musikone
-
Posts
294 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by musikone
-
-
Movies are no longer starting and stopping according to their scheduled times. Something has gone haywire when movies are consistently starting three, four, or five minutes late!! If the lengthy commentaries are throwing things out of whack, some way should be found to fix this and to account for these bits and pieces in the schedule. Right now, the schedule can slip or slide without notice.
CONSISTENTLY
Whoever is in charge of keeping things on track and on time should either wake up or get a new alarm clock. Is this just a little thing to you people?
Musikone
on a sour note
-
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
-
max wrote:
Anyone else seen this film? It's on Insant Netflix.
*Insant?*
Did you put two consecutive letters where one should be?
Or did you leave out a letter?
Or did you use one wrong letter?
Just wondering.....
Musikone
(more than music, as you can see)
-
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!)
-
To put it bluntly, Sister, you are hopelessly naive (this is the nicest thing that I can say about your unfortunate condition; I won't use that other very descriptive word) about the changes that are continuing to take place at TCM. Your opinion is not worth my spending more than a few seconds at this point in time. In these precious seconds, the biggest favor that I can do for you is to urge you to return to your natural state of somnolescence. Too much waking-state exposure to intellectual content can be very damaging. Don't even try to read what I have to say.
musikone
Al is in Wonderland!
where Ms. Hatter is very busy--making all of that tea.
-
I am afraid that this former schedule format is gone for good, for reasons which I will explain shortly in another reply to your plea. It will fall upon deaf ears. Not only are you not the only one who feels this way, but the *overwhelming majority* of those who are serious about scheduling and planning their TCM movie watching hate this change with a passion, as do I.
When you read my upcoming post on this subject, you will understand why this has happened.
musikone
Al is in Wonderland!
where things are never what they seem to be
-
*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
-
Do you have a DVR or DVD recorder? With such a device, you can simply record everything that comes along, no matter what time of day or night, and then later save what you want to keep on a DVD disc--*permanently.*
musikone
-
They changed the lineup for Friday, April 22 for the sheer sake of keeping movie fans guessing about what is going on here in this Wonderful place. While you are sorting it all out, perhaps you would like to buy some DVDs. You can of course now find out what to buy and how much it will cost you at TCM.COM by going to the weekly schedule of movies, *which is presented for this specific purpose of inducing you to buy, buy, and buy until you drop dead from exhaustion.* Just click on an entry in this newly designed "schedule" (at least, this is what it is being called) and find out how to spend some money. Maybe Leonard Maltin can also give you some tips on this.
In the olden days, when the schedule was presented to movie viewers for the specific purpose of planning their future movie viewing and printing it out with a nominal investment in printing paper, rather than for trying to get them to buy, buy, and buy some more, it was very satisfactory. You can understand, of course, that the pressing need for agressive marketing preempts the need for satisfying the fans' needs for a really useful and efficient planning of their movie viewing.
musikone
Al is in Wonderland!
where things are being done for *marketing* purposes
Edited by: musikone on Apr 21, 2011 1:34 PM
-
* Who's Miss Hatter? (is she a candidate for the Green Party? ) *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Hatter is the chairwoman of the TCM-hosted tea party.
She appears to be related to The Hatter, who chairs the tea operations in Wonderland. Perhaps you have heard of this fantastic locality. Just follow the rabbit down the hole and you will discover where Ms. Hatter hangs out!
musikone
Al is in Wonderland!
where things are *never* what they seem to be
-
Surely it is much more expensive to air some silent movies that have not been shown for a long time (if ever) than it is simply to repeat the same movies--endlessly. This "Repetitis" malady is clearly out of control and rapidly getting worse as time marches on.
musikone
Al is in Wonderland!
where repetitions rain
Edited by: musikone on Apr 20, 2011 3:35 PM
-
As long as they are not going to be shown on July 31, 2011, since TCM does not recognize the existence of this future date which the *rest of this planet* knows to exist! But then, the "special" nature of TCM gives it license to ignore reality.
musikone
Al is in Wonderland!
where things are *never* what they seem to be
-
How about a cup of tea?
musikone
Al is in Wonderland!
Time to get on time
in Hot Topics
Posted
+darkblue wrote:
As long as you've programmed your recorder for 8:00 pm to 10:15 pm you'll miss nothing. TCM is very, very reliable in these matters.
And I'm unsure about what your complaint is. Can you not just edit out the couple of minutes of extra stuff before and after the movie - or are you still using a VCR?+
Thank you for your response.
First, I have found that the scheduled starting time is not currently being adhered to. In my opinion, "adherence" means starting within one minute of the scheduled time. In particular, *commentaries sometimes start earlier than the scheduled time.* And yes, I know how this process is supposed to work, having recorded a huge number of TCM movies over a long period of time. But the wheels have now come off!
As to the ending times, I have found within the past few days that the ending time of one movie is running some *five minutes later* than the scheduled starting time of the next movie on the list. I understand you to say that TCM is very reliable in this regard. I do not find this to be the case. By the way, I use the time display on my cable converter box as the reference, and this display is very accurate.
With this disparity, which is alarming, I have to allow in the programming of my recorders for an extra block of time, the length of which is unknown.
And finally, I use two DVD recorders, and make allowances for the time that it takes them at the beginning and the end of a program. I am very conservative in these allowances. When using this particular type of recorder, it is necessary to know just how much will fit on a particular type of disc, recorded at a particular speed. Over a long period of time, I have found out all of these variables and how to get very reliable operation of these recorders, but only if the time schedules are properly adhered to. But all of this is for naught in the face of what I am looking at now, which has been particularly bad for the past two days.
And finally, I am in expert in the editing of the DVD formats -RW, +RW, and RAM, using both Panasonic and Toshiba DVD recorders. My recorders came with excellent editors. I routinely edit the extra slop at the beginning and end of a recording, as well as all of the "non-commercial" commercials (TCM promotions, etc., etc.) between movies, when I have more than one movie on a single disc, which is usually the case.
Musikone