Have you ever noticed that animations like Shrek tend to look much better on SD-DVD (when comparing to HD media) than regular movies do?

I'm a blu-ray owner, and after owning a few animation titles, I came to the conclusion that I would not be purchasing any more HD animated discs. The difference between the two is just too small. I noticed this with CARS. I have no interest in buying CARS on Blu-ray because the SD upconverted looks outstanding. Same with Chicken Little, which I own on BR.

Given this fact, the Shrek announcement for HD-DVD doesn't mean a hill of beans to me.

I would say that this is partly true for 2D animation, or for animation that's not especially detailed. Have a look at the Looney Tunes that are included as extras on the "Adventures of Robin Hood" HD DVD to see how amazing 2D animation can look at 1080p, though!

If you think that the upconverted NTSC version of "Cars" looks outstanding, then you're much more easily pleased than I. Cars is a title I really look forward to on BD.

Given this fact, the Shrek announcement for HD-DVD doesn't mean a hill of beans to me.
Shrek isn't the only Paramount movie around, though...

Corpse Bride was amazing. and Shrek will be a must own!

That's the spirit. Turn your lemons into lemonade!

Have you ever noticed that animations like Shrek tend to look much better on SD-DVD (when comparing to HD media) than regular movies do?

I'm a blu-ray owner, and after owning a few animation titles, I came to the conclusion that I would not be purchasing any more HD animated discs. The difference between the two is just too small. I noticed this with CARS. I have no interest in buying CARS on Blu-ray because the SD upconverted looks outstanding. Same with Chicken Little, which I own on BR.

Given this fact, the Shrek announcement for HD-DVD doesn't mean a hill of beans to me.

Send me a PM on where you live. If close to me I'll have you over for S3. I have a 119" 16:9 screen and 1080p DLP projector. Seating will be in 6 Berkline 090's with Butt Kicker LFE shakers. After the movie, let's compare notes.

See post #434.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10164373&highlight=enlarge

Animation looks better than live action in general (in terms of color, compression artifacts, etc.). Some animation upscaled will look very good. But it still is not HD and no amount of technical wizardry can bring back detail that is not there. I don't know your particular setup, but I can tell you from my experience that animation in HD actually looks better than anything else on the format.

In all honesty I really don't care about Shrek as a movie, but I know the picture quality is there.

Did anyone ever notice that CGI animation tends to look even better than regular movies in HD?

Oh wait, so you mean, just like it does in SD, it happens in HD too?

I'm not happy about losing Paramount either, but Shrek will probably LOOK fantastic in HD. I capitilize look since I thought the movie sucked ass.

Now Transformers...that'll be the look and sound of awesome. Damn HD-DVD stealing that title from me. But I'm a good sport nonetheless.

CGI looks amazing in HD...simply put.

Transformers wasn't that great.

I really don't understand why people are so excited by it.

Just another animation first, script second movie puked out by Hollywood for quick cash.

I wouldn't have bought it on BR anyway.

" My guess is we're getting to the point where CGI should be used as a topping and not the whole pizza. " -- Roger Ebert

Have you ever noticed that animations like Shrek tend to look much better on SD-DVD (when comparing to HD media) than regular movies do?

I'm a blu-ray owner, and after owning a few animation titles, I came to the conclusion that I would not be purchasing any more HD animated discs. The difference between the two is just too small. I noticed this with CARS. I have no interest in buying CARS on Blu-ray because the SD upconverted looks outstanding. Same with Chicken Little, which I own on BR.

Given this fact, the Shrek announcement for HD-DVD doesn't mean a hill of beans to me.

Too bad for BD, that's basically the crown in the Disney camp.

Transformers wasn't that great.

I really don't understand why people are so excited by it.

Just another animation first, script second movie puked out by Hollywood for quick cash.

Giant ****ing robots beating the **** out of each other. What can I say, the movie wasn't smart, but it entertained the living hell out of me. So, yeah it shall be missed by me.

Too bad for BD, that's basically the crown in the Disney camp.

Wait, so you actually agree with him? Cause by my mind, it's the CG stuff that in fact benefits perhaps the most from HD.

They use a Chicken Little clip on one of the Blu-Ray demo discs....whatever you might think of the movie, IT IS eye-popping in HD. No way SD can match it....

Transformers wasn't that great.

I really don't understand why people are so excited by it.

Just another animation first, script second movie puked out by Hollywood for quick cash.

I wouldn't have bought it on BR anyway.

" My guess is we're getting to the point where CGI should be used as a topping and not the whole pizza. " -- Roger Ebert

...then you are in the minority.

Send me a PM on where you live. If close to me I'll have you over for S3. I have a 119" 16:9 screen and 1080p DLP projector. Seating will be in 6 Berkline 090's with Butt Kicker LFE shakers. After the movie, let's compare notes.

See post #434.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10164373&highlight=enlarge

Even on my little 61" and 65" sets I can easily see that the animation is much better in HD than SD. There is no comparison. The SD is not even close. With the newer digital animation there is so much detail that you miss on the SD versions. It's amazing how much detail is there and you can easily see it in the HD versions.

3D animation (e.g. Shrek), and computer-coloured and digitally transferred 2D animation (e.g. Disney’s Tarzan) can look gorgeous on SD DVD, but I find that animation from painted-cells and film transfers (e.g. Nausicaa) usually don’t look as good.

To me, animated movies like Shrek are the one's that benefit most from high-def. They are usually the best at showing off that 3D pop high-def is known for. :cool:

HD>SD


next!

And nothing that is on Paramount/DW is really worth it in HD anyway. HD is really not much better than SD when you think about it...

This is the saddest place in the world. I can't believe we even attempt to have rational conversation around here. Once the true colors come out, it's clear why the majority of what we have around here is mindless bickering.

Has anybody done a non-scientific poll with a group of kids to see if they can tell the difference? I personally see the difference, but it has been a royal PITA since I bought Happy Feet on BD and the kids ask me on a daily basis why they cannot watch it on the other TV. Until I get a second set of HD players animated movies will be DVD only. Of course, I will make an exception for Ratatouille:-)

Even on my little 61" and 65" sets I can easily see that the animation is much better in HD than SD...

Next question, how many people own "little" 61" TVs, or anything "bigger" above that?

I'll give you a hint... not the people who will decide this format war, or even if it can stand up to SD in sales one day!

Have you ever noticed that animations like Shrek tend to look much better on SD-DVD (when comparing to HD media) than regular movies do?

I'm a blu-ray owner, and after owning a few animation titles, I came to the conclusion that I would not be purchasing any more HD animated discs. The difference between the two is just too small. I noticed this with CARS. I have no interest in buying CARS on Blu-ray because the SD upconverted looks outstanding. Same with Chicken Little, which I own on BR.

Given this fact, the Shrek announcement for HD-DVD doesn't mean a hill of beans to me.

So are you gonna boycott all disney and pixar animation titles?

Boycott? No. I just find no convincing reason to buy Shrek-type animation in HD. It really isn't that different from an upconverted standard DVD if your set is smaller than the 50" range.

I don't care if it's sold by Blu-ray or HD-DVD -- it's not worth the extra money to purchase this kind of animation in HD.

You guys with 100" screens and projectors can say what you will. You won't be the ones deciding any format wars anytime soon. You're too small a segment to matter.

I'm a blu-ray owner, and after owning a few animation titles, I came to the conclusion that I would not be purchasing any more HD animated discs. The difference between the two is just too small. I noticed this with CARS. I have no interest in buying CARS on Blu-ray because the SD upconverted looks outstanding. Same with Chicken Little, which I own on BR.



I'm a Disney freak and I have both Chicken Little on SD and BR. The difference is astounding to the point that my 8yo daughter can easily distinguish. Count your blessings if you can only see small differences between the two versions.

I would argue that the difference is even greater with CGI stuff, you really get to see the detail on HD.

No upconvert even comes close to HD IMO. Just wait until we start upconverting HDM. ;)

I just find no convincing reason to buy Shrek-type animation in HD. It really isn't that different from an upconverted standard DVD if your set is smaller than the 50" range.

I find that SD DVD struggles with the fur textures on many characters (e.g. Donkey in Shrek).

But, the quality differences are not a deal-breaker for me. The definition of Donkey's fur texture doesn't make the movie any more or less funny. The content is more imortant! I'd much prefer to watch "The Incredibles" (97% on Rotten Tomatoes) in standard-definition than "The Wild" (19% on Rotten Tomatoes) on Blu-Ray.

You guys with 100" screens and projectors can say what you will. You won't be the ones deciding any format wars anytime soon. You're too small a segment to matter.

Exactly.

But the studios seem to be pushing HDM for the maintream, not the enthusiasts. What animation collector is going to buy Blu-Ray for "The Wild" and "Meet the Robinsons"? Where are the collectable movies - "The Incredibles", "The Lion King", "Nausicaa"? I would buy Blu-Ray for The Incredibles", "The Lion King", and "Nausicaa". But instead, all they do is release crap for J6P's kids.

Has anybody done a non-scientific poll with a group of kids to see if they can tell the difference? I personally see the difference, but it has been a royal PITA since I bought Happy Feet on BD and the kids ask me on a daily basis why they cannot watch it on the other TV. Until I get a second set of HD players animated movies will be DVD only. Of course, I will make an exception for Ratatouille:-)

You should have the combo disk. Problem solved.

But the studios seem to be pushing HDM for the maintream, not the enthusiasts. What animation collector is going to buy Blu-Ray for "The Wild" and "Meet the Robinsons"? Where are the collectable movies - "The Incredibles", "The Lion King", "Nausicaa"? I would buy Blu-Ray for The Incredibles", "The Lion King", and "Nausicaa". But instead, all they do is release crap for J6P's kids.

Well, at least they're about to release Cars. Not my favourite, but far better than the Chicken $#1+... Imean, Chicken Little. which sadly I bought on BD for comparison against SD. :o

Has anybody done a non-scientific poll with a group of kids to see if they can tell the difference? I personally see the difference, but it has been a royal PITA since I bought Happy Feet on BD and the kids ask me on a daily basis why they cannot watch it on the other TV. Until I get a second set of HD players animated movies will be DVD only. Of course, I will make an exception for Ratatouille:-)


The level of improvement varies. My daughter invited her friends over. When watching Chicken Little, only my daugther and one other kid notice the difference. When watching Happy Feet, everybody (5 kids + my daughter) can tell the difference.

Oh, they are all 6 to 8 years old, and only watching the movie on a 46" screen.

They use a Chicken Little clip on one of the Blu-Ray demo discs....whatever you might think of the movie, IT IS eye-popping in HD. No way SD can match it....

I absoulutely agree with that. I don't disagree animation looks great upscaled but those animations that have the detail are astonishing in HD. Chicken Little on the BD Demo in the stores stops me everytime. I know it sells PS3.. it has too.

Oh and there is no question I would buy a BD or whatever format HD player required the day the Incredibles ships on one. I am hooked on that movie, plain and simple I have watched the entire thing a dozen times and sections of it countless times. It is simply brilliant.

Different Strokes I guess. My two-year-old son and I love Chicken Little, especially the Indiana Jones part. I never get tired of that part. I'd much rather watch Chicken Little than The Incredibles. Cars is another good one IMO. I can't see how grown men can watch The Little Mermaid, but it seems really popular here. Maybe I should watch it again. It's been years and maybe I'll appreciate it now.

None of this stuff holds a candle to Classic Disney animation though. Give me Alice in Wonderland, Fantasia, Snow White, The Fox and the Hound...................

3D animation looks great but lacks soul.

I'm a Disney freak and I have both Chicken Little on SD and BR. The difference is astounding to the point that my 8yo daughter can easily distinguish. Count your blessings if you can only see small differences between the two versions.


Hey, I worked as a TV producer for over 8 years. I wrote/produced/edited TV commercials on an AVID. I also have experience with Adobe After Effects, Filmlook, Lightwave 3d (been a while for that one), Infinity... I could name more. My point is that I am very keen at noticing very fine details.

The truth is, though, that after a very short time, the brain stops processing little fine differences in hairs, etc.. Very fine details in movies begin to lose importance as the brain fades off into fantasyland while watching.

Most people seem to forget (or were too young to remember) watching B&W TV's with screens not much more than a foot in diameter. I watched Jaws on a TV like that, and it scared the hell out of me back then.

Again, I say, the details in SD animation are good enough for the average consumer who is going to decide this format war. Big sales of such discs come from those types of people buying Christmas/birthday gifts for others. Big sales don't come from enthusiasts with 100" projection systems.

Until the prices of the HD media comes A WHOLE LOT CLOSER to regular DVD prices (and until people have the TVs to make use of it) not a lot of these disks are going to sell. I have a feeling that Paramount realized this and took somebody's money and will run with it for 18 months. At that time, more HDTVs will be in the market, and they'll be able to make substantially more then, anyway (if it's still alive). They'll make up any losses later.

I also wouldn't be at all surprised if Sony/BR hubris played into some kind of pricing/licensing thing here. Maybe they pushed a little too hard in the wrong way, and Paramount left them with a big, "F.U.!"

So far, in the public (and on this site/other video sites) the enthusiasts/collectors with big big screens are in the drivers seat. If and when the average Wal-mart type consumer jumps in, they'll be the ones that need convincing. At current prices of TVs and HD media -- ain't gonna happen!

Baccusboy must be going blind. I think CGI animation in HD shows the extra detail and pop better than live action.

Hey, I worked as a TV producer for over 8 years. I wrote/produced/edited TV commercials on an AVID. I also have experience with Adobe After Effects, Filmlook, Lightwave 3d (been a while for that one), Infinity... I could name more. My point is that I am very keen at noticing very fine details.

The truth is, though, that after a very short time, the brain stops processing little fine differences in hairs, etc.. Very fine details in movies begin to lose importance as the brain fades off into fantasyland while watching.

Most people seem to forget (or were too young to remember) watching B&W TV's with screens not much more than a foot in diameter. I watched Jaws on a TV like that, and it scared the hell out of me back then.

Again, I say, the details in SD animation are good enough for the average consumer who is going to decide this format war. Big sales of such discs come from those types of people buying Christmas/birthday gifts for others. Big sales don't come from enthusiasts with 100" projection systems.

Until the prices of the HD media comes A WHOLE LOT CLOSER to regular DVD prices (and until people have the TVs to make use of it) not a lot of these disks are going to sell. I have a feeling that Paramount realized this and took somebody's money and will run with it for 18 months. At that time, more HDTVs will be in the market, and they'll be able to make substantially more then, anyway (if it's still alive). They'll make up any losses later.

I also wouldn't be at all surprised if Sony/BR hubris played into some kind of pricing/licensing thing here. Maybe they pushed a little too hard in the wrong way, and Paramount left them with a big, "F.U.!"

So far, in the public (and on this site/other video sites) the enthusiasts/collectors with big big screens are in the drivers seat. If and when the average Wal-mart type consumer jumps in, they'll be the ones that need convincing. At current prices of TVs and HD media -- ain't gonna happen!

Agreed. When a movie is that good, you don't need all the bells and whistles to enjoy the movie. Unfortunately movies like that are very few nowadays. Now I have to disagree WRT what is good enough for the average guy. If "good enough" will sell, DVD would not sell. DVD starts selling because the player prices dropped tremendously. So all HD DVD camp (and BD too, actually) need to do is to drop the player price low enough so people will buy the player and rent the movies. When the movie price dropped, then people will start buying them.

Baccusboy must be going blind. I think CGI animation in HD shows the extra detail and pop better than live action.

All those 8 years being spent as a TV producer, editing TV commercials on an AVID, experiences with Adobe After Effects, Filmlook, Lightwave 3D finally toasted his eyes. I told you TV's bad for you! :p:D;)

Our brain gets used to the extra detail very quickly and the bar moves up. After 6 months of CSI on HD-cable, I noticed that DVDs in general look very soft and lack detail. (Heck, some highdef movies look soft).

When you get used to all the bumps and fine hair on people's faces, you notice that they are missing when watching DVDs, and it starts to detract from enjoying the movie.

The argument that SD DVD is enough didn't work for me when the red crusaders were proposing it to make up for lack of content in that format, it doesn't work either either now that there are a few more red exclusive movies.

All those 8 years being spent as a TV producer, editing TV commercials on an AVID, experiences with Adobe After Effects, Filmlook, Lightwave 3D finally toasted his eyes. I told you TV's bad for you! :p:D;)

No, corporate mergers and buyouts killed every little fun detail about working in the business. No more company parties. Lowered salary limits. No more bonuses. In the meantime, the GM drives up in a new Corvette for running the station under budget.

Had to laugh when he pulled up in that. One of the union guys at our station said, "Well... here comes this year's Christmas party!"

the GM drives up in a new Corvette for running the station under budget.

what an @$$! :mad: I hate those kind of people.

Our brain gets used to the extra detail very quickly and the bar moves up. After 6 months of CSI on HD-cable, I noticed that DVDs in general look very soft and lack detail. (Heck, some highdef movies look soft).

When you get used to all the bumps and fine hair on people's faces, you notice that they are missing when watching DVDs, and it starts to detract from enjoying the movie.

The argument that SD DVD is enough didn't work for me when the red crusaders were proposing it to make up for lack of content in that format, it doesn't work either either now that there are a few more red exclusive movies.

Watch it for another few minutes, and you'll get used to it.

The brain adjusts.

The average consumer who is copying/torrenting/downloading stolen movies is content with watching crappy resolution video files on poor-quality SD screens.

This is the real devil HD media is fighting.

Because I can...Next!

Animations like Shrek look great on SD DVD. WHY buy the HD version?

Is this ANOTHER BD attempt to say you don't need to see Shrek 3 in HD?

How lame . . .

OK - I agree with you now . . . .

BD owners . . no reason to buy CARS on BD. Or that Ratxxxx movie either.
:rolleyes:

OK - I agree with you now . . . .

BD owners . . no reason to buy CARS on BD. Or that Ratxxxx movie either.
:rolleyes:

I agree. This argument takes Disney out of the picture. Even more reason to go the HD DVD route.

Have you ever noticed that animations like Shrek tend to look much better on SD-DVD (when comparing to HD media) than regular movies do?

I'm a blu-ray owner, and after owning a few animation titles, I came to the conclusion that I would not be purchasing any more HD animated discs. The difference between the two is just too small. I noticed this with CARS. I have no interest in buying CARS on Blu-ray because the SD upconverted looks outstanding. Same with Chicken Little, which I own on BR.

Given this fact, the Shrek announcement for HD-DVD doesn't mean a hill of beans to me.

For CGI made movies there is a HUGE difference. I recommend you get TMNT for comparison. The SD looks like flat, grainy garbage after you watch the 3D pop of the HD version.

For CGI made movies there is a HUGE difference. I recommend you get TMNT for comparison. The SD looks like flat, grainy garbage after you watch the 3D pop of the HD version.

Huh... that's funny... people seem to be complaining about grain on the HD versions of these movies, not the SD.

That's the spirit. Turn your lemons into lemonade!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

For the record, the Shrek movies are about the only 3D animated movies I can tolerate. I was probably going to get the BD of them, now I'll probably get the HD DVD of them.
J

Watch it for another few minutes, and you'll get used to it.

The brain adjusts.

The average consumer who is copying/torrenting/downloading stolen movies is content with watching crappy resolution video files on poor-quality SD screens.

This is the real devil HD media is fighting.

After HD cable a few years ago, I didn't just stop watching normal DVDs, but I watch a lot less, so I had spent minutes and hours watching normal DVDs even as I continue watching the HD cable.

For me, HDM is a no brainer, and I've watched even less DVDs after they came.

Saying that the brain will adjust down as well as up is like saying if you lost your house and live in the streets, you'd put up with eating out of garbage cans.

But that's not the point is it?

Especially not for HDM thingies that are still luxury goods that won't kill you if you stop indulging in them.

All I know is that I have very little urge to watch DVDs ever since HD-cable, and after HDM, even for titles I want to watch, the opportunities to sit down and watch something on DVD dwindles rapidly. I just don't enjoy them like I used to.

Has anybody done a non-scientific poll with a group of kids to see if they can tell the difference? I personally see the difference, but it has been a royal PITA since I bought Happy Feet on BD and the kids ask me on a daily basis why they cannot watch it on the other TV. Until I get a second set of HD players animated movies will be DVD only. Of course, I will make an exception for Ratatouille:-)

My 8 year old can't tell any difference, my 12 year old can. I got the best of both worlds with Happy Feet when I got the HD DVD / SD DVD combo disk (not BD, unfortunately). The ability to get combo discs was a big plus for getting HD DVD in my house, since we could watch HD on the big screen in the living room, and SD everywhere else. I'd think combos would be great for rentals too, since they'd only have to stock one type of disc.

Baccusboy must be going blind. I think CGI animation in HD shows the extra detail and pop better than live action.

He may be blind, but he is also correct.

You know what the funniest thing about this thread is? That you NEVER saw a similar thread last week, last month, or last year. In fact, animated movies make up most of the top movies in the tier threads.

MIRACULOUSLY, one day after the Dreamworks announcement, animation on HDM media is pointless.

To the OP, I guess you wont bother with Cars, Sleeping Beauty, or Chicken Little on Blu Ray? Right?

300 got me to buy into Blu-Ray (PS3)

Transformers will get me to buy into HD-DVD.

Simple as that. I'll take Shrek 3 also, plus the comfort in knowing I can afford to get any movie that comes out in high def that appeals to me.

Baccusboy, have you changed your argument as the thread has progressed? If you're new position is that neither high-def disc format offers a significant enough PQ improvement over DVD for J6P's average high-def setup (46" or smaller screen from about 10' or more away seating distance), regardless of the content (computer animation or live action), then I'm in agreement with you.

I think the PQ improvement is subtle in that sort of setup, and is most appreciated by enthusiasts with large-screen front projection setups. I'm of the personal opinion that the claim by certain people that the format war and the "confusion" caused by two competing formats as being the reason for the lack of mainstream adoption is off-base. J6P doesn't need it, is perfectly happy with DVD quality, and isn't willing to pay $250+ for a new player to get it. The only way mainstream adoption will be attained is by lowering player prices further and fooling the average consumer (via lots of marketing hype) into thinking that they really do need/want it.

IMO, high-def discs are, in actuality, modern-day laserdiscs: a format that provides real PQ and sound improvements to home theater enthusiasts. For the average consumer with a low-cost and "smallish" HDTV, the improvements are subtle at best.

Have you ever noticed that animations like Shrek tend to look much better on SD-DVD (when comparing to HD media) than regular movies do?
No!
I'm a blu-ray owner, and after owning a few animation titles, I came to the conclusion that I would not be purchasing any more HD animated discs. The difference between the two is just too small. I noticed this with CARS. I have no interest in buying CARS on Blu-ray because the SD upconverted looks outstanding. Same with Chicken Little, which I own on BR.

Given this fact, the Shrek announcement for HD-DVD doesn't mean a hill of beans to me.

Well I'll ask how big is your TV? And If DVD looks better than Blu-ray, to you. Then I'll have to ask why you even own a HD player?

PS- I have a 50" Sony RPLCD and RCA HDV5000 HD-DVD Player. Happy Feet in HD looks and sounds better than the DVD side. Period.
HD movies offer so much more than just pixels. Contrast, brightness, advanced interactivity to name a few.

I'll use this as my excuse if I buy the Ratatouille DVD :rolleyes:

"It looks great on DVD, why buy the High Definition version!"

a)

Have you ever noticed that animations like Shrek tend to look much better on SD-DVD (...)

b)

Transformers wasn't that great.

I really don't understand why people are so excited by it.

c)

Next question, how many people own "little" 61" TVs, or anything "bigger" above that?

d)

Boycott? No. I just find no convincing reason to buy Shrek-type animation in HD. It really isn't that different from an upconverted standard DVD if your set is smaller than the 50" range.


a) Anger and resentment because a great blockbuster is now HD DVD exclusive... so the OP is in the middle a sour grapes infestation and tries to technically diminish the film... and that is interesting if you think that CGI along with 3D graphics in High-Def was always one of the key selling points of BOTH Hi-Def media and the PS3.

b) More anger and resentment... this time directed towards another blockbuster (Transformers). While with Shrek it was because it was animation (technically), with Transformers, it is its artistic merits.

c) This is the first time a Blu-ray supporter says that "size does not matter" :D
In fact, the OP contradicts everything the Blu-people say, when some blu nerd says "oh, but those three pixels are so better in the BD encoding. You'll see the need for high bandwidth in bigger TVs". Now who has them?
Laughable.

d) More of the above. We know the only reason why the OP does not see any interest in those titles, is because they are not in the format of his choice.


:D
Am I the only one who sees the irony here?
Wine... grapes... Baccus... Sour... ?

a)

d) More of the above. We know the only reason why the OP does not see any interest in those titles, is because they are not in the format of his choice.

Oh my God, why didn't I see this? That's it! End of discussion.

Wow, I have yet to watch one animated movie on either HD-DVD or BD that hasn't completely blown me away. TMNT and Chicken little IMO are among the best looking releases on HDM.

This is pretty good. Some people used to argue that 'Cars' and other CGI was not needed in HD for the same reasons. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

And nothing that is on Paramount/DW is really worth it in HD anyway. HD is really not much better than SD when you think about it...

This is the saddest place in the world. I can't believe we even attempt to have rational conversation around here. Once the true colors come out, it's clear why the majority of what we have around here is mindless bickering.

It's amazing, isn't it? If you're an HD DVD fanboy, the POTC movies suck big time; Spider Man is for kids. If you'e a BRD fanboy, Transformers was a piece of ****, and Shrek won't look any better in HD!:rolleyes:

Ghost in the Shell: Innocence is absolutely incredible on Blu-ray - the level of detail is absolutely staggering on some scenes. I personally see more difference on animation - I find live action is easier to hide artifacts (blame it on the camera!)

a)
Hey, I worked as a TV producer for over 8 years. I wrote/produced/edited TV commercials on an AVID. I also have experience with Adobe After Effects, Filmlook, Lightwave 3d (been a while for that one), Infinity... I could name more. My point is that I am very keen at noticing very fine details.

b)

The truth is, though, that after a very short time, the brain stops processing little fine differences in hairs, etc.. Very fine details in movies begin to lose importance as the brain fades off into fantasyland while watching.

a) Being as keen as he is, the OP did not notice that, 8 years ago, DVDs were still a big thing and HD media was far away! Probably the OP never worked in HD. The OP should send his keen sensor for repair.

b) Being as keen as he is, the OP did not notice that such phenomenon he described - that would dismiss the need for Hi-def or even hi-Q ("Q" being for quality, not IQ) - happens with EVERY movie experience (animated or not).

Therefore the question: why HD at all?

It's amazing, isn't it? If you're an HD DVD fanboy, the POTC movies suck big time; Spider Man is for kids. If you'e a BRD fanboy, Transformers was a piece of ****, and Shrek won't look any better in HD!:rolleyes:

A confession: I was one of those who rented CARS in SD and thought it looked fabulous upconverted on my Toshiba. Would it look even better in HD? Yepper. You just have to see HAPPY FEET to understand that. But I am willing to forgo seeing Disney films in any but SD format until/unless/when they switch formats or also release in HD DVD. It's a conscious decision on my part because I support HD DVD, not because Disney films don't look terrific on BRD.

Happy Feet was my first HD DVD purchase, and it only had that honor because it was a combo. They are perfect for families who want some HD along with the flexibility of playing in the car or on the computer in the other room.

That being said, not only do I not think my kids can tell the difference, I am sure they wouldn't care if they could. They're happy with VHS, stretched full screen, or any other source. They ONLY care about the content. Therefore, if it's not available in combo, no family title will be purchased in HD around here.

a)

b)

c)

d)


a) Anger and resentment because a great blockbuster is now HD DVD exclusive... so the OP is in the middle a sour grapes infestation and tries to technically diminish the film... and that is interesting if you think that CGI along with 3D graphics in High-Def was always one of the key selling points of BOTH Hi-Def media and the PS3.

b) More anger and resentment... this time directed towards another blockbuster (Transformers). While with Shrek it was because it was animation (technically), with Transformers, it is its artistic merits.

c) This is the first time a Blu-ray supporter says that "size does not matter" :D
In fact, the OP contradicts everything the Blu-people say, when some blu nerd says "oh, but those three pixels are so better in the BD encoding. You'll see the need for high bandwidth in bigger TVs". Now who has them?
Laughable.

d) More of the above. We know the only reason why the OP does not see any interest in those titles, is because they are not in the format of his choice.


:D
Am I the only one who sees the irony here?
Wine... grapes... Baccus... Sour... ?


Guys, I don't care if the animations are on Blu-ray or HD-DVD. I own Chicken Little and Happy Feet on Blu-ray. I also happen to own Chicken Little on SD. I used to own Dinosaur (I was unimpressed) on Blu-ray as well. I own Cars on SD. I own Shrek 1 and 2 on SD.

You can try to poo-poo my post all you want, and claim that I am just another BR fanboy pissed about the dreamworks deal. I really could care less. As I have stated in my previous posts, I will no longer purchase animated titles on blu-ray, or if I get HD-DVD some day, I won't be purchasing it on that, either.

Why are you guys just focusing on Shrek and HD-DVD? As I have stated -- no more animation for me in HD on EITHER format (unless prices are nearly the same) because I just can't justify the difference.

And if your 10 or 12 year-old can tell the difference -- great. So can I, or just about anyone. It's very minor, and just not worth the extra cash on a non-gargantuan screen. Much more minor than differences seen in traditional film flicks. The brain stops processing those little details in hairs very soon after the movie starts -- and that's exactly what we're talking about here -- differences in little hairs (for the most part).

Animations like Shrek in HD -- regardless of format = not worth the extra cash for.

I do believe I made a post about this same issue long before this Paramount deal went down (it was either here or on bluray.com).

I love how the armchair experts think they know so much more than people who work with the technology for a living! I get it too. I'm an engineer, I work with camera sensors. I've worked on a military vision system and watched countless hours of video on precisely calibrated monitors. It's my job to understand image quality, and I can tell you that most people on this forum couldn't objectively judge true picture quality if it bit them in their ass. It's like, my tv is trashed on the LCD board, despite having a very uniform image and near-ideal gamma curve. Meanwhile they rave over tvs with wonky gamma curves, a color temperature that shifts with brightness, and digital artifacts from "over processing" the image, all of which produces some very "dazzling" but horribly unnatural images. But no, they own "Casino Royale" on Blu-Ray, which makes them experts in image quality. B*** S***.

Baccusboy, have you changed your argument as the thread has progressed? If you're new position is that neither high-def disc format offers a significant enough PQ improvement over DVD for J6P's average high-def setup (46" or smaller screen from about 10' or more away seating distance), regardless of the content (computer animation or live action), then I'm in agreement with you.

I think the PQ improvement is subtle in that sort of setup, and is most appreciated by enthusiasts with large-screen front projection setups. I'm of the personal opinion that the claim by certain people that the format war and the "confusion" caused by two competing formats as being the reason for the lack of mainstream adoption is off-base. J6P doesn't need it, is perfectly happy with DVD quality, and isn't willing to pay $250+ for a new player to get it. The only way mainstream adoption will be attained is by lowering player prices further and fooling the average consumer (via lots of marketing hype) into thinking that they really do need/want it.

IMO, high-def discs are, in actuality, modern-day laserdiscs: a format that provides real PQ and sound improvements to home theater enthusiasts. For the average consumer with a low-cost and "smallish" HDTV, the improvements are subtle at best.

Agree with you almost 100 percent. Good post.

This whole whipped-up HD thing, and suckering people into "taking sides", is just a big ploy by the movie industry and electronics folks to sell discs. Whether it was meant that way, or they just took the situation as it progressed and ran with it, they are making more "front-end" money on this war because of the side-taking.

The biggest laugh are these "buy days." What better way to get current HD owners to buy more and more?

The movie industry WANTS these discs, because they're more difficult to copy and distribute via the internet. They WANT HDMI, and the ability to control content quality playback via Microsoft Vista. And the TV makers WANT people to buy huge screens, because there was no longer a profit in selling SD TVs (or DVD players, for that matter). As technology progresses, and becomes lighter (huge screens aren't so heavy) people will probably buy into it more.

For now, however, the average consumer, with screens smaller than maybe 37", just doesn't need either format. Heck, I own a 50" PDP, and I still enjoy SD content. Yes, I can notice the difference, but within a short minute or two of watching, my brain gets into what's going on and I don't notice the resolution loss unless I purposefully look off of the main action and try to focus on something like a paper on a desk, or something in the background not necessary to convey the point of the movie.

I am buying Shrek on HD because i can. Why not? This is silly, why do you have to have a reason to do anything.
Seriously why are you posting here if you have no interest in HD? You've already convinced yourself animation is not needed in HD why try to convince the world?

jer

I am buying Shrek on HD because i can. Why not? This is silly, why do you have to have a reason to do anything.
Seriously why are you posting here if you have no interest in HD? You've already convinced yourself animation is not needed in HD why try to convince the world?

jer

So you can. Go buy it, then. Enjoy your purchase.

Thankfully, everyone has an opinion about different aspects of HD media, and I am able to express mine here. Others have agreed with me, as well.

A hint for you: It's not entirely uncommon for people, when given two choices of the same product (like a car), to purchase the cheaper "fewer thrills" version. So what's your problem with my thread?

As I have stated -- I won't be buying HD animation (even if I go HD-DVD) because shrek-style animated material doesn't show enough of an improvement to warrant an HD purchase of it. If I had a projector, or a 60" screen, I'd probably feel different.

The brain stops processing those little details in hairs very soon after the movie starts -- and that's exactly what we're talking about here -- differences in little hairs (for the most part).
Aren't you effectively dismissing High Definition movies entirely?

For now, however, the average consumer, with screens smaller than maybe 37", just doesn't need either format. Heck, I own a 50" PDP, and I still enjoy SD content. Yes, I can notice the difference, but within a short minute or two of watching, my brain gets into what's going on and I don't notice the resolution loss unless I purposefully look off of the main action and try to focus on something like a paper on a desk, or something in the background not necessary to convey the point of the movie.You have a point, but I think you've gone off the deep-end of this argument. I am really tired of people saying that you cannot notice the difference netween SD and HD under 37" (or somehow J6P eyes are calibrated differently and are not up to par with AVS member's eyesight). Hell, I can see an *obvious* difference between SD and HD on my 22" lcd monitor (not my biggest screen). You should know there is 5-6x the resolution on HDM. That is a huge difference. Even more obvious is the color reproduction. On HD black is black, white is white, and everything in between. On SD, you get this washed out blueish gray tint on everything, plus the compression artifacts. HD is way better than SD, just stop it.

This is really sad that all these BD supporters would rather go back to SD than even entertain the notion that HD DVD might just win this.

Animations like Shrek look great on SD DVD. WHY buy the HD version?

Because it will look better in HD. Duh.

Oops, I meant HD DVD

So you can. Go buy it, then. Enjoy your purchase.

Thankfully, everyone has an opinion about different aspects of HD media, and I am able to express mine here. Others have agreed with me, as well.

A hint for you: It's not entirely uncommon for people, when given two choices of the same product (like a car), to purchase the cheaper "fewer thrills" version. So what's your problem with my thread?

As I have stated -- I won't be buying HD animation (even if I go HD-DVD) because shrek-style animated material doesn't show enough of an improvement to warrant an HD purchase of it. If I had a projector, or a 60" screen, I'd probably feel different.

The above analogy doesn't work very well. You cannot buy Shrek on Blu-Ray even if you really want to. There is no choice. Sure you can choose not to buy but you can no longer choose Blu because it only comes in Red.

So since you already have the answer to your own question why post? You're basically saying owners of screens >60" will really enjoy the HD version.

Why am i buying? I am buying HD to replace my SD and because i have > 60" screen. I am telling the studios i would like more releases more frequently.

I really don't have a problem but seems to me you want to justify your new position of not having any options to purchase Shrek on Blu-Ray. Now you're upset you can no longer get it and need reassurance that animation does not need the HD treatment. Isn't this WHY is capitalized in the title?

jer

FYI, there is a huge difference between Shrek at 720x480 and Shrek at 1920x1080.

Years back, there were some incredible looking Hi-Res captures from the original Shrek circulating the web. They showed a level of detail that was just amazing compared to the DVD release.

I really wish I had links to illustrate this... perhaps someone else does, and can post them here.

I am pretty excited at the pospect of getting that level of quality in an actual video release, and I hope it's not too long before Dreamworks releases the original Shrek on HD DVD.

Guys, wake up.

I'm not saying there isn't any difference. I'm saying that there isn't enough of a difference for me to spend the extra bucks on an HD version of an animated movie such as Shrek.

And yes, HD media looks great on TV's bigger than 29". At 29" or below, it's my opinion that HD media is not worth the switch to the average consumer. And animations such as Shrek aren't worth it for sets around 37" or below, IMHO. Not at the viewing distances most people sit from TVs in the USA, for example.

Guys, wake up.

I'm not saying there isn't any difference. I'm saying that there isn't enough of a difference for me to spend the extra bucks on an HD version of an animated movie such as Shrek.

And yes, HD media looks great on TV's bigger than 29". At 29" or below, it's my opinion that HD media is not worth the switch to the average consumer. And animations such as Shrek aren't worth it for sets around 37" or below, IMHO. Not at the viewing distances most people sit from TVs in the USA, for example.

So what you are saying is that it would be stupid to pay for most Disney movies (cars, rats, etc) on Blu-Ray. I think we all agree on that one, right?

Anyone else find the humour in Baccus's post, and how they mirror many of Disney's statements back in the early days of DVD when they refused to release on DVD because in their opnion few saw the differance in animation on VHS and DVD. Disney was off their rocker then, just like time will show Buccus is now.

So what you are saying is that it would be stupid to pay for most Disney movies (cars, rats, etc) on Blu-Ray. I think we all agree on that one, right?

Why don't you do yourself a favor and look at my previous posts? It's all there. I've said, more than once, ANY shrek-type animation -- regardless of format (or studio).

I think I've been perfectly clear.

So what you are saying is that it would be stupid to pay for most Disney movies (cars, rats, etc) on Blu-Ray. I think we all agree on that one, right?

Yes, it is stupid for most people to buy Disney animation on Blu-Ray. Most people buying Disney animation are families, buying it for their kids.

First, you can only play Blu-Ray disks on a Blu-Ray player. But kids like to watch their movies again and again, and probably on other televisions. Are you going to buy a Blu-Ray player for the rec-room and the kid's room too?

Second, kids care about the content, not the quality. Sure, your son or daughter can see the difference if you ask them "which video looks the sharpest", but that doesn't mean they care about the difference. I don't think any kids would complain if they were given Cars in SD DVD because it isn't Blu-Ray.

The only people for whome it makes sense to buy animation on Blu-Ray are animation enthusiasts.

Second, kids care about the content, not the quality. Sure, your son or daughter can see the difference if you ask them "which video looks the sharpest", but that doesn't mean they care about the difference. I don't think any kids would complain if they were given Cars in SD DVD because it isn't Blu-Ray.


The aboe statement is BS. It's as BS as saying "kids prefer P/S".

My daughter, and she's not alone in this, prefers WS. She WON'T buy P/S DVDs, she PREFERS HD if there is an option between HD and SD.

She's 8yo, btw, and her friends are between 6 to 9.

... She WON'T buy P/S DVDs, she PREFERS HD ...She's 8yo, btw, and her friends are between 6 to 9.

Either you crazy for letting your 8yo make the purchases or you are making this up.

My daughter is 6 and her friends are ages 6 -10. I did a poll and found that they did NOT care about PQ - not one of them did. This is on a 110" screen in 1080p. I now buy only SD and upconvert it for them. Saves a ton of $ too.

Either you crazy for letting your 8yo make the purchases or you are making this up.

My daughter is 6 and her friends are ages 6 -10. I did a poll and found that they did NOT care about PQ - not one of them did. This is on a 110" screen in 1080p. I now buy only SD and upconvert it for them. Saves a ton of $ too.

Why not buy the best for your kids? Especially when they can actually see the difference and have the preference towards the better one. You want the best for you and just buy the cheap $#!+ for your kid? I'm glad I'm not a type of parent like you.

I do like the animation HD DVD's in combos only for my 6 yr old daughter so that WHEN I do have to sit with her, I can enjoy the PQ. I know for a fact, my daughter couldn't care less. When we go to the library and she wants to watch a movie, she picks VHS :(. I had to buy a combo DVD/VHS player JUST for her.

10+ years of anecdotal evidence tells me clearly that kids don't care about picture quality, whether it's PS v. WS, DVD v. VHS, or HD v. SD. Obviously, I prefer HD, but with family/kids titles, it's combo or SD in our house.

I do like the animation HD DVD's in combos only for my 6 yr old daughter so that WHEN I do have to sit with her, I can enjoy the PQ. I know for a fact, my daughter couldn't care less. When we go to the library and she wants to watch a movie, she picks VHS :(. I had to buy a combo DVD/VHS player JUST for her.

Hahaha. Maybe she likes the VHS because "it's bigger."

I remember my brother wanted to buy things because all he had to do was give them this piece of green paper, and they would give him all of these coins.

I agree -- most kids could care less about the difference between animation on SD DVD and HD media. Sure, they can learn to see the difference, but after a few seconds, the human brain takes over and they tune out these differences.

BTW. This is why Disney, Pixar and Dreamworks Animation aren't a real factor in this. People who already own features by these studios are not likely to see a large difference in CG/animation titles. Add that fact to price and that people really don't rebuy movies, and there is trouble brewing.
Please try to remember. This not 1997 and this is not VHS/DVD where there was a clear difference between the formats (helped by the domination of CD over analog formats and the publics love of silver discs).

I'm still laughing at this thread. CGI features and even "flat" animation like The Simpsons Movie, Curious George, etc shine the most in HD since that's what they were rendered at.

I may not have a lot for comparing HD vs SD on animation. I have few (cars, ice age 1, incredibles, wallace anf gromit: cruse of the were rabbit, etc) and saw a few (flushed away, over the hedge, hoodwinked).......after seeing how these looked good enough on my screen at 1080p on SD, I decided not to buy these on HD. I only bought ice age:meltdown and open season on blu ray coz they were at below retail SD dvd price on ebay, which is really a steal.

But when it comes to movies with major visual effects, can't go wrong going HD. Also, for me, it's not worth getting HD if the movie is only 1.85:1, I'd rather go SD. It has to be a 2.35:1 movie for me to get HD for my screen. Again, that's just me.

I'm still laughing at this thread. CGI features and even "flat" animation like The Simpsons Movie, Curious George, etc shine the most in HD since that's what they were rendered at.

The Simpsons and Curious George are even better examples of why I wouldn't buy an animated film in HD again.

Again, I acknowledge the differences between HD and SD, but at 37" or smaller TV size, and the average distance most people sit from the main TV in their home or bedroom, the difference doesn't merit buying HD (when HD is double the price).

I think the simpsons movies would look great in HD. I thought it looked good in theaters..

Guys, wake up.

I'm not saying there isn't any difference. I'm saying that there isn't enough of a difference for me to spend the extra bucks on an HD version of an animated movie such as Shrek.

And yes, HD media looks great on TV's bigger than 29". At 29" or below, it's my opinion that HD media is not worth the switch to the average consumer. And animations such as Shrek aren't worth it for sets around 37" or below, IMHO. Not at the viewing distances most people sit from TVs in the USA, for example.

Right, but if it were coming out on Blu ray, you couldn't be bothered with the SD version.

Right, but if it were coming out on Blu ray, you couldn't be bothered with the SD version.

Wrong, and again I must state... please look at my previous posts. I have mentioned some blu-ray animation titles, such as Happy Feet, Chicken Little, and Cars (at least I was thinking about Cars), some of which I own on blu-ray, which led me to decide it wasn't worth it to purchase animation in HD.

Why is it that some of you (HD-DVD fanboys, it seems) just can't handle someone saying, with a vein of neutrality, that he wouldn't bother to buy Shrek in HD on ANY format?? Surely, Shrek will be available on Blu-ray in 18 months anyway. Well, I won't be buying it in HD-DVD, or Blu-ray. Even though I enjoyed the flick -- no thanks.

Sakes, I've said several times now that it doesn't matter what format the animation is in -- BR or HD-DVD -- I don't care to buy shrek-style animation in HD at all from here on out. Shrek-style animations look GREAT in SD upscaled. Better than movies do upscaled.

Go ahead and buy Shrek if you want. Buy 50 of them. Do whatever makes you happy. It's just not worth it to me, nor is it, in my opinion, worth it to anyone with a 37" screen or smaller sitting more that 7 or 8 feet back, to buy an animation like Shrek in HD. The difference is not that exciting compared to the SD version.

The Simpsons and Curious George are even better examples of why I wouldn't buy an animated film in HD again.

Again, I acknowledge the differences between HD and SD, but at 37" or smaller TV size, and the average distance most people sit from the main TV in their home or bedroom, the difference doesn't merit buying HD (when HD is double the price).

Wow just wow. Didn't you start this thread http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=896016
stating that Disney will cash in selling Blu-Ray movies?

On one hand you question why anyone want to buy animation in HD and on the other you predict Disney will be raking it in. :confused:

You predict Shrek 3 will be out in BD in 18months. You make claims as if they are fact. Just because you said so does not mean it's true. Well thanks for letting me know to skip over all the threads you start.

jer

Wow just wow. Didn't you start this thread http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=896016
stating that Disney will cash in selling Blu-Ray movies?

On one hand you question why anyone want to buy animation in HD and on the other you predict Disney will be raking it in. :confused:

You predict Shrek 3 will be out in BD in 18months. You make claims as if they are fact. Just because you said so does not mean it's true. Well thanks for letting me know to skip over all the threads you start.

jer
+1

Wow just wow. Didn't you start this thread http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=896016
stating that Disney will cash in selling Blu-Ray movies?

On one hand you question why anyone want to buy animation in HD and on the other you predict Disney will be raking it in. :confused:

You predict Shrek 3 will be out in BD in 18months. You make claims as if they are fact. Just because you said so does not mean it's true. Well thanks for letting me know to skip over all the threads you start.

jer

Disney was just one of the names mentioned.

And Disney makes a lot more than just animated flicks.

+1


http://www.thedirks.org/thegirls/erica-yawn-20030521.jpg

If Sony was getting The Shrek Series on their format, this thread would of never been put up. Keep it going DOOM AND GLOOMERS!

Actually, I posted this in another forum long before the Paramount thing (might have been bluray.com).

Everytime someone brings this up I just sort of go... huh?

"It's looks great in SD so it can't look any better in HD"

Again I say... huh?

Maybe they should reword it.

"It looks so go in SD I can live with it, unlike it's film counterparts."

Here's an upscaled cropped frame from the SD version of Cars (on the right) verses a frame from the quicktime HD trailer (on the left). The difference is pretty blatant if you ask me.

http://www.kchtenthusiasts.com/web_pics/dvd_vs_hd_cars.jpg

^You kidding me? I have the cars on SD DVD and upscaled on my ps3 and it is no way near that blurry screenshot of yours.

^You kidding me? I have the cars on SD DVD and upscaled on my ps3 and it is no way near that blurry screenshot of yours.

Not kidding. It's a screen capture from the SD SCALED UP to the size of HD. (IE, blown up SIX TIMES, so of COURSE it looks blury in comparison.)

It was done using bicubic sampling in photoshop which gives it an even better shot than it deserves.

I agree, SD Cars looks great on my 106 inch screen, but TRUST me, it only gets better. :-)

Next question, how many people own "little" 61" TVs, or anything "bigger" above that?

I'll give you a hint... not the people who will decide this format war, or even if it can stand up to SD in sales one day!


I can also easily see the difference on my 32" 768P set and my 37" 1080P set.

I can also easily see the difference on my 32" 768P set and my 37" 1080P set.


At what seating distance?

Again, as I continue to state over and over and over and over again....

I'm not saying that there isn't a difference, I'm stating that the SD version of a movie like Shrek looks good enough at average seating distances on a TV 37" or smaller.

I agree. if you're going to be sitting that far away from your set then HD is a waste.

Is this thread for real?

We really have some guys here that seriously want to argue that SD is just as good as HD?

Then what the heck is the point of all of our systems.

Be REAL everyone - we all want HD for the obvious benefits - Dreamwork's dropping bluray is the only reason this thread has been started. Just as many HD DVD owners would want some Disney stuff on HD DVD, so bluray owners will lust after Shrek The Third on HD DVD.

That's life - but let's not kid ourselves and say there is no benefit just because one team or the other lost a round - the game is much longer term than that.

just my 2 sense... (yes, sense).

No, read the posts before commenting, please.

We are stating this point:

At normal seating distances (10 ft or so), animations like Shrek look very good in Standard Upscaled DVD on a 37" or smaller television. We are in no way saying that SD is better than HD. We are simply stating that HD is not worth the extra money at such TV sizes and average seating distances.

My TV is actually a 50" Plasma, and although I can definitely see a differences between SD and HD, those differences become minor at 10 feet away. Minor enough, on my 50" TV, to decide that I don't need to purchase the HD version of an animated movie. I can live with the SD version I already have. Now at 37" or smaller, you're seeing even less detail at 10 feet away.

The SD versions of such animations look really great -- better than film-type movies. So why pay double for the HD version????

Here's an upscaled cropped frame from the SD version of Cars (on the right) verses a frame from the quicktime HD trailer (on the left). The difference is pretty blatant if you ask me.

How'd you upscale that image, in Photoshop? High-end video scaler chips use edge-sensing algorithms and massively-multi-tap FIR filters that can do a far superior job upscaling an image than Photoshop. I'm not claiming that it would look as good as the HD version, but it should look a lot better than your "SD" image.

How about upscaling with lanczos with some EE applied? How would that compare to the magic upconverting abilities some of these players have? :D

IMO there's only so much detail you can pull out of a postage stamp.

How'd you upscale that image, in Photoshop? High-end video scaler chips use edge-sensing algorithms and massively-multi-tap FIR filters that can do a far superior job upscaling an image than Photoshop..

Awww, come on. Do you think that's what Baccusboy is using?

It's always worth noting the high-end scalers frequently cost more than a HD-DVD and Blu-Player plus a few movies all combined.

I'm at work now, but I'll be happy to post the screen grab in it's unedited form later and let someone else upscale it using any method they see fit. This is Pixar though. The difference is going to be pretty big no matter how you slice it. :-)

why pay double for the HD version????

Now this is a question worth asking! :-)

After seeing all these sub $10 disc prices being advertised these days, plunking down 2.5 times more for the HD version hurts a little. ^_^

I threw in Happy Feet this weekend and watched it again (only my second viewing, forgot how GREAT it looks), flipped it over watched the DVD - Arrrgh!!!!! I'll take HD DVD N-E-DAY thank you! Just to be fair though, the DVD of the Incredibles looked pretty damned nice vs the HF standard DVD, can only imagine what it would look like in HD though...c'mon Dizney, jump for us, lol (and if not, hell with ya, Shrek will show)! ;-)

Have you ever noticed that animations like Shrek tend to look much better on SD-DVD (when comparing to HD media) than regular movies do?

I'm a blu-ray owner, and after owning a few animation titles, I came to the conclusion that I would not be purchasing any more HD animated discs. The difference between the two is just too small. I noticed this with CARS. I have no interest in buying CARS on Blu-ray because the SD upconverted looks outstanding. Same with Chicken Little, which I own on BR.

Given this fact, the Shrek announcement for HD-DVD doesn't mean a hill of beans to me.

Well done animations almost always look better than non-animated - period. There are some really great non-animated HD discs out there, but your chances are much better with newer animated flicks

With that being said, I disagree with your view. I own both the SD DVD and Blu-ray versions of Ice Age 2, and the Blu-ray version blows the SD version away in image quality. Once you factor in the HD audio only available on the HD discs, there's simply no comparison. I don't know if other HD animated flicks have as dramatic a difference as IA2, but I venture to guess they do.

If this is your way of trying to soften the blow of Paramount leaving the BD camp, I think it's misguided.

At what seating distance?

Again, as I continue to state over and over and over and over again....

I'm not saying that there isn't a difference, I'm stating that the SD version of a movie like Shrek looks good enough at average seating distances on a TV 37" or smaller.


I'm 5.5 feet from the screen on those sets. 10 feet is too far away to sit from a 37" set. I sit 9 feet away from my 65" set.

If this is your way of trying to soften the blow of Paramount leaving the BD camp, I think it's misguided.


Paramount isn't the issue in this thread. We're talking about Shrek-type SD animated movies across different formats.

How close do you sit to your screen? If you own a 37" or smaller TV, and sit around 10 feet away from it, then the HD version of this movie isn't worth the money. That's what I'm saying.

I'll guess you have a projector, or a really large TV at 50" or more, right? How big is your TV?

Those people can benefit more from HD animations. The average consumer out there, however, will struggle to purchase HD animated discs such as Shrek after they learn that:

1. The Standard DVD is half that price.
2. They don't see much of a difference, given their TV size and viewing distance.

I've come to this conclusion after owning a number of animated discs, as I have stated in this thread before. I just don't have an interest in purchasing animation on HD until prices come down, because there is less of a quality difference between SD and HD in animated movies. The SD versions, although not as nice as HD, look really great on an upscaled DVD player.

Now, if you own a projector, it's a different story. But what will the average/average near-future HD owner own? Probably not a big projector or a 50" TV.

They'll own something closer to 29" to 37".

I'm 5.5 feet from the screen on those sets. 10 feet is too far away to sit from a 37" set. I sit 9 feet away from my 65" set.

And what percentage of non-enthusiast consumers will be purchasing 50 or 65" sets? How about projectors?

Very, very few compared to people buying 37" and smaller.

No, read the posts before commenting, please.

We are stating this point:

At normal seating distances (10 ft or so), animations like Shrek look very good in Standard Upscaled DVD on a 37" or smaller television. We are in no way saying that SD is better than HD. We are simply stating that HD is not worth the extra money at such TV sizes and average seating distances.

My TV is actually a 50" Plasma, and although I can definitely see a differences between SD and HD, those differences become minor at 10 feet away. Minor enough, on my 50" TV, to decide that I don't need to purchase the HD version of an animated movie. I can live with the SD version I already have. Now at 37" or smaller, you're seeing even less detail at 10 feet away.

The SD versions of such animations look really great -- better than film-type movies. So why pay double for the HD version????
You just answered your own question. At normal viewing distance; for SD there won't be a difference. But add HD and your viewing distance can be much closer.
Plus you have a 50" plasma. Is it a 768P or 1080P? If you have the older 768 (or for that matter 720P)
type then I agree, you won't see that much difference at your seating distance.
I have a 72" 1080P DLP, a 42" 1080P lcd and a 720P 150" PJ and I can easily see the difference HD (on Blu or HDDVD) is compared to it's SD counterpart.

Paul, the current set is a 768p set.

My previous set was 1080p, and there wasn't enough of a difference to merit keeping with 1080p at a 10 foot viewing distance.

I rarely sit closer than 9 feet to my TV, and neither does the average Joe non-enthusiast out there (except for some kids who mom keeps yelling at not to sit so close, and gamers).

Paul, the current set is a 768p set.

My previous set was 1080p, and there wasn't enough of a difference to merit keeping with 1080p at a 10 foot viewing distance.

I rarely sit closer than 9 feet to my TV, and neither does the average Joe non-enthusiast out there (except for some kids who mom keeps yelling at not to sit so close, and gamers).

I can accept that.
Have you ever been to a theater and watched the new slideshows and commercials on their LCD screen? What you're saying is the same thing as I see screendoor galore with that resolution/screensize/seating distance variable.
However, there are many here (me included) that will sit closer because of the added resolution (my 19 yo old sits 10 feet away from the 150" screen, something I can't do).

I'm 5.5 feet from the screen on those sets. 10 feet is too far away to sit from a 37" set. I sit 9 feet away from my 65" set.

Wow thats really close for any TV. I dont think very many people sit that close to any tv unless the screen is less than 13" and they are lying on the end of their bed.

in response to the original question i'll ask my own question.... are you freaking serious????
the hd version will BLOW AWAY the sd dvd. i've seen the broadcast hd versions of shrek and shrek 2 and they look remarkably better than their sd counterparts..

How close do you sit to your screen? If you own a 37" or smaller TV, and sit around 10 feet away from it, then the HD version of this movie isn't worth the money. That's what I'm saying.


I have a Panny 50" 9UK (768p) at 9 feet and I easily see the difference in IA2.


They'll own something closer to 29" to 37".


I honestly don't know where the market trend is now for HDTVs, but from an anecdotal perspective, I only see 2 TVs in Costco under 40", whereas there's around 15 over 40". For people that haven't purchased an HDTV yet, sure, I imagine the majority of their sets are 36 or under, but I doubt owners of those sets are eyeing HD players. I doubt sets under 42" are selling nearly as well from any retailer as those over, but I could be wrong.

o.m.g.

DVD FTW! already! ! !

I honestly don't know where the market trend is now for HDTVs, but from an anecdotal perspective, I only see 2 TVs in Costco under 40", whereas there's around 15 over 40". For people that haven't purchased an HDTV yet, sure, I imagine the majority of their sets are 36 or under, but I doubt owners of those sets are eyeing HD players. I doubt sets under 42" are selling nearly as well from any retailer as those over, but I could be wrong.

From http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20070822PR206.html

LCD TV unit sales for the 30- to 36-inch screen size segment grew 34% from the first quarter to the second quarter in 2007 and gained almost 3 % share of the overall LCD TV category in the second quarter. Conversely, sales of LCD TVs 40-inch and over lost 5% share on quarter, falling from 30% in the first quarter 2007 to 25% in the second quarter 2007.

So, the trend is towards the 30- to 36-inch sizes.

I have a Panny 50" 9UK (768p) at 9 feet and I easily see the difference in IA2.



I see differences at 9 feet on my 50" too, but with animated movies like Shrek and Cars, the differences aren't enough to sway me to spend twice as much for the movie. If I were a collector of animated titles, I would get the HD one, but I'm not.

Sales of 32" to 37" LCDs will be huge. That size fits most budgets and environments well. These TVs can be had for $300-$700 the traditional TV sweet spot.
1.) I do agree that HD does look better on these sets.
2.) SD Animation does look much better than SD Live action on my systems.
3.) HD looks better for both. I would say though the jump is bigger for me for live action (depending on what you value in an image this is subjective and will very from person to person).
4.) Kids in general care about the content. My daughter could watch her favorite movie on any system and format. That said the kids do prefer the theater because well its a theater with a huge screen. They are certainly not nagging me to get the hidef version though.

I think HD is in for a long, long fight. I believe that it will likely take years. With average TV set sizes still that small, I think it would take the studios moving entirely to HD formats and dropping DVDs (not happening anytime soon).

From http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20070822PR206.html



So, the trend is towards the 30- to 36-inch sizes.


I wonder what sizes sell the most at Wal-Mart.

Here in Korea, you can get a blu-ray player (and save just a few hundred dollars on a $1,300 price tag) in a combo with a 50" TV. That's more of a realistic match to see the difference between SD and HD in an animated movie, in most average viewing situations. Better than 30-something inches, anyway.

Baccus, do you have your PS3 set to output in HD, do you play your PS3 games in HD?
I'm no expert, but I would have thought that a CGI movie, transferred digitally from a computer in pristine condition, would bring the MOST benefit, by being shown in as high resolution as possible. And despite the fact that a lot of these types of films are indeed bought for and watched by kids (and perhaps negating the need for buying them in HD), many of these films will be watched by grown ups too! I bought the likes of Toy Story, Lion King, and Beauty and the Beast on Laserdisc, and then on DVD, LONG before my son was born- I bought them for me, because I love those kind of movies. I think you may find that many movie enthusiasts also love animated movies...
Steve.

From http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20070822PR206.html
So, the trend is towards the 30- to 36-inch sizes.

I don't know if I'd make that assumption.

That article also said The 40-inch and over models have been the buzz in the LCD TV category for the past several quarters; however, in the second quarter the story was different <snip> Which means 2Q07 could just be an anomaly. It's also only mentioning LCDs and not factoring in plasmas, and all plasmas less one model (38" sold by some vendors) are all 40" or larger.

Baccus, do you have your PS3 set to output in HD, do you play your PS3 games in HD?
I'm no expert, but I would have thought that a CGI movie, transferred digitally from a computer in pristine condition, would bring the MOST benefit, by being shown in as high resolution as possible. And despite the fact that a lot of these types of films are indeed bought for and watched by kids (and perhaps negating the need for buying them in HD), many of these films will be watched by grown ups too! I bought the likes of Toy Story, Lion King, and Beauty and the Beast on Laserdisc, and then on DVD, LONG before my son was born- I bought them for me, because I love those kind of movies. I think you may find that many movie enthusiasts also love animated movies...
Steve.

Again, too many folks are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I am not arguing that HD movies like Shrek look the same in SD as the do in HD.

I am saying that the differences are not enough to warrant me purchasing them. The SD versions of these movies look excellent when upscaled to a TV 37" or smaller.

If you own a 37" or smaller TV, and sit more than 8 or 9 feet away, there is little compelling reason to purchase the HD disc for another $10 to twice the price of Standard DVD.

Yes, you can definitely say that HD looks "better" on these titles -- especially if you sit closer. But in most general consumer homes where TVs aren't 50" to projector size, my advice is that consumers should save their money and buy the SD version.

So you're saying that on your 50" display you see less of an improvement with HD animated movies than with live action movies? Am I understanding that right?

I'm saying it's not enough of an improvement to make me go out and spend the extra cash for an HD animated movie, like Shrek in the near future. I do feel I see more of a positive image improvement on non-animated movies.

If I had a 37" or smaller TV, and sat back 8 or 9+ feet, then I would definitely not consider it worth the money spent to buy the HD version over the SD version (properly upscaled).

I'm saying it's not enough of an improvement to make me go out and spend the extra cash for an HD animated movie, like Shrek in the near future. I do feel I see more of a positive image improvement on non-animated movies.

If I had a 37" or smaller TV, and sat back 8 or 9+ feet, then I would definitely not consider it worth the money spent to buy the HD version over the SD version (properly upscaled).

Well then sir, that is your opinion, and I respect that opinion. Its just that I find quite the polar opposite. When I want to show off either of the HD formats I reach for a CGI animated title. Be it Open Season, Happy feet or Chicken Little. I would have thought these movies would benefit the most from being in HD. I wont be buying Shrek, cos I'm not a fan, but I'll sure as hell be buying Cars on Blu-ray- for my son, but mostly for me!:)

I have never bought an animated movie on HD DVD or Blu-ray, but my question is did the opening poster watch Shrek when it was broadcast on NBC? Granted it wasn't in 1080p but I thought it looked amazing. I always have thought that animated movies look awesome in HD, and I usually try to watch when ABC shows one on Saturday night, whether it be Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo, or A Shark's Tale, all of which looked stunning in HD.

Agreed, they look great in HD, but they also look great in SD.


How big is your TV, MoFoHo?

Agreed, they look great in HD, but they also look great in SD.


How big is your TV, MoFoHo?

I have a 42" Philips 42PF9731D and a Panasonic PT-AE1000E firing at a 7' screen. HD looks great on both. How do live action movies look in HD on your set up? Does it justify the extra expense?

Depends on what it is, and the price.

Some titles yes, others no.

If they're overpriced (like the Spiderman boxed-set), or they would force me to do something like buy a flipper-disc, then I'd opt for the rental or SD-DVD.

O.K. I just watched "The Last Mimzy" on DVD. It looks and sounds really good! I know an HD version can look so much better. But this DVD doesn't look bad. So I understand were the OP is coming from. I love HD-DVD for the interactivity 1st, PQ 2nd, AQ 3rd! That's just me.

PS- New Line needs to release some HD disc. I want a few of their films in HD. *cough* Lord Of The Rings*cough*:D

Have you ever noticed that animations like Shrek tend to look much better on SD-DVD (when comparing to HD media) than regular movies do?

I'm a blu-ray owner, and after owning a few animation titles, I came to the conclusion that I would not be purchasing any more HD animated discs. The difference between the two is just too small. I noticed this with CARS. I have no interest in buying CARS on Blu-ray because the SD upconverted looks outstanding. Same with Chicken Little, which I own on BR.

Given this fact, the Shrek announcement for HD-DVD doesn't mean a hill of beans to me.
This is your original post and the message is clearly for HD-DVD owners not to purchase SHREK because, in your estimation, the SD DVD is just as good as the HD version.
Again, too many folks are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I am not arguing that HD movies like Shrek look the same in SD as the do in HD.

I am saying that the differences are not enough to warrant me purchasing them. The SD versions of these movies look excellent when upscaled to a TV 37" or smaller.

If you own a 37" or smaller TV, and sit more than 8 or 9 feet away, there is little compelling reason to purchase the HD disc for another $10 to twice the price of Standard DVD.

Yes, you can definitely say that HD looks "better" on these titles -- especially if you sit closer. But in most general consumer homes where TVs aren't 50" to projector size, my advice is that consumers should save their money and buy the SD version.
The misunderstanding that you talk about could easily have been avoided if you had indicated in your original post that people with TV sets 37" and under that have HD-DVD players may save a few bucks by purchasing the SD DVD rather than the HD-DVD because there's not much difference in PQ. Personally, I think this is a bit presumptuous on your part but....hey, anybody can start a thread.

That's the spirit. Turn your lemons into lemonade!

:D:D:D

I thought about this topic, and I've come to the conclusion that comparing the quality of animation on SD verses HD is a pointless because: of the 60 animated titles I have on standard definition DVD, one 1 is currently available on a high definition disk format. Considering that there are still some animated classics that I have to watch low-quality rips from VHS because they haven't been released on DVD, I think it's very unlikely that most of the films animation fans care about will be released on HDM within the next couple of years.

This is your original post and the message is clearly for HD-DVD owners not to purchase SHREK because, in your estimation, the SD DVD is just as good as the HD version.

The misunderstanding that you talk about could easily have been avoided if you had indicated in your original post that people with TV sets 37" and under that have HD-DVD players may save a few bucks by purchasing the SD DVD rather than the HD-DVD because there's not much difference in PQ. Personally, I think this is a bit presumptuous on your part but....hey, anybody can start a thread.

Wow, this one really has your undies in a bunch, eh? :D

I didn't know there was a law against posting a topic, and adding more discussion to it later.

I've been very clear (numerous times) about what I've said. The only reason I have to keep repeating myself is because certain pro-HD-DVD folks on here are desperate to put words in my mouth in order to "win" some sort of argument.

Apparently, this is the only way they feel it's possible to make my argument less convincing?

By the way, doesn't the original post CLEARLY state "Animations like Shrek...." and not specifically HD-DVD? Also, don't I also make references toward different animated titles that I own (Chicken Little, Cars [BR exclusive] , etc.) which I don't care to buy in HD on either format?

To quote you quoting myself, "I have no interest in buying CARS on Blu-ray because the SD upconverted looks outstanding. Same with Chicken Little, which I own on BR."

You're trying to make me look as biased as possible in an attempt to get people to write this thread off as an attack on HD-DVD.

Transformers wasn't that great.

I really don't understand why people are so excited by it.

Just another animation first, script second movie puked out by Hollywood for quick cash.

I wouldn't have bought it on BR anyway.

" My guess is we're getting to the point where CGI should be used as a topping and not the whole pizza. " -- Roger Ebert

Who wouldn't love a movie about giant robots that transformed and destroyed a lot of stuff? hd dvd really scored a coup by getting transformers.

I'm saying it's not enough of an improvement to make me go out and spend the extra cash for an HD animated movie, like Shrek in the near future.

Whats the point of spending the "extra cash" on a 50" screen if you're going to cheap out and get SD DVDs?

Honestly, I think you're just yanking our chain at this point. HD just looks better. All day, every day.

Who wouldn't love a movie about giant robots that transformed and destroyed a lot of stuff? hd dvd really scored a coup by getting transformers.

Sad thing is, along with that and maybe 3 whole titles people consider worth purchasing from Paramount.

Do we even have an HD-DVD release date?

It'll be on blu-ray in 18 months or a bit more, anyway. I won't be buying it, in any case.

Whats the point of spending the "extra cash" on a 50" screen if you're going to cheap out and get SD DVDs?

Honestly, I think you're just yanking our chain at this point. HD just looks better. All day, every day.


Which brings us back to the original idea behind this thread: Animations like Shrek look great in SD -- better than regular film movies do. You can enjoy the difference, when watching a traditional movie, on HD. You can also see a difference in animation between HD and SD-DVD.

For me, and those who have agreed with me in this thread, however, the extra cost of the HD version isn't worth the difference between the two.

Sad thing is, along with that and maybe 3 whole titles people consider worth purchasing from Paramount.

Do we even have an HD-DVD release date?

It'll be on blu-ray in 18 months or a bit more, anyway. I won't be buying it, in any case.

True colors and motivation come out...

True colors and motivation come out...


Again, I've been cross-format in my comments about upscaled animation looking "good enough" in SD to keep me from paying extra for the HD.

You just don't seem to get it (or want to get it).

I actually do, somewhat agree, with the OP. Which is why Disney being BR exclusive isn't a big issue to me.

I already own a lot (as in A LOT) of Disney/Pixar titles in SDVD. Many are the Platinum editions, and they look great.

The HD version would look better, no doubt, but would it be worth it to me to buy again? That means the disc actually would cost the price of the original disc+the new disc. So Cinderella would cost me 25+25 or 50 dollars (or more) to watch in HD. Of course I could ebay the DVD, but I'd be lucky to get 5 bucks as it is used.

No, it isn't worth it. New titles, maybe, if priced right.

Of all the Studios Disney would benefit the most from being neutral, if only to max. sales of their new titles.

Again, I've been cross-format in my comments about upscaled animation looking "good enough" in SD to keep me from paying extra for the HD.

You just don't seem to get it (or want to get it).

I get it just fine. Your objective credibility takes a hit when you throw in comments about Paramount and Dreamworks releases in general and that their titles will be available to BD in 18 months anyway.

Depends on what it is, and the price.

Some titles yes, others no.

If they're overpriced (like the Spiderman boxed-set), or they would force me to do something like buy a flipper-disc, then I'd opt for the rental or SD-DVD.

I thought BD fans were so "high-end" they would never stoop so low as a mere DVD?

For me, and those who have agreed with me in this thread, however, the extra cost of the HD version isn't worth the difference between the two.

You may be able to fool a couple fools, but you don't fool me. I can see right through your thinly veiled argument.

Quite honestly, if you don't think HD is worth the difference why are you wasting your time in the HD forums!?!? Just go back to VHS, why don't you?

Wow, this one really has your undies in a bunch, eh? :D

I didn't know there was a law against posting a topic, and adding more discussion to it later.

I've been very clear (numerous times) about what I've said. The only reason I have to keep repeating myself is because certain pro-HD-DVD folks on here are desperate to put words in my mouth in order to "win" some sort of argument.

Apparently, this is the only way they feel it's possible to make my argument less convincing?

By the way, doesn't the original post CLEARLY state "Animations like Shrek...." and not specifically HD-DVD? Also, don't I also make references toward different animated titles that I own (Chicken Little, Cars [BR exclusive] , etc.) which I don't care to buy in HD on either format?

To quote you quoting myself,

You're trying to make me look as biased as possible in an attempt to get people to write this thread off as an attack on HD-DVD.

I think this thread is an attack on HD-DVD. I don't think you have the pocket books of HD-DVD owners in mind when you started this thread. It was your own way of trying to discourge SHREK sales. I sense a desperation among Blu-ray fanboys after the Paramount/Dreamworks announcement. And as part of this desperation, I'm seeing more and more posts from Blu-ray fanatics, some subtle, some not so subtle, that take some news item and selectively use parts of these story to attack the HD-DVD format. These posts contain numerous responses by the poster to keep these threads on the front page. Hell...I'll bet half the posts on your thread are yours! Now don't get me wrong. I have no problem with product loyalty. I happen to support the HD-DVD format because I think, dollar for dollar, it's a much better buy and is more likely to be accepted by the general public because of lower costs. You obviously support Blu-ray. I would like to know why you Blu-boys want to shove this more costly format down the publics throat by eliminating HD-DVD when competition always favors the consumer. Why it's even in your signature. Clearly, Sony's strategy was an immense effort, blitzkreig if you will, to eliminate any competition asap. Well, Universal and now Paramount/Dreamakes sure shot that strategy to hell. Now what do you think Sony's gonna do?

I think this thread is an attack on HD-DVD. I don't think you have the pocket books of HD-DVD owners in mind when you started this thread. It was your own way of trying to discourge SHREK sales. I sense a desperation among Blu-ray fanboys after the Paramount/Dreamworks announcement.

No. They just need to change the title to "Animations like ____________ look great on SD DVD. WHY buy the HD version?"

You can then insert any Disney title you want in that blank spot. Which basically says, Disney means diddly to HD. -1 for BD.

I believe someone already mentioned that Disney puts out 2 to 4 non-animated movies for every animated one they put out. I would say that makes Disney important.

I put Shrek in the title, because Shrek is the soon-to-be-released big title everyone is talking about when it comes to HD.

This is not an attack on anything. As I've stated time and time again, I am talking about animations from both sides: Shrek (HD-DVD), Cars (BR), Ratatouille, and a host of others could be included in that.

HD-DVD fanboys need to cool their pants.

Let me state it again:

HD looks better than SD, however at average viewing distances, the differences between HD animations such as Shrek do not offer enough improvement over SD on the average-size 37" or less HD displays that today's average consumer is purchasing.

I cannot justify spending twice as much on a Shrek-style animated title. If buying animated movies were a hobby, then I would certainly buy the HD version.

If I were a parent buying this movie as a gift, or for my children, I wouldn't bother with the HD. I'd save the extra cost and pick up a second SD DVD the kids liked. Maybe I'd get them cars or Ratatouille, as well.

I believe someone already mentioned that Disney puts out 2 to 4 non-animated movies for every animated one they put out. I would say that makes Disney important.

I put Shrek in the title, because Shrek is the soon-to-be-released big title everyone is talking about when it comes to HD.

This is not an attack on anything. As I've stated time and time again, I am talking about animations from both sides: Shrek (HD-DVD), Cars (BR), Ratatouille, and a host of others could be included in that.

HD-DVD fanboys need to cool their pants.

Let me state it again:

HD looks better than SD, however at average viewing distances, the differences between HD animations such as Shrek do not offer enough improvement over SD on the average-size 37" or less HD displays that today's average consumer is purchasing.

I cannot justify spending twice as much on a Shrek-style animated title. If buying animated movies were a hobby, then I would certainly buy the HD version.

If I were a parent buying this movie as a gift, or for my children, I wouldn't bother with the HD. I'd save the extra cost and pick up a second SD DVD the kids liked. Maybe I'd get them cars or Ratatouille, as well.

Regardless. Your point is moot.

I've played Ant Bully SD and HD-DVD and there is no comparison. In fact, I find Animation looks even better in HD that even regular flicks.

Ant Bully HD-DVD impresses my friends more than Batman Returns for PQ.

Regardless. Your point is moot.

I've played Ant Bully SD and HD-DVD and there is no comparison. In fact, I find Animation looks even better in HD that even regular flicks.

Ant Bully HD-DVD impresses my friends more than Batman Returns for PQ.


I'll bet the image you are viewing is larger, or much larger than the average size the average consumer buys.

Tell me if your TV or projector image is bigger than 37", and I'll let you know if I think my point is moot.

That will tell us if your TV is above what the average consumer is buying.

Tell me if your TV or projector image is bigger than 37", and I'll let you know if I think my point is moot.

I dont have a crazy super-duper-high-def TV.. but I have a 42" Panasonic Viera Plasma with a Toshiba A2 and I definately see a difference... Especially since my couch is about 6'1" from the screen.

aviator, if that is your TV size, and seating distance then you most definitely will benefit more from an HD movie.

This is not an attack on anything. As I've stated time and time again, I am talking about animations from both sides: Shrek (HD-DVD), Cars (BR), Ratatouille, and a host of others could be included in that.

HD-DVD fanboys need to cool their pants.

Seriously, you are not fooling anybody with this ruse. The HD DVD supporters are defensive because the title specifically says Shrek, a Paramount title, and you've mentioned it several times. Yes you have your disclaimers, but the thread doesn't say Disney animation or anything like that. It is obviously put there to incite people. And the Blu-Ray supporters also probably know you are full of it, but they are playing along for sport. The dual-format guys are probably cracking up at all of us. Anyway, its not working. We're not buying it.

Aside from all that, you are blatantly lying. There is no way you are going to tell me that anything in SD is going to look negligible from the HD version. Especially digital animation which is probably the highest quality image available on any format. Its just not true and you know it.

That said, you are entirely entitled to your opinion, I'm not telling you what to say. If you want to spend you time attempting to spread lies, you do that. Just don't expect people to buy your gospel. Not everyone was born yesterday.

Seriously, you are not fooling anybody with this ruse. The HD DVD supporters are defensive because the title specifically says Shrek, a Paramount title, and you've mentioned it several times.

I wasn't aware that we weren't allowed to discuss Paramount or HD-DVD-exclusive titles such as Shrek critically. Could you please explain why you feel we shouldn't be able to?

As I mentioned more than once, Cars and Ratatouille are also animated movies, and I feel they look "good enough" in standard definition DVD that the average consumer could purchase them without having to buy the HD versions. I know Cars and Rata. will be on blu-ray.

So why are you so upset? Why should my posts be controlled by a political slant toward HD-DVD, or Blu-ray, just because someone else disagrees with me?




Aside from all that, you are blatantly lying. There is no way you are going to tell me that anything in SD is going to look negligible from the HD version. Especially digital animation which is probably the highest quality image available on any format. Its just not true and you know it.



I find this to be an attack on me personally, and I hope the mods take notice. I am not lying. As I have stated time and time again, the HD image is most certainly superior. However, given the average home consumer's TV size, and the distance from which they sit from the TV, the SD animated movies are more than adequate -- they look great! Animated movies like Shrek look great on SD. Why spend the extra money for the HD? Use the extra money to buy a 2nd SD movie for the kids. Maybe a copy of Cars or Ratatouille. Or just so you don't think I'm biased, with your extra money, why not buy an SD copy of any of these Dreamworks/Paramount movies?:

Shrek 1
Shrek 2
Shrek the Third
Madagascar
Shark Tale
Over the Hedge
Chicken Run
The Prince of Egypt
Antz

From http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20070822PR206.html



So, the trend is towards the 30- to 36-inch sizes.

I would agree.

My parents feel comfortable with a TV in that range. My mom felt a 42" TV was too big.

So the fight we have, as HD owners, is to convince people to buy TVs big enough where they can actually see the benefits.

It may be difficult.

Send me a PM on where you live. If close to me I'll have you over for S3. I have a 119" 16:9 screen and 1080p DLP projector. Seating will be in 6 Berkline 090's with Butt Kicker LFE shakers. After the movie, let's compare notes.

See post #434.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10164373&highlight=enlarge

Love to!

Are you anywhere near Korea?

How much did your projector cost? I'll be going that route next some day. Problem is, the fiance' and I already have a 50" 768p and a 29" 768p between us. I almost hate to sell either one, because we'd take a hit on cost.

Have you ever noticed that animations like Shrek tend to look much better on SD-DVD (when comparing to HD media) than regular movies do?

I'm a blu-ray owner, and after owning a few animation titles, I came to the conclusion that I would not be purchasing any more HD animated discs. The difference between the two is just too small. I noticed this with CARS. I have no interest in buying CARS on Blu-ray because the SD upconverted looks outstanding. Same with Chicken Little, which I own on BR.



Here you go (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11585837#post11585837)

Time for that ever important thing called calibration. Get it done.


Every animation title released on High Definition improves the PQ dramatically. Otherwise why do we even bother spending time here at this HD forum?

Here you go (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11585837#post11585837)

Time for that ever important thing called calibration. Get it done.


Every animation title released on High Definition improves the PQ dramatically. Otherwise why do we even bother spending time here at this HD forum?

Thanks, Xylon. Those screen caps actually show more improvement to my eyes for animation over live action. I can now stop visiting threads that make the unfounded assumption that HD for animation offers little improvement, although after seeing The Incredibles on Starz HD, I knew the difference was great. Thanks again for the proof.

These differences are easily observable watching the movies on a 37" 1080P TV. It's even more noticeable watching on a 65" 1080P TV.

These differences are easily observable watching the movies on a 37" 1080P TV. It's even more noticeable watching on a 65" 1080P TV.

Yes, but is it worth it at 10' plus from the TV??

At an average viewing distance of 10' to 12', the differences on a 37" TV,between SD and HD on an animated movie like Shrek, are not enough to warrant the high cost of the HD media over the SD version.

As I've mentioned before, I'm not saying that there aren't differences between HD and SD DVDs. I'm saying that the differences aren't worth the cost to the average consumer on a TV 37" or smaller, sitting an average distance of 10' to 12' away.

Until HD media prices are far closer to SD media, I feel the difference between the two resolutions on smaller LCD screens aren't enough to justify the price difference -- not at NORMAL viewing distances.

Obviously, if you own a mongo-huge TV that's 60" or more, or a projector, you will benefit from buying the HD version.

I wasn't aware that we weren't allowed to discuss Paramount or HD-DVD-exclusive titles such as Shrek critically. Could you please explain why you feel we shouldn't be able to?

I never said you couldn't talk about P/DW. I merely mentioned that singling out Shrek in the title (one of higher profile titles exclusively on HD DVD) came off, IMO, as an indirect attack on the HD DVD format. Especially given all the emotional reactions to the Paramount decision, this thread just seems to me as a cheap-shot at Paramount.

So why are you so upset? Why should my posts be controlled by a political slant toward HD-DVD, or Blu-ray, just because someone else disagrees with me?

I am upset because I believe you are purposefully spreading misleading information. See below.


I find this to be an attack on me personally, and I hope the mods take notice. I am not lying. As I have stated time and time again, the HD image is most certainly superior. However, given the average home consumer's TV size, and the distance from which they sit from the TV, the SD animated movies are more than adequate -- they look great! Animated movies like Shrek look great on SD. Why spend the extra money for the HD?

Again, I don't believe this to be true. Maybe using the word liar was a bit harsh, I hope there are no hard feelings. Regardless, your information is bogus, theres just really no question in my mind. Sure, animated movies do look pretty good on SD. I am not arguing with that. All I'm saying is that they look that much better in HD. Please take a cold hard look at some of those images in Xylon's thread. Especially on those shots of TMNT, in your words an "animation like Shrek." It is as clear as day that the HD version looks leaps and bounds better than SD on any screen size. You can make some convoluted argument about having a 13" B&W portable tv hooked up on composite cables, sitting 31 feet from the screen, without your glasses on and drunk. Ok, maybe then there won't be a difference. But lets be serious here, HD just looks better any way you slice it. Arguments like yours are counter-productive to HD adoption and honestly have no place in an *HDTV Software Media* discussion. I thought we were all enthusiasts here. You sure don't sound too excited about HD.

I'm saying that the differences aren't worth the cost to the average consumer on a TV 37" or smaller, sitting an average distance of 10' to 12' away.

I'll risk a backlash by admitting that I agree with you on that point. For the average consumer who carries credit card debt, an HDM player is an excessive and unnecessary expense. People have been enjoying movies on DVD for the better part of a decade, and there's no reason they can't continue to enjoy the DVD experience!

I think some people here loose sight of the importance (or lack thereof) of picture quality. I've said it before and I'll say it again... High definition doesn't make a comedy funnier. High definition doesn't make a drama more dramatic. And high definition certainly isn't going to compensate for bad writing and bad acting! High definition definitely makes movies look better, but it doesn't make movies more entertaining, because most people are entertained by the acting, story, and jokes, not by the texture of the fabric on a character's clothing!

Cyber, I did take a hard look at those still frames from the other thread. They were blown up to 1024x768, looked like they'd been Photoshopped, and people looking at them are sitting 12 to 20 inches away from their computers staring at them. Of course the HD will look far superior.

As I told him... take some photos of 29" TV sets running the SD and HD versions at 12 feet away, and get back to me.

Cyber, I did take a hard look at those still frames from the other thread. They were blown up to 1024x768, looked like they'd been Photoshopped, and people looking at them are sitting 12 to 20 inches away from their computers staring at them. Of course the HD will look far superior. As I told him... take some photos of 29" TV sets running the SD and HD versions at 12 feet away, and get back to me.

If thats your stance, then fine. You are entitled to your opinion, and in some specific test cases, you are probably right. Obviously you are not going to budge on this issue, so I'll leave it at that. We can agree to disagree. So here is my final answer on the topic.


Why buy the HD version?

Because I can.

As I told him... take some photos of 29" TV sets running the SD and HD versions at 12 feet away, and get back to me.

Anyone who thinks you can tell anything by taking a photo of a television from 12 feet away is wasting our time. Good day.

Again, I don't believe this to be true. Maybe using the word liar was a bit harsh, I hope there are no hard feelings. Regardless, your information is bogus, theres just really no question in my mind. Sure, animated movies do look pretty good on SD. I am not arguing with that. All I'm saying is that they look that much better in HD. Please take a cold hard look at some of those images in Xylon's thread. Especially on those shots of TMNT, in your words an "animation like Shrek." It is as clear as day that the HD version looks leaps and bounds better than SD on any screen size.

The differences in those screenshots are clear, but you have not explained why those differences are important to the average consumer. Most people watch movies to be entertained, and will still be entertained by the DVD version.

Arguments like yours are counter-productive to HD adoption and honestly have no place in an *HDTV Software Media* discussion. I thought we were all enthusiasts here. You sure don't sound too excited about HD.

Standard definition DVD poses a very real threat to the adoptation of HDM, and therefore standard definition cannot be ignored. I want HDM, but I'm not going to put blinders on and pretend the whole world wants HDM like I do.

Yes, but is it worth it at 10' plus from the TV??

At an average viewing distance of 10' to 12', the differences on a 37" TV,between SD and HD on an animated movie like Shrek, are not enough to warrant the high cost of the HD media over the SD version.

As I've mentioned before, I'm not saying that there aren't differences between HD and SD DVDs. I'm saying that the differences aren't worth the cost to the average consumer on a TV 37" or smaller, sitting an average distance of 10' to 12' away.

Until HD media prices are far closer to SD media, I feel the difference between the two resolutions on smaller LCD screens aren't enough to justify the price difference -- not at NORMAL viewing distances.

Obviously, if you own a mongo-huge TV that's 60" or more, or a projector, you will benefit from buying the HD version.
I've never sat that far away from such a small TV. I sit 5 feet away from my 37" and 9 feet away from my 65".

Ok, so if you sit too far back from an HDTV you won't get the full benefit of HDM. Tell us something we don't know. So what's the point of this thread???

I think you just summed it up.

I've never sat that far away from such a small TV. I sit 5 feet away from my 37" and 9 feet away from my 65".

I know two people who sit about 12 feet from 26"~27" TVs, and another who sits 12 feet from a 32" TV. That's the reality of the situation. And it won't change. I've discussed it with one of those people, and she doesn't want to get a bigger TV. She said she doesn't want the TV dominating the living room, so she bought a TV that fits into her bookcase where it is fairly inconspicuous. In the other two cases, the fireplace is the focal point of the living room, and the TV is demoted to a corner of the room where it too is fairly inconspicuous.

Yeah, that's my mom.... TV sits in the cabinet. She doesn't want to see a TV when she's not watching it. She doesn't want to see speakers either (she hides them behind bookcases and plants -- how's that for fidelity?).

I imagine some form of projection device will eventually rule the market. Some day.

As I've mentioned before, I'm not saying that there aren't differences between HD and SD DVDs. I'm saying that the differences aren't worth the cost to the average consumer on a TV 37" or smaller, sitting an average distance of 10' to 12' away.


However, given the average home consumer's TV size, and the distance from which they sit from the TV, the SD animated movies are more than adequate --

Ok so you can now change your point after every counterpoint!

It is a never ending debate! Good job.

First it is about picture quality being adequate and now it is about cost being worth it! Gimme a break.

Not changing anything. I've mentioned the same points before.

Try reading some of the posts in between the beginning and the end.

Some of you complain that I keep repeating the same thing. Others complain that I'm adding things and "changing my point."

Some of you are really quite comical.

What was the point of your original post and the title!

PQ for SD was adequate thus HD is not necessary.

You can't change your tune once people prove you wrong and STILL claim to have a good point!

Sorry mitch, I'm not changing my tune. Anyone is welcome to go back and read through all of my posts.

How many times must I continue to repeat myself?

You're trying to declare a victory of some sort in your own mind -- trying to redeem yourself by saying I am I wrong. I am not wrong. Anyone is welcome to read through my posts and see it for the record.

People thinking of buying an animation like Shrek -- just do this: Go to a store that is showing HD on a 29-34" HDTV. Stand back at least 10 to 12 feet. That is likely the distance you'll be watching from in the average home. Then decide if you think it's worth it to buy the HD version of an animation like Shrek.

HD looks better on a huge TV or projector, but on the average-sized consumer TV playing SD DVD upscaled, and given an average seating distance most sit back from the TV (about 10 to 12 feet), I'm confident you'll see that the difference between the SD and the HD version just isn't worth the extra cash. You then walk over to the DVD bin and purchase the SD version of Shrek, and yet another SD movie (something like Ratatouille or Cars, or any Disney/Paramount/Dreamworks title) with the money you saved over purchasing the HD disc.

If/when the prices of HD discs come closer to the prices of standard (SD) DVDs, then I'll recommend you purchase the HD version. Right now, however, I am telling you it's not worth it to buy the HD version just so you can see more hairs on the animals if you squint from 10 to 12 feet away on the non-massive-sized TV that you, the average consumer, is likely to own.

If you are an enthusiast, or an owner of a larger TV, and/or sit much closer, then HD might be worth it to you.

I am telling you it's not worth it to buy the HD version just so you can see more hairs on the animals if you squint from 10 to 12 feet away on the non-massive-sized TV that you, the average consumer, is likely to own.



That is why interactivity is a much more important feature on HDM than PQ/AQ if studio really want HDM to become bigger success than DVD

People could see PiP even on black white CRT.:)

If there is some killer interactive app like game which could keep children quite, it certainly would worth the premium.

...I came to the conclusion that I would not be purchasing any more HD animated discs. The difference between the two is just too small.

Several people disagree with you on this point. Several posts in between...blah, blah, blah...

Next question, how many people own "little" 61" TVs, or anything "bigger" above that?

Then you change your argument to:
"SD looks as good as HD on sets 61" and below"

I just find no convincing reason to buy Shrek-type animation in HD. It really isn't that different from an upconverted standard DVD if your set is smaller than the 50" range.

Then you modify it by saying smaller than 50"

Again, I say, the details in SD animation are good enough for the average consumer who is going to decide this format war. Big sales of such discs come from those types of people buying Christmas/birthday gifts for others. Big sales don't come from enthusiasts with 100" projection systems.

Now you say that SD is is fine for average consumers. And you say again like you have said that in this thread before.

Until the prices of the HD media comes A WHOLE LOT CLOSER to regular DVD prices (and until people have the TVs to make use of it) not a lot of these disks are going to sell

Now it is because of cost!

For those keeping track...the argument now is:

"SD DVD is just as good as HD/BR for the average consumer with TV's smaller than 50 inches who are cost conscious"

It goes on...

The average consumer who is copying/torrenting/downloading stolen movies is content with watching crappy resolution video files on poor-quality SD screens.

Then you define the average consumer as someone who copies/torrents/downloads stolen movies...that is a joke in itself.

people seem to be complaining about grain on the HD versions of these movies, not the SD.

Now it is because of the grain?

The brain stops processing those little details in hairs very soon after the movie starts -- and that's exactly what we're talking about here -- differences in little hairs (for the most part).

Now you say that our brains can't process, oh wait...don't want to process the difference between a few hairs[are we too lazy?].

HD media looks great on TV's bigger than 29". At 29" or below, it's my opinion that HD media is not worth the switch to the average consumer. And animations such as Shrek aren't worth it for sets around 37" or below, IMHO. Not at the viewing distances most people sit from TVs in the USA, for example.

Now your argument is 37" and below with a distance requirement.

I think I've been perfectly clear.

Hardly sir.

At the risk of making this post so long that no one will read it...[oops already is] I will get to my point...which is that your argument when you went into this was flawed. Simple fact.

Initial argument:
The difference between HD animated features and SD animated features is too small and does not warrant a purchase in a new high definition format.

^I polished it up for ya :)

The final argument as far as I can tell is:
HD on a 37" TV or smaller, with a large viewing distance that we use in the USA is not worth the incremental cost increase due to the fact that the image is not processed by our brains after a few minutes.

I think you will find that if you posted that as your original argument many people would have agreed.

If you look at the attached chart you can see that there is no apparent resolution advantage 1080p has over 480p on a set that is 37" or smaller with a viewing distance of 12'.

I got the impression, as did everyone else, that you were trying to crap on the Paramount/dreamworks deal.

Sorry I am not trying to win just make sure people don't see that title and brush it off as true.

That is why interactivity is a much more important feature on HDM than PQ/AQ if studio really want HDM to become bigger success than DVD

People could see PiP even on black white CRT.:)

If there is some killer interactive app like game which could keep children quite, it certainly would worth the premium.
Ya, like the remote makes a great controller for games.....:)

From what I've seen, the games on DVD's are simple and get boring quick.
No way that will keep a kid entertained for hours. Not with the short attention span they have these days.
I'm sure most kids aready have some sort of TV game deck or portable to play real games.

The Ethernet/Internet accessibility is going to be a method to sell you products and probably obtain your email/personal information to access forums to chat about movies.
It's just another way for the studios to market merchandice to the consumer.


On the subject of CGI looking great on SD, I agree and if you have an upconvert player, there's very little difference/improvement on HDM that most will even notice between the two formats.

All the CGI DVD's I've watched on upconvert or even SD/480i look great but I'm sure the fanboys will say you don't get the "3D" effect like HDM on SD. :rolleyes:

On the subject of CGI looking great on SD, I agree and if you have an upconvert player, there's very little difference/improvement on HDM that most will even notice between the two formats.

All the CGI DVD's I've watched on upconvert or even SD/480i look great but I'm sure the fanboys will say you don't get the "3D" effect like HDM on SD. :rolleyes:

Thanks. Yet another person in agreement.

It's kind of die hard to try and convert HD buffs to SD buffs on an HD forum :eek:

Thanks. Yet another person in agreement.
Considering that you and 42plasmaman are twins and dedicated to bumping a useless thread - big surprise... :rolleyes:

Ya, like the remote makes a great controller for games.....:)



http://hackszine.com/wiimote_20070324.jpg

:cool:

http://hackszine.com/wiimote_20070324.jpg

:cool:

The Wii has good spacing between buttons whereas the standard TV/Player remote is fully populated with buttons all over the remote.
Try not to fumble finger the remote when trying to score points. ;)

http://images.tigerdirect.com/itemDetails/T24-9088/T24-9088-callout3.jpg

Anyway, just thought everyone would LOVE to know that the debate here is officially over.

94% polled agree that animated films can look better in HD - http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=910422

only 2.5% felt that no animated films could ever be helped by HD.

(And 3% were too suspicious to choose an answer because they felt it was a trick question!) :p

Have a nice day!

Anyway, just thought everyone would LOVE to know that the debate here is officially over.

94% polled agree that animated films can look better in HD - http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=910422

only 2.5% felt that no animated films could ever be helped by HD.

(And 3% were too suspicious to choose an answer because they felt it was a trick question!) :p

Have a nice day!

So a poll at AVS is the end all to all debates/opinions ? :confused:

Also, that poll doesn't say how much better. Is it 1%, 10% or less/more ?

So a poll at AVS is the end all to all debates/opinions ? :confused:

Also, that poll doesn't say how much better. Is it 1%, 10% or less/more ?

Why would it matter how much better? All of this is subjective. Real HD trumps SD always.

Why would it matter how much better? All of this is subjective. Real HD trumps SD always.
You need to see Backdraft on HD DVD then come back here and tell me that it trumps SD beyond HD. ;)

When it comes to CGI, the HiDef improvments aren't hugh when compared to real life movie comparisions between SD and HiDef.

Yes, HiDef is slightly better but nothing to cheer about especially on newer CGI titles.

When it comes to CGI, the HiDef improvments aren't hugh when compared to real life movie comparisions between SD and HiDef.


Now see, that doesn't make sense to me. There's a reason why photographs are printed at 300 dpi whereas lineart is reproduced at 600 dpi. Grain, gradients, and lack of hard edges actually hide their resolution limitations much better than good ol' line art.

Here's an image blown up 200 percent.

On the left, line art. Easy to see edges. On the right, gradient with grain. Which do you think is easier to pick up when the resolution gives out?

http://www.kchtenthusiasts.com/web_pics/gradient_line.jpg

Now see, that doesn't make sense to me. There's a reason why photographs are printed at 300 dpi whereas lineart is reproduced at 600 dpi. Grain, gradients, and lack of hard edges actually hide their resolution limitations much better than good ol' line art.

Here's an image blown up 200 percent.

On the left, line art. Easy to see edges. On the right, gradient with grain. Which do you think is easier to pick up when the resolution gives out?

http://www.kchtenthusiasts.com/web_pics/gradient_line.jpg
Well, I guess it's unfortunate that our human eyes don't have 200x maganification.

Well, I guess it's unfortunate that our human eyes don't have 200x maganification.

But you do have DVDs that are BLOWN UP past their resolution limitations. (RE: The HDTV's we all own that have resolutions higher than the DVD spec) Then your eyes will do the rest.

And it's not 200 TIMES. It's 2. Just 2. There's not a graphics prgram out there that'll do 200 times magnification. (off the shelf anyway ^_^)

Well, I guess for those who have kids that don't have an HD player in their room, will they buy one for their HD($29) system and one SD($15-19) for their kids or just get the SD and call it a day.

$45/49(buy both HD/SD) or $15-19(SD)
Is the HD worth the extra cost for a small noticable improvement over SD if you already own the SD ?

The argument in the other thread, despite how hard certain members have tried to spin it, has NEVER been "SD-DVD looks the same as or better than HD.."

The argument in that thread has been, "Animations like Shrek in SD-DVD look good enough." That argument has expanded to, "Animations like Shrek look good enough for the average J6P consumer on the average J6P consumer-sized TV."

The issue was clarified with the additional information NOT because anyone was changing their stance. It was expanded on/clarified because obviously HD looks better on a big 60" or projector screen.

The argument all of the HD-DVD fanboys seem to be avoiding is what that thread is supposed to be all about: Why should the average Joe spend $15 or whatever extra on the HD version of an animated movie like Shrek, when the SD version looks great on their 29" or so-sized TV from an average distance of 10 feet away?"

The average J6P consumer DOES NOT NEED an HD version of this type of movie if their screen size is the current average, and their seating distance is the average: 10 feet from the screen.

The average J6P consumer DOES NOT NEED an HD version of this type of movie if their screen size is the current average, and their seating distance is the average: 10 feet from the screen.

I understand the arguement. (I'm a blu boy BTW ^_^) I'm saying that the difference in quality for HD animation IS that good. Every bit as good as their live action counterparts, if not better. That's it and that's all.

Using your final paragraph I would think SD would be good enough for J6P if we all had 32 inch TVs and sat 10 feet back. Hell, even I think SD is good enough in those situations.

Chirpie, if I could get my parents into anything BIGGER than a 29: HDTV, it would be one heck of an accomplishment. They took one look at my first 42" TV, and wondered why on Earth anyone would want a TV so big.

I guess people with kids with SD DVD players in their room will have to chose to either get the SD DVD version of Shrek for $15-20, which can be enjoyed fully on their SD and HD DVD player or pay $29-40 for the HD DVD version and only watch it in the "family room."

I guess people with kids with SD DVD players in their room will have to chose to either get the SD DVD version of Shrek for $15-20, which can be enjoyed fully on their SD and HD DVD player or pay $29-40 for the HD DVD version and only watch it in the "family room."

It's rather simple for me: combo if it's available, SD if it's not. It's more important for it to play on all of our players/computers than it is to have it in HD in one room. That's why the combo works for many of us for certain titles.

Chirpie, if I could get my parents into anything BIGGER than a 29: HDTV, it would be one heck of an accomplishment. They took one look at my first 42" TV, and wondered why on Earth anyone would want a TV so big.

I totally understand that part. What I'm saying is your parents wouldn't be candidates for HDM at all. Not just animation.

I think we should all do our part to spread our 'disease'. Invite people over, do the side by side comparisons, and leave them wanting more. We have the power! ^_^

It's rather simple for me: combo if it's available, SD if it's not. It's more important for it to play on all of our players/computers than it is to have it in HD in one room. That's why the combo works for many of us for certain titles.
Warner is the only one doing combos right now right ?

stuff :D

Sorry I am not trying to win just make sure people don't see that title and brush it off as true.

I think this post seems to have been overlooked for the most part, and I would just like to express my appreciation for your dedication to a single post. :)

I totally understand that part. What I'm saying is your parents wouldn't be candidates for HDM at all. Not just animation.

I think we should all do our part to spread our 'disease'. Invite people over, do the side by side comparisons, and leave them wanting more. We have the power! ^_^

There's also the power consumption problem, too. They think the big TVs cost too much to run. They don't run it enough to worry.

Warner is the only one doing combos right now right ?

No - Paramount also - ST-TOS box set is Combo's. So is Universal - Knocked Up

There's also the power consumption problem, too. They think the big TVs cost too much to run. They don't run it enough to worry.
Correct. I believe most Plasma sets 42" and above consume 400+ watts.

Correct. I believe most Plasma sets 42" and above consume 400+ watts.

So how much does a 23 cu. ft. freezer/refigerator consume? It's on 24/7

So how much does a 23 cu. ft. freezer/refigerator consume? It's on 24/7
Compared to my old 32" CRT, which consumed a whole 150 watts, the Plasma is more than double the consumption.
And in my state, the electric rates are increased 4x of the summer rates.

btw:
The frig is plugged in 24/7 but isn't running 24/7. It only turns on intermittently to keep the thermostat/temp satisfied.

Correct. I believe most Plasma sets 42" and above consume 400+ watts.

Actually, I think that they consume less, don't they? Plasmas, unlike LCDs, are only eating as much power as the scene is bright. LCDs, I read somewhere, always have the panel on and only some light is allowed through depending on the brightness of the scene. Something like that. Could be wrong.

But back on topic... my parents are happy with buying a SD DVD from Wal-Mart for maybe $5 to $15 or whatever something like Shrek 3 would cost. They wouldn't pay HD prices yet, even if they had an HD player and a big enough set to enjoy it (bigger than 37").

But back on topic... my parents are happy with buying a SD DVD from Wal-Mart for maybe $5 to $15 or whatever something like Shrek 3 would cost. They wouldn't pay HD prices yet, even if they had an HD player and a big enough set to enjoy it (bigger than 37").

I know that regular DVD's are cheaper but new releases are not anything like $5 or $15 are they? At least around here (Canada) Best Buy/Future Shop seems to price new release HD/BD movies in the $30 to $35 range while most new release SD DVD's are $25 or more. For example they have the Shrek 3 SD DVD for pre-order at $26. I am able to buy new release hi-def movies from amazon for about the same price as the SD DVD's are locally.

Actually, I think that they consume less, don't they? Plasmas, unlike LCDs, are only eating as much power as the scene is bright. LCDs, I read somewhere, always have the panel on and only some light is allowed through depending on the brightness of the scene. Something like that. Could be wrong.


Plasmas require more power than LCDs of the same size.

“One of the obvious differences is power,” says Ian Miller, director of display technology for Samsung Electronics America. “Plasma has a lot higher power consumption than LCD, typically in the region of two-and-a-half to three times. And a lot of that gets translated into heat.”

SOURCE (http://www.presentationmaster.com/2002/09_sep/features/plasma.htm)

.

But a plasma doesn't always run at full tilt. Depends on the picture. I'll dig up the link tomorrow, if I get the chance.

I recently picked up a hd-a2 during the amazon promotion. My first experience with HD media was happy feet. I had not seen this this b4 either on dvd or at the movies. Now I only have a 32" sharp lc32d62u and sit about 6/7' away. Before I got my a2 I had the oppo 981 and watched all the pixar movies and was blown away by how nice they look.
Happy feet on the a2 was noticably better than any of those. I could pick out details I never saw b4. I flipped the disk over to the dvd side and couldn't believe how yucky it looked. I'm definitly a J6P but even with my pitiful set up I could easily say happy feet looked better than cars did upconverted to 1080P.
If I have a choice I'll definitly spend the few extra bucks and get the HD version of a movie; in my mind it is worth it. Thanks for listening to a J6Per. -jp

Melvin, if you sit just 6 to 7 feet from your TV, you sit very close. And at a mere 32", you can't even enjoy the worth of 1080p unless you do sit really close.

I don't think you are a J6P.

Try moving back to 10 feet away, which where J6P is going to sit.

The problem with SD is : EE (most film have it now) and Macroblock, more and more film have them. Most recent Warner SD release aren't worth a 6/10 IMHO in PQ. Back in the time (around 2000) i saw way less Artifact than what we saw today. Monster Inc was almost perfect as a DVD release (had banding in 1 scene one). But recent one like Happy Feet and TMNT are downright ugly..

The thing about HD that bothers me is that I can no afford to be a lot more picky. I notice things that I wouldn't have noticed before. Grain is one thing. People do their best to explain it away as, "that is how it should look," but they forget that the average person is used to an SD image and NOT seeing things like banding, artifacts, and GRAIN so clearly. Yes, they were always there before, but their effects were often muted by the sheer fact that the image resolution was not high and the picture not so sharp and clear. With HD, even the most minor defects stick out like a sore thumb. Also, we paid A LOT of money to get this techonology at this stage (counting the TV+Player+More expensive discs) so we expect more.

After watching exclusively HD movies for the past month, more-or-less, I sat down and watched "Lost In Translation" on SD DVD, upconverted through my PS3. Sure, I could see that the picture wasn't nearly as sharp as HD, but it wasn't a displeasure to watch. Within a short time, the other side of my brain took over and I didn't care about resolution. You get into the movie, and you just don't really care or notice anymore, unless you make yourself stop, think about it, and notice.

I guess I'm saying that after sinking over $1,200 into discs (thankfully, most were purchased used on E-bay) and $500 for a PS3, I'm now at a point where I'm pondering selling off my HD discs while they're still worth close to what I paid for them. I could sell of my PS3 and get within $150 of what I paid, as well.

Weighing the pros and cons, I'm just not sold on HD techonology -- this after owning it for about 5 months. I'm certain I'll get back into it again some day, but for now, I'm selling off my discs as soon as I get stateside again early next year.

The thing about HD that bothers me is that I can no afford to be a lot more picky. I notice things that I wouldn't have noticed before. Grain is one thing. People do their best to explain it away as, "that is how it should look," but they forget that the average person is used to an SD image and NOT seeing things like banding, artifacts, and GRAIN so clearly. Yes, they were always there before, but their effects were often muted by the sheer fact that the image resolution was not high and the picture not so sharp and clear. With HD, even the most minor defects stick out like a sore thumb. Also, we paid A LOT of money to get this techonology at this stage (counting the TV+Player+More expensive discs) so we expect more.

After watching exclusively HD movies for the past month, more-or-less, I sat down and watched "Lost In Translation" on SD DVD, upconverted through my PS3. Sure, I could see that the picture wasn't nearly as sharp as HD, but it wasn't a displeasure to watch. Within a short time, the other side of my brain took over and I didn't care about resolution. You get into the movie, and you just don't really care or notice anymore, unless you make yourself stop, think about it, and notice.

I guess I'm saying that after sinking over $1,200 into discs (thankfully, most were purchased used on E-bay) and $500 for a PS3, I'm now at a point where I'm pondering selling off my HD discs while they're still worth close to what I paid for them. I could sell of my PS3 and get within $150 of what I paid, as well.

Weighing the pros and cons, I'm just not sold on HD techonology -- this after owning it for about 5 months. I'm certain I'll get back into it again some day, but for now, I'm selling off my discs as soon as I get stateside again early next year.

I understand exactly what you are saying, although I don't share your opinion completely. Most people will be just fine with a quality upconverting player because it really is about the content. SD DVD allows you to see programming in quality that certainly meets the original intent of the production.

The arguments you've made againse HD animation really apply just as well to live action film-based progamming. I do think HD media has a future, but the reality is that movies are enjoyable to most on SD, especially if one doesn't obsess over PQ.

The thing about HD that bothers me is that I can no afford to be a lot more picky. I notice things that I wouldn't have noticed before. Grain is one thing. People do their best to explain it away as, "that is how it should look," but they forget that the average person is used to an SD image and NOT seeing things like banding, artifacts, and GRAIN so clearly. Yes, they were always there before, but their effects were often muted by the sheer fact that the image resolution was not high and the picture not so sharp and clear. With HD, even the most minor defects stick out like a sore thumb. Also, we paid A LOT of money to get this techonology at this stage (counting the TV+Player+More expensive discs) so we expect more.

After watching exclusively HD movies for the past month, more-or-less, I sat down and watched "Lost In Translation" on SD DVD, upconverted through my PS3. Sure, I could see that the picture wasn't nearly as sharp as HD, but it wasn't a displeasure to watch. Within a short time, the other side of my brain took over and I didn't care about resolution. You get into the movie, and you just don't really care or notice anymore, unless you make yourself stop, think about it, and notice.

I guess I'm saying that after sinking over $1,200 into discs (thankfully, most were purchased used on E-bay) and $500 for a PS3, I'm now at a point where I'm pondering selling off my HD discs while they're still worth close to what I paid for them. I could sell of my PS3 and get within $150 of what I paid, as well.

Weighing the pros and cons, I'm just not sold on HD techonology -- this after owning it for about 5 months. I'm certain I'll get back into it again some day, but for now, I'm selling off my discs as soon as I get stateside again early next year.

I agree that once you get into the movie, the PQ/AQ don't really matter much but it does help enhance the experience.

Besides the PQ enhancement on Hidef, you get enhanced AQ too, even over PCM bitstream.

Plasmaman, the audio is better if you have a system capable of bringing out those qualities. The only people able to do that are audiophiles, at this point. You need to know what you're getting and how to set it all up in order to take advantage of that.

My parents/average friends: No chance in hell that's going to happen without help from someone like me, who understands the many settings on multiple devices and screens which must be enacted to get to that top-notch uncompressed audio. Not to mention proper cabling and HDMI issues.

It's just not easy enough yet.

Plasmaman, the audio is better if you have a system capable of bringing out those qualities. The only people able to do that are audiophiles, at this point. You need to know what you're getting and how to set it all up in order to take advantage of that.

My parents/average friends: No chance in hell that's going to happen without help from someone like me, who understands the many settings on multiple devices and screens which must be enacted to get to that top-notch uncompressed audio. Not to mention proper cabling and HDMI issues.

It's just not easy enough yet.
I did a comparison between Fast and the Furious3 on HD and SD DVD 5.1 audio and the HiDef version sounded more robust and clear.

So, if you at least have a digital input(coaxial/optical) to your stereo with 5.1 outputs/speakers, you can tell the difference/upgrade in sound quality.

Oh, I agree.... the higher-quality audio tracks on the HD have more potential to sound better.

BUT

What average J6P out there has a system like yours capable of bringing out that difference?

What were you doing the side-by-side comparison on? Do you expect the average J6P owner would have such a system?

Oh, I agree.... the higher-quality audio tracks on the HD have more potential to sound better.

BUT

What average J6P out there has a system like yours capable of bringing out that difference?

What were you doing the side-by-side comparison on? Do you expect the average J6P owner would have such a system?

Are you J6P? I would think so after you have said it like 1000 times.

So the thread has evolved from what you think to what J6P thinks.

Are you J6P? I would think so after you have said it like 1000 times.

So the thread has evolved from what you think to what J6P thinks.


It's not about what I think. It's about fact.

The average J6P consumer doesn't yet give a rip about much above Dolby 5.1 audio, because they likely can't play back anything above that. Most of them are going to have TVs minus a full-blown stereo theater set-up.

Do you dispute this?

Perhaps a majority of those who even do have a home theater set-up are going to own lower-end best buy and walmart crap, anyway: all-in-one systems with tiny, crappy speakers, And a step up from that -- big, boomy boxes of veneered fiberboard with cheap woofers and tweeters.

Lossless won't even make a difference to these people because they can't enjoy it.

Why does this J6P that everyone seems to know so well matter to this conversation? It's about degrees of quality, and some people appreciate and will invest in higher quality and others won't. If all we cared about was mass adoption, there'd hardly be any need for these forums.

Until I see a true DBT of lossless audio v. DD+, I will believe that very few people, if any, are able to tell the difference. However, if that test proves conclusively that lossless is distinguishable to the human ear in completely blind conditions, I will advocate only for lossless.

Quality is quality. We shouldn't base our expectations of a high definition format on whether someone with little interest can appreciate the greater degrees of quality. If we're seeking the lowest common denominator, then the topic should be something other than HD and lossless audio.

But the average consumer will not be an enthusiast. That's sort of what this thread is talking about. J6P seems to be giving HD the "thumbs down" as far as purchases are concerned.

Animations like Shrek look great on SD DVD. WHY buy the HD version?

1. Most people watch more than just animated movies on their HDTVs.

2. Even animated and CGI movies like Shrek look better when run through HD media.

However, if you only use your HD set to entertain your children, and all that they watch are animated movies and TV shows, then I would stick with standard DVDs as the added expense and improvements would be lost on most kids under 12.

It's not about what I think. It's about fact.

The average J6P consumer doesn't yet give a rip about much above Dolby 5.1 audio, because they likely can't play back anything above that. Most of them are going to have TVs minus a full-blown stereo theater set-up.

Do you dispute this?
...
Lossless won't even make a difference to these people because they can't enjoy it.
I did a comparison between Fast and the Furious3 on HD and SD DVD 5.1 audio and the HiDef version sounded more robust and clear.

So, if you at least have a digital input(coaxial/optical) to your stereo with 5.1 outputs/speakers, you can tell the difference/upgrade in sound quality.But then why are you trying so hard to convince everyone that they shouldn't buy animations in HD or without lossless?

Based on the results of my poll - Over 90% of respondents will buy Transformers anyway, regardless of lossless audio.

And my other poll showed 90% of folks felt that animations can be improved by presentation in HD.

Hi,

(sorry for not reading the whole thread yet.)

I would have once thought the same but these types of movies look even better on HD. I used to be amazed by how Toy Story looked on DVD but it's nothing compared to Cars on Blu Ray. Once anyone sees it they are going to be convinced about this.

(Don't know about Shrek though becuase I have, I think, all the Dreamworks movies with this type of animation, Shark Tale and so on, and none of them look as good as the Pixar stuff which could boil down to the tools they are using in making the films.)

-Brian

I would say the later Dreamworks animations look better than most of Pixar's stuff, especially on DVD. Cars was a poor DVD transfer though I'm sure in looks great on Blu Ray.

Animations like Shrek look great on SD DVD. WHY buy the HD version?

For this maybe?
(at least your children might find it to be fun)


http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Exclusive_HD_Content/DreamWorks/New_Shrek_Specs_Promise_Several_HD_DVD_Firsts/1016

Expanding upon the picture-in-picture video commentary feature found on other HD DVDs, the "Animator's Reel" will not only present an entire alternate version of the film in storyboard form, but it will further utilize the format's HDi technology to offer a "contextual seamless branch" to lost scenes and other content.

'Shrek the Third' is also set to push the boundaries in terms of what's been offered as web-enabled content on previous HD DVD releases. DreamWorks says a number of additional exclusive features will be made available for download the day the disc hits stores,
+ including a full-length subtitle trivia track,
+ a movie guide with files on characters and talent in the film,
+ plus an interactive coloring book feature that allows you to digitally paint your favorite scenes.

As previously announced, the disc will also provide users the ability to customize their own menus based on famous 'Shrek' characters. Once customized, the user's menu will become the default menu for the disc, even after it has been ejected from the player.

Additional features identical to the standard DVD edition of the film are set to include audio commentary, multiple making-of featurettes, deleted scenes and more.



Exclusive deals of HD DVD with Paramount and Dreamworks will definitely push their champion through a few rounds. Dreamworks has announced that the HD DVD of Shrek III will become available on November 13 (in the UK).

Unique extras will include a PIP storyboard reel that branches to lost scenes and three web-enabled downloads, including Shrek’s Trivia Track, a World of Shrek movie guide, and Donkey’s Digital Coloring Book.

Such advanced functionality is not yet possible on the Blu-ray platform, giving credence to Dreamworks' assertion that creative potential was a key consideration in the decision to back Blu-ray.
http://www.tech2.com/india/news/optical-drives/hd-dvd-might-knock-out-bluray/17811/0

Wow,

With extras like that I would consider buying it even though I didn't like the actual film.

-Brian

It's not about what I think. It's about fact.

The average J6P consumer doesn't yet give a rip about much above Dolby 5.1 audio, because they likely can't play back anything above that. Most of them are going to have TVs minus a full-blown stereo theater set-up.

Do you dispute this?

Perhaps a majority of those who even do have a home theater set-up are going to own lower-end best buy and walmart crap, anyway: all-in-one systems with tiny, crappy speakers, And a step up from that -- big, boomy boxes of veneered fiberboard with cheap woofers and tweeters.

Lossless won't even make a difference to these people because they can't enjoy it.


You don't understand that what you are saying is not fact do you?

You defend every counterpoint with ' but J6P doesn't care'. Guess what? That is not what this thread is about!! Go rant in about 1000 other threads about how J6P sucks at A/V decisions. This thread was about SD animations being just as good as HD animations which by fact is clearly WRONG!

This thread was about SD animations being just as good as HD animations which by fact is clearly WRONG!

Greg, this thread was never about SD being as good as HD. It was about SD animatiion being "good enough" compared to HD.

Nobody has said that SD is as good as HD. I'm saying, and many have agreed with me, that SD animated movies like Shrek look good enough if you have an average-sized screen.

Greg, this thread was never about SD being as good as HD. It was about SD animatiion being "good enough" compared to HD.

Nobody has said that SD is as good as HD. I'm saying, and many have agreed with me, that SD animated movies like Shrek look good enough if you have an average-sized screen.

If j6p hasn't seen SD animation and HD animation side-by-side, then j6p won't be aware of what he is missing. And even if he sees the difference, he might easily forget what the difference was. What you see in HD and not in SD is the details in hair and fabrics, more vivid colors and the ability to read small texts in the background just like in real life. This all accounts for making the HD experience look closer to reality than SD - like looking through a window rather than watching TV. It won't matter if it's animation or live-action, the window-feeling will still be there and SD will appear as not "good enough" (I'm sure you think so too).

You can easily spot this difference on an average-sized TV, but j6p may not have seen a side-by-side comparison, and maybe if he has, he might not think it's worth the dollars. What are you gonna do? Add to that the fact that sometimes j6p is too tired to see or care about the difference, and thus, SD will be "good enough". What are you gonna do?

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/11293.cfm

Dreamworks Animation has announced the specs for the upcoming "Shrek the Third" HD DVD and it includes a few never-before-seen features including "branching PIP commentary" and the "most comprehensive web-enabled content yet."

The "Animator's Reel" will present a completely alternate version of the movie in storyboard form and will also utilize HDi technology to "offer a contextual seamless branch" to lost scenes and other content."

The new movie should also have the broadest web-enabled content seen to date for HD DVD. Dreamworks says a few of the extras available will be a "full-length subtitle trivia track, a movie guide with files on characters and talent in the film, plus an interactive coloring book feature that allows you to digitally paint your favorite scenes."

Another innovative feature is that the disc will allow users to customize their own menus based on their favorite "Shrek" characters and the menu the user selects will become the default, even after is ejected.

The title is set to be released on November 13th

Greg, this thread was never about SD being as good as HD. It was about SD animatiion being "good enough" compared to HD.

Nobody has said that SD is as good as HD. I'm saying, and many have agreed with me, that SD animated movies like Shrek look good enough if you have an average-sized screen.

You are implying it with this thread and every post you have made so far! Why can't you see that?

I have asked this already but I will again...Do you consider yourself J6P? You can't be...you are on AVSforum.

If j6p hasn't seen SD animation and HD animation side-by-side, then j6p won't be aware of what he is missing. And even if he sees the difference, he might easily forget what the difference was. What you see in HD and not in SD is the details in hair and fabrics, more vivid colors and the ability to read small texts in the background just like in real life. This all accounts for making the HD experience look closer to reality than SD - like looking through a window rather than watching TV. It won't matter if it's animation or live-action, the window-feeling will still be there and SD will appear as not "good enough" (I'm sure you think so too).

You can easily spot this difference on an average-sized TV, but j6p may not have seen a side-by-side comparison, and maybe if he has, he might not think it's worth the dollars. What are you gonna do? Add to that the fact that sometimes j6p is too tired to see or care about the difference, and thus, SD will be "good enough". What are you gonna do?

This thread is not about J6P. An AVS member [J6P does not come to the interweb to discuss A/V things!!] has said that HD shows such a small improvement over upscaled SD that he doesn't want to purchase the HD version. This is crazy to me [and many many other enthusiasts].

Good Enough is totally subjective and individual preference - however, being an owner of HD and BD and where I get a great transfer that's HD and I like the movie with replay value there is never going to be a time where I'd buy an SD grade Turd - my yardstick says - Not Good Enough!

Example - Casino Royale or POTO - No SD version - No way - visuals and sound blows away the SD.

If it's low level HD transfer material then I would buy the SD and place it on a HD Player for close to HD PQ upscaling - but I would never use an SD DVD PLAYER - NEVER! I don't even use my Oppo anymore.:)

Good Enough is totally subjective and individual preference - however, being an owner of HD and BD and where I get a great transfer that's HD and I like the movie with replay value there is never going to be a time where I'd buy an SD grade Turd - my yardstick says - Not Good Enough!

Example - Casino Royale or POTO - No SD version - No way - visuals and sound blows away the SD.

If it's low level HD transfer material then I would buy the SD and place it on a HD Player for close to HD PQ upscaling - but I would never use an SD DVD PLAYER - NEVER! I don't even use my Oppo anymore.:)
I agree that most people will buy the HiDef version of a movie if they have the player but when it comes to newly released/made CGI/cartoon movies, the HiDef version is not that much of a PQ improvement over the SD upconverted.
I certainly won't be doubling dipping for any CGI/cartoon movies I already own as they already look great upconverted.
And of course, you'll have the lobbyist saying that there's the "3D" effect on HiDef CGI but I guess I've never seen that at CE stores or any HiDef movies I've watched. May be you need to be in a special frame of mind to "see" the "3D" effect. :confused:

Animations like Shrek look great on SD DVD. WHY buy the HD version?

Simple. They look BETTER.

Go to your local High End AV store and look throught the $3000 TVs. What is playing? It is ALWAYS a Pixar or similarly made movie. ALWAYS. Because they show off the bright colrs and clarity better than anything else.

Animations like Shrek look great on SD DVD. WHY buy the HD version?

Simple. They look BETTER.

Go to your local High End AV store and look throught the $3000 TVs. What is playing? It is ALWAYS a Pixar or similarly made movie. ALWAYS. Because they show off the bright colrs and clarity better than anything else.


I disagree with this.

I saw one store showing Chicken Little (Costco). The rest seem to show general movies or documentaries... Stealth (gosh knows why), Planet Earth, etc.

So are you gonna boycott all disney and pixar animation titles?

Why? That's what DVD is for. :P

Different Strokes I guess. My two-year-old son and I love Chicken Little, especially the Indiana Jones part. I never get tired of that part. I'd much rather watch Chicken Little than The Incredibles. Cars is another good one IMO. I can't see how grown men can watch The Little Mermaid, but it seems really popular here. Maybe I should watch it again. It's been years and maybe I'll appreciate it now.

None of this stuff holds a candle to Classic Disney animation though. Give me Alice in Wonderland, Fantasia, Snow White, The Fox and the Hound...................

3D animation looks great but lacks soul.

Pixar was at the top of it's game with Finding Nemo and Monsters Inc. I found The Incredibles visually stunning but the story itself was rather boring. I found Cars less than stellar too (and I really wanted this one to be great).

From http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20070822PR206.html



So, the trend is towards the 30- to 36-inch sizes.

Strange too, I don't know how anyone could stick a 32 inch HDTV in their living room and be happy with that. The screen real-estate is just too small. Even 37 inch is a huge improvement. And for us 40 inch is just right.


Anyway, I find some movies benefit more from HD than others. Live action with CGi seems to benefit the most. Live Action without CGI usually seems to benefit from it least IMO. Computer Animated films look so great on SD DVD I could see that for many the upgrade would not be worth it.

While HD does provide a clearer picture. A good SD DVD can still look great on an HDTV. The main reason why a lot of average consumers buy 40+ inch TV's isn't for HD but for Wide Screen real estate. People want a large wide screen TV more than they care about HDM.

DK, you make many good points.

Why? That's what DVD is for. :P



Pixar was at the top of it's game with Finding Nemo and Monsters Inc. I found The Incredibles visually stunning but the story itself was rather boring. I found Cars less than stellar too (and I really wanted this one to be great).



Strange too, I don't know how anyone could stick a 32 inch HDTV in their living room and be happy with that. The screen real-estate is just too small. Even 37 inch is a huge improvement. And for us 40 inch is just right.


Anyway, I find some movies benefit more from HD than others. Live action with CGi seems to benefit the most. Live Action without CGI usually seems to benefit from it least IMO. Computer Animated films look so great on SD DVD I could see that for many the upgrade would not be worth it.

While HD does provide a clearer picture. A good SD DVD can still look great on an HDTV. The main reason why a lot of average consumers buy 40+ inch TV's isn't for HD but for Wide Screen real estate. People want a large wide screen TV more than they care about HDM.

Also don't forget that even on a 42" screen, most wide screen movies are probably only utilizing about 38" of the screen when blackbars are displayed.

42Plas, are they even making use of that much of the screen?

42Plas, are they even making use of that much of the screen?

I haven't measured but I'd say on a typical widescreen format movie, there is about 1.5-2" of blackbars on bottom and top on my 42". I'd say close to 3-3.5" of blackbars on my 60"

Does Shrek have bars?

I finally got to see Chicken Little on BD. Anyone who has seen it would never again question the benefit of HD for animation. Wow. Best HD I've ever seen.

Attention Dudes and Dudettes: Why in the world is this thread still on page one??!??

Netflick a damn animated movie (as long as it isn't surfs up) and you will see that they are even better in HD. Why do you think many of the High End HT owners who contribute here use animated movies when sharing pictures of their home theaters?

Probley not because they prefer Ice Age 2 to The Departed.