TCM: Finally in Real HD? (2 Viewers)

[TonyD]

Spartacus

Not sure if this is the new master or not but it looks much better than the last bad remaster.

 

[Ken H]

Regarding the audio.

Everything TCM HD broadcasts is transmitted and flagged with Dolby Digital 5.1 sound, but only films with DD for theatrical release are native DD, which was first offered in 1992 for Batman Returns.

The rest are massaged at TCM and some kind of simulated DD 5.1 is what they have decided to offer, which is the overwhelming majority of films they air. I haven't noticed any major issues but as a purist I'm not thrilled with this decision on their part.

I wonder just how deep they go in processing the audio? For example, do they go back and get the original 2 channel stereo audio from Dolby Stereo films, starting in 1976 (really taking off with Star Wars in 1977), and then run it through a Dolby Pro Logic processor (theatrical Dolby Stereo)? Do they go back and mine the 4 channels from CinemaScope films? If so, how do they decide to use the 4 channels? What do they do with the multitudes of monaural audio films?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Ken H]

Back to the native HD issue.

Here's two pictures that show what I'm referring to.

The first is The Ipcress File, 2.35:1 AR, upconverted. Notice the black bars on both sides of the screen.

The second is The Bridge on the River Kwai, 2.35:1 AR, in native HD. Notice how it fills the entire width of the screen.

 

[Angelo Colombus]

I noticed that too in some of the movies where there is a thin black bars on the sides....

 

[Ken H]

Yes, which means it's not native HD - just an upconvert.

 

[Mike Boone]

Within the last 2 weeks TCM showed Doctor Zhivago in native HD with proper framing which matched the framing of the Blu-ray. But framing and picture detail were about the only areas where TCM's presentation was a close match for the BD version. The blacks in the TCM presentation were washed out compared to the BD, and reds and blues seen on costumes and hats were faded on TCM compared to the Blu-ray version. And compression artifacts were constantly seen moving in the darker scenes on TCM, while not showing up at all on the BD.

TCM, lately, has certainly been making progress in showing more films in native HD, and with their proper aspect ratios. But in comparing about a half dozen TCM HD presentations, including 1966's The Professionals, with their BD counterparts, I've still not yet seen a case where the BD failed to outperform the TCM version. And our DirecTV HD service provides excellent picture quality that is definitely superior to the video quality we had with Time-Warner's HD service for 3 years, until we finally switched over to DirecTV, 4 months ago.

 

[Ken H]

Within the last 2 weeks TCM showed Doctor Zhivago in native HD with proper framing which matched the framing of the Blu-ray. But framing and picture detail were about the only areas where TCM's presentation was a close match for the BD version. The blacks in the TCM presentation were washed out compared to the BD, and reds and blues seen on costumes and hats were faded on TCM compared to the Blu-ray version. And compression artifacts were constantly seen moving in the darker scenes on TCM, while not showing up at all on the BD.

TCM, lately, has certainly been making progress in showing more films in native HD, and with their proper aspect ratios. But in comparing about a half dozen TCM HD presentations, including 1966's The Professionals, with their BD counterparts, I've still not yet seen a case where the BD failed to outperform the TCM version.

And this is what would usually be expected, since the Blu-ray format has considerably more bandwidth than the HDTV format, not to mention what the the multichannel providers do when they compress channels to get as many as possible on their systems.

But, from what you've described, I think the big difference in what you're seeing is a difference in the quality of the HD transfer, between what TCM has at the time and what the Blu-ray your comparing it to is using. Much like when CD's were first available, HD transfer quality varies widely and working with a budget it's not hard to imagine TCM getting poor HD transfers from time to time, for a variety of reasons.

Earlier in this topic, and on other online forums, it's long been noted that the quality of particular HD films can improve drastically on TCM HD.

The good news is that TCM is noted for quality and over time they will replace poor HD transfers.

 

[Tony Bensley]

And this is what would usually be expected, since the Blu-ray format has considerably more bandwidth than the HDTV format, not to mention what the the multichannel providers do when they compress channels to get as many as possible on their systems.

But, from what you've described, I think the big difference in what you're seeing is a difference in the quality of the HD transfer, between what TCM has at the time and what the Blu-ray your comparing it to is using. Much like when CD's were first available, HD transfer quality varies widely and working with a budget it's not hard to imagine TCM getting poor HD transfers from time to time, for a variety of reasons.

Earlier in this topic, and on other online forums, it's long been noted that the quality of particular HD films can improve drastically on TCM HD.

The good news is that TCM is noted for quality and over time they will replace poor HD transfers.

While I presently have no stake in TCM presentations (Our cable provider doesn't carry it!), I would like very much if they'd replace that raggy old PD transfer of Laurel & Hardy's THE FLYING DEUCES (1939), with one of the two Blu-ray releases from last year, preferably the UK Network On Air release! While both versions include the opening RKO Logo, original openings and closings (The latter which contains the proper exit music, for the first time!), the Network version doesn't have the U.S. based VCI Entertainment release's contrast issues!

By now, I would also hope that TCM uses the HD digital transfers that were the basis of the Hal Roach titles from the LAUREL & HARDY: THE ESSENTIAL COLLECTION 2011 release, and the more recent U.S. based Amazon/iTunes HD downloads!

CHEERS!

 

[Dr Griffin]

Watching 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea on TCM HD, and it appears to be HD after all. CinemaScope image goes full width of the screen. It looks very good.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Watching 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea on TCM HD, and it appears to be HD after all. CinemaScope image goes full width of the screen. It looks very good.

I rented the HD version from either iTunes or Vudu last year, and was very happy with it - hoping that it'll one day come out on Blu-ray.

 

[TonyD]

Watching 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea on TCM HD, and it appears to be HD after all. CinemaScope image goes full width of the screen. It looks very good.

Yep was just about to mention this. Good stuff.

 

[TonyD]

BTW what is the width to hight ratio on this? Looks wider than a usual 2.35:1

 

[revgen]

Did anybody see Who Done It? (1942) last night in HD? Hopefully all the Abbot and Costello movies will make it to Blu-Ray soon.

 

[Dr Griffin]

^Not sure, it looks right for CinemaScope. Titles looked fantastic and were not window boxed.
As for a Blu-ray, this is a Disney title, no?

 

[Tony Bensley]

Did anybody see Who Done It? (1942) last night in HD? Hopefully all the Abbot and Costello movies will make it to Blu-Ray soon.

Yes, and hopefully Universal will finally get the Aspect Ratios right for ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE KEYSTONE KOPS (1955) and 'MEET THE MUMMY' (1955)!

CHEERS!

 

[Dr Griffin]

BTW what is the width to hight ratio on this? Looks wider than a usual 2.35:1

Could be 2.55:1.

 

[Matt Hough]

It should be 2.55:1. Being a 1954 film, that was the projected ratio for Cinemascope during that year.

 

[Mike Boone]

Yes, which means it's not native HD - just an upconvert.

Yes, which means it's not native HD - just an upconvert.

Yes, which means it's not native HD - just an upconvert.

Actually, TCM's recent showing of the 1956 epic, Giant, is one of the exceptions to the rule which states that the presence of borders on the sides of a movie's image means that TCM is not presenting it in native HD. Giant was one of the movies of the 1950s that was shot in a 1.66 to 1 aspect ratio, which was certainly a wider format than that of American films released before 1953, but is not as wide as modern HDTVs and UHD TVs which have a 16X9 ratio, which actually translates to 1.77 to 1. So a film like Giant, if presented properly, will have narrow bars to the left and right of its image. BTW, the framing of Giant on TCM was a match for that of the Blu-ray version, and the TCM showing was a rare case of that HD service having a presentation that seemed to equal the quality of the Blu-ray, in the few minutes of checking that I did. However, that's not saying all that much since the video quality of Giant's Blu-ray is a pretty mediocre example of a catalog title, and is far surpassed, for example, by 1953's The Robe, which was shot in 35mm Cinemascope. The Giant BD just doesn't come close to the BD of The Robe in sharpness and detail, color saturation, or contrast.

 

[RolandL]

The French Line is on right now and looks and sounds terrible. I think my VHS tape in field-sequential 3D is better.

 

[RolandL]

It should be 2.55:1. Being a 1954 film, that was the projected ratio for Cinemascope during that year.

The TCM broadcast is 2.35.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to 20,000 Leagues. It does look good, also better than the DVD.