movies in widescreen??? and 5.1??

[pugpep]

Gday all
why is it that most ?(it feels like it sometime) or 1/2 of the movies shown
on the free to air stations not wide screen?is it harder to broadcast
widescreen/high def movies???
also why do they very rarely actually broadcast digital sound(5.1),the only
movie i can remember they did was "lord of the rings" and the demo
loops(joy!),if they can on the demo loop then why not for movies?

cheers
Staf

[flyinyereye]

"pugpep" <pugpep@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:41fe16f3$0$23828$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Gday all
> why is it that most ?(it feels like it sometime) or 1/2 of the movies
> shown on the free to air stations not wide screen?is it harder to
> broadcast widescreen/high def movies???
> also why do they very rarely actually broadcast digital sound(5.1),the
> only movie i can remember they did was "lord of the rings" and the demo
> loops(joy!),if they can on the demo loop then why not for movies?

The networks are still using tapes they were supplied with years ago...
which are 4:3 p&s transfers originally intended for analogue. Ten is a big
offender in this regard. It's pretty crap tho, I agree. I'd expect that all
films less than five years old should be widescreen by now, but I'm
frequently disappointed. Presumably (a) they would have to pay to get their
4:3 copies replaced with widescreen copies; or (b) they're just lazy.

As for DD5.1, even films supplied in widescreen format usually do not come
with a 5.1 soundtrack so there's nothing the networks can actually do about
that.

It'll get better in time.

[David Z]

"flyinyereye" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:41fe240c$0$23784$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "pugpep" <pugpep@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:41fe16f3$0$23828$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> Gday all
>> why is it that most ?(it feels like it sometime) or 1/2 of the movies
>> shown on the free to air stations not wide screen?is it harder to
>> broadcast widescreen/high def movies???
>> also why do they very rarely actually broadcast digital sound(5.1),the
>> only movie i can remember they did was "lord of the rings" and the demo
>> loops(joy!),if they can on the demo loop then why not for movies?
>
> The networks are still using tapes they were supplied with years ago...

They're still using tapes? LOL. Why haven't they upgraded to DVD?

[kubalister]

David Z wrote:
> "flyinyereye" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:41fe240c$0$23784$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>"pugpep" <pugpep@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>>news:41fe16f3$0$23828$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>>>Gday all
>>>why is it that most ?(it feels like it sometime) or 1/2 of the movies
>>>shown on the free to air stations not wide screen?is it harder to
>>>broadcast widescreen/high def movies???
>>>also why do they very rarely actually broadcast digital sound(5.1),the
>>>only movie i can remember they did was "lord of the rings" and the demo
>>>loops(joy!),if they can on the demo loop then why not for movies?
>>
>>The networks are still using tapes they were supplied with years ago...
>
>
> They're still using tapes? LOL. Why haven't they upgraded to DVD?

It has something to do with DVD being an inferior consumer grade and
over-compressed lossy format compared to broadcast quality tapes.

[David Z]

"kubalister" <kubalister@no.spam.here> wrote in message
news:41ff0a08$0$54148$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
> David Z wrote:
>> "flyinyereye" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:41fe240c$0$23784$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>>>"pugpep" <pugpep@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>>>news:41fe16f3$0$23828$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>>>Gday all
>>>>why is it that most ?(it feels like it sometime) or 1/2 of the movies
>>>>shown on the free to air stations not wide screen?is it harder to
>>>>broadcast widescreen/high def movies???
>>>>also why do they very rarely actually broadcast digital sound(5.1),the
>>>>only movie i can remember they did was "lord of the rings" and the demo
>>>>loops(joy!),if they can on the demo loop then why not for movies?
>>>
>>>The networks are still using tapes they were supplied with years ago...
>>
>>
>> They're still using tapes? LOL. Why haven't they upgraded to DVD?
>
> It has something to do with DVD being an inferior consumer grade and
> over-compressed lossy format compared to broadcast quality tapes.

But that doesn't make sense - digital TV is already compressed/lossy.

[Clarkie Home]

"David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3AELd.143486$K7.121753@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "kubalister" <kubalister@no.spam.here> wrote in message
> news:41ff0a08$0$54148$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>> David Z wrote:
>>> "flyinyereye" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:41fe240c$0$23784$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>>>"pugpep" <pugpep@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>>>>news:41fe16f3$0$23828$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>>Gday all
>>>>>why is it that most ?(it feels like it sometime) or 1/2 of the movies
>>>>>shown on the free to air stations not wide screen?is it harder to
>>>>>broadcast widescreen/high def movies???
>>>>>also why do they very rarely actually broadcast digital sound(5.1),the
>>>>>only movie i can remember they did was "lord of the rings" and the
>>>>>demo loops(joy!),if they can on the demo loop then why not for movies?
>>>>
>>>>The networks are still using tapes they were supplied with years ago...
>>>
>>>
>>> They're still using tapes? LOL. Why haven't they upgraded to DVD?
>>
>> It has something to do with DVD being an inferior consumer grade and
>> over-compressed lossy format compared to broadcast quality tapes.
>
> But that doesn't make sense - digital TV is already compressed/lossy.
>
well actually it does, you put the best quality in so that you get the best
possible quality at the consumer end.

Every generation of mpeg encoding adds artifacts and errors, the better the
quality in the better the quality out, at least that was what i was told.

cheers

[flyinyereye]

"Clarkie Home" <clarkie@nospammandan.bigponddot.au> wrote in message
news:6DKLd.144080$K7.109047@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3AELd.143486$K7.121753@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "kubalister" <kubalister@no.spam.here> wrote in message
>> news:41ff0a08$0$54148$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>>> David Z wrote:
>>>> "flyinyereye" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:41fe240c$0$23784$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>>"pugpep" <pugpep@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>>>>>news:41fe16f3$0$23828$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gday all
>>>>>>why is it that most ?(it feels like it sometime) or 1/2 of the movies
>>>>>>shown on the free to air stations not wide screen?is it harder to
>>>>>>broadcast widescreen/high def movies???
>>>>>>also why do they very rarely actually broadcast digital sound(5.1),the
>>>>>>only movie i can remember they did was "lord of the rings" and the
>>>>>>demo loops(joy!),if they can on the demo loop then why not for movies?
>>>>>
>>>>>The networks are still using tapes they were supplied with years ago...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They're still using tapes? LOL. Why haven't they upgraded to DVD?
>>>
>>> It has something to do with DVD being an inferior consumer grade and
>>> over-compressed lossy format compared to broadcast quality tapes.
>>
>> But that doesn't make sense - digital TV is already compressed/lossy.
>>
> well actually it does, you put the best quality in so that you get the
> best possible quality at the consumer end.
>
> Every generation of mpeg encoding adds artifacts and errors, the better
> the quality in the better the quality out, at least that was what i was
> told.

Same reason making a copy of a copy ends up in lower quality each time.
Errors will always sneak their way in.

[David Z]

"Clarkie Home" <clarkie@nospammandan.bigponddot.au> wrote in message
news:6DKLd.144080$K7.109047@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3AELd.143486$K7.121753@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "kubalister" <kubalister@no.spam.here> wrote in message
>> news:41ff0a08$0$54148$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>>> David Z wrote:
>>>> "flyinyereye" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:41fe240c$0$23784$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>>"pugpep" <pugpep@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>>>>>news:41fe16f3$0$23828$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gday all
>>>>>>why is it that most ?(it feels like it sometime) or 1/2 of the movies
>>>>>>shown on the free to air stations not wide screen?is it harder to
>>>>>>broadcast widescreen/high def movies???
>>>>>>also why do they very rarely actually broadcast digital sound(5.1),the
>>>>>>only movie i can remember they did was "lord of the rings" and the
>>>>>>demo loops(joy!),if they can on the demo loop then why not for movies?
>>>>>
>>>>>The networks are still using tapes they were supplied with years ago...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They're still using tapes? LOL. Why haven't they upgraded to DVD?
>>>
>>> It has something to do with DVD being an inferior consumer grade and
>>> over-compressed lossy format compared to broadcast quality tapes.
>>
>> But that doesn't make sense - digital TV is already compressed/lossy.
>>
> well actually it does, you put the best quality in so that you get the
> best possible quality at the consumer end.
>
> Every generation of mpeg encoding adds artifacts and errors, the better
> the quality in the better the quality out, at least that was what i was
> told.

As the DVD has already had compression applied, there is then no need to do
it again. Why not just broadcast it 'as is'.

[David Z]

"flyinyereye" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:41ff7fd9$0$15088$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "Clarkie Home" <clarkie@nospammandan.bigponddot.au> wrote in message
> news:6DKLd.144080$K7.109047@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "David Z" <dave@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3AELd.143486$K7.121753@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> "kubalister" <kubalister@no.spam.here> wrote in message
>>> news:41ff0a08$0$54148$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>>>> David Z wrote:
>>>>> "flyinyereye" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:41fe240c$0$23784$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>>"pugpep" <pugpep@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:41fe16f3$0$23828$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gday all
>>>>>>>why is it that most ?(it feels like it sometime) or 1/2 of the movies
>>>>>>>shown on the free to air stations not wide screen?is it harder to
>>>>>>>broadcast widescreen/high def movies???
>>>>>>>also why do they very rarely actually broadcast digital
>>>>>>>sound(5.1),the only movie i can remember they did was "lord of the
>>>>>>>rings" and the demo loops(joy!),if they can on the demo loop then
>>>>>>>why not for movies?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The networks are still using tapes they were supplied with years
>>>>>>ago...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They're still using tapes? LOL. Why haven't they upgraded to DVD?
>>>>
>>>> It has something to do with DVD being an inferior consumer grade and
>>>> over-compressed lossy format compared to broadcast quality tapes.
>>>
>>> But that doesn't make sense - digital TV is already compressed/lossy.
>>>
>> well actually it does, you put the best quality in so that you get the
>> best possible quality at the consumer end.
>>
>> Every generation of mpeg encoding adds artifacts and errors, the better
>> the quality in the better the quality out, at least that was what i was
>> told.
>
> Same reason making a copy of a copy ends up in lower quality each time.
> Errors will always sneak their way in.

Also I have my doubts about whether the tapes are compressed. How on earth
can they fit an UNcompressed HDTV/1080i movie on a single tape? Do you have
any idea how much space that would take up??

[tony_h]

David Z wrote:
> As the DVD has already had compression applied, there is then no need
> to do it again. Why not just broadcast it 'as is'.

Good theory, but practically I don't think it can be done for a few reasons.
1. They wouldn't be able to code those damn pesky watermarks in!
2. They tend to distribute 50+megabit/s individual feeds for contribution
quality, so it can be re-encoded at the end points for distribution (but I
guess they could simply feed 8megabit/s saving bandwidth.. why, don't really
know).
3. DVDs aren't licenced for broadcast..
Look at the specs on this baby:
http://www.tiesseci.com/English/422_dvb_broadcast_contribution_encoder_hands_off_c ost_effective.htm
these are the kind of things in broadcaster networks.
Regards
Tony
--�
http://tonyspage.abock.de for some Topfield info including turning
those recordings into DVDs, adding features with the open source TAP
environment etc...

[pugpep]

"tony_h" <tony_h@REMOVE.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:wuMLd.144195$K7.59914@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> David Z wrote:
>> As the DVD has already had compression applied, there is then no need
>> to do it again. Why not just broadcast it 'as is'.
>
> Good theory, but practically I don't think it can be done for a few
> reasons.
> 1. They wouldn't be able to code those damn pesky watermarks in!
> 2. They tend to distribute 50+megabit/s individual feeds for contribution
> quality, so it can be re-encoded at the end points for distribution (but I
> guess they could simply feed 8megabit/s saving bandwidth.. why, don't
> really know).
> 3. DVDs aren't licenced for broadcast..
> Look at the specs on this baby:
> http://www.tiesseci.com/English/422_dvb_broadcast_contribution_encoder_hands_off_c ost_effective.htm
> these are the kind of things in broadcaster networks.
> Regards
> Tony
> --�
> http://tonyspage.abock.de for some Topfield info including turning
> those recordings into DVDs, adding features with the open source TAP
> environment etc...
>

cheers
ppl

Staf

[David Z]

Not only movies but TV series too. Malcolm in the Middle for example, on
Nine, is shown here in 4:3 (SD). In the US, its broadcast in HDTV (1080i)
16:9. Pathetic really.

"pugpep" <pugpep@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:41fe16f3$0$23828$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Gday all
> why is it that most ?(it feels like it sometime) or 1/2 of the movies
> shown on the free to air stations not wide screen?is it harder to
> broadcast widescreen/high def movies???
> also why do they very rarely actually broadcast digital sound(5.1),the
> only movie i can remember they did was "lord of the rings" and the demo
> loops(joy!),if they can on the demo loop then why not for movies?
>
> cheers
> Staf
>

[Ben Thomas]

David Z wrote:
> Not only movies but TV series too. Malcolm in the Middle for example, on
> Nine, is shown here in 4:3 (SD). In the US, its broadcast in HDTV (1080i)
> 16:9. Pathetic really.
>

I thought their HD was 720p.

--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[Hosko]

They're still using tapes? LOL. Why haven't they upgraded to DVD?

hahahahaha That is the dumbest statement I have ever heard. a mini DV tapes outputs better quality then a dvd. Mpeg quality is crap, if you have ever seen non compressed HDCAM video you will agree. I love the internet, it makes idiots feel like they know what they are talking about.

[Ben Thomas]

Hosko wrote:
> David Z Wrote:
>
>>They're still using tapes? LOL. Why haven't they upgraded to DVD?
>
>
> hahahahaha That is the dumbest statement I have ever heard. a mini DV
> tapes outputs better quality then a dvd. Mpeg quality is crap, if you
> have ever seen non compressed HDCAM video you will agree. I love the
> internet, it makes idiots feel like they know what they are talking
> about.
>
>

The quality of the video stored on a mini DV tape depends on the sensor in the
camera. So your second sentence is not quite true.

For example, my JVC mini DV camcorder has a 500 line CCD and upsamples it to
PAL. But the source is still lower quality than DVD.

As you said, an HDCAM video will look stunning

--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[Hosko]

The quality of the video stored on a mini DV tape depends on the sensor in the
camera. So your second sentence is not quite true.

You should learn to read and not jump to conclusions I was refering to to the quality of format. I never mentioned camera sensors. If you record a digi betacam source onto a mini DV tape using a deck (not a camera) and the same stream onto a DVD the mini DV will look better.

[kubalister]

Ben Thomas wrote:
> Hosko wrote:
>
>> David Z Wrote:
>>
>>> They're still using tapes? LOL. Why haven't they upgraded to DVD?
>>
>>
>>
>> hahahahaha That is the dumbest statement I have ever heard. a mini DV
>> tapes outputs better quality then a dvd. Mpeg quality is crap, if you
>> have ever seen non compressed HDCAM video you will agree. I love the
>> internet, it makes idiots feel like they know what they are talking
>> about.
>>
>>
>
> The quality of the video stored on a mini DV tape depends on the sensor
> in the camera. So your second sentence is not quite true.

Bullshit! The OUTPUT quality of DV is significantly better than DVD.
WTF has a camera sensor got to do with the resolution and bitrate
capacity of DV standard tapes??? DV tapes aren't used exclusively in
consumer grade cameras.
DV tapes have a constant transfer bitrate of 25Mbps compared to the
maximum bitrate of 9.8Mbps of DVD (with an average of 6Mbps). The DV
format also uses a significantly less lossy compression algorithm.

> For example, my JVC mini DV camcorder has a 500 line CCD and upsamples
> it to PAL. But the source is still lower quality than DVD.

No shit. That's what you get with consumer grade video equipment.

> As you said, an HDCAM video will look stunning
>

[Mike]

kubalister wrote:

> Bullshit! The OUTPUT quality of DV is significantly better than DVD.

Only possible if the _input_ is better than dvd was, i think, his point.
I too associated mini-DV with comsumer cameras. Sorry.

> WTF has a camera sensor got to do with the resolution and bitrate
> capacity of DV standard tapes??? DV tapes aren't used exclusively in
> consumer grade cameras.
> DV tapes have a constant transfer bitrate of 25Mbps compared to the
> maximum bitrate of 9.8Mbps of DVD (with an average of 6Mbps). The DV
> format also uses a significantly less lossy compression algorithm.

Hey, relax a little. Can you elaborate please?
I hear the HD version of mini-DV will use the same bite-rate, but mpeg-2
compression instead of mjpeg.
What _is_ the quality difference? I'm guessing it shows up in
fast-moving scenes. Is there any difference in stills? The HD demo
loops manage to look very good, even 7's, but are mostly slow moving.
Do the mpeg problems go away given enough bitrate?

[Hosko]

I hear the HD version of mini-DV will use the same bite-rate, but mpeg-2 compression instead of mjpeg.
What _is_ the quality difference? I'm guessing it shows up in
fast-moving scenes. Is there any difference in stills? The HD demo
loops manage to look very good, even 7's, but are mostly slow moving.
Do the mpeg problems go away given enough bitrate?

Firstly MPEG works by saving "I frames" (jpeg) every 12 frames and then only storing whats changed inbetwen those frames. This gets showed up very well in the movie Biker Boys that was on FBO last month. There is a scene where there is a person on either side of a train track and then a train comes along. Its a perspective shot from character A looking at character B, because the train is blocking the view you only see character B for a frame every 2-3 frames. So those frames are very different it doesn't handle it very well. Post production companies can lower the I frames so this doesn't happen, Foxtel appear not to so any time the camera moves you'll notice artifacts.

I haven't had the chance to look at any HD versions of mini DV so I can't really comment on it. But mini DV or mini DVcam tapes used as mini DV tapes. (this is what all TV stations use because the tape in a mini DV is plastic while 40 mini DVcam tape is a metal evaporated tape so its higher qulaity and less chance of tape drop out which is a major problem with mini DV.) A three chip mini dv but most likely DVCAM camera is starting to find its way onto more and more shoots because for $5k you can double your coverage without adding any more crew by simplying getting the producer to shoot the DV camera as "B camera" to compliment the Digi Beta "A camera". People may tell you its not broadcast quailty but thats a load of crap. When shot properly its great except for low light conditions(as the gains in these cameras are not quite on par with the larger format big brothers) or chroma key situations (you can key it but PAL DV is 4:2:0 so your missing some of the colour information compared to 4:2:2 Digi Beta or DVCPRO50 so the end result will not be as sharp.

[Hosko]

Ofcause if you use a single low quality sensor in your camera your your results won't be very good. But that doesn't mean the format is not very good it means your not utalising it. Having said all I have I should mention the down side of the Mini DV format is very prone to have drop outs this is where the tape has lost contact with the head which will result in macro blocking and there is no alert function for this unlike Digi Beta where you can view the channel condition and even set up an error logger to log any faults.

Secondly the high end cameras still don't have Timecode in and out so if you do multiple camera shoot you can't "Jam" the free run timecode. This matches all the cameras free run timecode so they are identical which makes editing that much easier. I'm talking about the canon xl2, panasonic dvx-100 and the canon PD-170 there are higher end DVCAM cameras that can do this but they are as complex to use as a digi beta camera so givng them to producers to use becomes more daunting then handing them what looks like a consumer camera.