Why do HD broadcasts look better than High-Def movies?

[Maxell]

Does it have something to do with it being film versus HD cameras used in broadcast? Such as the Tonight Show, Letterman, HD sports, etc. Or is it because most films weren't designed for high-definition?

And what's up with the poorly transfered movies? Why waste the time to give us grainy crap that makes even DVD look good? I'd rather wait for something like Star Wars franchise to be transfered to blu-ray instead of getting rushed grainy copies.

[Lepton]

Much of that has to do with 24fps film display at 60hz. They must alternate between showing 3 and 2 frames create 60 Hz.

Broadcasts look much better because they are 30fps... and the motion is more fluid. A 24fps compatible display will make BD look even better.

Personally I think HD broadcasts don't look that great. They are much more prone to MPEG artifacts, especially when your provider is Comcast and they cut down the bandwidth.

[Mote]

You think HD broadcasts look better than HD movies? You obviously don't have Directv.

[BStecke]

I have yet to see an HD broadcast come close to movies like POTC or Crank. Almost everything I've seen in HD, excluding "event" broadcasts like the Super Bowl, have terrible artifacting and usually have a very soft look to them. Maybe your set's not calibrated properly, but BD should beat 99.99% of HD broadcasts.

[richard lichtenfelt]

^
I concur. Broadcasts on Comcast HD cable have nothing on blu-ray movies. The movies are more vibrant and detailed. That being said, I enjoy both vastly more than standard def.

[ryoohki]

Originally Posted by Maxell

Does it have something to do with it being film versus HD cameras used in broadcast? Such as the Tonight Show, Letterman, HD sports, etc. Or is it because most films weren't designed for high-definition?

And what's up with the poorly transfered movies? Why waste the time to give us grainy crap that makes even DVD look good? I'd rather wait for something like Star Wars franchise to be transfered to blu-ray instead of getting rushed grainy copies.

Are you serious.. OMG... search before posting LOL!

[Maxell]

Originally Posted by ryoohki

Are you serious.. OMG... search before posting LOL!

And what exactly do I search for? I searched for broadcast and get a ton of irrelevant topics.

I dont know how high def looks on cable and directv, all I get is over-the-air high-def signal.
Sure it's not perfect, there will be some artifacts from time to time. But the "definition" is much better than what I've seen on blu-ray. I can see birth marks and other skin marks on a celeb on Letterman, or marks on a basketball court, etc.
Dont get me wrong though, I love my blu-ray. But nothing has really astonished me yet in terms of video quality (although I haven't seen "300" yet). Pirates did look good however.

[bootman]

Originally Posted by richard lichtenfelt

^
I concur. Broadcasts on Comcast HD cable have nothing on blu-ray movies. The movies are more vibrant and detailed. That being said, I enjoy both vastly more than standard def.

Comcast, or any other MSO, takes a SAT feed of the HD channel and it goes through a various format conversions so that they can transport it across their networks. Anytime you have to change formats, etc you lose something in the process. That being said, I have Cablevision, and some of their HD offerings look stunning (DiscoveryHD for example, while others not so good.
I think its more to do with sources.
Anyway, getting a pretty much virgin OTA studio feed will usually beat most HD offerings for this very reason.
As great as Blu is, it's still a compressed video feed of the master.
(just much much less so than DVD and at much much higher resolution)

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by bootman

Comcast, or any other MSO, takes a SAT feed of the HD channel and it goes through a various format conversions so that they can transport it across their networks. Anytime you have to change formats, etc you lose something in the process. That being said, I have Cablevision, and some of their HD offerings look stunning (DiscoveryHD for example, while others not so good.
I think its more to do with sources.

Always wondered why some of the Comcast PBS HD looked a little more "speckly" than it should...
I can vouch that most of the network HD-broadcaast movies look better than my upconverted DVD, however.

[Anthony P]

don't use the red, white and yellow cable

seriously, what is your set-up because if broadcast looks better there is something seriously wrong.

[tron3]

I get free HD over the airwaves. Interference is pretty rare as I get a VERY strong signal on most channels. I'd say they run about neck and neck.

[bootman]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Always wondered why some of the Comcast PBS HD looked a little more "speckly" than it should...
I can vouch that most of the network HD-broadcaast movies look better than my upconverted DVD, however.

This may or may not be due to the delivery network.
Don't rule out things like loose fittings in and outside the house, old cable, etc.
You woulds be amazed at what can clear up after going over every fitting with a 7/16 wrench.
Sometimes it's the basics and these things affect all carriers.

[Maxell]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

don't use the red, white and yellow cable

seriously, what is your set-up because if broadcast looks better there is something seriously wrong.

Samsung 32" LCD (251d model), PS3 connected through hdmi, OTA high def and standard cable (has nothing to do with this plus it's free).

[Anthony P]

what FW version on the PS3?

[Maxell]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

what FW version on the PS3?

the current one, 1.90 i think. PS3 outputted to 720p. At 1080i it looks worse, more like there's too much conversion going on.