DVDPhreak
-
Posts
242 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DVDPhreak
-
-
Great news. Those vintage Disney films have been previously available on those "Walt Disney Treasures" DVD sets but those discs have all gone out of print long ago.
-
So -- I have a question for you all, I still don't entirely understand this. Are you saying that TCM is showing films in HD on their SD channel, or only on their HD channel? I have both channels, and there have been true HD screenings for some time, on the TCM HD channel, when the film warranted it.
Please explain. Does the subject of this thread mean that TCM is showing HD even on it's non-HD channel?
(This has implications for me, as another cable company option available to me does not offer the TCM HD channel).
Or am I just confusing/conflating HD with proper aspect rations, which fill more of the screen on the HD channel?
The TCM HD channel only broadcasts in HD, and the TCM SD channel only broadcasts in SD; so that hasn't changed.
Some cable providers don't even have separate SD and HD channels for TCM. My local Time Warner gives me two TCM channels that used to be SD and HD channels, but they now both broadcast in HD. Still, the HD screenings are just upconversion of SD, and that is not true HD.
On its HD channel, TCM does broadcast the filler segments in true HD: promos, intros by the hosts, product ads, etc. But it rarely broadcasts actual movies in true HD.
This thread was started because the original poster claimed she had seen actual movies ("Gypsy", "The Time Machine", etc.) shown in true HD. I disputed her claim (and others') as you noticed earlier in the thread.
Last night, they broadcast the latest "Night at the Movies" documentary in true HD. But it was a new program made in 2014, so we expected HD. But afterwards, they went right back to SD (upconverted to false HD) in showing the Danny Kaye's film "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty".
When they actually show old movies in true HD (not upconversion) in greater regularity, then we can finally say that TCM actually broadcasts in true HD
-
I'm now watching "Night At The Movies: George Lucas And The World Of Fantasy Cinema" on prime-time, and it is indeed true HD. But then again, this is a new, original program made 2014, so it is sort of expected to be HD.
When "Out of the Past" shows next Tuesday 8pm, we will see if they are really starting to show old movies in HD. As I said, I've been watching TCM non-stop and I have yet to see that happen.
-
Not just TCM. These include premium channels that show older movies.
Some channels do use old, non-HD video masters for broadcast. But there are many channels, even in basic cable, that show movies in HD. Our PBS channel shows old movies in HD every weekend, but once in a while they use SD masters.
-
As I said before, I have watched same movies/TV shows on an HD set and an SD set. To me, no appreicable difference, especially in old B&W movies. In fact, I believe the colors in older movies are better on my SD set than on my HD (and it is a top rated model).
They may look the same on TCM, because TCM normally doesn't show movies in true HD. If they show "Out of the Past" in HD next week, it will be exception rather than the norm.
But If you are debating whether HD in general looks better than SD or not, then you have no debate. HD does look better; that is a mathematical certainty, since HD has 4 times the pixel count more than SD. I have the movie "Laura" on DVD and Blu-ray. Now click here, then click to open one of the screen captures of "Laura". Then press the left and right arrow keys on your keyboard to switch back and forth between the HD and SD picture. See the difference now?
-
1
-
-
Don't care. Have an HD TV and SD TV and can't really see a lot of difference, particularly in old movies such as shown on TCM.
True HD is 1080p, but most TV shows are shown in 720p only, and that's why we don't often see the benefit of full HD, especially on smaller TV screens.
1080p uses more bandwidth, and TV networks only use it for the important programs, such as the Olympics, World Cup, Super Bowl, and the likes, the kind of programs that get big ratings, obviously.
-
Another thread on the subject was already made earlier this week so apparently many people do care.
-
Some TCM viewers claim they have seen true HD broadcasts from TCM, such as the recent showings of "Gypsy" and "The Time Machine", both of which have had Blu-ray releases. Next Tuesday's showing of "Out of the Past" will be on prime-time 8pm, and this is a film that also has had a Blu-ray release, making it a prime candidate for a HD broadcast. So we will see if it will actually be so. I'm posting this so more of you will be witnesses to this potential HD showing. And yes, I own the "Out of the Past" Blu-ray, so I will be able to tell for certain if next week's broadcast will be in HD or not.
-
Could it be said that those who have now pushed "Vertigo" to the top spot on these kinds of polls and past Welles' masterpiece have been involved a...ahem..."Citizen Kane Mutiny"???
The pollsters don't necessarily choose the same voters every time, just to prevent "loyalty voting". Films appearing in past polls often varied widely, reflecting the diverse backgrounds of the voters every time. Some movies may be on the top 10 one year, but drop out of sight in another. "Vertigo" has been on the top 10 in several polls in a row, and that shows it really has a wide appeal. In the 2002 poll, it only trailed "Kane" by 4 votes, so it was no surprise to many that it overtook the lead in the next poll.
-
No, those films were shown in genuine HD. The promos and bumpers, like the upscaled films, were zoomed in before but now they are clearly crisp HD and lack the black border surrounding the image. The showing of Gypsy in particular is obvious next to other CInemaScope films on TCMHD that are merely upscales - they look unmistakably different.
The reason why the Blu-rays look better is because there's a much greater amount of compression on the TV signal, which degrades the image. This is true of every movie channel's HD offerings next to a Blu-ray, it's the same difference.
For now, I take your word for it, because I didn't see the recent broadcasts of "Gypsy" and "The Time Machine". Have you seen the Blu-rays? That would make your comments more credible in terms of whether the broadcasts were actually HD or not compared to the BLu-rays. Again, the fillers have been in full-screen for a long while now, so that means nothing.
Actually, a true HD broadcast would look CLOSE to a Blu-ray in terms of resolution and detail. It's only when you see the picture in motion that you notice the compression artifacts. My point is that all the TCM broadcasts I've seen so far have not been close to a Blu-ray in terms of resolution and detail.
Warner Archive has released several Blu-rays of classic movies, including "Gypsy". I will definitely be sure to catch the next TCM broadcasts of these films so I will be able to determine once and for all if they are true HD or not:
The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945, Blu-ray release date: 11/18/14, NEXT TCM BROADCAST: 1/28/15)
Possessed (1947, 10/21/14)
The Great Race (1965, 9/9/14, NEXT TCM BROADCAST: 12/19/14)
Out of the Past (1947, 8/14/14, NEXT TCM BROADCAST: 12/2/14)
The Wind and the Lion (1975, 4/29/14, NEXT TCM BROADCAST: 2/1/15)
Kismet (1955, 9/10/14)
The Americanization of Emily (1964, 3/11/14, NEXT TCM BROADCAST: 2/25/15)
Performance (1970, 3/25/14)
Billy Rose's Jumbo (1962, 10/8/13, NEXT TCM BROADCAST: 12/26/14)
Deathtrap (1982, 11/20/12)
Gypsy (1962, 11/20/12)
-
-
There will be a Criterion Blu-ray/DVD coming in 2015. TCM has shown a lot of movies from the Criterion Collection.
-
I'm not sure that this indicates that the film is now held in less esteem.
The tide was turned when it was no longer voted the No. 1 film by the Sight and Sound poll a couple of years ago. For years, "Kane" had been promoted as "the best film of all time" by those who marketed the film for home video and theatrical releases. Now they can't say that anymore.
-
I noticed over the last week or so that TCM showing more things in full HD. Now the "bumpers" between movies fill the full screen and many of the movies you are showing are clearly the HD versions, not upconverted SD. Also the window boxing of wide screen films with black on all sides of the image seems to be gone. Recent showings of GYPSY, PILLOW TALK, KISMET, and tonight THE TIME MACHINE have been blu ray quality... along with improved sound. Very impressive. I am surprised that TCM is not promoting this... it is a significant improvement. I know all of the films on this channel cannot be shown at this level of quality, but this is still incredible. Good job.
I watch TCM practically non-stop and trust me, it is still NOT in high definition. The filler segments have been in full-screen for a long time now, but that doesn't necessarily indicate HD. The movies you saw, "Gypsy", "The Time Machine", etc., all have HD video masters, so they look better than they did. But the HD masters were downconverted to standard definition for the broadcasts. "Gypsy" and "The Time Machine" have been released on Blu-rays and I own both, and trust me, there is no comparison between true HD pictures on those Blu-rays than the broadcast picture of TCM.
Not to mention, many HDTVs have the built-in ability of "upconversion", making a non-HD picture look better than it really is. That may be another reason why you have the impression that TCM is in HD.
-
Yesterday, Robert Osborne hosted an outdoor showing of the Christmas classic right outside Macy's store on 34th Street, New York. Here is a video clip. It was only a few blocks from where I worked, so I went there and took a glimpse after I left work. It was a nice place to show the movie, but as everyone knows, the whole country is unseasonably cold right now. And it was just too darn cold for anyone to stay out for long to watch the movie (even though they put nice red couches for the viewers).
-
We all see that every day, at work, in traffic, and at home.
Why would we want to pay money to see it in a movie??
You don't see the exact same thing you see every day. You see the filmmakers take everyday experiences and stylize them into a powerful drama, with great use of language & metaphors, resulting in plenty of epiphanical moments.
-
1
-
-
Quite frankly, I just don't like WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF. I think that if I went to visit some friends and they were yelling and screaming at each other, I would get up and politely excuse myself and go home. I don't find the film entertaining in the least.
But the film has an existential theme that transcends it from mere entertainment. Like "Death of a Salesman", it is a nightmarish portrait of the American Dream unattained.
-
A somewhat unusual film for Christmas viewing is Stanley Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut", a psychological drama set in Christmas time in NYC.
-
1
-
-
Other channels wouldn't even show the offending material, or the films themselves. At least TCM shows them.
TCM has shown "Babes in Arms", which has a few minstrel numbers, many times without any advanced warning at all.
-
The crux of the matter is that Robert Osborne always sounds REVERENTIAL in everything he does
And you need to have your commentary reverential why exactly?
I already mentioned the reason in my post: TCM is a movie channel that tends to pay respects to filmmakers. It is TCM's *nature* to sound reverential. If you want to know why, ask TCM. If you don't want reverence in your movie channel, switch channel. Robert Osborne would be just as out of place in channels like Spike, or Chiller, etc., just as any irreverent person would be on TCM.
-
To all,
The crux of the matter is that Robert Osborne always sounds REVERENTIAL in everything he does, which is the exact quality Ben lacks, and which is why he gives the impression of smugness. TCM is not like other movie channels. More than any other channels, it pays the highest respects to the films and the filmmakers, so every person who appears on the channel really has to have a certainly, well, respectability.
Alec Baldwin is another smugity-smug son of a gun. It is almost surreal to see him sitting next to Robert hosting in the Essentials. Here is a complete gentleman in every sense of the word sitting next to someone who throws hissy fits at practically every known living thing.
Mark my word, Drew Barrymore WILL be the next permanent TCM host. She is the only person on the channel so far whom I can envision doing that job.
-
The Oscars exist to promote films. It is a maketing device.
That doesn't discount my point that this is the industry's biggest event where the people in the industry pay respect to one another. Even when you are invited to a PORN FILM AWARD ceremony, you still have to be reverential to the proceedings.
-
I was actually glad they repeated the showing of the Winsor McCay films, because the first time they showed them, the picture was CROPPED at the top and bottom. Did anyone notice that? But in the second showing, we saw the full-frame picture. I wonder if that was the reason they showed them the second time.
-
It seems to me that you took this entire mini-interview with Ben way too seriously. Personally, I think anyone who takes the mickey out of the Oscars a little - especially when they're at the Oscar event -deserves a hand for not evincing the sappy reverencee for it so many seem to think they need to show.
Good for the Mank.
"Taking the mickey out of the Oscars" is NOT a job for someone who is actually ATTENDING the Oscars. That job is for those who critique the show *afterwards*, like Joan Rivers and E! and TMZ people. Again, there is a time and place for everything.
The Oscars - not even the Oscars anymore, remember, it's the Academy Awards, or is it versa visa? - reverential? OMG, I hope that's a pun? The Oscars or AA or whatever they now are ARE E! and TMZ and every other moronic entertainment channel all rolled into one, anchored by clock watching idiots who can't wait to ask their oh-so-important questions and get the actors off, to make room for the next one. There's no more class or dignity to the Oscars, they are a bunch of publicity seeking twits and worse. There are the occasional old time actors, but mostly there are the no talent stars. You're probably thinking of the Oscars when Bob Hope hosted them.
It was a metaphor from Ben, and a good one, because Franco is a hack, and Colin Firth is an actor. Whom he picked to win, by the way. No better and no worse than any other predictor on his other picks. If his metier is sports, so be it. I like dogs, so I would have compared Firth to the very best about my dog, and Franco to what I pick up from my dog. How's that for a metaphor?
Please, let's not get carried away with reverence for the commercial jacked Oscars and Emmys and Tonys and such, they are all after the bottom line, talent and experience and dignity and quality be d-a-m-n-e-d. If you want any of the aforementioned, look to the BAFTAS, in a country that at least keeps their junk actors and hack shows to a minimum.
Whatever your personal opinion of the Oscars is, the FACT remains that this is the industry event where attendants are supposed to be in their best behavior. Would you crack jokes about the industry you work for when you attend a corporate gathering for that industry? Especially when you speak in front of the whole world? You would be seen as gauche and inexperienced.
Ben didn't compare sports to acting. He was asked who would WIN the best actor award and he used sports in this regard. This was a reflection of how VOTERS would VOTE and not the abilities of the actors up for the award. There are only winners and losers when it comes to awards. Stanwyck could of told you that.
Of course if one assumes he meant that Colin was Green Bay and the other actors, especially Franco, were a High School team as it relates to their abilities as an actor, that would have been in very bad taste. But to me Ben was talking about their odds of WINNING, as it relates to the question he was asked and not their ability as actors. (e.g. if he was ask who SHOULD win and gave that answer it would have been inappropriate.
It doesn't matter whether he was talking about their odds or their acting abilities, the fact is whether he made ANY kind of connection between the other nominees to "high school football teams" was inappropriate in itself. In fact, he shouldn't have mentioned sports at all. The Oscars celebrate primarily the artistry of film, and not winning one is not really seen as a total loss. Sometimes nominees are seen as winners too. The list of great filmmakers who have never won Oscars FAR OUTNUMBER the ones who have. Remember this.
CITIZEN KANE!
in General Discussions
Posted
Another film with a non-linear story that also deals with the illusive nature of truth is the 1951 Japanese film "Rashomon".