This is what i have been complaining about "Hannah Montana"

[j.ash]

Before, i have posted the question and rant why Hannah Montana is softer and less detailed that your usual sitcom. Now i have found a DVD review of the Hannah Montana Season 1 box set which also shares my sentiments and this time, the reviewer clearly told what i wanna say all along:

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/hannahmontana-season1.html

(I bolded the statements that are important)

VIDEO and AUDIO

Picture quality on the fullscreen video is atrocious, but that's because it's made in the cheap-as-possible Disney Channel digital video sitcom format. This design renders everything soft and blurry, and colors tend to be bright and garish. I understand these represent the series' humble beginnings, but really, you'd think Disney could take just a tiny bit of the franchise's billion dollar net worth to make "Hannah Montana" be a show about 15-year-olds, not one that looks like 15-year-olds shot it on their lunch hour with a younger sibling's Polaroid Pixie. Sitcoms from the 1960s look better than this. And I'm simply watching this on a standard 27-inch television. I can only imagine how painful it'd be blown up on a larger screen.

As far as sound goes, we get just two-channel stereo. You would think that a show about a music star, on which original popular songs regularly feature, that a 5.1 mix might be in order. Instead, the presentation seems needlessly short-sighted and probably is comparable to cable broadcast quality.

How could Disney Improve, either Move the production to HD, but i see they are unwilling to do that so another option is to drop the processing of the video. Trust me, the unprocessed behind-the-scenes video you may see on ET or Access Hollywood is way better than the processed finished episode you see everyday.

And "Lizzie Mcguire" and "Even Stevens" had a better presentation thanks to Film based production and had more outdoor scenes which is nice unlike Hannah and the rest of the sitcoms which use SD video cameras and mostly shoot indoors. "as the bell rings" minisodes also look better.

Nickelodeon Sitcoms like "drake and josh" and "iCarly" also look way better and they are in HD. And i expect "sonny with a chance" to look better and in HD judging my the trailers, looked like it came from a Nickelodeon.

[Father Time]

Well, the Season 1 DVD is the "first season." I don't think they knew at all what a tiger they had by the tail at that time. Your point is good, though, because they didn't step-up the quality of production after that - even for Season 3. Typical for them, as they are really more about marketing and making $$ . . .

What hasn't been typical is that Hannah Montana is actually funny (at least we think so). We've watched some of the other sit-coms on Dizzy, and pretty-much don't find 'em comical at all. And since the same writers are involved, we have to conclude that it's the cast that makes the show go, not anything that Disney is doing - intentional or otherwise.

It looks to be moot, now, because unless something breaks soon, it don't look like Season 4 is gonna' happen. That's too bad - but we have the movie coming, and we're sure to be hearing more from Emily, Jason, Moises, and of course Miley and her dad . . .

[j.ash]

Well, the Season 1 DVD is the "first season." I don't think they knew at all what a tiger they had by the tail at that time. Your point is good, though, because they didn't step-up the quality of production after that - even for Season 3. Typical for them, as they are really more about marketing and making $$ . . .

What hasn't been typical is that Hannah Montana is actually funny (at least we think so). We've watched some of the other sit-coms on Dizzy, and pretty-much don't find 'em comical at all. And since the same writers are involved, we have to conclude that it's the cast that makes the show go, not anything that Disney is doing - intentional or otherwise.

It looks to be moot, now, because unless something breaks soon, it don't look like Season 4 is gonna' happen. That's too bad - but we have the movie coming, and we're sure to be hearing more from Emily, Jason, Moises, and of course Miley and her dad . . .
The Movie will provably end the series just like "Lizzie" did with her own movie.

And again taking nick as an example, they were SD before, some episodes of Drake & Josh and iCarly were in SD and then BAM! HD!

[Father Time]

. . . The Movie will probably end the series . . .

Looks to be that way . . .

[Jake like pankake(vur8z)]

isn't there a disney channel hd

[j.ash]

In the United States, there is. And its good!

[MileyLaLa]

i think season 2 and 3 were shot in full hd...i dont know why disney would air it in SD on DCHD for...but for some shows its in HD like playhouse disney and phines and ferb and some other things but im sure in the near future it will be broadcasted in hd for those with DCHD. :D

also i dont think it is the end? cos didnt disney confirm it wasnt the end of the series.

[apogeum]

The European DVD is in a bit higher quality than the American ones because it's in PAL and not in NSTC so they did shoot it in a bit higher quality.

Most things in Hollywood are actually still shot on film, so it's possible that they still shoot HM on film. Though that also depends on what guild rules it's shot under strangely enough.

I hope they shot them in HD anyway, would be nice to see HM on blu ray :). When they started HM that just wasn't the standard yet and HD wasn't as wide spread either.

[j.ash]

The European DVD is in a bit higher quality than the American ones because it's in PAL and not in NSTC so they did shoot it in a bit higher quality.

Most things in Hollywood are actually still shot on film, so it's possible that they still shoot HM on film. Though that also depends on what guild rules it's shot under strangely enough.

I hope they shot them in HD anyway, would be nice to see HM on blu ray :). When they started HM that just wasn't the standard yet and HD wasn't as wide spread either.

And Disney Channel was not broadcasting at the time The first and some of the second season of Hannah was shot. so there was a decision not to shoot in HD. But now there is a channel and there is a season 3 and the other channel (Nick) is doing it, why not them.

And here is the odd part, Almost all Disney Channel Cartoons going back to Kim Possible which as made back in 2004-2005, even earlier, is in HD while Nick is not (Do they only show Spongebob on that channel?)

And definitely they are not using film cameras but video cameras.

One way to find out is if you see "kodak Film" or "Shot in panavison" or "processed by Fotokem", its film. But "Filmlook", thats video and the culprit of the video quality problem. Unprocessed video looked excellent and looks like what you see in news programs and daytime soaps.

Thanks for the responses guys.

[BuickNamedMiley]

Glad someone brought this is up. It looks cheaply made. I understand it's a kid's show but it makes a ton of money. Disney ought to invest it in better equipment. I've also noticed that the camera wook isn't very good. You can see the abrupt switches from one angle to another. If they are using a steadycam, it isn't very steady.
I watched Titanic again recently and yes that movie had a huge budget, but it was filmed on actual film, so during the editing process, someone had to cut up and tape together peices of reel film, play with nagatives and all that. Yet it isn't choppy and the quality is very high. With Disney, they can just load it into a computer and and click on something to smooth out the transision. Why haven't they done this?

[j.ash]

Glad someone brought this is up. It looks cheaply made. I understand it's a kid's show but it makes a ton of money. Disney ought to invest it in better equipment. I've also noticed that the camera wook isn't very good. You can see the abrupt switches from one angle to another. If they are using a steadycam, it isn't very steady.
I watched Titanic again recently and yes that movie had a huge budget, but it was filmed on actual film, so during the editing process, someone had to cut up and tape together peices of reel film, play with nagatives and all that. Yet it isn't choppy and the quality is very high. With Disney, they can just load it into a computer and and click on something to smooth out the transision. Why haven't they done this?

I can forgive Disney if it was made back when Disney channel HD did not exist at that and if the show is just getting started. But it's season 3 already and yes, the mouse made big bucks and can spend on infrastructure.

Little trivia: this "style" of video started with "that's so raven", same video quality, but I can give them a pass since HD back in those days were prohibitive.

[MagicMiley]

I hope they shot them in HD anyway, would be nice to see HM on blu ray :). When they started HM that just wasn't the standard yet and HD wasn't as wide spread either.

Hi, :) Disney has been behind on loads for years, they dont really seem to care about shows, just about making money. But then what movie/record label cares about movies/music anymore? NONE OF THEM.

BlueRay is relatively new, HD is about 16 years old, (Some things are older than they seem like Broadband ADSL is over 30 years old), and ULTRA HiDef is on its way from 2015 approx so they say, and that is 16x bigger (4320p) than HD (1080p), so how long will it be before we get that! lol

I thought the show WAS filmed in HD and they just released it on DVD first like they always do and then years later do the BlueRay like they have started to do, so I didnt know that, its like over here in the UK loads of shows have been recorded in HD but they are only on DVD and they air in SD, its only when the switch OFF of Analog comes over here that things will pick up as there will be more bandwith.

Anyways thank you for the info very interesting read! :)

[HannahMontanaMileyCyrus]

Maybe they didn't know HM was going to be so big. Maybe they only had so much money to budget. Who knows?

[Damicatz]

All current Disney Channel live action shows are shot in video and then filmized in post-production. Filmizing refers to an editing process whereupon footage shot in video is made to look like film. In the case of Hannah Montana, it looks like the main thing they've done is add in a motion blur (film has a motion blur because the individual pictures on a roll of film end up getting exposed ever so slightly to movement; the same thing will happen with a 135 camera if people move while a picture is being taken).

One thing to keep in mind is that the lighting requirements for video are different from film (http://2learnfilm.com/cinematography.htm). The lighting for Hannah Montana is setup in a way that is optimal for film but not for video (http://www.lavideofilmmaker.com/dv-film-look/digital-cinematography-video-lighting-tips-techniques.html). The main thing to keep in mind about video is that it has a lower dynamic range (range of contrast in any given frame) and that it is more sensitive to overexposure. Contrast is the difference between the darkest and brightest areas in a frame. Video does not generally handle extreme contrast ratios as well as film; if your contrast ratio is too high, the picture can become washed out and lose detail.

Another consideration that can affect the quality of the final product as you see it on your television is compression. The feeds for Disney Channel are digital and digital video has to be compressed before it can easily be transmitted to the local cable companies and satellite tv companies. The compression settings and the equipment that Disney uses to compress the video stream in real time can have an effect on the quality. Too much compression can also cause loss of detail and a washed out look.

As for transitioning to HD, it's not very likely. It's not just a matter of money, it's a matter of the amount of work and rejiggering it would take.

Hannah Montana is currently shot on video (probably Digibeta since Disney tends to select Sony cameras). Digibeta has a resolution of 720x486.

With film, the approximate resolution (film is an analog medium and, as such, does not have discrete pixels upon which to derive a true resolution) is about double that of a 1080p broadcast, even for shows shot in say the 50s.

In order to shoot HM in HD, Disney would have to either convert the show to film (not likely, given the amount of extra manpower required) or upgrade to an HD video standard such as HDCam.

Upgrading to something like HDCam means new cameras (which requires training for the camera operators) and new tapes. New tapes means new editing equipment which again means more training. With film, you can generally just change the lens on the camera (and you might possibly need new editing equipment if your film scanner doesn't support high resolutions and possibly a new film format depending on what you are currently using).

The change to a 16:9 (widescreen) aspect ratio also means the set has to be rejiggered so that it looks good in wideshots (notice how there are never wideshots except in concert scenes). The increased resolution of HD (1280x720 for Disney HD) means that things about the set that might look fine at a lower SD resolution would look horrendus at the higher resolution. In particular, the main concern would be the beach set; it's already fairly obvious that it's a set but in high definition, the extra detail afforded by the higher resolution would make it and other things stick out like a sore thumb. So then they'd have to spend a bunch of money and expend a bunch of man hours and effort to redo the sets.


Glad someone brought this is up. It looks cheaply made. I understand it's a kid's show but it makes a ton of money. Disney ought to invest it in better equipment. I've also noticed that the camera wook isn't very good. You can see the abrupt switches from one angle to another. If they are using a steadycam, it isn't very steady.
I watched Titanic again recently and yes that movie had a huge budget, but it was filmed on actual film, so during the editing process, someone had to cut up and tape together pieces of reel film, play with nagatives and all that. Yet it isn't choppy and the quality is very high. With Disney, they can just load it into a computer and and click on something to smooth out the transision. Why haven't they done this?
This is because HM is shot in what is known as a multi-camera setup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-camera_setup). There are multiple cameras recording (usually 3 or 4) at one time and then during editing, switch between the different cameras. This is in comparison to higher-budget productions which use a single camera setup (which has a smoother "flow" but takes longer to shoot and requires more editing because you have to stop and move the camera after every shot).

[smiley_smiley_miley]

You should write to disney. You probably won't get an answer but it's worth a shot. I do understand what your saying. Hannah Montana makes millions of dollars each year, you would have thought they would have enough money to make the episodes good quality.

[j.ash]

Thanks for the Technical Explanation "Damicatz", and i'm happy i understand the tech behind the show.

Regarding the compression, i have one of the sat tv services and yes, i notice compression. But even on the DVD, it still looks awful. And the filmizing effect, especially the motion blur (that also what i wanna point out in the first place.) is really damaging the image quality. My suggestion, quit using the blur on Filmlook.

Now on the Film and HD cameras, funny that Lizzie Mcguire was shot on film as evidenced on the credits that they used Eastman Film (Kodak) and processed at Fotokem (For Developing, Telecine) and back then there is no way they can show it in HD, but now they have the channel, they used Video, why?

And Miley had a break taping new episodes of Hannah, Maybe for Equipment upgrade?

And here is the kicker, "Sonny with a chance" is in HD! And it looks better both on the HDTV LCD on Disney Channel HD and the regular tube tv in the SD simulcast feed, both coming off satellite.

Thanks for the response!

[Damicatz]

Thanks for the Technical Explanation "Damicatz", and i'm happy i understand the tech behind the show.

Regarding the compression, i have one of the sat tv services and yes, i notice compression. But even on the DVD, it still looks awful. And the filmizing effect, especially the motion blur (that also what i wanna point out in the first place.) is really damaging the image quality. My suggestion, quit using the blur on Filmlook.

Now on the Film and HD cameras, funny that Lizzie Mcguire was shot on film as evidenced on the credits that they used Eastman Film (Kodak) and processed at Fotokem (For Developing, Telecine) and back then there is no way they can show it in HD, but now they have the channel, they used Video, why?

And Miley had a break taping new episodes of Hannah, Maybe for Equipment upgrade?

And here is the kicker, "Sonny with a chance" is in HD! And it looks better both on the HDTV LCD on Disney Channel HD and the regular tube tv in the SD simulcast feed, both coming off satellite.

Thanks for the response!

All digital video that reaches your TV as a consumer is compressed. DVD video is compressed as well, using the same algorithms as broadcast (MPEG 2). DVD should look better than broadcast though because with a DVD, you have all of the video before hand (with digital broadcasts, the footage comes in compressed and then is usually recompressed in real time by your cable or satco down to an even smaller size). With broadcast television, the goal is to minimize the amount of data that has to be sent at one time so that the cable/satco can fit all of the different channels inside their limited bandwidth.

With DVDs, the goal of compression is to mimimize the overall amount of data so that it fits on an 8 gigabyte disc; the amount of data transmitted at one time on a DVD is less relevant. This allows you to do things like apply variable compression where the frames with the most contrast and most detail recieve the least compression and frames with the least detail (such as dark scenes) recieve the most compression (this is called variable bit rate; you are applying the same amount of compression to the video overall but are redistributing it so that areas where compression is most noticable don't recieve as much).

As for film vs video, video is cheaper (by a large amount). That's why Disney Channel switched to video. Film cameras are more expensive, the film itself is more expensive (and you can't record over your mistakes or reuse film like you can with tapes) and more manpower is required to work with film (you need people to cut and develop the film and then you need people to scan the film in, frame by frame, to a computer in addition to the normal editing crew required for video).

Remember that the target demographic for HM is tween and early teen girls. That demographic is not likely to know the different between film and video, about contrast ratios or depth of field or digital compression and is not likely to care. So what business reason does Disney have to spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars revamping HM for HD? Especially since Disney Channel has historically ended their shows after 3 or 4 seasons.

The US is actually unique in that, up until recently, most everything on TV here was still shot on film. Most countries started switching from film to video for television productions back in the 70s (with the early 2 inch quadraplex tapes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2-inch_Quad_Tape_Reel_with_miniDV_cassette.jpg) and later, C type tapes). The US television industry stayed with film largely because the US television industry has historically been more commercialized (in most other countries, state owned television stations such as BBC dominated in the early days). Film was considered more "glamorous" and of a higher production quality and as such, was more appealing to advertisers as this was before filmizing processes were available.

The BBC itself used a technique known as "Piebald Shooting" wherein studio shots were done on video and on-location shots were done on 16mm film (individual reels of quadraplex tape are the size of LP Records; the videotape technology wasn't yet portable enough for easy outdoor shooting; the reels were so big that the device that held the reels and the recording heads was seperate from the actual camera). This was done before there was filmizing so the transition between set and on-location shots stuck out like a sore thumb.

Regarding Lizzie McGuire, it was shot in a 4:3 (square) aspect ratio. Unless you crop off the top and bottom of the image, you can't show it widescreen. Because the film itself has a very high resolution, if Disney still has the original film masters, it would still be possible to rescan the film in at an HD resolution (while retaining the square picture of course) and it would look better but, from a business standpoint, why spend so much money, time, and effort?

Sonny with a Chance is a newer show. It's much easier to shoot a new show in HD than it is to convert a non-HD show to HD because you can design the new show and set around the format. In the case of Sonny with a Chance, the recording medium of choice is Sony's HDCam SR, which is a videotape format.

[j.ash]

Remember that the target demographic for HM is tween and early teen girls. That demographic is not likely to know the different between film and video, about contrast ratios or depth of field or digital compression and is not likely to care. So what business reason does Disney have to spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars revamping HM for HD? Especially since Disney Channel has historically ended their shows after 3 or 4 seasons.

.........

The BBC itself used a technique known as "Piebald Shooting" wherein studio shots were done on video and on-location shots were done on 16mm film (individual reels of quadraplex tape are the size of LP Records; the videotape technology wasn't yet portable enough for outdoor shooting). This was done before there was filmizing so the transition between set and on-location shots stuck out like a sore thumb.

Regarding Lizzie McGuire, it was shot in a 4:3 (square) aspect ratio. Unless you crop off the top and bottom of the image, you can't show it widescreen. Because the film itself has a very high resolution, if Disney still has the original film masters, it would still be possible to rescan the film in at an HD resolution (while retaining the square picture of course) and it would look better but, from a business standpoint, why spend so much money, time, and effort?

Sonny with a Chance is a newer show. It's much easier to shoot a new show in HD than it is to convert a non-HD show to HD because you can design the new show and set around the format. In the case of Sonny with a Chance, the recording medium of choice is Sony's HDCam SR, which is a videotape format.

That's why i remember back when i was watching Mr bean that some shots looked like film, it is!

Too bad, people like me who appreciate image quality is given the shaft.

And to add more info, "Sonny" was shot at "NBC West", no wonder they have the gear!

[Damicatz]

That's why i remember back when i was watching Mr bean that some shots looked like film, it is!

Too bad, people like me who appreciate image quality is given the shaft.

And to add more info, "Sonny" was shot at "NBC West", no wonder they have the gear!

It helps to understand Disney's business model with the Disney Channel.

The Disney Channel itself has not directly turned a profit since they stopped being a premium channel (and it barely turned a profit when it was a premium channel).

Most cable television channels make their income from two sources :

1.Advertisements
2.Subscription fees (the cable company must pay a per-subscriber fee even for a channel on standard cable; in the case of Disney Channel, 85c a month of your cable bill is for Disney Channel).

Disney Channel has no real advertisements to speak of and the 85c a month subscriber fee isn't enough for them to break even.

At this point, most people would probably think that Disney is crazy for operating a channel that does nothing but drain money. But what it really is is part of an ingenious and unique business model.

The closest analogy to the Disney Channel's business model would be a "loss leader" in a retail store. A lot of times, when retail stores have big sales, they might advertise and sell a particular big ticket item (such as a big screen TV) at cost or at a lost. The goal is to get people to the store in hopes that the loss from the sale of the big ticket item will be made up for by all of the other stuff a person sees and buys.

This is very similar to the concept of the Disney Channel. In this case however, instead of big ticket items sold at a loss, we have stars. Stars like Miley Cyrus, Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato. Disney Channel serves as a marketing vehicle for Disney's stars. The goal with the Disney Channel isn't to directly make money but to get the target demographic interested in merchandise related to the stars.

It's no coincidence that the majority of Disney Channel stars happen to also be singers. Singing is easily merchandisable.

Take Miley Cyrus, who is easily Disney's biggest success story. Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana related merchandise (concerts, CDs, DVDs, etc) is easily a billion dollar industry. Miley Cyrus is so popular that Disney has an entire unit with in the company who's sole job is to find new ways to market her image. Anytime you buy a Miley Cyrus album, anytime you buy a Miley Cyrus DVD, anytime you buy anything with her face on it, Disney profits.

The show Hannah Montana has never directly profited Disney. It's always been a money drain. But as long as it keeps people interested in Miley Cyrus, it's doing its job. That's why a billon dollar girl's star show has the budget of a second-tier syndicated sitcom. Because there are no advertisers to appease with glamor and the target demographic cares little about image quality or budget, they can get away with this.

The one piece of good news I can offer for videophiles however is that the production quality of the movie looks to be considerably improved from the show based on what I've seen so far. The depth of field (the amount of image that is in focus at a given time) is consistant with that of film rather than video (film camera lenses have to project the image on a bigger surface area compared to video where the image is projected onto a sensor the size of a fingernail. In order to make the lens able to focus the image onto a larger plane you have to increase the focal lens length which decreases the depth of field or focusability) and the cinematography is consistant with that of a single camera setup.

Being that it's shot on film in a widescreen aspect ratio, it should be relatively easy to transfer it to Bluray and provide an HD picture. But I wouldn't hold your breath for HM the show to migrate to HD.

[j.ash]

seems at this point the only hannah that i will see in its high def glory is the movie! :P

I actually appreciate tv shopping ads that are no go on disney, unlike nick.

Do you work for the tv/movie industry "Damicatz"?

[vanessaroxs14]

Disney is cheap but they'll make a bunch of money from the hannah fans

[tanningbry]

Idk where you see Hannah Montana because, it's purely hq in the US. Maybe your connection or whatever is bad.

[evrafter]

There IS a Disney HD Channel. But, Hannah Montana is NOT broadcast in full HD. It's what you call a scrambled Sd (standard definition) onto an HD channel. Thus the reason it DOES still look soft and fuzzy. THANK THE HEAVENS ABOVE that I'm not the ONLY one who sees this. LOL You'll KNOW its full HD, not just when there's much more details, but when the picture fits the entire screen. As it stands now, it's a small picture when it shows on my big screen HD tv.

Other examples of SD shows scrambled onto an HD channel...The Hills and The City on MTV HD. SO not broadcast in Full HD. However...the premiere showing of The Real World on Wednesday IS full HD. However the reruns of the VERY same episodes are NOT HD.

[j.ash]

There IS a Disney HD Channel. But, Hannah Montana is NOT broadcast in full HD. It's what you call a scrambled Sd (standard definition) onto an HD channel. Thus the reason it DOES still look soft and fuzzy. THANK THE HEAVENS ABOVE that I'm not the ONLY one who sees this. LOL You'll KNOW its full HD, not just when there's much more details, but when the picture fits the entire screen. As it stands now, it's a small picture when it shows on my big screen HD tv.

Other examples of SD shows scrambled onto an HD channel...The Hills and The City on MTV HD. SO not broadcast in Full HD. However...the premiere showing of The Real World on Wednesday IS full HD. However the reruns of the VERY same episodes are NOT HD.

Yeah, it's called "upscaling", and you hit on the nail regarding MTV, they can show HD episodes and specials, yet the reruns are back to upscaled SD

[MagicMiley]

lol if the industry is finding it so hard to give the ppl 1080p wtbeep will lt be like when ultra comes out?

ive seen ads 4 disney hd in the uk but from what i saw i think its movies only.

its funny how disney is aimed at kids and family yet they rip them off.

[MagicMiley]

o/t . im so glad i got those exclusives last week as almost all of the miley disney promo is gone after just ten days. THAT is strange for them i think.

[evrafter]

j.ash..."UPSCALING"...THANK YOU!!! That's the word I had at the tip of my tongue! It was late. It came to my mind. Why I put scrambled...not a clue. lol