kriegerg69
-
Posts
2,471 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by kriegerg69
-
-
I recently saw MARTY for the first time...wonderful movie...but was somewhat disappointed with the ending. It seems to just stop at the end, with no real resolution (just IMHO). Has anyone seen the original tv production with Rod Steiger, and how does that compare and also how does it end?
-
> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}I have contacted them by every means possible. None of their responses are adequate.
Then, as helenbaby said below, the redundancy of your posts on the subject is pointless. It's not going to change anything.
-
> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote}You are becoming quite redundant. Why, if these explanations are unsatisfactory, continuing to waste time reiterating your stance when you could be working on your letter to TCM? Or are you going to continue ignoring my suggestion?
Exactly, helenbaby...you said a mouthful, right on target. This entire thread has become pointless.
-
I doubt that TCM would, either way.
-
-
> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}I don't notice any better quality with that system, since my tube TV has a lower quality image than my Sanyo HDTV image.
I would think you would, depending on the source...in the years before DVD, I collected laserdiscs, and the quality on those were superior to VHS. Even on my older CRT screen, you can see the difference because of the source being higher quality.
-
Yes, I've read the Gallico novel.
TPA is still much BETTER than the lousy remake a few years ago.
-
> {quote:title=ginnyfan wrote:}{quote} No, you still don't seem to get it. A letterboxed film on TCM SD will not letterbox all the way across my HDTV, it will only letterbox across the 4x3 slice in the middle because it's being broadcast for a 4x3 set. The TCM HD picture of the same film will letterbox all the way across my 16x9 screen with no changes in the settings *because it's being broadcast for a 16x9 picture.*
...and I also explained to him below (he does still not seem to get it) that it ALSO depends on the aspect/zoom settings on your HDTV. I simply have my HDTV set so anything shown on TCM SD fills my 16x9 screen horizontally (and I'm sure someone here will start nitpicking on that comment as well).
-
Well, Fred, that was incredibly long and I'm not sure I understood what you were saying, except maybe for the last part:
Which was....you basically said that an SD signal of something that HAS been mastered into HD will look better than plain ol' SD.
Of course....but also that would be downconverting (higher quality to lower quality) instead of upconverting (lower quality to higher quality). They simply couldn't just run the HD master by itself...it would require at least a downconversion in the broadcasting process.
Naturally there's something that's a higher-quality version of those old CCD's you described, and naturally they record at a much higher resolution...HD resolution goes up to 1080i or 1080p. To date, standard resolution for decades has only been 480. Digital archiving produces HUGE sizes of images.
-
> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}...you have completely missed the point.
You've missed it as well....this has gotten WAY off-base from what the original post intended for this thread. What exactly are you trying to prove or to get at here? NOW it has nothing to do with TCM HD...you're picking at details regarding HD this vs. HD that, yada yada yada...
-
> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}If you watch a letterboxed film on TCM SD, it is letterboxed...as it should be.
>
> Nothing else will...unless the aspect ratio has been ignored or altered.
So WHAT exactly is your point you keep trying to get across??
-
> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}A DVD5 or DVD9 is just a form of media. It's a storage device. You can put whatever you want on it. Even full 1080p video with HD audio....so long as the file size fits.
Okay...you're nitpicking again. I assumed we were referring to having a full-length movie or other program and not just a little bit of video.
-
> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}No, that is not a good point. The aspect ratio of the film is unchanged. The demensions of the display have changed, not the aspect ratio. A film in 1.78:1 1.85:1, or 2.35:1 will be letterboxed on a 4:3 display. A 1.33:1 or 1.37:1 film will fill the screen of a 4:3 display. A film in 1.78:1 will be slightly letterboxed on a 16:9 display without overscan. A 1.85:1 film will fill the screen of a 16:9 display. A 2.35:1 film will be letterboxed on a 16:9 screen. A 1.33:1 or 1.37:1 film will be pillarboxed on a 16:9 display.
>
> The aspect ratio is unchanged unless a channel stretches or crops a film.
...or unless your aspect settings on your tv change it.
There's no need to be insulting as though you're talking to a little child here. I'm very well aware of every little detail you just "explained" to me. Excuse me for not getting into ALL of that in my reply below.
-
> {quote:title=ginnyfan wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}Defeats the purpose of an HD channel without anything in...you know...HD.
> Not really. It does allow us to see the film in the proper aspect ratio. A while back TNT and USA were stretch-o-visioning most of their content. Now they aren't.
That's another good point...widescreen movies on TCM SD are letterboxed. On TCM HD they're shown in the correct aspect ratio to fit a 16x9 tv (HDTV dimensions).
-
> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}So is a high bitrate dual-layer DVD.
No it is not...what I should have said in my other reply is that upconverted HD is a higher-definition representation of the SD signal. Dual-layer DVD is NOT high-definition. If they used an SD source or master as the basis for both a dual-layer DVD, and as the basis for an upconverted HD Blu-ray disc, guess what? The HD/Blu-ray disc WILL look better than the SD regular DVD.
Same principle applies to an upconverted HD broadcast signal.
-
> {quote:title=AddisonDeWitless wrote:}{quote}
> He also was in a loooooooooooooooong list of absolutely atrocious to ludicrous films in which he played, again, Ernest Borgnine. Willard, The Poseidon Adventure (admit it, it's stupid), Merlin's Shop of Mystical Wonders, The Oscar, The Legend of Lylah Clare, The Devil's Rain...Do I need to go on?
I won't admit it...I happen to not only love POSEIDON ADVENTURE, it's one of the best disaster films of its era. DEVIL'S RAIN is also another one I really like....although I certainly wouldn't rate it as high as TPA.
...but I would agree that an entire 24 hour day is a bit much. Half a day, maybe, but as much as I do enjoy Ernie in whatever I've seen him in. 24 hours is a bit excessive. Any number of truly legendary actors who died over the years and only got an evening's worth of films as a tribute probably deserved the length that Ernie got.
When Olivia DeHavilland goes, she should get 24 hours.
-
> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}Defeats the purpose of an HD channel without anything in...you know...HD.
Define the difference of television a few years ago when everything HAD to go from an analog signal to all-digital. Same difference.
When that happened, I could not only immediately tell the difference in the image quality vs. analog broadcasting, but there is greater accuracy in the data delivered to your screen.
-
> {quote:title=Hoosier205 wrote:}{quote}So is a high bitrate dual-layer DVD. What's the point? Content could be in HD via the HD channel. Content should be in HD via the HD channel. Hold them accountable rather than congratulating them for coming up short.
That's simply NOT the same thing. High bitrate dual-layer DVD9 is NOT the same thing as actual HD content....your comparison doesn't make sense. HD content has a greater RESOLUTION (1080 for HD vs. 480 for SD) as well.
Like someone else said here...write them a letter if you're not satisfied.
Edited by: TCMWebAdmin on Jul 26, 2012 5:16 PM
-
> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}I dont understand why people (citizens) should be allowed to buy assault weapons. What purpose do they serve beyond mass killing?
I don't think anyone is "allowed" to...certainly not in reference to the recent Colorado incident...in that case, the purchase was done over the internet and more than likely illegally. Extremely unlikely anything such as assault weapons would (or could) be legally bought. Call it the "black market" for weapons like that.
-
-
> {quote:title=ginnyfan wrote:}{quote}I think up conversion is way better than that. Even if it doesn't really work, it doesn't make the picture worse.
>
> I hope TCM gets to real HD soon, but it doesn't kill me not to have it.
>
Exactly. At the very least it's a higher-quality representation of the SD signal.
-
> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote}TCMfan just posted a couple of times yesterday. You give this so called clique too much power. I find that people who don't like TCM or just like to act provocatively by stirring the pot only stay around until people get bored with the "debates."
Exactly...and I really don't think there is a "clique" here at all.
-
> {quote:title=Sepiatone wrote:}{quote}
> I'll have to give it another listen.
That's surprising...how many times have you seen *Dracula* over the years? I've lost count...seen it a LOT since my youth.
-
Interesting...I hadn't even though about *Targets* since the Colorado massacre happened.
TDKR grosses so far
in General Discussions
Posted
Production Budget: $250 million
Total as of Jul. 26, 2012:
Domestic: $225,011,359
Foreign: $149,200,000
Counting only the domestic take (boxoffice success is usually considered only by the domestic figures), there's no question *The Dark Knight Rises* is performing less than expected due to the recent events. It's anyone's guess as to how it will do in the long run.