tbng

Come now. Take a valium and relax. If you're getting hosed then you're hanging out in the wrong part of town. No one makes you take a high defnition package at this point in history, although I am convinced that eventually all broadcasts will be high-def. I for one would be happy to have a TCM high-def channel that does advertise BETWEEN movies as long as they NEVER go the AMC route to crass commercialism. I always record movies and would never watch the commercials anyway.

Profitability is an issue because there is no profit in an existing network switching to high-def until a high-def competitor starts taking its subscribers. It's pure cost and not at all like a high-def-only channel such as HD-NET to which you will subscribe solely because it is high-def. Shortage of high-def-specific income is why some local stations do such a bad job of sending along the high-def signal. My local CBS affiliate, for example, has to switch to standard def to show graphics, which interrupts the broadcast and causes loss of dialogue because the two signals are not synced. They must also broadcast commercials in standard def, and many times they forget to switch back to high-def. Neither do they yet broadcast in Dolby 5.1 audio because CBS uses a unique audio transmission system that costs too much for a small station to implement. NBC has its own issues because they still use KU-band satellites that are more subject to terrestrial interference such as storms. Somehow, Fox and ABC get it right more often than not, but you still may have issues with a local station from any network. That said, high-def is here. The number of high-def TVs sold is now greater than standard def, and that gap will only widen. I expect the standard def TV to disappear within a few years or, at best, be limited to very small sets. The increasing number of customers with high-def capability will not stand for a standard definition signal for long. Sink or swim, TCM. I'd hate to see you sink.

In all due respect, you are missing the technical point. Naturally a restored film will look better than the aged one or the umpteenth generation analog copy, but even the unrestored version will look better in high definition than standard def. A video taped program is a different matter altogether because it was created at a specified video resolution. In the case of upconverting a standard def video to high def, you're right that it cannot be better than the original - other than not seeing horizontal scan lines. Film, however, is a completely different animal. It is nothing more than 24 still photos passing by every second, and its resolution is in no way related to video resolution. A 150-year-old still photo will look better in high definition than standard. If you own a 60-inch HDTV and cannot see the visual advantage of films broadcast in high def, then something is wrong with either your set or your perception.

Clearly you have not watched a film in HD. The difference is like going from mono sound to stereo, between looking at a beautiful day through a dirty window pane and then cleaning it, the difference in your wife's appearance after she's made up for a glamor portrait. In short, not even in the same league. Converting an old taped program to high def would benefit little, that's true, but film is not TV. It benefits magnificently from high definition.

Film purist that TCM is, it amazes me that they have not long ago launched a high defintion channel. Anyone who has watch older films on HDNET or Universal HD realizes immediately that high defintion greatly enhances the viewing experience, especially in widescreen movies. Yet as I search through their website, I see virtually no mention of it. Surely this must be on their minds.