TV Resolution

This post is inspired by tonight's network TV news item about comic impressionist David Frye, who died today in Las Vegas. Back to that topic in a moment, but my issue is not actually about Mr. Frye.

I have a limited understanding about HDTV and broadcast/cable TV resolution. My TV supposedly has 1080p resolution, and I understand that Blu-Ray DVD (or perhaps some game device I don't own) is the only current video source likely to actually let me see an image with that resolution. I may be in error, but I think other common HD formats include 1080i, 720p, and 720i, with the standard definition broadcast TV resolution (in the US) being 480i. If any of that is in error in a way that is relevant to my question, please help me out.

I have cable TV service, and most of the television shows that I watch are in HD. I think that these are in 1080i, though they might be 720i. My cable provider's web site does not specifically state what they mean by "HD" channels. Sometimes I see an ad or a program promo or even an in-the-field news report in which it is obvious that the image resolution is lower. I have assumed that these have been recorded at 480i and are being broadcast the same way on both standard and HD channels. The images still look tolerable, just not so good as I have become accustomed to. My screen is 61", so reduced resolution can be quite evident.

I have occasionally seen video clips of 1960s TV broadcasts, often such things as Vince Lombardi or some other sports figure or event, and tonight's news report included a clip of a David Frye performance on the Smothers Brothers' comedy show from the 60s. When I see such video clips, the quality of the video image looks absolutely awful, much worse than anything current.

What is the difference? Did TV broadcasts really look that bad in the 60s? I watched a lot of TV back then and don't remember it looking like that. Of course, I didn't have 1080 resolution to compare it to, but these clips are almost unwatchable. If the broadcast TV then was not so bad as the clips I see now, what happened? Did the image quality decline on the tape? Did some archivist store the video by digitizing with a low sampling rate? Any ideas?

Thanks.

The quality of TV was significantly worse years ago. First the idea of reruns never really was a factor and due to the fact they were being broadcast the quality would only be as good as the technology and media quality.
In the 50's the majority of shows used a cheap type of film that degraded quickly. I Love Lucy was filmed using the same quality of film that was used for the motion picture industry. This is why if you put a ILL show up against another 50's show like the Honeymooners the difference in quality is drastic. Desilu also had the forethought to keep the rights to the films.

Also with famous early clips the master would be copied then stored so often the clips that would be seen could be several generations away from the master

But even with good quality film and magnetic tape if not in ideal archive conditions they over time will start to crap out. With old Reel to Reel tapes there is a process called "baking" in which the old magnetic tape is heated which when done correctly will give you one play to transfer however the tape is useless after. A lot of shows never thought that they would ever be broadcast again so often they would be just stored without much care.

Quote: Wavy70

In the 50's the majority of shows used a cheap type of film that degraded quickly. I Love Lucy was filmed using the same quality of film that was used for the motion picture industry. This is why if you put a ILL show up against another 50's show like the Honeymooners the difference in quality is drastic. Desilu also had the forethought to keep the rights to the films.

Interesting. I had no idea.

At some point in the 60s, I think, there was a change from film to video, too. I've noticed that the old Twilight Zone episodes come in two types of visual textures (for lack of a better term). The latter ones look more like TV than film. But I think until the 80s some TV was still filmed then transferred to video, I think particularly dramas and action series.

Anyway, as regards HD, all I know is, to quote Socrates, that I know nothing ;) I have a flat screen with HD, but I'm sure the cable signal isn't HD, and I don't have an HDMI cable. My DVD player is too old for that, and I won't get a new one til I can afford Blu Ray (DVD sure didn't last long! That's why I aim to wait for really cheap Blu Ray players; something else will replace it soon enough).

I think, in addition to the previous posts, the issue is increased by having a 61" (!) TV. I don't have the tech knowledge, but I compare it to something like newspaper comics. Seen in the normal 2" x 2" format in the paper, they look quite normal. Were you to blow that up into 4' X 4', the little dots that make the picture would be very apparent. The '60's were well before my time, but I've witnessed some late 70's carry overs and I don't recall any of them being much bigger than low 30", with the standard being somewhere around 19". The small TV from your 'when' could have been what made them look so good.

All valid points made above in particular the one about screen size but the biggest factor is that you are just nostalgic about the past. You don't know what you don't have if you have not seen it. I used to go to NASA glenn research center back in 1999 and that is the 1st place I saw HDTV (was at least 1080p), way ahead of its time. I went home and for a few days I thought the TV was messed up. It was not, its just I was comparing it to the HDTV I saw.

Quote: Doc

I have a limited understanding about HDTV and broadcast/cable TV resolution. My TV supposedly has 1080p resolution, and I understand that Blu-Ray DVD (or perhaps some game device I don't own) is the only current video source likely to actually let me see an image with that resolution. I may be in error, but I think other common HD formats include 1080i, 720p, and 720i, with the standard definition broadcast TV resolution (in the US) being 480i. If any of that is in error in a way that is relevant to my question, please help me out.

There is also 576i. It's used virtually everywhere outside US, and has been used for a long while. Ironically, before the HDTV era, US used to have the worst TV resolution.
Another step forward is PDTV, "pure digital TV", and refers to non-HD digital TV broadcasts. It employs 480p or 576p with MPEG2 encoding. Today digital TV broadcasts in US often employ this resolution, so it's no longer 480i.
DVDs often have 480p, but 576p ones are not unseen. Of course, the visual gap between 480i and 576p is quite a bit wider than between 576p and 720p.

The codec also makes a difference. h264 (AVC) is far better than old MPEG2 algorithms like used on DVD. 576p encoded with x264 is often used as an almost-HD format when the source does not warrant 720p.
720i hasn't actually been used anywhere, as far as I know. HDTV starts at 720p, which can use legacy codecs in TV broadcasting, but now more often new h264 codecs.

As for 1080i, I personally think it was a blunderous mistake, providing an interlaced image that can look worse than 720p at times, and not even delivering the intended 1920x1080 in static images due to deinterlacing. Originally, interlaced formats were a great idea, because CRT sets by their nature provide true hardware deinterlacing, preserving detail without visible artifacts. However, the same effect can't be replicated in software with flatscreen displays.
Fortunately, 1080p is on its way in, and 1080i is at least gone from discs.

In cinema movies, the term "1080p" is misleading, because their stringy aspect ratio results in only 800 lines being actually used. A potential future format is 2560x1080, there already being a couple TV sets that support it, but it doesn't seem to be catching on, and neither is 1440p overall.

Quote: Doc

I have occasionally seen video clips of 1960s TV broadcasts, often such things as Vince Lombardi or some other sports figure or event, and tonight's news report included a clip of a David Frye performance on the Smothers Brothers' comedy show from the 60s. When I see such video clips, the quality of the video image looks absolutely awful, much worse than anything current.
What is the difference? Did TV broadcasts really look that bad in the 60s?

It's the recording equipment. Of course, real cinema film was almost as good as it is today, but powers that be know what was used to record that TV broadcast... As a general rule, they were not archived, not considered worth it.

A lot of them have been lost forever (not that most of them make a big loss). Some got recorded on kinescopes. A little bit later, some got stored on VCR. The rest, some were lucky and others less so. It's almost a miracle ST:TOS has been shot on quality film and preserved well enough that it could be restored in HD. But it's an exception. A lot of broadcasts didn't even use editing, they just went live or via an intermediate film only used to get them to broadcasting.

Just for kicks

From 1922

Quote: Wavy70

The quality of TV was significantly worse years ago. ....

Quote: Face

... the issue is increased by having a 61" (!) TV. ...

Quote: niczone

... you are just nostalgic about the past. ...

Quote: P90

... It's the recording equipment. ...

Hmmm.... I really do appreciate the responses, but it seems that the "consensus" is about as unified as my earlier thoughts.

Yes, I know that the large screen makes a big difference. Yes, I probably have faulty memory about how TV looked 45 years or so ago. Yes, there are a number of reasons why broadcast video would have been worse back then. But these re-aired clips -- even when shown on just a small part of the screen -- look outrageously bad. Sometimes the images are so poor that it is quite difficult even to tell what is going on. It's like watching a Charlie Chaplin film today -- all flicker and trying to guess how many frames were cut out. I doubt we would have put up with such quality in the 60s when we had Cinerama film as a comparison. No, I really suspect that the video as we saw it back then looked a lot better than the "historic" video clips that I see aired now.

I think it must be something about how the images were stored and re-presented now. Does anyone know what media a major broadcast network is drawing from to air these clips? Are they really stored on mylar or acetate tape that has been sitting around some warehouse for 40+ years? I could believe in significant deterioration there. Have they been digitized? If so, I could suspect losses from the tapes prior to the archiving as well as poor sampling rates or other conversion shortcomings, but I would not expect much loss once the video is in digital format. (Provided you can still read the media -- anyone got a reader for an 8" floppy disc handy? How about a 5.25" floppy? A 3.5" diskette? I can't even get software that will read the Excel 1.x files that I have saved.)

It's all of these things, but really the key issue is that these broadcasts weren't archived on shelves of digital tapes like modern ones, TV was considered mostly about transmitting visuals rather than stored content delivery. A lot of what has been preserved is kinescope, essentially analog camrip. Add questionable storage on media never intended to last, and you get what you get.

1960s TV was relatively lucky if it even got recorded and stored at the station, even as acetate tape recorded off a TV display. As for digital formats, these didn't come into TV until this century; early media didn't have the capacity to store video information. Even VCR was just emerging, and early VCR didn't look good. What survived best is made-for-TV movies that have been shot on quality film and archived.

Digitization is generally done pretty well today, not as bad as to spoil the recordings of that quality, that's for sure.

Quote: Doc

No, I really suspect that the video as we saw it back then looked a lot better than the "historic" video clips that I see aired now.

It could be, as you said, the tapes or films were not well preserved.

It cold also be the use of cheaper digital technologies. Compare the coverage of the Gulf War in 1991 to the coverage of the Iraq war in 2003. This provides an excellent example. In 91 networks had to use satellites, and the cutting edge tool was the night-vision camera. In 03 they often streamed video, which is convenient but provided a fuzzy picture with breaks, jumps and other assorted oddities.

Quote:

(Provided you can still read the media -- anyone got a reader for an 8" floppy disc handy? How about a 5.25" floppy? A 3.5" diskette? I can't even get software that will read the Excel 1.x files that I have saved.)

Actually I have access to two PCs that can read 3.5" floppies. I keep one around because it's unsalable. I haven't turned it on in the last two years. Old software is another matter. I learned to upgrade all my Word files when I upgrade Office.

What digital technologies in the 1960s?