# Quality of CBS-HD for KOQ's, Raymond



## angiodan (Sep 2, 2002)

Was it just me, or did the broadcasts last night look pretty bad? They just didn't compare to the Florida/Tennessee game or Disc. HD broadcasts. Heck, they didn't even look as good as the CBS HD promos for those shows that they run.

Just my impressions.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

Part of it was the difference between being shot on film and then transferred to HD vs. being shot on HD-Video cameras (like the CBS promo and DiscHD. Plus, they looked overly grainy to me also, which most of the time means that's the way the director wanted it to look. 

Take a look at Push Nevada for an excellent example - it is really grainy because that's the way they want it to look.


----------



## angiodan (Sep 2, 2002)

Your right about the graininess Mark. It was very disappointing. Any plans for the shows to shoot with HD-Video over film that you know of?

My wife said it looked better on our analog 27", and to a certain extent, she was right!

For once....


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

Not necessarily because the whole reason movies and dramas and comedies have been shot on film for so long is because the creators purposely want to keep them from looking to real and in your face. Then they'd look too phoney. With film, they have more control over creating mood and such. But when it comes to sports and nature, etc, they're perfect for HD vid cams because *then* one is supposed to feel as if they're really at the game, or climbing the mountain.

Now there is some dabbling going on with using HD vid cams for the dramatic shows, but even when they do, they filter them anyway so as again to keep them from looking too "real" so to speak.

You ever watch those short "Making of" segments about movies when they're videotaping scenes in the making (at the same time the actual filming is taking place) to show you how they were done? Havent you always thought those looked kinda fake even if it was just 2 people walking down the street? I have and always think..wow, it's a good thing that the final product doesnt have that look. I guess the Producers and Directors think that way too. For better or worse.


----------



## catman (Jun 27, 2002)

Who wants this picture ? 
____________________________________

____________________________________ Shows are done that way now . THis will pass . 1). no one likes it 2.) not only cable but , satellite hate it .


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

Huh? I don't get what you are trying to say, catman.


----------



## chrisexv6 (Sep 14, 2002)

I like everyone's reasoning.........after watching several HD OTA feeds over the weekend and Monday night, I have to agree that at least some (if not most) of the grain is intended, and some is just introduced if transferring to HD. Armageddon on ABC was awesome, some grain in some spots but most of it was great. Push, Nevada had a ton of grain, but if you watch the show for what the show is, you can figure out most of the grain is probably intended.
King of Queens had a ton of grain in it, some probably intended, some probably gained during a transfer. Raymond had much less, and if you look at the faces of the actors you can tell right away you are in digital (nothing against the actors, but they look a lot older in 1080i!!!!). CSI:Miami, I thought, was almost perfect. The sky shots didnt show much (if any) grain at all. The closeups were definitely perfect, you could see the hairs on unshaven faces. I was very impressed with the CSI showing (although I think the show itself leaves a little to be desired, which is ashame because the highlight of my Thurs. nights is the original CSI).
So far Im loving my E86.........a little disappointed because all I had was HDNet, but now with OTA comin in, Im a happy camper.

-Chris


----------



## angiodan (Sep 2, 2002)

I get what you are saying DP, Larry Sanders was a good example of how the show looked crisper when he was "on air' to when they were behind the scenes. This effect worked well for this show.

It just seems that the HD wow is gone when that graininess hits you in smack in the face. I'd rather see the 'fake' quality of the CBS promos over that grainy stuff anyday.


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

I understand what you're saying angio. Hell for the most part when it comes to movies even progressive scan DVD is about good enough for me because of these variables inherent to film based programming that just being in HD doesnt necessarily improve the wow factor all that much to me. Dont get me wrong, if there was no such thing as DVD watching like that and the only alternatives were 4x3 on a run of the mill HBO channel vs. the HBO HD channel, it'd be a different story.

Thats why I'm so hip on video based HD for programming thats always been video based to begin with like again, nature and sports. The wow factor there compared to any other way of watching those type shows is huge. Not just because they're HD video based (although thats a big part of it), but because theres no middle ground. College football for example is either 4x3 480i or 16x9 1080i.

Another example is Leno. Again that show is video based to begin with, and rightfully so, but the HD version is so much more alive.

I still dont believe all dramas and sitcoms should be done on pure HD video just for the sake of doing it that way but of course I would admit that if we had to rely solely on film based (transferred to HD tape) HD programming for HDTV to take off, it'd never even get out of the gate.


----------



## invaliduser88 (Apr 23, 2002)

That Florida-Tennesee game in HD was great. Kept wondering if I should get an umbrella!


----------

