I'm very new to HD, just replaced an old 27" CRT with a 1080P 42" LCD and got the cable HD feeds, I don't have any sort of HD player, just a regular DVD player and I'm wondering the wisdom of getting a HD player because I worry I can see too much detail in HD movies, preferring the look of regular DVDs for movies.

I watched some of a Men in Black movie on 1080i cable, and was very much put off by seeing every wrinkle and skin pore on Tommy Lee Jones's face and even the makeup on his face - which I never used to see before. Then on a trip to Target I saw one of those displays where they have half the screen standard DVD , half HDM (bluray I think), showing Pirates of the Carribean, and once again I think I preferred the standard DVD version, the high resolution on the HDM side made some of the effects look less realistic in my opinion and distracted from the viewing experience. Maybe I'm odd but I think especially for movies that maybe we need less resolution than HD, or at least for the studios to maybe introduce a lot more softening for many scenes, maybe they are still coming to grips with shooting for this media.

On the other hand, I just love HD for sports - NFL never looked better and definitaly makes it worth the upgrade to HD. I'm just wondering if other movie buffs prefer standard DVD to HDMs? Also if this is putting me off getting a HDM player, maybe it is others too...

I have read that many of the actors feel the same way....they do not want every pore or blemish so distinctly visible either!

It does take away from a movie when you can see makeup caked on someone's face. This has bother me a few times when watching HD.

I would recommend you stay away from Black Rain in HD. If you thought Tommy Lee was bad Michael Douglas looks like he has one foot in the grave in that movie! :D

It sounds to me like you don't really like the look of movies on your lcd tv. I am a plasma biased owner, but I just got back from my father-in-law's place who just got a brand new 1080p lcd, and I didn't really like the look of movies on it either. They seemed too clear like you describe. It thought it was great for sports, but movies just didn't look real or film like. You may want to consider trading your tv for a plasma if you are looking for a more realistic, film like look. HD DVD on plasma looks great, IMO.

DO NOT WATCH MATRIX!!!!! Me and my ex was watching it and she said "Morpheus face in HD is not something i wanna see ever again"

I'm very new to HD, just replaced an old 27" CRT with a 1080P 42" LCD and got the cable HD feeds, I don't have any sort of HD player, just a regular DVD player and I'm wondering the wisdom of getting a HD player because I worry I can see too much detail in HD movies, preferring the look of regular DVDs for movies.

I watched some of a Men in Black movie on 1080i cable, and was very much put off by seeing every wrinkle and skin pore on Tommy Lee Jones's face and even the makeup on his face - which I never used to see before. Then on a trip to Target I saw one of those displays where they have half the screen standard DVD , half HDM (bluray I think), showing Pirates of the Carribean, and once again I think I preferred the standard DVD version, the high resolution on the HDM side made some of the effects look less realistic in my opinion and distracted from the viewing experience. Maybe I'm odd but I think especially for movies that maybe we need less resolution than HD, or at least for the studios to maybe introduce a lot more softening for many scenes, maybe they are still coming to grips with shooting for this media.

On the other hand, I just love HD for sports - NFL never looked better and definitaly makes it worth the upgrade to HD. I'm just wondering if other movie buffs prefer standard DVD to HDMs? Also if this is putting me off getting a HDM player, maybe it is others too...


Too much detail? You evil anti HD person:D I kid, but you do have a point. I was watching one of those early morning shows that are broadcast in HD, can't remember which one. Anyway, it looked as if one of the hosts had a blurring effect applied to her face, where as the rest of the people on the show looked fine. It got me to wondering if this was done on purpose. Perhaps she was so scared of viewers seeing how she truly looked she asked for this. If this is true, how do these people walk around in true hi definition...real life?

Aw, come on. :p HD just means that the cosmetic industry (including those who actually apply it to the stars) just need to step up their game to provide celebs with the HD flattering products they need. They'll either rise to the challenge or not. :D

Maybe it's the studios fault, and they have to change the way they shoot movies. I am involved in professional portrait photography and I know for adults that all the detail available from modern top line digital SLRs is definitely too much! The final image is always softened apart from the eyes. In fact what I've seen in HDM is that not only are the actor's faces not softened, they look like they are too well defined beyond reality - what we in the photography business call over-sharpened.

Maybe movies would look better on plasma versus LCD, but aren't most sales now LCD?
I just know that I was very open to being persuaded to buy a HDDVD or Bluray player but on the limited evidence of what I have seen so far I am put off upgrading from regular DVDs.

mcd13, don't put it off, it is truly worth it. Once you get past how some people can look, a movie in High Definition just makes a better movie...unless the movie sucks anyway:)

They aren't any more detailed than they are in theaters.

I too have noticed this. I was watching the HD presentation of The Hunt for Red October and never before noticed how poorly the ending scene looked. When they are traveling at night on the river, it can clearly be seen in the hd version that the backgrounds are fake. Took away some of the ending for me.

They aren't any more detailed than they are in theaters.

Actually they can be much more detailed. Depending on the theater, the resolution isn't much higher than it is on a 1080 set. This is going by screen size and seating distance taken into account.

They aren't any more detailed than they are in theaters.

I was wondering that exact point. So why do they look better at the movies? Is it because the nature of the display being projection based soften the picture a bit? They are shining rays of light onto the screen instead of us seeing points of light?

I'm definitely not anti-HD and look forward to being persuaded, just letting you know my first perspective and why HDM might not be such an easy up-sell to average consumers if for some movie fans it looks worse than regular DVD.

Maybe your contrast is too high?

I have a 84" image via a LCD front-projector, and at that size I appreciate every bit of detail I can get. If you taking in something like KING KONG or TRANSFORMERS with a lot of complex wide-shots in motion, it's a thrill to see them hold their focus as they cut between close-up and panorama (ya don't get that with SD)

Actually they can be much more detailed. Depending on the theater, the resolution isn't much higher than it is on a 1080 set. This is going by screen size and seating distance taken into account.

Okay, they aren't any more detailed than they are in good theaters.

Yes, many theaters are crappy and don't have the focus set right, and the picture is softened some by gate weave, but a good theater should have better projectors (or even DLP) more competently operated which cause the movies to look more detailed.

Cmon. Once you go HD DVD, you won't wanna go back to regular DVD.

Okay, they aren't any more detailed than they are in good theaters.

Yes, many theaters are crappy and don't have the focus set right, and the picture is softened some by gate weave, but a good theater should have better projectors (or even DLP) more competently operated which cause the movies to look more detailed.

All things being equal SirDrexl you are right, but how many of these theaters are set up right? How many home theaters are set up right for that matter. Many of these higher resolution theaters are just starting to come online. Here is my thinking...Rough guess, these new theaters have 4000x2000 resolution on a 30 foot or larger screen? At closest seating distance, maybe 20-30 ft from the screen? Now you have 1920x1080 on a 50" screen with a seating distance of 7 ft. Smaller pixels, less space, I would still give the nod of overall clarity to the home theater setup. Perhaps what is causing this effect at the theater is the brightness being higher at home?

HA! You sound like my lady!

She hated seeing Julia Robert's face in CLOSER. It sort of blew her image of her.

The thing is, that 1080i TV you were viewing on was probably actually only at 1366x768 resolution, but just downscaling the image. Some 1080i TVs, and all 1080p TVs are at 1920x1080! Now there is where you see the lines, pits, and zits!

My previous TV was 1080p, and I actually prefer the slightly lower resolution at times, because 1080p can actually feel too sharp. You can always lower the sharpness, though. I'm pretty much OK with the resolution on my set, except that I can see edges on some text in games, and I hate that.

Something about the way LCDs tend to do contrast and color also makes things like facial blemishes "pop" more. It's just something I've noticed.

Recall some discussion in a cinematography forum for the new RED digital camera, a moderately priced system suitable for independent movie production. Some of the discussion dealt with using the RED's 4k mode--more than double 1080i/p resolution--for outdoor vistas with great detail, but switching to 2k or less settings for closeups. Seems like a clever adaption of digital movie production, permitting maximum crispness where it's useful, but helping ease heavy filtering or makeup for other scenes.

I've been watching HD mostly from cable and on a 64" 9"-gun CRT RPTV since mid-2000 and have always hoped for greater detail, not less. I agree with estimates that movies delivered by 1080 HDTV is quite limited in resolvable detail--typically only 800--1100 equivalent lines maximum of effective horizontal resolution (detailed in quotes/sublinks (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9314235&&#post9314235)). Yes, the format is 1920X1080, but at the same time--as outlined (http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=2118466#post2118466) earlier regarding displays--resolvable details after deliberate movie camera filtering and other processing could be limited to 800 lines of equivalent image details per HD picture width (16X9). Exceptionally detailed scenes within some productions might reach 1100 equivalent lines, and non-sampled computer-developed scenes 1300 lines. Whether or by how much HD discs exceed these earlier spectrum analysis measurements (for ~270-Mbps master tapes) haven't appeared yet AFAIK. A study by a United Nations' group several years ago, outlined by consultant Matt Cowan in this paper (http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf) and a later SMPTE article, concluded that typical movie theater on-screen resolution was similar to that of 720p HD; (page 8 table requires converting lines/PH to lines/PW). -- John

pr0n? ;)

P.S. Some people said the same thing when DVD came out.

P.P.S. Film has higher "resolution" than HD (mediocre quality prints notwithstanding).

I have read that many of the actors feel the same way....they do not want every pore or blemish so distinctly visible either!

I still remember the first time I watch Two And A Half Men in HD after finally relagating my 27" CRT to the basement. I said to my wife "man, Charlie Sheen has really aged a lot since last season". Then I realized that this perception was due to me seeing him on a larger screen in HD versus any real change in Mr. Sheen. On the smaller screen with 480i he kind of seemed like he had never aged since the 1980s. Of course he has and looks great for his age; just not 24!

I have noticed make up on some actors on some of the prime time shows that I watch. This I find kind of distracting. I would never want to go back to SD though...

I can't judge HDM at this time as I don't have either format at home at this point.

Not another thread...

...reason #487 why HDM could fail ;)

But this is a valid concern. In many/most cases, the film-look directors want does not entail nth degree detail- look at the techniques of soft focus, high grain, etc.

Also, filmography techniques have taken into account the relatively low resolution image chain, from the mass production of theatrical prints, to taverage lens and screen design in multiplex cinemas, which have been quoted as projecting only about 700 lines of resolution, far lower than HDM capability.

I have sometimes been surprised at how some performers look in HD, but that has never actually disturbed me. However, some special effects which I thought were amazing on SD no longer always look so great or believable at 1080p resolution, and at times that has bothered me just a bit. Still, I hope never to go back to SD.

Milla Jojovich's face was purposely treated in the film. it was evident to my whole group. Not so for the other actors, but in every close up, it appeared that she was airbrushed. I wondered if actors are getting this added to contracts to cover up blemishes, etc.

Edit: I meant Resident Evil: Extinction (sorry)

Apparently none of you have ever seen anyone in real life.

Apparently none of you have ever seen anyone in real life.

Last time I saw a man in real life so obviously wearing a load of makeup I quickly realized I was in the wrong type of bar LOL

DO NOT WATCH MATRIX!!!!! Me and my ex was watching it and she said "Morpheus face in HD is not something i wanna see ever again"

Are you kidding, Laurence Fishburne's face in HD is where it's at. Seriously, it is reference material, whether The Matrix Trilogy or MI:3.

Really? The problem is that the picture is now TOO CRYSTAL CLEAR??

Its like having too much money. Sometimes "problems" aren't really problems.

They aren't any more detailed than they are in theaters.
Thank you. I can't believe it took half a' page for someone to say this.

I'm very new to HD, just replaced an old 27" CRT with a 1080P 42" LCD and got the cable HD feeds, I don't have any sort of HD player, just a regular DVD player and I'm wondering the wisdom of getting a HD player because I worry I can see too much detail in HD movies, preferring the look of regular DVDs for movies.

I watched some of a Men in Black movie on 1080i cable, and was very much put off by seeing every wrinkle and skin pore on Tommy Lee Jones's face and even the makeup on his face - which I never used to see before. Then on a trip to Target I saw one of those displays where they have half the screen standard DVD , half HDM (bluray I think), showing Pirates of the Carribean, and once again I think I preferred the standard DVD version, the high resolution on the HDM side made some of the effects look less realistic in my opinion and distracted from the viewing experience. Maybe I'm odd but I think especially for movies that maybe we need less resolution than HD, or at least for the studios to maybe introduce a lot more softening for many scenes, maybe they are still coming to grips with shooting for this media.

On the other hand, I just love HD for sports - NFL never looked better and definitaly makes it worth the upgrade to HD. I'm just wondering if other movie buffs prefer standard DVD to HDMs? Also if this is putting me off getting a HDM player, maybe it is others too...

Less resolution than HD? Tell you what - I'll give you my old crt and you can enjoy blurry displays, color irregularities and all the other wonderful features that such sets offer while the rest of us move on to bigger and better options such as HD, ok?

Sigh, this is the same mindset of owning a low quality audio system so you don't hear how bad some recordings can be. The image on an HD-DVD/BD is much closer to the actual film image than DVD, that's what any enthusiast should want.

Some interesting thoughts and comments.

If I find my first impression of HDM to be bad compared to SD DVD that's a fact and influences my buying decisions, obviously a subjective element comes into it and it's not just about pixels and lines of resolution and all the tech stuff. To go back to the photographic analogy, when producing portraits with current digital SLRs they have to be softened otherwise the high detail usually makes people look awful - worse than reality. This isn't the fault of the technology I think, sports look great at 1080p, more the fault of current movie making practices. When I saw MIB at the movies I don't remember seeing Tommy Lee Jones's makeup like I do when I see it on my HD TV, whatever the technical arguments - and judging from other people's responses I'm not the only one to notice the difference.

They aren't any more detailed than they are in theaters.


Thank you. I can't believe it took half a' page for someone to say this.

I hate "spec talk" when it doesn't translate to reality in real life.

I think that what people are seeing in this thread is proving the TVs "aren't any more detailed than in the theaters" statement wrong.

Movie theaters may be able to play back a certain resolution, but the typical theater hardly produces as sharp of an image. Maybe its the lenses they are using, or that the image is blown up so big, I don't know. The fact that the theaters don't show as much detail is evident whenever I go to see a movie these days. I see a bit more detail at home, and I'm only at 768p. When I viewed at 1080p on my old set, I have to agree with what someone else said on here: even some special effects looked fake, and I could see make-up on actors' faces.

I don't notice those things in the theater. Something more than resolution specs is at play here. Obviously, others agree, or threads like this wouldn't exist.

I can see the makeup being distracting (I've yet to notice that yet), but as far as pores and facial blemishes go, that's what real people look like.




Apparently none of you have ever seen anyone in real life.

Sigh, this is the same mindset of owning a low quality audio system so you don't hear how bad some recordings can be. The image on an HD-DVD/BD is much closer to the actual film image than DVD, that's what any enthusiast should want.


Exactly ! And yes decent film presentations should reveal the same issues the OP stated not just HD.

All Hail detail !!!!

Art

High Definition.

Magnifies the good and the bad in a film.

The OP has a point.

I too find myself often distracted when I watch HD TV shows. I see make-up where I never noticed it, notice all the wrinkles, the tired eyes etc. You often enough see things in HD that you are not supposed to see. The actress had an early call, was up late, she's got shrivelled bags under her eyes, the make-up girl did her best to cover it and in SD it used to work; now in HD you see the tiredness AND the artificial attempt to cover it up. You notice what you aren't supposed to notice. And it can jar you out of the story.

So as much as the increased detail in HD can add to the viewing experience, it can also
distract from the viewing experience. Of course, some species of videophile find even the details of make-up and wrinkles to be nirvana as they are addicted to "detail, detail..." in the same way as some audiophiles are addicted to "give me more detail, more detail" as an objective, vs concentrating on the music (or the drama).

I love detail too. I just recognize it hasn't come without a price, with HD.

Some folks have pointed out that film is super detailed too, so why complain about HD?

I'd say the reason is because HD, even HD films, often look quite different on many people's display than they do in the theater. I'm not simply talking about the sharpness
being cranked on a display. But most people aren't using projectors; they are using LCDs (like the OP), Plasmas and digital RPTVs. These displays tend to play material at MUCH greater brightness levels than film in any theater. When you pump up brightness, it changes the image - tends to make it look sharper and more vivid - brings out more detail than dimmer images. So the details that would be visible, but sedate in the theater are made more vivid , harder to ignore, on people's bright new HD screens.

And most displays now do much higher contrast than you see in actual commercial movie theaters. Again...increasing perceived sharpness and vividness and the appearance of "detail."

And the smaller size of the image tends to increase sharpness too.

So I think there are many good reasons why people are seeing things to distract them on their HD displays, where they never were before with SD tv or with film in a theater.

It sounds to me like you don't really like the look of movies on your lcd tv. I am a plasma biased owner, but I just got back from my father-in-law's place who just got a brand new 1080p lcd, and I didn't really like the look of movies on it either. They seemed too clear like you describe. It thought it was great for sports, but movies just didn't look real or film like. You may want to consider trading your tv for a plasma if you are looking for a more realistic, film like look. HD DVD on plasma looks great, IMO.
Try turning off the television's image enhancement, if you can. Turning OFF all the image enhancement processing can make a huge improvement in picture (at least, it does on my friend's Sony Bravia LCD). The processing generally tries to exaggerate saturated colors, but the effect is non-linear and I find that it can make some colors that can appear in skin tones look blotchy.

I can see the makeup being distracting (I've yet to notice that yet), but as far as pores and facial blemishes go, that's what real people look like.

But do we look at people the same way in real life as we do in movies? Movies just don't look like real life and we don't interact with movies the same way we interact with real life.

I think we're much more tuned visually to a movie, while in real life we have all senses working in all directions. Also, we're thinking about our part in the real-life interaction, having much less focus on the individuals with which we interact. Just MHO.

Heh. You think that's bad, beware of the pancake makeup and spackle used in Star Trek TOS.... holy cow!

I truly hope you are in the minority, I can't get enough detail! :)

There's still a long way to go with the quality of HD transfers on Blu and HD-DVD... there's still more detail to be had!

Studios just have to get off their asses and start making the transfers look good on a top quality front projection system. Too often they use dinky little monitors that don't expose problems with the transfers they are doing. Only when we blow them up on large screens do the deficiencies come through.

Dan

I'm sure the individual frames of a film have more resolution than HD, but take those frames and whip them through a mechanical projector at a hundred feet per minute and then project them through the air from one end of the theater to the other and the image has to soften considerably.

It would be the ultimate irony if, after everyone finally adopts HD, directors started switching to soft-focus lenses to make their movies look more film-like.

I'm very new to HD, just replaced an old 27" CRT with a 1080P 42" LCD and got the cable HD feeds, I don't have any sort of HD player, just a regular DVD player and I'm wondering the wisdom of getting a HD player because I worry I can see too much detail in HD movies, preferring the look of regular DVDs for movies.

I watched some of a Men in Black movie on 1080i cable, and was very much put off by seeing every wrinkle and skin pore on Tommy Lee Jones's face and even the makeup on his face - which I never used to see before. Then on a trip to Target I saw one of those displays where they have half the screen standard DVD , half HDM (bluray I think), showing Pirates of the Carribean, and once again I think I preferred the standard DVD version, the high resolution on the HDM side made some of the effects look less realistic in my opinion and distracted from the viewing experience. Maybe I'm odd but I think especially for movies that maybe we need less resolution than HD, or at least for the studios to maybe introduce a lot more softening for many scenes, maybe they are still coming to grips with shooting for this media.

On the other hand, I just love HD for sports - NFL never looked better and definitaly makes it worth the upgrade to HD. I'm just wondering if other movie buffs prefer standard DVD to HDMs? Also if this is putting me off getting a HDM player, maybe it is others too...

I think your arguement is flawed. Akin to not getting glasses because you don't want to see better. However, with HD DVD you can always reduce the detail by backing down on the sharpness and or contrast.

If we merged this thread with the threads that claim the difference between SD DVD and HDM is nominal at best and can't be seen at worst, would the forum explode?

PS - IMHO, Tommy Lee Jones' face is not the standard by which the quality of HDM should be judged. ;)

OP, you might consider applying wax paper to your display. You wouldn't have to worry about seeing too much detail ever again.

Something about the way LCDs tend to do contrast and color also makes things like facial blemishes "pop" more. It's just something I've noticed.

Facial blemishes... pop? Blech! ;)

[QUOTE=Baccusboy;12333422]
I go to see a movie these days. I see a bit more detail at home, and I'm only at 768p. When I viewed at 1080p on my old set, I have to agree with what someone else said on here: even some special effects looked fake, and I could see make-up on actors' faces.
QUOTE]

On other thread, I remember reading a research says tipical movie thread has resolution like ~1280 x 1024 much lower than (1920 x 1080).

I hate "spec talk" when it doesn't translate to reality in real life.

I think that what people are seeing in this thread is proving the TVs "aren't any more detailed than in the theaters" statement wrong.

Movie theaters may be able to play back a certain resolution, but the typical theater hardly produces as sharp of an image. Maybe its the lenses they are using, or that the image is blown up so big, I don't know. The fact that the theaters don't show as much detail is evident whenever I go to see a movie these days. I see a bit more detail at home, and I'm only at 768p. When I viewed at 1080p on my old set, I have to agree with what someone else said on here: even some special effects looked fake, and I could see make-up on actors' faces.

I don't notice those things in the theater. Something more than resolution specs is at play here. Obviously, others agree, or threads like this wouldn't exist.

You obviously aren't watching films in commercial DLP (which is at least 2040 x 1080 using those $100k+ Christie DLP projectors), let alone movies filmed digitally shown in commercial DLP. Then you would notice these things.

Are you kidding, Laurence Fishburne's face in HD is where it's at. Seriously, it is reference material, whether The Matrix Trilogy or MI:3.

Actually, I do not think he was kidding. I have not seen the *HDDVD* version of the matrix, but the crap that they showed on national tv over the weekend was terrible.

My wife had the same reaction, it was hard to look at him in certain scenes. Also, the scene where they are hiding from the machines in the sewer after neo first comes on the ship, is the worst HD transfer of a movie I have ever seen. I think they fade to black on Tank, and there was so much macroblocking that it looked like he was framed in pinkish-grey.

So I think alot of it depends on the source of the material. My cable system does Fibre to the Home and I know that they do not compress the signal, but the matrix was obviously upconverted instead of the HDDVD version.

MarkS

If your new LCD isn't calibrated, you could also be seeing the normal factory setting of "way too bright" which would also account for some of the "too much detail".

Aw, come on. :p HD just means that the cosmetic industry (including those who actually apply it to the stars) just need to step up their game to provide celebs with the HD flattering products they need. They'll either rise to the challenge or not. :D

+1

Reminds me of a qoute from the great radio tiki experience...

"How can you have too much cleevage? That's like saying 'there's too much air' or, 'this food is too delicious!' "

That's how I feel about HD. ^_^

I wonder how much all these complaints are influenced by display technology and/or improperly calibrated displays with whacked out gamma, color, and contrast settings.

i would be interested to know how many of those complaining have directview lcd tvs, which i would think would be more likely to produce this effect.... vs. how many are using crt or lcos.... also calibrated vs. uncalibrated.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about what looks best, but I would hope everyone appreciates more detail in our sources.

You can always remove detail with the sharpness control on your TV if you think there's too much, but there's no way to add it back if studios take it out at the discs level.

I too have noticed this. I was watching the HD presentation of The Hunt for Red October and never before noticed how poorly the ending scene looked. When they are traveling at night on the river, it can clearly be seen in the hd version that the backgrounds are fake. Took away some of the ending for me.

You mean movies aren't REAL?:eek:

Really? The problem is that the picture is now TOO CRYSTAL CLEAR??

Its like having too much money. Sometimes "problems" aren't really problems.

"Honey, this steak tastes too good!"

LOL. Do we need to notify the movie houses that they need to put a message on the disk cases....something like that found on CD cases

"Because of its high resolution, this HD format can reveal limitations of the source tape"

J Lo looked damn sexy on Leno in hd on my 90 inch projection.:)

My wife had the same reaction, it was hard to look at him in certain scenes. Also, the scene where they are hiding from the machines in the sewer after neo first comes on the ship, is the worst HD transfer of a movie I have ever seen. I think they fade to black on Tank, and there was so much macroblocking that it looked like he was framed in pinkish-grey.
So I think alot of it depends on the source of the material. My cable system does Fibre to the Home and I know that they do not compress the signal, but the matrix was obviously upconverted instead of the HDDVD version.
MarkS
All HD you (= consumer) will see is compressed. Overcompression is not a transfer's fault but the broadcaster's decision. And if the Matrix were upconverted on your 'HD' channel you will less likely see blocking as there is only SD detail to compress.

Here is my thinking...Rough guess, these new theaters have 4000x2000 resolution on a 30 foot or larger screen?
Only if they have installed a 4K digital projector and show real 4K material (e.g. 70mm sourced or digital 4K cameras). Your typical 35mm looks a lot closer to 2K than 4K.

Only if they have installed a 4K digital projector and show real 4K material (e.g. 70mm sourced or digital 4K cameras). Your typical 35mm looks a lot closer to 2K than 4K.

Thanks for the info mhafner. If this is the norm for movie theater viewing, I would suspect that a movie would appear much sharper on your average HT setup. When I go to the movies it seems (at least to me) to be significantly less detailed then when I watch at home. I always end up leaving thinking that "I can't wait to see this on my TV".

I'm very new to HD, just replaced an old 27" CRT with a 1080P 42" LCD and got the cable HD feeds, I don't have any sort of HD player, just a regular DVD player and I'm wondering the wisdom of getting a HD player because I worry I can see too much detail in HD movies, preferring the look of regular DVDs for movies.

I watched some of a Men in Black movie on 1080i cable, and was very much put off by seeing every wrinkle and skin pore on Tommy Lee Jones's face and even the makeup on his face - which I never used to see before. Then on a trip to Target I saw one of those displays where they have half the screen standard DVD , half HDM (bluray I think), showing Pirates of the Carribean, and once again I think I preferred the standard DVD version, the high resolution on the HDM side made some of the effects look less realistic in my opinion and distracted from the viewing experience. Maybe I'm odd but I think especially for movies that maybe we need less resolution than HD, or at least for the studios to maybe introduce a lot more softening for many scenes, maybe they are still coming to grips with shooting for this media.

On the other hand, I just love HD for sports - NFL never looked better and definitaly makes it worth the upgrade to HD. I'm just wondering if other movie buffs prefer standard DVD to HDMs? Also if this is putting me off getting a HDM player, maybe it is others too...

I’m in my 50’s and would not want to go back SD, but when I was looking at myself shaving in the mirror this morning I was thinking the same thing maybe if I was in 480I, I would look 30 again! Or maybe I need my mirror properly calibrated and a softening control installed:D

I’m in my 50’s and would not want to go back SD, but when I was looking at myself shaving in the mirror this morning I was thinking the same thing maybe if I was in 480I, I would look 30 again! Or maybe I need my mirror properly calibrated and a softening control installed:D

;)

Faces on LCD look very different than on plasma. I always thought they look kind of smeared on even the best LCD.

Sometimes in winter, I look out the window and hope that the snow would be replaced by sunshine, but given that that's what winter looks like, I figure it's better to see the real snow and dress appropriately than to step out and get whacked by a blizzard in my T-shirt.

...when I was looking at myself shaving in the mirror this morning I was thinking ... maybe if I was in 480I, I would look 30 again!..

Too damn funny!!

I see actors and actresses in close ups in HD and it makes me feel a lot better.

Looking at the replies on this thread and other similar threads it looks like some people are totally missing the point I was trying to make in my original post. I'm not saying HD is bad or that HDM is not the way of the future or that I want less resolution, what I'm saying is that a lot of the current movie source material looks worse on HD than SD, especially if you like movies (and that may slow down uptake of HDM). That is the fault of the source material rather than the technology. If MIB looks worse to me on HDM than SD then that's a problem, I wish they'd made MIB better so that I couldnt see makeup on TLJ's face in HD but they didn't.

It's like putting Ford Focus tires on a Ferrari. What good is the Ferrari (HDM) if most of the tires (source material) you can put on it are designed for a Ford Focus?

(And for all the smart aleks who say tone down the sharpness/resolution on the screen that's hardly going to encourage me to buy a HDM player is it?)

Sharpness =/= resolution.

Sharpness =/= resolution.

I know, but someone suggested putting grease paper over the screen, think that might change the perceived resolution :)

I know, but someone suggested putting grease paper over the screen, think that might change the perceived resolution :)


I certainly wouldn't advocate that! :eek: :)

I guess perked up on the mention of sharpness settings because, on my display, knocking sharpness down noticeably improved the image quality. Like on many displays, the factory sharpness setting caused significant edge artifacts... these disappeared (unless the problem was the source material) once sharpness was dialed back.

You probably don't sit this close in a theater as you do in the home anyway. Sitting X times screen width, nope, wherever I can get a good seat in the multiplex, away from the kiddies. Plus, the natural inclination to get up and walk to it; see it up close to ensure your HD dollars are well spent, IMHO.

It's not the picture that has too much resolution, it's that darn multi-channel lossless audio that's way too detailed. My wife keeps on making me pause movies because she thinks someone outside is scratching on the window, the phone is ringing, the creaking sound that seems to be coming from the other room must be investigated, or someone is at the door.

We never had any of these problems while listening through the 3" mono speaker built into the old 24" tube TV!

It's not the picture that has too much resolution, it's that darn multi-channel lossless audio that's way too detailed. My wife keeps on making me pause movies because she thinks someone outside is scratching on the window, the phone is ringing, the creaking sound that seems to be coming from the other room must be investigated, or someone is at the door.

We never had any of these problems while listening through the 3" mono speaker built into the old 24" tube TV!

That is so true, even with DD. I can't count the times I've been watching a movie with my wife, hear something strange and ask "What the hell was that?"

That is so true, even with DD. I can't count the times I've been watching a movie with my wife, hear something strange and ask "What the hell was that?"

:D - When I watch movies - I put both my cell and land line phones on the coffee table - just to verify they are OFF