musikone

Thank you for your for taking the time and trouble to post another message about an issue which continues to cause endless confusion here, and for very good reason :-). After a brief review following your example, I have concluded that there are far too many variables involved here to reach any generalized conclusion. These variables include TCM's manipulations, the type of television set, the cable service provider, the aspect ratio, etc., etc. Putting it simply: what satisfies one viewer will probably not satisfy another viewer. The result which you have displayed in your post is *not* what I am getting with my TV setup. For example, with the letterbox movie that I just checked, I get the *same image size* in both the SD and HD channels. However, with a movie that has a 4:3 aspect ratio and that nicely fills the screen (vertically) in SD, the image size that I get in HD is only 50% of the image size that I get in HD, as I have said many times. That is, the ratio of image sizes in SD vs. HD depends upon the particular aspect ratio, which greatly complicates matters. Regarding TV set image modification, my Samsung TV has various types of image size modifications via the remote; all of these distort the image to some extent if it is not properly set. Unfortunately I do not have a pure zoom image modifier; i.e., which will shrink or enlarge the image *without distorting it.* My cable service remote also has an "HD zoom" button but it does not work; I am told by Cox cable that the cable box whhich I am using does not support this function, etc., etc. The bottom line for me is: I will not accept any image distortion, just for the sake of filling up the screen in either dimension. At the moment, I am not prepared to sort all of these things out. It seems as though each case is different and I suppose that I could devote a lifetime trying to sort out all of these factors. But I have other things to do, the most important at the moment being my ongoing archiving of some great TCM movies, in such a manner that I can devote a few minutes to some other things also :-). musikone

kriegerg69 wrote:Let's not get started on this tiresome old argument all over again when people can go back to the existing thread over that nonsense. As I read it, your complaint with my "tiresome old argument" is that you are unable to see any rationale for "sacrificing" a very small number of true HD movies (poor things!) by viewing them in SD --heaven forbid! Perhaps in a few years, when there are enough HD movies hanging around to make my current argument tiresome, then your tiresome argument will no longer be necessary. musikone

filmlover wrote:TCM does have an HD channel. You should contact your local cable or satellite provider. While it is upgraded content, rather than actual HD, you do get to see widescreen movies in a widescreen format, not 4:3. I *DO* get to see widescreen movies in a widescreen format when tuned to TCM's SD channel. Hence, despite recent posts to the contrary notwithstanding, TCM is not routinely converting wide screen formats to 4:3 for showing in their SD channel. Thus, as far as I am concerned, there is no reason not to view all movies in SD, thus giving up viewing a very few genuine-HD movies in the so-called HD channel. Now that your post has once again put me up on my soapbox: For a given aspect ratio, the picture area in the HD channel is only 50% of the picture area in the SD channel. So why would anyone in his/her right mind want to view an *identical* picture in this much smaller size? Don't tell me that it is because the picture is sharper in this smaller size :-). musikone

misswonderly wrote:Right, they always get everything wrong side up in that country. This is not exactly what I meant :-) So here's a clue, just for you. Try pronouncing Robert's last name. musikone

RazorX wrote that musikone wrote: "Occasionally I check up on the situation. However, every time that I make an A-B check of a movie on both HD and SD channels, I can see no significant difference between the two, except that, on my TV screen, the HD picture is 50% of the size (area-wise) of the SD picture! So this shrunken image is the improvement that we are being promised on the HD channel?" RazorX then responded: "It should be just the opposite. A widescreen film on the SD channel will be shrunken down to fit in a 4:3 space, while on the HD channel it should fill the screen from side to side, and may have some slight letterboxing on the top and bottom of the screen, depending on the aspect ratio. I DVR most of the films I watch on TCM. If something's being shown in the Academy ratio, I try to record it from the SD channel to save DVR storage space but anything wider I record from the HD channel, so I have a decent-sized image that I can actually see. In the case of Robinson Crusoe, it looked much better on the SD channel than on the HD channel. I suppose HD revealed more of the print's shortcomings." Here we go again! :-) When I refer to a "shrunken" image, I am referring to the fact that, *for the same aspect ratio (i.e. width/height),* the area of the image in TCM's HD channel is just 50% of the area of the image in TCM's SD channel. For example, if I view a 4:3 picture in HD, the image area will be 50% of the image area of the *identical 4:3 picture*, but viewed in SD. Every time that I broach this subject (it somehow or other keeps reappearing), someone always confuses apples with oranges. So let's stick to apples this time around, and hopefully this point will finally sink in! But I won't bet on it......... musikone Edited by: musikone on Feb 23, 2012 11:39 PM

RayFaiola wrote:I looked at my DVR'd copy last night. One of the reasons it looked so lousy is that it was heavily overscanned. I suspect this was done for HD viewers. Until TCM can demonstrate convincingly, *in advance of its showing,* that a title which is scheduled for showing in HD is a definite improvement over that same title to be shown in SD, then, in my opinion, it should be viewed on the SD channel. Currently, and I expect this practice to continue indefinitely into the future, I view *every* TCM movie on the SD channel. Occasionally I check up on the situation. However, every time that I make an A-B check of a movie on both HD and SD channels, *I can see no significant difference between the two,* except that, on my TV screen, the HD picture is 50% of the size (area-wise) of the SD picture! So *this shrunken image* is the improvement that we are being promised on the HD channel? There may be exceptions to my general observations, but I do not know what these *very few* movies are -- nor will I particularly care until TCM cleans up its HD act. And yes, my eyesight is *very* good, thank you. musikone Edited by: musikone on Feb 23, 2012 12:48 PM

Sprocket_Man wrote:No, "Hello, I'm Robert Osborne" is the only statement Osborne makes in his introductions that you can count on to be accurate. Wasn't he born in Australia? musikone

Sprocket_Man wrote:I'm annoyed by yet another of Bob Osborne's flubs, referring to director Luis Buñuel as "Looie." It's Spanish, Bob -- pronounced "LOO-eess" -- not French. It's your job, Bob, one for which you're being paid money to inform, not misinform. Why can't you do your homework? *I* thought that he wath lithping. This was Robert's slip. Now here's yours. In Spanish, Luis is *not* pronounced "LOO-eess". It is pronounced Lweess. The vowel combination "ui" is a Spanish diphthong, which is a continuous, gliding sound, rather than being in two syllables as your post indicates. This is the same diphthong as "uy" in the Spanish word Muy, which is pronounced Mwee, *not* MOO-ee. Hearing you say it this way, a Spaniard would probably wonder where the cow is :-). Remember, your duty is to inform, not misinform. Why can't you do *your* homework? musikone Edited by: musikone on Feb 22, 2012 7:55 PM

RazorX wrote:Sepiatone, Changing the TV settings to 4:3 would have worked if they had done a stretch-o-vision thing with the film, but they actually zoomed in on it, causing the edges to be cropped out of the screen. There's no way to get what was lost back, and no way to get back the lost resolution from the zooming. The only thing to do in this case would be to watch it the standard definition channel where it was presented properly. I always watch TCM's so-called "high-definition" movies in standard definition in order to utilize more than 50% of the TV screen. I hate these badly shrunken images. So far at least, I appear to have *lost nothing* by doing this. Musikone (keeping them honest)

denislaug wrote:Your Playing Classical music is just great, "Strauss Festival" is just great and all others like it ... Thanks for the great interludes between Movies.. I [l]ove it . Sincerely, Capt. Dennis Slaughter I heartily agree with you, Captain. Unfortunately, the reality of USA culture is that very, very few people (percentage-wise) have any serious interest in so-called "classical" *music*. Even among TCM fans, who are much more culture-oriented than the American masses, this interest is apparently minor, as you will see when you check for the number of replies to what is admittedly an off-topic post, if one deems on-topic to be only the discussion of so-called "classical" *movies*. To each his/her own idea of what constitutes "classical". Musikone (all kinds of music and their inter-relationship)

exapno wrote: I quite frankly have never had this problem with TCM....they have been usually VERY good about adding 'extra' to their slots if a movie even runs 'over' - i.e., if it runs 121 minutes they give it a 135 slot - that 'extra' quarter hour. In the past, mostly YES. But in the last several days, often *NO*. The recent "Strike Up the Band" is a perfect example of *NO*. Someone at TCM programmed the 120 minute movie in a space of 120 minutes!! This does not leave any space at all for commentaries, both at the beginning and the end of the movie. Worse yet, the existence of commentaries and their lengths is unknown. And perhaps by the programmer? exapno wrote: As said before, it is always better to be safe than sorry, and MANUALLY program. Unfortunately, this does not always work. I always program MANUALLY. Yet when confronted with a can't-win situation by TCM's careless (the nicest thing that can be said about it) programming, I lost. I ended up with Ben's commentary at the start of the movie but lost it at the end (I record both commentaries as a matter of course, even though they may be repetitive; I can edit them out after the recording), since I was committed to recording the movie which immediately followed. I keep a database of all of the movies that I have in my TCM archive, in order to avoid repeated recordings. I mark these "omits" on my recording schedule. Among other benefits, this gives me extra programming space to soak up the slopover when it occurs. As much as I dislike all of these repeats, I can at least get something good from them :-). Musikone Edited by: musikone on Feb 1, 2012 8:44 PM

clore wrote:I won't agree in general with the OP, but I did watch CLOSE ENCOUNTERS last night as I only recently traded up to HD boxes and I thought that the print looked terrible. Muddy and with lots of what I call dandruff. Lots of specks going on, especially apparent in the dark scenes. "unacceptable" is the nicest thing that can be said about the quality of this film. "terrible" is the runner-up. Is this what happens when everyone is on a cruise and no one is at home minding the store? Musikone

darkblue wrote: I understand perfectly what you're saying, musikone. If the HD channel is just showing the exact same clarity as the SD channel, only smaller to give the viewer the illusion that it's HD, what's the point? You may just as well revert to SD broadcast rather than shrink the viewing area for absolutely no purpose. I have no idea why anyone else is confused about what you're saying. Perhaps it is because "anyone else" (would you care to furnish a name or two or....., perhaps?) cannot understand *Plain English.* Unfortunately for my ability to communicate, I don't know how to speak anything else (sigh). Musikone

TopBilled wrote: I watched the tail end of STOLEN KISSES. It was not as great as I had hoped. I think it pales compared to 400 BLOWS. There are two other sequels, I think. Perhaps if TCM did a special evening of Antoine Doinel films we could get our foreign fix. LOL I agree that foreign films are vastly under-represented on the channel. Remember back in August when there was a whole day devoted to Jean Gabin...and what an uproar that caused! Better late than never :-) It is a bitter disappointment that foreign films seem to be on their way out at TCM :-(. This is obviously because TCM is trying to attract younger viewers, most of whom don't want anything to do with even a so-called "classic" movie, much less a *foreign* classic movie. In those good old days, when TCM's intent was solely to supply quality films, rather than to focus upon winning over any particular demographic group, we had a wealth of excellent, quality-oriented foreign films. Now, the few that are left are dwindling fast on TCM. The handwriting is clearly on the wall--for those around here who can read it realistically, instead of pretending that it does not exist. True to form, Bill Dollar wins once again, as ad-men and pitch-men push, shove, shout, wink, and fall all over themselves for all of the wrong reasons. Musikone

kriegerg69 wrote: Whatever....it seems that all some people do is to nitpick on every little inaccuracy in Robert's intros, instead of spending time ENJOYING the movie. There was some conversation about a superfluous "o". Speaking of things superfluous, how about a superfluous "*to*"? Musikone

krieger69 wrote: I understand resolution=sharpness, but resolution ALSO refers to the dimensions of an image...such as 720x480 being the resolution of a regular DVD. Or on a computer.digital image, such as 640x480 (as a commonly-used smaller size ) being the resolution of an image Sorry about that; I used the word "sharpness" to avoid getting into the technical details that you are using to describe a digital image. But this is beside the point that I have been trying to make, which is this. The images that TCM is showing on its HD channel are not currently, as I understand it, any different from those images that are being shown on its SD channel. If this is the case, then *WHY* is the picture size on the HD channel only 64.8% of the picture size on the SD channel? Why should I be forced to watch a shrunken image on the "high definition" channel, when I can see a much larger image (albeit of poorer resolution due to the enlargement) on the standard definition channel? What's more, I do not expect my television set to be used for viewing images with an area that covers little more than 50% of the TV screen, which is the case with a shrunken 64.8% image. THE BOTTOM LINE To repeat what I said in an earlier post: I find it *unacceptable* to have to view a shrunken, genuine HD image in a 4:3 frame, much less to view a shrunken "counterfeit" HD image. Poppycock! Musikone

2847 wrote:I'm the guy that also has cox cable and a 32 inch set. My picture is 25 wide and 18 inches high. My setting is for 1080 resolution and 16x9 screen. Cox in my city (san diego ca.) probably has a million customers so that is why we get the help. Cox wired our city at least twenty years ago. We were part of the original test set ups. Good luck. This is also my setting. Yet apparently you are getting the same size picture on channels 58 and 1058, while the picture that I am getting on channel 1058 is 64.8% as large as the picture that I am getting on channel 58. The mystery deepens. Help? What help? I must admit, however, that I have not yet given Cox 20 chances to screw up on this particular issue. I will need much more than good luck to get anything constructive from these people (this is absolutely the sweetest way that that you can refer to them) in *our* city! Musikone (Cox is not *MY* friend in the digital age!) Edited by: musikone on Dec 24, 2011 3:28 PM

clore wrote:The impression that I get is that if he is watching MEET JOHN DOE right now, on the SD channel, his image has black bars only on the sides. But if he turns to the HD channel, he gets bars all around the image You have the correct impression. However, discussing this issue by a popular reference to "black bars"on the screen does not address the problem which is causing this poster to be confused and obfuscated, by his own admission :-). I explained his conceptual problem in a new post, just a few minutes ago. Maybe it will help to eliminate his confusion and obfuscation, at least on this part of my original, detailed post. But then again, maybe it won't.... Check it out. Musikone

kriegerg69 wrote: musikone wrote: My complaint is about two different picture sizes which I get from Cox cable when the same movie is shown on two different TCM channels, one of which is called a "high definition" channel. *Of course you'll have two different sizes...because one is HD and one is SD. They're two different resolutions entirely (two different sizes).* *I still don't grasp the point you're complaining about.* OK, I will try again. If at first you don't succeed, then..... Picture *Size* is not the same as picture *Resolution.* Picture size is the AREA (as I measured on the screen) in which the image is being displayed. Picture resolution (a different beast, as it were) is, in "popular" language without going into technical details, the SHARPNESS of the image. Musikone

clore wrote:Chances are good that you need to adjust the cable box settings. It may not be set for HD. Did your box come with an instruction manual? If not, try a Google search using the manufacturer and model number of the cable box. What I think is happening is that you need to set the box to a 1080 resolution and a 16X9 screen size. I had a similar problem when I got my HD boxes several weeks ago. I found the manual on-line in PDF form and made the necessary adjustments. Thank you for your suggestion. I wish it were that simple. Three and one-half years ago, when I bought my second DVD recorder, I went through the manual for my cable box with a fine-tooth comb, in order to install my recorder properly, in the way that I wanted it installed, not necessarily in the way that Cox cable wanted it installed. I needed the cable box manual to do this satisfactorily. At that time, the point that you are talking about was set properly; I just checked this again to make sure, and yes, it was done right. Although I have not done it, since I know the Cox people and methods here *extremely* well, I will ask their common technical support people and see what they come up with. I will be *very* surprised if they know the answer. Musikone (and more)

> {quote:title=2847 wrote:}{quote}I also have Cox Cable. The HD Channel is new for us.Picture size is the same on both SD and HD. Only size change is watching a letter box movie.Bigger and better depending on the condition of the movie on the HD. I have a 32 inch screen also. > Check with Cox they are always ready to help. > > *But not in the area in which I live. Here, there is no one in technical support who can begin to understand this issue--or practically anything else other than how to operate your tv remote, or reboot your cable box, or other things of this nature. On any sophisticated issue, they are hopeless.* > > *Not only that, the Cox mismanagement in this large metropolitan area is sleazy, secretive, and you cannot catch them. I do not understand how I can be experiencing this problem when you are not. I thought that Cox was basically the same thing around the country. Apparently it is not. I hate this 64.8% picture that I get on channel 1058 here, while getting the full frame on channel 58.* > > *Musikone* > *(Cox is not MY friend in the digital age)* >

Thanks for the compliment, Fred. But guess again :-) Musikone

> > . > > > "I'm assuming I understood what you meant, so this doesn't have anything to do with a problem from your cable provider. It has more to do with the simple facts of an HD ratio vs. an SD ratio, and what you need to do in order to view each one on your 16x9 tv screen. > > > We only have an SD cable service here at home, so anything broadcast in widescreen on TCM...regardless of the aspect ratio...always looks "squashed down" and not proportioned correctly. To make a widescreen movie on TCM look correct, I have to change my display settings to "Zoom"...and then any matted widescreen movie or one done in Cinemascope, etc., ends up looking correctly proportioned. Personally, I don't like seeing a 4x3 image centered on my 16x9 screen, so I usually have my display settings to "Stretch" or "Full", which makes a 4x3 non-widescreen image fill my tv screen." > > > > *You have misunderstood me. My complaint is not about filling up the screen or changing the frame size by using the TV set adjustment. There is only one proper adjustment, and that is for the frame size that was transmitted. Any attempt to change the frame size will result in a distorted image.* > > *My complaint is about two different picture sizes which I get from Cox cable when the same movie is shown on two different TCM channels, one of which is called a "high definition" channel.*

I am using Cox cable TV, but only since I live in an area where there is no other cable TV provider. TCM is currently available from Cox on two channels: (1) a standard definition (abbr. SD) analog channel, and (2) a high definition (abbr. HD) digital channel. In order to make a quantitative determination of the problem with a TCM picture that I am experiencing on Cox's HD channel, I made some measurements on my 32-inch HDTV. On this particular HDTV, a 4:3 frame is 20.5 inches in width and 15.4 inches in height: a picture area of 315.7 square inches. In SD, a non-wide-screen format fills the frame. In HD, this same non-wide-screen format shrinks to 16.5 inches in width and 12.4 inches in height: a picture area of 204.6 square inches. That is, the HD picture area is just 64.8% of the SD picture area! Although it is not directly applicable to this shrinkage problem, a brief observation about HD picture quality seems to be appropriate. Just because a movie is being shown on a HD channel does not necessarily mean that it meets today's HD standards, whatever this may technically mean; rather, HD from a practical viewpoint appears to be one of those "I-know-it-when-I-see-it" things. Very often, a picture of mediocre quality, made when HD was only a dream, will be shown in a HD channel, in order to annoint it and increase its appeal to those who go by labels instead of performance. Quality label notwithstanding, any movie shown on the Cox HD channel must necessarily appear to be sharper than the same movie, only larger, shown on the Cox SD channel, since picture enlargement lowers the viewing resolution at any given distance. Taking this factor into account, it appears to me that every TCM movie that I currently view (set to a 4:3 frame with my TV's picture size adjustment) on the SD channel is virtually identical to that same movie when viewed in this same frame on the HD channel. Thus, none of these movies (or perhaps I have not seen the right one) being shown on Cox's HD channel meets the qualitative "HD eye test." In my opinion, this shrinkage of the picture in the HD channel is unacceptable. I am not sure why this is happening. Fortunately for viewers who want to get a quick handle on this very disturbing development, without getting bogged down in an endless debate about the meaning of an HD picture, measurement with a ruler provides a quantitative determination of picture size that is not open to tactical obfuscation. In other words, to grasp the issue at hand, forget about the labels SD and HD; what is pertinent here is the fact that there are two channels, labeled SD and HD, in which the two images appear to be identical, but with one image being much larger than the other. I find it hard to believe that it is TCM's intent that a movie shown in any cable service provider's HD channel should be only 64.8% of the size of this same movie shown in the SD channel of this same cable service provider. Might anyone here have an answer to this alarming development? Could this mean that I am using the wrong TV cable service provider? Or could it mean that TCM technicians have once again found some way to screw things up? Or both? Musikone (much more than music!)

*Don't bet on it!* What do you expect to replace it? Blu-Ray? This is a laugh :-) *Classic movies* (whatever this may currently mean) are generally of a video quality which gains little, if anything, from Blu-Ray, which was developed to handle the technological demands of preserving high-definition video on a disc which superficially resembles DVD but contains a great deal more information. The current high cost for this information is not going to drop very much when things like classic movies, for example, are promoted in conjunction with Blu-Ray technology. Nonsensical and expensive. Now then, tell us the basis for *your* claim. Thank you. musikone Al is in Wonderland! where things are definitely not what they seem to be. all hail to super marketeering--at our expense