a 16:9 source on a 4:3 TV without losing the whole W/S picture.
Films in cinemas are rarely produced in 16:9 but in 2.35.1 , those black bars are meant to be there , if you zoom the picture in then effevtivly you are losing 25% of your picture.
If your really serious go by a projector , that way you can switch it to show different ratio material without the need for the black bars.
I've never understood why people are so affected by "black bars." The whole concept of "black bars" doesn't even mean anything and should be referred to as simply there is nothing there to show.
What I don't understand even more than that is why some people feel the need to distort 4:3 material just so they can fill their screen.
I've never understood why people are so affected by "black bars." The whole concept of "black bars" doesn't even mean anything and should be referred to as simply there is nothing there to show.
What I don't understand even more than that is why some people feel the need to distort 4:3 material just so they can fill their screen.
Me meither , I just don't get why people make such a fuss about black bars when as you say they are simply there because there is nothing there to show.
It makes me cringe that America even sells ''Fullscreen'' copies of films because people want there screen filled , even if it results in 45% of the picture being lost.
Me meither , I just don't get why people make such a fuss about black bars when as you say they are simply there because there is nothing there to show.
It makes me cringe that America even sells ''Fullscreen'' copies of films because people want there screen filled , even if it results in 45% of the picture being lost.
Fullscreen versions are the exception and the practice of actually having fullscreen versions only, as opposed to sometimes having a fullscreen version on the flip side of the DVD, is a relatively new concept that appears to be falling on its face as few people rent them, when they are available, so I doubt many people are buying them. I guess its just a matter of some executive trying to squeeze revenue out of even the tiniest market.
I've never understood why people are so affected by "black bars." The whole concept of "black bars" doesn't even mean anything and should be referred to as simply there is nothing there to show.
What I don't understand even more than that is why some people feel the need to distort 4:3 material just so they can fill their screen.
Agree totally - and insist on watching 4x3 pictures in 4x3 on my 16x9 screen. Though I do admit that my first 16x9 Sony TV did a very poor job of providing a square 4x3 box in the center of the screen something that anoyed me no end
If the program originates as HD it is downconverted to SD for the SD version. SD is shown as is. I have never run into a situation where an SD program was being upconverted and being passed off as HD. I would think the channel, or network, might get into hot water for doing something like that. The quality differences would also be obvious.
OK - I suppose the question I am asking is on CBS / ABC / NBC / Fox who have a HD version of their network I assume that not all programming 24hrs a day is originated in HD (for example in the UK repeats and some US shows on the main terrestrial channels are 4x3 but the rest of the content on these channels is 16x9).
So here goes again. Assuming that during the day there is a programme that is not HD on the HD version of the channel is it broadcast at a lower data rate in SD or is it still broadcast at the HD data rate but it is only s SD image? (did that make sense?)
I'm guessing there as I have no idea of the expense and work involved in taking something originally produced with film and making an HD version of it.
If something is produced on film creating an HD master of it is another run through a more sophisticated tele cine machine / scanner which outputs HD.
Taking a SD video source you can certainly upconvert for HD transmission. I have seen very very high end equipment designed to efectively do just that - ie take a SD DVD and convert to upsacle for an HD projector. The content is not HD but it is eeking the maximum out of the SD material and presenting it in the best possible way.
The only problem with this kind of thing is that it only works if the origianl master is of a reasonably high quality.
The reason for asking this is that in the UK there is likely not to be a great deal of HD material initially should any of the terrestrial broadcasters decide to try their hand at HD. But they do have a great deal of high quality SD material which if upconverted would look much better than the SD broadcast even if it was not as good as true HD.
Somewhere else in this thread there was a discussion about ITV and the lack of any likelyhood of it moving towards HD as their was no commercial reason for doing so. I would agree entirely with that view. The BBC will go HD when they can (because they can) and to some extent it is their role to be champion of new technology. ITV has no current incentive to go HD and worse it doesn't have a great deal of HD originated programming from the US that it could broadcast wothout effort. C4 does have lots of potential HD material that they have rights to and they also are closer to a public broadcaster than a commercial one so again they may well take the plunge. C5 again has lots of US material in HD and I suspect the only thing that would stop it as a channel would be cost.
Letterbox is watching a 16:9 source on a 4:3 TV without losing the whole W/S picture.
Films in cinemas are rarely produced in 16:9 but in 2.35.1 , those black bars are meant to be there , if you zoom the picture in then effevtivly you are losing 25% of your picture.
Well your first piece of Jargon busting is correct:
Letterbox is usually described as a widescreen movie displayed with bars top and bottom to get the correct masking for yoru TV.
But to confuse things only a small proportion of hollywood output is 2.35:1. Most is 1.88:1. Tv stations that show 2.35:1 movies have the choice of showing them with black bars top and bottom (another type of letterbox) or creating a pan and scanned version down to 16x9 (yes it really does happen have sat with a director while he has struggled to get his 2.35:1 movie to fit a 16x9 pan and scan frame he couldn't belive how hard it was to get it to fit - of course in this case they did it for Sky who requested it but when his movie was played on Sky they ended up showing the full 2.35:1 version).
OK - I suppose the question I am asking is on CBS / ABC / NBC / Fox who have a HD version of their network I assume that not all programming 24hrs a day is originated in HD (for example in the UK repeats and some US shows on the main terrestrial channels are 4x3 but the rest of the content on these channels is 16x9).
No, none of the standard networks are exclusively HD. HD and SD content is available on digital terrestrial.On analog you will have HD content shown as SD but it could be in 16:9 or cropped to 4:3.
All channels that are exclusively HD tend to be labeled in some way like Discovery HD or HD ABC (assuming there was one). When referring to digital for terrestrial service it is automatic that you can recieve HD content in addition to SD content. With satellite and digital cable it is not necessarily automatic as you have SD versions of some channels, Discovery and HBO,for example, so in order to get Discovery HD you would pay extra for it. Only the major and minor networks offer free HD content.
So here goes again. Assuming that during the day there is a programme that is not HD on the HD version of the channel is it broadcast at a lower data rate in SD or is it still broadcast at the HD data rate but it is only s SD image? (did that make sense?)
If it is an exclusively HD channel you don't see SD programming at all except for some SD content, or clips,inserted into certain HD programs, like the ones I mentioned.
If something is produced on film creating an HD master of it is another run through a more sophisticated tele cine machine / scanner which outputs HD.
Ah, ok. As I said,I'm not familiar with that process. I just know that film has far more information than the up to the max 2 megapixels available from HD so obviously anything originally produced on film can be made into an HD version. Plenty of old material out there to convert. I'd love to see some old shows brought back to life with HD versions even if they are still 4:3.
Taking a SD video source you can certainly upconvert for HD transmission. I have seen very very high end equipment designed to efectively do just that - ie take a SD DVD and convert to upsacle for an HD projector. The content is not HD but it is eeking the maximum out of the SD material and presenting it in the best possible way.
It certainly isn't HD but I also doubt it is showing the original content in its best way. It is simply resizing what was already there. The same as with a digital still image enlarging doesn't add more quality.
The only problem with this kind of thing is that it only works if the origianl master is of a reasonably high quality.
Even degraded and older more grainy film should have more than enough quality to give an excellent 2 megapixel HD version. I have scanned older and less sharp, in comparison to modern film, 35mm film at 4000dpi yielding roughly a 21 megapixel image and when downsized to HD sizes there is more than enough information to yield beautiful HD images that are virtually indistinguishable to modern films at HD sizes, and vastly superior to their SD versions.
Of course I am talking about 35mm still film, as opposed to motion film, but the same concept applies.
*Concerning the above. I thought you were refering to things originating on film and not continuing with the previous paragraph about SD content. Sorry, it can get confusing keeping track of things in long posts, especially when you start cutting and pasting.
My only doubts about your idea is that if the "orginal master" is a bit better than what was normally shown would it be good enough to bother because I doubt there would be enough information to pass it off as HD. Upsampling never gives more quality as I mention below.
The reason for asking this is that in the UK there is likely not to be a great deal of HD material initially should any of the terrestrial broadcasters decide to try their hand at HD. But they do have a great deal of high quality SD material which if upconverted would look much better than the SD broadcast even if it was not as good as true HD.
That's not my experience from seeing SD clips inserted into HD programming. They look worse because you are simply enlarging the original content which thins out contrast,saturation, and of course, resolution.
The major US networks are simulcasting, i.e. there are two versions of the same digital channel. One carries an SD feed of the channel, the other carries an HD feed, which only comes on when there is true HD content available - there is no upconversion.
I'm curious to know what happens to the extra bandwidth when the HD feed is off - surely there would be a surplus of around 12-14 Mbps? Are the other SD channels broadcast at a much higher data rate while the HD feed is off, or is the bandwidth simply not used?
I believe premium HD channels - HBO-HD for example - upconvert SD programming to HD in order to maintain a consistent HD feed.
The major US networks are simulcasting, i.e. there are two versions of the same digital channel. One carries an SD feed of the channel, the other carries an HD feed, which only comes on when there is true HD content available - there is no upconversion.
I'm curious to know what happens to the extra bandwidth when the HD feed is off - surely there would be a surplus of around 12-14 Mbps? Are the other SD channels broadcast at a much higher data rate while the HD feed is off, or is the bandwidth simply not used?
I believe premium HD channels - HBO-HD for example - upconvert SD programming to HD in order to maintain a consistent HD feed.
I have no idea how "bandwidth" is allocated. I would guess that depends on the station concerned. Most digital stations, certainly the networks, have different versions of channels. As far as I know it is not legally required that HD be shown on any digital channels and when it is shown that it is also not required that it be constant so one channel could simply have more SD channels at certain times of the day, say for kids programming or community service or local news.
As for "premium HD channels" it depends on the channel. HBO HD has the same programming schedule as the original HBO (1) so it works in the same way as the networks do by showing HD and SD content. Technically, I have no clue as to what is done to the SD programming. On the other hand there are other "premium HD channels" that are HD content only.
Comments
Yes it's a shame SES are only using Astra1 for it's support of High Def programming, granted across the whole of Europe there is a larger potential audience which I suspect is the bottom line.
I would hope that in the next 12 months the BBC does start FTA broadcasting from 2D even if it's only test transmissions.
While it's not that expensive to add a second dish or larger two LNB equipped dish for most people it's a non-starter.
I think it's a matter of education.. people don't know that a 16:9 TV isn't the same as a widescreen cinema screen and so don't expect to still see the bars.. They also don't understand when they get bars on the side on a 4:3 program when watching on a widescreen TV.
I want to see a movie or program how it was shot and if that means i get bars above and below or on the side i want them there.. it gives a clearer picture but most people don't understand what these are.
My dad thought they just put black bars at the top and bottom and called it widescreen
As the others have said, ITV is light years away from HDTV and even Channel Four, which could be a co production contender at some time, seems more interested in developing more channels than HDTV.
As for the rest, even widescreen is not on the agenda for many of them.
So after Europe took the lead over the US in widescreen, the US is now shooting ahead.
Which is actually good news in a sense as it gives the HDTV promoters in the UK a much bigger programme choice to promote it.
Indeed, when I bought my widescreen tv (a few years ago), I was shocked to find many DVD films in "Widescreen" still had black bars top and bottom. Add to that the fact that with analogue tv signals you have to stretch the image or put up with black pillars left & right. That was one of the main reasons I got Sky Digital installed.
Dave
America never had a widescreen format before HDTV was introduced.
Just to clarify sherer I didn't originate this thread so I'm not to sure what you are refering to as it relates to my remarks within this thread.
Bremner Bird and Fortune and Grand Designs abroad on analogue.
Europe had the lead on WS, the US is now shooting ahead because of HDTV.
You have you jargon mixed up.
Letterbox is watching a 16:9 source on a 4:3 TV without losing the whole W/S picture.
Films in cinemas are rarely produced in 16:9 but in 2.35.1 , those black bars are meant to be there , if you zoom the picture in then effevtivly you are losing 25% of your picture.
If your really serious go by a projector , that way you can switch it to show different ratio material without the need for the black bars.
If the program originates as HD it is downconverted to SD for the SD version. SD is shown as is. I have never run into a situation where an SD program was being upconverted and being passed off as HD. I would think the channel, or network, might get into hot water for doing something like that. The quality differences would also be obvious.
The only time you may see upsampling of original SD material is, for example, in an HD program, say a documentary, news, etc, that slips in clips that were originally produced in SD. That could be done because the orginal clip was originally produced as SD video , whereas if it was produced with film an HD version could be made since film has beyond HD resolution, or even if it is from something that was produced with film it would not be worth the effort or expense to create an HD version of that clip. I'm guessing there as I have no idea of the expense and work involved in taking something originally produced with film and making an HD version of it.
It's important to make the distinction between widescreen SD and widescreen HD. Europe, especially the UK, didn't have a lead in widescreen compared to America, it went well beyond that, since it was doing something America never did by offering widescreen SDTV.
The complexity arrises because there are so many cinema widescreen formats - both production and distribution ones - that have eveolved over the years (and none are exactly 16x9).
I suppose the best way to simply look at it is that there are 3 major grops of screen formats (around each one there is some variation).
On a 16x9 modern TV screen the 1.33 will be a central 4x3 area; 1.85 and 1.66 will be the full 16x9 screen - though some image will be lost to be full 16x9 (as 16x9 is 1.77).
While a 2.xx ratio film will have black bars top and bottom even on a 16x9 screen (unless it is a 16x9 pan and Scan version of a 2.35:1 print). These film ratio was made famous and is often described as "panavision" but in simpler terms for use with a 35mm camera it is an anamporphic lens which works similarly to 16x9 SD TV pictures. A 4x3 squished image is unsquished to 16x9 - and pretty much all cinema delivery uses this technique for these films (save for 70mm delivery). Over the years there are many different ways to get this original on film and as film quality has improved there has been a move to what is called Super 35 where only a small strip of the 35mm negative is used for the image - this will then be optically processed for delivery in the same manner as any other 2.xx ratio film. This does leave the option for soft or hard matting of the image though to add to the confusion I believe there are film cameras that efectively pull down less film for each action of the shutter so saving film (and reducing the area that could be soft matted).
On a film set in the past you have seen 4x3 monitors for the director to watch these will often have various saftey areas drawn on. But you also need to remember that the video feed from a 35mm camera is a feed out of the eye piece and is not nescessarily what will be recorded onto the film (so to speak) depends on the camera and the matt etc.
Overall this is all very complex but the reality is that I for one like to see what the director initially intended and I also like my widescreen DVDs to be anamorphic to maximise the resolution and ease of use on my monitor.
I've never understood why people are so affected by "black bars." The whole concept of "black bars" doesn't even mean anything and should be referred to as simply there is nothing there to show.
What I don't understand even more than that is why some people feel the need to distort 4:3 material just so they can fill their screen.
Me meither , I just don't get why people make such a fuss about black bars when as you say they are simply there because there is nothing there to show.
It makes me cringe that America even sells ''Fullscreen'' copies of films because people want there screen filled , even if it results in 45% of the picture being lost.
Fullscreen versions are the exception and the practice of actually having fullscreen versions only, as opposed to sometimes having a fullscreen version on the flip side of the DVD, is a relatively new concept that appears to be falling on its face as few people rent them, when they are available, so I doubt many people are buying them. I guess its just a matter of some executive trying to squeeze revenue out of even the tiniest market.
Agree totally - and insist on watching 4x3 pictures in 4x3 on my 16x9 screen. Though I do admit that my first 16x9 Sony TV did a very poor job of providing a square 4x3 box in the center of the screen something that anoyed me no end
OK - I suppose the question I am asking is on CBS / ABC / NBC / Fox who have a HD version of their network I assume that not all programming 24hrs a day is originated in HD (for example in the UK repeats and some US shows on the main terrestrial channels are 4x3 but the rest of the content on these channels is 16x9).
So here goes again. Assuming that during the day there is a programme that is not HD on the HD version of the channel is it broadcast at a lower data rate in SD or is it still broadcast at the HD data rate but it is only s SD image? (did that make sense?)
If something is produced on film creating an HD master of it is another run through a more sophisticated tele cine machine / scanner which outputs HD.
Taking a SD video source you can certainly upconvert for HD transmission. I have seen very very high end equipment designed to efectively do just that - ie take a SD DVD and convert to upsacle for an HD projector. The content is not HD but it is eeking the maximum out of the SD material and presenting it in the best possible way.
The only problem with this kind of thing is that it only works if the origianl master is of a reasonably high quality.
The reason for asking this is that in the UK there is likely not to be a great deal of HD material initially should any of the terrestrial broadcasters decide to try their hand at HD. But they do have a great deal of high quality SD material which if upconverted would look much better than the SD broadcast even if it was not as good as true HD.
Somewhere else in this thread there was a discussion about ITV and the lack of any likelyhood of it moving towards HD as their was no commercial reason for doing so. I would agree entirely with that view. The BBC will go HD when they can (because they can) and to some extent it is their role to be champion of new technology. ITV has no current incentive to go HD and worse it doesn't have a great deal of HD originated programming from the US that it could broadcast wothout effort. C4 does have lots of potential HD material that they have rights to and they also are closer to a public broadcaster than a commercial one so again they may well take the plunge. C5 again has lots of US material in HD and I suspect the only thing that would stop it as a channel would be cost.
Well your first piece of Jargon busting is correct:
Letterbox is usually described as a widescreen movie displayed with bars top and bottom to get the correct masking for yoru TV.
But to confuse things only a small proportion of hollywood output is 2.35:1. Most is 1.88:1. Tv stations that show 2.35:1 movies have the choice of showing them with black bars top and bottom (another type of letterbox) or creating a pan and scanned version down to 16x9 (yes it really does happen have sat with a director while he has struggled to get his 2.35:1 movie to fit a 16x9 pan and scan frame he couldn't belive how hard it was to get it to fit - of course in this case they did it for Sky who requested it but when his movie was played on Sky they ended up showing the full 2.35:1 version).
i wasn't referring to anyone i was just stating that the reason these threads come along so often is no one understands them..
When the BBC or ITV show a program in 4:3 with bars down the side they never explain what they have done and people complain.
If they had an explaination they might react differently
No, none of the standard networks are exclusively HD. HD and SD content is available on digital terrestrial.On analog you will have HD content shown as SD but it could be in 16:9 or cropped to 4:3.
All channels that are exclusively HD tend to be labeled in some way like Discovery HD or HD ABC (assuming there was one). When referring to digital for terrestrial service it is automatic that you can recieve HD content in addition to SD content. With satellite and digital cable it is not necessarily automatic as you have SD versions of some channels, Discovery and HBO,for example, so in order to get Discovery HD you would pay extra for it. Only the major and minor networks offer free HD content.
If it is an exclusively HD channel you don't see SD programming at all except for some SD content, or clips,inserted into certain HD programs, like the ones I mentioned.
Ah, ok. As I said,I'm not familiar with that process. I just know that film has far more information than the up to the max 2 megapixels available from HD so obviously anything originally produced on film can be made into an HD version. Plenty of old material out there to convert. I'd love to see some old shows brought back to life with HD versions even if they are still 4:3.
It certainly isn't HD but I also doubt it is showing the original content in its best way. It is simply resizing what was already there. The same as with a digital still image enlarging doesn't add more quality.
Even degraded and older more grainy film should have more than enough quality to give an excellent 2 megapixel HD version. I have scanned older and less sharp, in comparison to modern film, 35mm film at 4000dpi yielding roughly a 21 megapixel image and when downsized to HD sizes there is more than enough information to yield beautiful HD images that are virtually indistinguishable to modern films at HD sizes, and vastly superior to their SD versions.
Of course I am talking about 35mm still film, as opposed to motion film, but the same concept applies.
*Concerning the above. I thought you were refering to things originating on film and not continuing with the previous paragraph about SD content. Sorry, it can get confusing keeping track of things in long posts, especially when you start cutting and pasting.
My only doubts about your idea is that if the "orginal master" is a bit better than what was normally shown would it be good enough to bother because I doubt there would be enough information to pass it off as HD. Upsampling never gives more quality as I mention below.
That's not my experience from seeing SD clips inserted into HD programming. They look worse because you are simply enlarging the original content which thins out contrast,saturation, and of course, resolution.
You quoted me in your response that's why i mentioned it.
The major US networks are simulcasting, i.e. there are two versions of the same digital channel. One carries an SD feed of the channel, the other carries an HD feed, which only comes on when there is true HD content available - there is no upconversion.
I'm curious to know what happens to the extra bandwidth when the HD feed is off - surely there would be a surplus of around 12-14 Mbps? Are the other SD channels broadcast at a much higher data rate while the HD feed is off, or is the bandwidth simply not used?
I believe premium HD channels - HBO-HD for example - upconvert SD programming to HD in order to maintain a consistent HD feed.
I have no idea how "bandwidth" is allocated. I would guess that depends on the station concerned. Most digital stations, certainly the networks, have different versions of channels. As far as I know it is not legally required that HD be shown on any digital channels and when it is shown that it is also not required that it be constant so one channel could simply have more SD channels at certain times of the day, say for kids programming or community service or local news.
As for "premium HD channels" it depends on the channel. HBO HD has the same programming schedule as the original HBO (1) so it works in the same way as the networks do by showing HD and SD content. Technically, I have no clue as to what is done to the SD programming. On the other hand there are other "premium HD channels" that are HD content only.