kriegerg69

> {quote:title=Megthered wrote:}{quote} If this is the same old refrain that has come from other posters, they really don't care at TCM. ...or people simply complain way too much and need to get a life.

GO AWAY. This is the umpteenth time you've posted the same damned comment about 70-80 year old movies. If you don't like it and you "hardly watch TCM anymore", then get out of here and stop this idiotic trolling.

> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}First time member here. Any mod can verify that by reviewing my IP. > > Now, let's stop avoiding the issue at hand. I am still waiting for this so-called list of up-converted channels. > Assuming they CAN look at your IP number. Yeah, let's stop avoiding it...YOU still haven't given any proof or evidence asked for. First time member or not (and I seriously doubt you're a first -timer), you're still antagonizing and belligerent, and as someone said before, hostile towards anyone here who responds to you. You've also done nothing except to post in this thread and continue to antagonize people here. Further evidence of your trolling.

> {quote:title=willbefree25 wrote:}{quote}Hoosier205, TCMfan posted a bit ago (July 20th to be exact) that he had TCM in HD. > > But he is gone, as is Raquel Vixen. > > The clique is still here. > > Take from that what you will. > > Bottom line: you can't win against the clique. > > Good luck trying. RaquelVixen, aka SydneyMonika. I think TCMfan is still here, but this Hoosier is obviously trolling. I already asked TCMWebAdmin/Michael to have a look at this thread.

> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote}Or would you rather be hostile to everyone who is responding? How can you expect anyone to take you seriously? Exactly, Helen dear. This is starting (actually,almost from the beginning) to have the faint scent of trolling, just trying to get people worked up here.

> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}Wrong again. Where are you getting all of this incorrect information? Where are YOU? You still haven't provided anything to back YOURSELF up, have you? You've simply been (as someone said below) antagonizing anyone who responds to you in this thread.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}The poster is new. Give him'/her a break. I meant in regards to it being the "same old, same old".

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote} > If TCM uses a technical process to "upconvert" its satellite feed into a HD signal, then it certainly sounds like it is providing what the channel claims to be offering. If one is paying more specifically to get the HD TCM channel and is disappointed in the service, then cancel it and go back to watching TCM in the standard definition format. > > All this sounds like a fight over whether television audio can be called "stereo" when it is "only" two-channel stereo and not Dolby 5.1 (or whatever it may be these days.) > > Kyle In Hollywood Exactly...thank you for your understanding. The stereo issue relates more to "directional sound channeling", or multi-track audio. My example below of "electronically rechanneling" of a mono sound source is probably a more apt example of a stereo argument than 2-channel vs. 5.1.

Oh brother...here we go again. :|

> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}You made the claim, now back it up. Which channels are currently up-converted and not true HD? It's well-known that Cartoon Network HD is not only upconverted on its older programming (newer shows are actually produced in HD), but non-widescreen shows are stretched out to fill the HD dimensions. I've seen such videos and images online.

> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}Which is false. You may believe that up-converted material constitues HD simply because of some of its specifications, but it does not. You appear to lack a basic understanding of how that is determined. Up-converted broadcasts are not HD. No more so than FOX Network "widescreen" broadcasts of some past programming were HD. No need to be insulting simply because I may (or may not) have a misunderstanding of how specs deinfe something. As you said below to someone else, "You made the claim, now back it up".

> {quote:title=jr33928 wrote:}{quote}Some have even talked about contacting the FCC in regards to TCM's use of the term "HD",calling it "bait and switch" and "fraud",and want the FCC to do something about it.Though i don't know exactly what the FCC would/could do. My guess is the FCC would/could do nothing...because, as has often been described all around the forums here, even if it's upconverted so the specs (resolution, bitrate, etc.) match HD specs, it is still HD....just not "natively" (true) HD to begin with. Similarly, one could say the same thing about an older mono sound source for a music album or movie/tv show that's been "electronically enhanced" for stereo, even if not remixed from multi-track recordings...it is still stereo, although not "true stereo". You could also say the same thing about a 3D movie which has been digitally converted from a 2D source...it's not originally filmed in 3D, so how would you say that is?

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote} > Correct me if I am wrong but I believe TCM does record all new "in-house" studio materials in HD - the intros, outros, etc. That may also apply to the special original promos too - like the "TCM Remembers" pieces that have been running all month or the promo for "Summer Under The Stars - 2012" which has debuted recently on the channel. I think they are also...we only get an SD signal, but all of those intros and such are letterboxed/widescreen...which would likely be if they were shot in HD, which is natively 16:9 widescreen.

Okay, how much more do you need to complain about this? ?:|

> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}False. Your understanding of the NTSC/PAL standards and how they apply to masters is incorrect. Just more excuses for TCM. Okay...well, excuse me for being misinformed. Nice attitude you have there. I decided to look it up and you are correct...NTSC and PAL don't apply any longer to digital broadcasting standards, which this page says is now know as ATSC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC

> {quote:title=ginnyfan wrote:}{quote} I was attempting to engage you pleasantly and assume you were actually making a "little joke" and not just being nasty. > > I actually like the photo, think she grew up to be pretty enough, and choose to believe that you are just commenting on the hairstyles and not trying to start something. > Uh, yeah, I was...it's a shame on the internet that people have to explain they were making a joke simply because someone didn't understand or might have misunderstood what the first person said.

That would be rather like what was done with the footage from Marilyn's final, uncompleted film Something's Got To Give. The footage was restored and completed into a 40 min. version, showing what the movie would have been like. Good idea.

> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}Yet the French version of their channel can do it? They have access to the same materials. HD broadcast masters for many of the film shown do exist. It's pathetic. They went HD in June of 2009. ...and those video masters are in the PAL format, which is used in Europe. Here in the U.S. and Japan, the NTSC standard is used. The two are not compatible. PAL can be converted to NTSC, but it doesn't look quite the same...it's better to simply do an NTSC master from scratch. Dollar-wise, the Euro-TCM is likely a separate corporation from the U.S.-TCM, and they likely have their own budgetary concerns that aren't affected as much by the U.S.-TCM.

> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}Enough is enough already. They need to get moving on this or at least provide more information on why they haven't done this. $$$$$ That would seem to be the reasonable explanation. I read a few years ago that TCm was slowly working on doing new HD masters of some of its programming. It also depends on what the various studios have available to provide to them. Just because a movie gets released in HD on Blu-ray doesn't automatically mean the studio has an HD broadcast master...the two aren't quite the same.

What they should have said when they stated "sharper than standard definition" is that it's a sharper representation of the standard definition image. It's still not true (aka "native") HD because the masters being used are not HD masters from the film sources. The specifications related to bitrate and resolution, etc., are upconverted to match HD specs, but they're not actual HD.

> {quote:title=EugeniaH wrote:}{quote}Lol!! She wasn't as funny in 227. Her co-star Jackie (sp?) Harry was the scene stealer in that one... Jackee (pronounced Jack-ay...full name is Jackee Harry)...well, yeah, Marla stole scenes on *Jeffersons*, so Jackee stole scenes on *227* .

> {quote:title=EugeniaH wrote:}{quote} > Oh, and who can forget the maid in that show!! Man, she was a scene stealer! :^0 The great Marla Gibbs (as Florence), who went on to have her own hit show in the 80's called *227* .

> {quote:title=ginnyfan wrote:}{quote}The Norman Lear shows were so revolutionary at the time, but most of them don't hold up so well today. Most of the other Lear shows always (or often) dealt with issues of the times. *The Jeffersons* didn't seem to depend on that as much. I love shows like Maude (have the first season on DVD), but now that you mention it...as classic as some of them are...they DO seem a bit dated, but Yes...they are a product of their times. *All In The Family* and *Maude* in particular were rather revolutionary at the time, delaing with subjects and even using words no one else had ever used in prime time at the time.

Its'a also interesting to note that both he and Isabelle Sanford ("Weezy") appeared in roles in *Love At First Bite* (1979), although not in scenes together. Sherman is a preacher giving a sermon at a funeral until Dracula sits up in the coffin ("I especially loved his Cadillac Seville, and it's a beaut...I know, because he left it to ME, Hallelujah!") and Isabelle as a tough courtroom judge (she's hysterical).

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote} > A bit of trivia: the word 'bedlam' upon which Val Lewton's film is based comes from the word 'Bethlehem.' Strange but true. That's slightly incorrect...not just the word, but a particular place. Here's the origin from the Merriam-Webster dictionary: Origin of BEDLAM Bedlam, popular name for the Hospital of St. Mary of Bethlehem, London, an insane asylum, from Middle English Bedlem Bethlehem First Known Use: 1522