# Missing TNT HD channel with HD Silver



## dino622 (Jun 19, 2006)

I have the HD Silver package, yet when I watch 9420, I see the exact same movies that are on the standard TNT channel. But, the SD 4:3 movie has been stretched and distorted to the 16:9 aspect ratio. I checked out Jurassic Park 3 recently, and it looked like total crap.

If you're going to take a widescreen DVD and just play it back over an HD feed, you're ripping me off. But, if you're going to take a fullscreen DVD, stretch it, and play it back over an HD feed, you're ripping me off and calling me a moron. Am I the only one who thinks the HD package is a bit of a rip off? I mean, how many time do I need to see the same Spanish League soccer game that originally aired 6 months ago??


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

TNTHD is just doing what several HD channels are doing... (like ESPNHD, ESPN2HD, UniversalHD, National Geographic HD, etc.)

Some choose to stretch, others will zoom... and others will show sidebars for the non-HD 4:3 content.

The stretching is somewhat unique now to TNTHD, but the lack of HD some times of the day happens on many of the channels.


----------



## mikeyoung (Jan 15, 2006)

dino622 said:


> I see the exact same movies that are on the standard TNT channel. But, the SD 4:3 movie has been stretched and distorted to the 16:9 aspect ratio. I checked out Jurassic Park 3 recently, and it looked like total crap.


Heres the problem...or part of it ...Movies are not shot in 4:3 OR 16:9, therefore, no matter WHAT you do there is a problem, you can show it in its original form and have black bars on 2/3 of the screen in some cases, or you can zoom or stretch. By far..most people prefer that the picture take up the whole screen...videophiles of course will disagree and prefer the film in its original form.

Secondly, just because a film has been stretched or zoomed does not mean its not HD. You MAY be confusing HD with Aspect ratio.

mike/

...and I agree that the HD channels need more Apealing content.


----------



## dino622 (Jun 19, 2006)

I'm not confusing HD with anything. Just because the broadcast signal is 1440x1080i or whatever it might be, doesn't make the movie high definition. It is obvoius what they have done. They have taken the SD movie, and applied a sharpening filter to it that makes it look grainier. Even TNT's movies that are 16:9 seem to be done this way. It is a scam, and we should all be complaining that HD is more than just adding the letters HD to the end of the channel name.

It's about the same as staking a normal audio CD, and re-recording it onto a "super audio" DVD or whatever its called, and selling that for a premium price. The difference is that you buy discs individually, and the mastering methods used are printed in plain sight on the back of the disc's box.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

mikeyoung said:


> Heres the problem...or part of it ...Movies are not shot in 4:3 OR 16:9, therefore, no matter WHAT you do there is a problem


What?

You can't say that as a blanket statement about all movies.

There are movies shot in 16:9 (1.78:1) but there are also 2.35:1. There are some movies shot in 4:3 as well. I believe there are a couple of other aspect ratios shot that I can't think of off the top of my head.

It is correct that if it isn't the same as the TV screen, then some stretch or zoom or something would be required to fill the screen... but it isn't true to say that there are no movies shot in the aspect ratios matching the TV.


----------



## mikeyoung (Jan 15, 2006)

ok...I should have said FEW. It is not an aspect ratio that alot of directors are fond of.

- 2.39: 1 is acutally the most common for high-budget action/epic films these days. 
few movies shot in 1.78:1 but there ARE alot in 1.85:1 - which is close to HDTV but not EXACT!

dino - you are correct that the broadcast signal is irrelevant - its the source resolution, but you cant take a low resolution source and make it HD. 
just like you cant easily take a film shot in 2.39 and make it fill the screen without paying some price somewhere.
I agree....some of the stuff on TNT looks like crap...but alot of it IS HD I suppose they dont want to limit to ONLY the stuff they have that is HD since most of thier viewers still watch TNT on SD equip.


----------



## ZigSteenine (Apr 18, 2006)

dino622 said:


> Missing TNT HD channel with HD Silver


You're not missing anything.


----------



## dino622 (Jun 19, 2006)

Movies shot in wider-than-16:9 A/R are never stretched vertically to fill 16:9. They are letterboxed, or they are cropped. What TNT does is stretch a 4:3 movie along the horizontal axis. When a DN customer purchases the HD package, they have no idea that many of the channels are not actually HD, or that they are blank or playing the same shows over and over. It's disappointing, but I'm locked in to Dish just for International programming. Also, their hardware is still the best in the industry.


----------



## bulldog200024 (Jan 27, 2006)

I would agree that it is disappointing to see HD channels showing non HD content. TNT, ESPN and 2, and NFL network are the only ones doing this, correct?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

bulldog200024 said:


> I would agree that it is disappointing to see HD channels showing non HD content. TNT, ESPN and 2, and NFL network are the only ones doing this, correct?


I can't say, since I don't have one of the ViP receivers... but supposedly National Geographic and Home & Garden also show some non-HD stuff.


----------



## Lyle_JP (Apr 22, 2002)

dino622 said:


> Movies shot in wider-than-16:9 A/R are never stretched vertically to fill 16:9. They are letterboxed, or they are cropped.


*Or* the mattes are opened up slightly, which is what the studios do with about 99% of films shot in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio but wind up being 1.78:1 on DVD.


----------



## dpd146 (Oct 1, 2005)

dino622 said:


> Am I the only one who thinks the HD package is a bit of a rip off? I mean, how many time do I need to see the same Spanish League soccer game that originally aired 6 months ago??


What's the price difference, $10 or so over SD? There's more than enough HD programming available to justify $10 a month for me. The HD sports on the ESPN(s) alone is worth it.

HD viewers are still in the minority (by a long shot) so TNT, and others, are not going to dump tons of money into HD conversions of Erin Brokovich. They show original HD programming (ever heard of the NBA?) and therefore qualify as an HD channel. They choose to make there SD programming fit your tv instead of using pillars, big deal. If you want to watch HD movies, pony up the money for HBO.

And, by the way, E* has no control over what or how channels air there stuff so how is the HD package a rip off? E* has gone above and beyond other providers in giving HD at a reasonable price. Just don't be so naive as to think HD is readily available for all programming anywhere.


----------



## dino622 (Jun 19, 2006)

dpd146 said:


> What's the price difference, $10 or so over SD? There's more than enough HD programming available to justify $10 a month for me. The HD sports on the ESPN(s) alone is worth it.


The price difference for me is $26/month. $20 for the HD programming upgrade, and $6 for the HD monthly fee for the receiver. Unless you happened to be a new customer when the VIP622 receiver came out. If you have the earlier 9xx models, you're going to be leasing a new receiver eventually for mpeg4 broadcasts. I'm also paying $6/month for SD local channels, just so I can have the program guide information show up for my off-the-air HD locals (I'm assuming this is necessary).

I'm sure E* doesn't control TNTHD, but they control the majority of the channels, the ones they inherited from Voom.

I see your point. My point is that as consumers, we should make ourselves heard! Let DishNetwork know that we are tech saavy and aren't fooled by a simple resample and sharpening filter.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

I could handle a linear stretch on TNTHD, but when shoulder widths change so drastically, I switch.


----------



## bulldog200024 (Jan 27, 2006)

HDMe said:


> I can't say, since I don't have one of the ViP receivers... but supposedly National Geographic and Home & Garden also show some non-HD stuff.


You are correct sir.

For me, the sports in HD is worth the extra $. And Namaste Yoga on Ultra Saturday mornings:eek2:


----------



## dpd146 (Oct 1, 2005)

dino622 said:


> My point is that as consumers, we should make ourselves heard! Let DishNetwork know that we are tech saavy and aren't fooled by a simple resample and sharpening filter.


I wish that everything was new and in HD but that is just not reasonable at this point. I really don't think E* is trying to fool anyone. Even though HD has been around a little while now we are still basically early adopters and with any early adoption, you have limited selection. I'm sure the guys that have HD DVD players aren't overwhelmed by the amount of HD DVD's available.

Unfortunately we are long way off from extensive new HD programming, aside from the major networks primetimes, and the way congress keeps pushing back the conversion deadline who knows if we ever will have it.

So for now I will continue watch Indians break up ships in HD and keep convincing my wife all the $$ for the HD sets / receivers / and programming was worth it.


----------



## Rick_R (Sep 1, 2004)

dino622 said:


> If you're going to take a widescreen DVD and just play it back over an HD feed, you're ripping me off. But, if you're going to take a fullscreen DVD, stretch it, and play it back over an HD feed, you're ripping me off and calling me a moron.


I will not watch stretched material. TNT is the ONLY national channel that stretches SD material. If they are not going to bother doing a HD transfer on a movie I wish they would go out and buy the widescreen DVD and give us a non stretched upconvert.

I only watch TNT sports events because they seem to be always HD. I don't even check movies on TNT because often they are SD stretched and it will make me mad that they look so ugly.

Rick R


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Rick_R said:


> I only watch TNT sports events because they seem to be always HD. I don't even check movies on TNT because often they are SD stretched and it will make me mad that they look so ugly.


Movies are hit & miss on TNTHD... you never know until you tune in.

Things like Law & Order & Without a Trace seem to always be actual HD lately. Their new shows like the Closer and Saved are in HD also.

But the rest of the time when they aren't showing sports, they seem to be in stretch mode.

For those that remember... ESPNHD was stretchy too when they launched... and it was months before they finally stopped doing it. Apparently whatever convinced them to quit never convinced the folks at TNT!


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

mikeyoung said:


> Heres the problem...or part of it ...Movies are not shot in 4:3 OR 16:9, therefore, no matter WHAT you do there is a problem, you can show it in its original form and have black bars on 2/3 of the screen in some cases, or you can zoom or stretch. By far..most people prefer that the picture take up the whole screen...videophiles of course will disagree and prefer the film in its original form.


Last weekend I watched "A Fist Full of Dollars" in its original Techniscope format, 2.39:1. It was great. 16:9 is OK, but I really like to see the old movies in their original Cinemascope, Panavision or Techniscope format.

I have a front projection system with an 8' screen, so the image is plenty large enough, even when the screen is cropped. Also, Techniscope was never known for high quality image. It was 35mm half frame, and only a bit better than 16mm.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

I sent them an email complaining about "Runaway Jury" Saturday night, it was unwatchable on my 7 ft screen because the stretching was so distracting.

Go to www.TNT.TV/HD and email them about their sorry movie stretching.

Squeaking wheel and all that, you know.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

dino622 said:


> The price difference for me is $26/month. $20 for the HD programming upgrade, and $6 for the HD monthly fee for the receiver. Unless you happened to be a new customer when the VIP622 receiver came out. If you have the earlier 9xx models, you're going to be leasing a new receiver eventually for mpeg4 broadcasts. I'm also paying $6/month for SD local channels, just so I can have the program guide information show up for my off-the-air HD locals (I'm assuming this is necessary).
> 
> I'm sure E* doesn't control TNTHD, but they control the majority of the channels, the ones they inherited from Voom.
> 
> I see your point. My point is that as consumers, we should make ourselves heard! Let Dish Network know that we are tech saavy and aren't fooled by a simple resample and sharpening filter.


In reality E* doesn't control any of the channels. Dish network is just a delivery system. It takes the signal that is delivered to them then transmits it to their satellites for distribution via our "set top boxes".


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

I wish someone could show me a move shot in the last 15 years with a 4:3 AR.

I find it hard to believe.

I think what your complaining about is the choked bit stream. Around 10kb.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

ssmith10pn said:


> I wish someone could show me a move shot in the last 15 years with a 4:3 AR.


Kinda depends on how you define "shot in 4:3"...

35mm film is closer to 4:3 than it is anything else. Many movies are shot on 35mm in 4:3 and then use masking to produce a 16:9 or other desired image. They generally will frame the shots with this in mind, so the intended viewing area is within a 16:9 window on the film... but it was still technically shot 4:3.

Depending on the movie, and how it was shot... some movies shown in 4:3 actually show more of the movie than with the masking... so you can see additional stuff that previously had been masked out.

Not the best example... but this is especially true of the Transformers movie of the 1980s. A cartoon, but it was produced in 4:3 then masked when shown in theaters. The DVD release was only made in 4:3 and while many people wanted a 16:9 release, they were denied and explained much of what I said above... and the result is that the 4:3 release actually showed more of the original movie than people had seen before in theaters.

Having said all that... when a director knows he intends masking in the final edit... shots are sometimes framed without regard to what falls outside of the unmasked area... so a boom mike or something may be in the 4:3 frame, knowing that it will be masked out later... so if the 4:3 print is ever shown it will look like an "error" in the film when it was never originally intended to be seen.


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

HDMe said:


> Kinda depends on how you define "shot in 4:3"...
> 
> 35mm film is closer to 4:3 than it is anything else. Many movies are shot on 35mm in 4:3 and then use masking to produce a 16:9 or other desired image. They generally will frame the shots with this in mind, so the intended viewing area is within a 16:9 window on the film... but it was still technically shot 4:3.


While it is true that the 35mm format minus sound stripe is very close to 4:3, most movies use anamorphic compression to put a wide screen format on the negative. When they are printed and projected, the process is reversed and provides a wide screen show. The camera operator, director or film editor sees a wide screen product.

Wide screen theatrical releases from 1970 on have normally been 2.39:1. Prior to 1970, the ratio was a very similar 2.35:1, used by both Cinemascope and Panavision. Projection in their original format results in letterboxing, even on wide screen televisions.

Panavision pretty much owns the market nowadays. They have developed a digital movie camera that allows the use of all the old 35mm anamorphic lenses.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Larry Caldwell said:


> While it is true that the 35mm format minus sound stripe is very close to 4:3, most movies use anamorphic compression to put a wide screen format on the negative. When they are printed and projected, the process is reversed and provides a wide screen show. The camera operator, director or film editor sees a wide screen product.


Yeah... that's why I said it depends on how it was shot... Movies shot as you describe in Panavision, for instance, are widescreen from the get-go and require the manipulation at projection time to get the proper image back.

I was just describing one of the other methods sometimes used, even if not done frequently, that could result in 4:3 masters for a widescreen masked image.

I don't know what the rule of thumb in hollywood is as to how/when/why they make the decision to do one over the other.


----------



## dino622 (Jun 19, 2006)

I think for LoTR, they used 70mm film, and two 2.35:1 frames were fit on each 4:3 70mm frame. I'm sure cost of the film is a big issue.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

It also depends on their source of video.

If they rent from Blockbuster, you get upconverted DVD quality. If they use a film industry HD source (more expensive) you get good HD quality video.


----------



## Lyle_JP (Apr 22, 2002)

dino622 said:


> I think for LoTR, they used 70mm film, and two 2.35:1 frames were fit on each 4:3 70mm frame. I'm sure cost of the film is a big issue.


LOTR was shot using Super35. A 35mm frame with sound is about 1.33:1 (Academy Ratio). However, when you use the entire frame (including where the sound would go) for picture it's closer to 1.66:1. When shooting this way it is called filming in Super35. Super35 is generally used by directors who eventually intend their film to be shown in the 2.35:1 ratio. The film prints are blowups of the top-middle area of the exposed negative.

So why film 1.66 if you intend to show the film at 2.35? There are a number of good reasons. Well, anamorphic lenses have unique optical properties that may not be desirable. For starters, they have a very short focal depth. Also, lens flares are much more noticeable, and anything out of the focal field tends to appear stretched vertically. Also, it's easier to work with a "flat" negative when adding special effects later. Finally, having the 1.66 negative means that pan-and-scanning for home video can be far less destructive.

A 65mm film frame is approximately 2.20:1, so I'm not sure why you thought 70mm was closer to 4:3. Perhaps you are thinking of IMAX, which is 70mm film fed sideways through a projector, with 15 perfs-per-frame. IMAX is somewhere around 4:3 (or 1.33:1 if you like). Very few films are shot 65mm in their entirety (Hamlet, Far and Away, Baraka, and Tron are the only four I can think of in the last 3 decades). Film costs is certainly one reason, but also the cameras are huge, the lenses are limited in what they can do, and shooting with them becomes a nightmare chore compared to 35mm.


----------

