Its not just the cost the player for an HTPC at this point. $300 for the LG drive, 3-500 for the Additional Hard drive storage at this point, need to get a HDCP compliant card ($100 - not a biggy though), PowerDVD HD version (another $100). It adds up quick. I could get a standalone for less... but then I lose that convenience factor. HD cable on demand and regular DVDs will tide me over for now. Its not like I don't have any HD at all right now.

You'd likely be using the actual discs rather than ISO's with HDM. 15-50GB per movie would simply make ISO storage prohibitive. So if it were me I would not plan on upgrading storage to store HD ISO's for quite some time. So for $500 you'd have a hybrid HD DVD/BD player. Certainly cheaper than any hybrid standalone player.

I think on-demand or downloads will eventually become dominant. However, that won't be in the next 3 years, which is the window for adoption of these optical formats.

Furthermore, one thing missing with on-demand / downloads is extras. The execs from various companies have already told us that consumers actually do like extras, and in fact they use extras partially to combat piracy (since pirated content never has extras). Sure, on-demand / downloads can eventually get better extras... but again, it ain't gonna be in the next 3 years.

I think you over value the extras and underestimate the viability of online HD content.. It is already available with my local comcast and has been for the last 18 months.

My apologies to the cinemaphotographer, but I don't consider cuckoo's nest a great visual movie, it is a great acting and directing movie. How does seeing more detail in the faucet that the indian picks ups really adding to the experience. If you are fixated on rewatching it to see how much more detail the shock equipment is on this film, then IMO you are missing the point of this movie.

Some movies like 2001 and Logan's Run were designed with visual's in mind. Even modern flicks are like that. About Schmidt, would you really get anymore out of it because the RV he is driving is more detailed. But the new King Kong is actually more about visuals than story if you ask me so HD is definitely a must.

Lets say you feel transformers is 100% overall better in HD. and oh lets say Schmidt is 10% better overall in HD. Is 10% really all that measurable of a difference?

To some that 10% makes all the difference. As others have stated film is a visual media and the extra detail and more accurate color help to bring us into the illusion the film intends to create. If you don't appreciate that or feel that way, then don't update a film that you don't feel benefits from HDM. To those of us that appreciate this, we'll continue to look forward to each new HD release.

You'd likely be using the actual discs rather than ISO's with HDM. 15-50GB per movie would simply make ISO storage prohibitive. So if it were me I would not plan on upgrading storage to store HD ISO's for quite some time. So for $500 you'd have a hybrid HD DVD/BD player. Certainly cheaper than any hybrid standalone player.


Fitting 40 HD movies on a 1TB drive really isn't all that bad. I remember just a year or 2 ago, 1TB was unfathomable . 10TB is probably only about 3-4 years away. storage continues to increase every year. on 4 $100 500GB hard drives you could fit 160 HD movies at 25Gb a copy.

I think you over value the extras and underestimate the viability of online HD content.. It is already available with my local comcast and has been for the last 18 months.
It's not me claiming the value of the extras. It's the VPs of the Warner Home Video and Universal. According to their surveys, a significant chunk of people watch a significant amount of the extras, even when they just rent the discs.

Furthermore, for certain titles, the special edition versions often may sell nearly as well as the cheaper non special edition version, even when they're released at the same time.

But yeah, I'm also one of those people who very much likes to have the extras.

Fitting 40 HD movies on a 1TB drive really isn't all that bad. I remember just a year or 2 ago, 1TB was unfathomable . 10TB is probably only about 3-4 years away. storage continues to increase every year. on 4 $100 500GB hard drives you could fit 160 HD movies at 25Gb a copy.

Oh I'm well aware of storage prices and their evolution. My point is that the storage expense for what amounts to a convenience just isn't necessary. You can put the disc in the optical drive until storage prices hit a level your comfortable with. And your standalone comment failed to recognize that you are getting a player that will play both types of medium. The hybrid players are $700 or more last time I checked.

This is off-topic as well but I have a problem with movies made prior to the '80s having "surround sound" of any kind added to them. They were never intended to have it in the first place so it's just unnecessary IMO. I've noticed this particularly on the old James Bond movies. I realize that if surround was available at the time the filmmakers would have certainly taken advantage of it as the Bond films have always had state of the art special effects (except for when that tarantula was obviously crawling on a piece of glass placed on Sean Connery's arm - I mean you could actually see the imprint the glass made on his upper arm where he was pressing against it!) but I've always thought putting surround on old movies was a huge waste.

Join with me in my boycott of Earthquake, Midway, and Rollercoaster until all home theaters are equipped with Sensurround speakers!

>>This is off-topic as well but I have a problem with movies made prior to the '80s having "surround sound" of any kind added to them. They were never intended to have it in the first place so it's just unnecessary IMO.<<

Wanna bet? Surround Sound for films has been with us since Fantasia. For 'general release' it started with Cinemascope. Movies like "How To Marry A Millionaire" and "The Robe" have AWSOME surround tracks - as does "Around The World In 80 Days", which, BTW, if you use "Ex" to decode the surrounds you get the orignal 3-track Modified Perspecta surround sound. The Towering Inferno is also a great surround film, as was Airport, before MCA "mono'ed' it on their Widescreen DVD release.

BTW, EARTHQUAKE was released in 4-track Magnetic Stereo. In SENSURROUND equipped theaters the 'surround' mag track was not used and the Sensurround box controlled the surrounds. All later Sensurround films were mono optical Sensurround and had full surround tracks via the Sensurround process - at the time, MCA was trying to sell Sensurround as an alternative to Dolby Stereo. After Eartquake, Sensurround used dbx Noise Reduction which gave it a 90db SN, so they were selling it as a general audio format AND Special Effects System.

Oh I'm well aware of storage prices and their evolution. My point is that the storage expense for what amounts to a convenience just isn't necessary. You can put the disc in the optical drive until storage prices hit a level your comfortable with. And your standalone comment failed to recognize that you are getting a player that will play both types of medium. The hybrid players are $700 or more last time I checked.

but I don't think $700 is worth it at this time. You could get an HD DVd for <$200 and a blu-ray player for $300 if you really want to cover both bases. It would probably be a better choice to go with just the HD DVD at this point price wise as you are apparrently getting 5 disks free with it.

But like I said.. convenience means alot to me. PQ is very important to me, but an upscaled DVD software on HTPC is much better than what most people's DVD players can do. It is also much better than what most HD players can do. I am not saying it adds content, but it does make DVD very watchable at 92" on my 720p projector. In my case, There will not be as much of a difference as most people see. Its not like you are going to watch the cuckoos next and say, "OMG, the sink that the indian through was xxxx brand? It makes all the difference in the movie" It is still the same movie... just a little sharper. and more texture. DVDs still have texture.. It is not like we are dealing with IBM PCjr CGA CRT display versus 1440p LCD display looking at still text and lines. We are looking at moving grainy objects. If DVDs were that bad, They would have never been able to sell as many home theater projectors, projection TVs or Plasma TVs as they did over the last 7 years. OMG, it seems like half the people here used to own an infocus 4805 and that was only 480p.

DVD is still very good quality.. HD DVD is just better. I just don't think HD is really all that much of an upgrade for some movies.

>>This is off-topic as well but I have a problem with movies made prior to the '80s having "surround sound" of any kind added to them. They were never intended to have it in the first place so it's just unnecessary IMO.<<

Wanna bet? Surround Sound for films has been with us since Fantasia. For 'general release' it started with Cinemascope. Movies like "How To Marry A Millionaire" and "The Robe" have AWSOME surround tracks - as does "Around The World In 80 Days", which, BTW, if you use "Ex" to decode the surrounds you get the orignal 3-track Modified Perspecta surround sound. The Towering Inferno is also a great surround film, as was Airport, before MCA "mono'ed' it on their Widescreen DVD release.

BTW, EARTHQUAKE was released in 4-track Magnetic Stereo. In SENSURROUND equipped theaters the 'surround' mag track was not used and the Sensurround box controlled the surrounds. All later Sensurround films were mono optical Sensurround and had full surround tracks via the Sensurround process - at the time, MCA was trying to sell Sensurround as an alternative to Dolby Stereo. After Eartquake, Sensurround used dbx Noise Reduction which gave it a 90db SN, so they were selling it as a general audio format AND Special Effects System.

Wow.. you learn something every day.. I didn't realize they had surround back then.. did a search... apparrently started do this with Fantasia and called it fanta... something. Well Golly!

Also said that the problem was they could find a way to commercially put in theaters as it would cost too much.. very interesting.

Although I am happy with DTS/DDS 5.1 and have no interest in going any higher at this point. Once again... not enough of a difference for me.

Wow.. you learn something every day.. I didn't realize they had surround back then.. did a search... apparrently started do this with Fantasia and called it fanta... something. Well Golly!.

If nothing else, you have shown your ignorance on a great deal of film-related topics in this thread....


Although I am happy with DTS/DDS 5.1 and have no interest in going any higher at this point. Once again... not enough of a difference for me.

HOW DO YOU KNOW? Have you actually sat down and compared soundtracks? No, you haven't. So once again, you are making claims with no knowledge or experience to back it up. I'm starting to agree with Jgatie (post #216)....

but I don't think $700 is worth it at this time. You could get an HD DVd for <$200 and a blu-ray player for $300 if you really want to cover both bases. It would probably be a better choice to go with just the HD DVD at this point price wise as you are apparrently getting 5 disks free with it.

Well your cost for a drive+video card+software would be about $500, not $700 thus making it comparable to 2 decks or cheaper than a hybrid. The 5 movie deal is a good one. It would be a good way to get your feet wet no doubt.


But like I said.. convenience means alot to me. PQ is very important to me, but an upscaled DVD software on HTPC is much better than what most people's DVD players can do. It is also much better than what most HD players can do. I am not saying it adds content, but it does make DVD very watchable at 92" on my 720p projector.

720x480 is only going to look so good. At best you may see a slightly better picture than a good upconverting player. I've seen some very expensive video processors at work with SD DVD and while they do produce some improvements, they can't remove the limits inherit to the source. If PQ is important to you then you should waste no time in picking up an HD player and media.


In my case, There will not be as much of a difference as most people see. Its not like you are going to watch the cuckoos next and say, "OMG, the sink that the indian through was xxxx brand? It makes all the difference in the movie" It is still the same movie... just a little sharper. and more texture. DVDs still have texture.. It is not like we are dealing with IBM PCjr CGA CRT display versus 1440p LCD display looking at still text and lines. We are looking at moving grainy objects. If DVDs were that bad, They would have never been able to sell as many home theater projectors, projection TVs or Plasma TVs as they did over the last 7 years. OMG, it seems like half the people here used to own an infocus 4805 and that was only 480p.

DVD is still very good quality.. HD DVD is just better. I just don't think HD is really all that much of an upgrade for some movies.

Though that maybe true for you on some movies. I think you are deluding yourself thinking that DVD can compete with HD DVD / BD on your front projector. Find someone in your area willing to bring over their player. Then post back your findings.

Though Fantasia was the first multi-channel soundtracK - it played that way in a very limited amount of theaters.

Cinerama in 1952 brought 8 Track MC Stereo to the masses. (and also widescreen) This Is Cinerama was the highest grossing film of 1952. It offered 5 screen channels and 3 surround channels . . recorded on 35mm "full coat."

It differs in that HDM is in its infancy, and the hardware is cheap and the software format doesn't suffer all the practical problems that LD did (like humungous discs and constant flipping). LD was like vinyl in terms of its hassle factor, in a world where the convenience of CD was already firmly established.

Remember, in just a year and a half, HD DVD alone has already sold 3/4 of a million players in North America alone. That's pretty impressive, even if it's not as fast as some of us would want.

To put it in perspective, DVD launched in March 1998. By the end of December 1999, it had only sold 1.4 million players in the US of A, and that was the fastest adoption by any format in consumer electronics history.

It was March 1997, actually. I know because I laid down a cool $500 for a Toshiba that month. :)

If nothing else, you have shown your ignorance on a great deal of film-related topics in this thread....



HOW DO YOU KNOW? Have you actually sat down and compared soundtracks? No, you haven't. So once again, you are making claims with no knowledge or experience to back it up. I'm starting to agree with Jgatie (post #216)....

Man you are just downright rude aren't you? He was responding to someone else not knowing that. I didn't realize that either. I bet alot of people didn't.

S

But what is "the original source?"

It can't possibly be the Camera Negative because we NEVER see a print struck from that unless you go to an IMAX theater.

It HAS to be what we saw in the theater - which pales against the CN or the IP or the IN.

Once again - the resolution of film as we see it on the screen in a theater . . .

http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf

Yeah, what you said. (gotta' watch how I use such words as original source).

Also in reverence to the "original source", I will stop eating fresh popcorn with butter at home and replace it with stale popcorn topped with used motor oil, so I can better match the theater experience (better than saying original source? :).

Well your cost for a drive+video card+software would be about $500, not $700 thus making it comparable to 2 decks or cheaper than a hybrid. The 5 movie deal is a good one. It would be a good way to get your feet wet no doubt.



720x480 is only going to look so good. At best you may see a slightly better picture than a good upconverting player. I've seen some very expensive video processors at work with SD DVD and while they do produce some improvements, they can't remove the limits inherit to the source. If PQ is important to you then you should waste no time in picking up an HD player and media.



Though that maybe true for you on some movies. I think you are deluding yourself thinking that DVD can compete with HD DVD / BD on your front projector. Find someone in your area willing to bring over their player. Then post back your findings.

DARN YOU YOU GUYS AND THIS FORUM! You got me looking at HD again.... They have single blur-ray drive for 189 at newegg. Hm.. wonder if that dual format player comes with PowerDVD with HD playback.. the BD Rom does... Darn you all! rrrrrrrrr. my wallet is getting angry.

It was March 1997, actually. I know because I laid down a cool $500 for a Toshiba that month. :)
Yeah, sorry. The dates should have been March 1997 to the end of Dec. 1998 (instead of March 1998 to Dec. 1999). Either way though, the number is correct. Approximately 1.4 million players in the US during that time frame (1.x years), or closer to 1.6 million players if you include Canada.

In that context, 750000 players for HD DVD alone for North America in a similar time frame is actually a pretty good number, especially since that number doesn't even include December sales (which will be significant).

Yeah, what you said. (gotta' watch how I use such words as original source).

Also in reverence to the "original source", I will stop eating fresh popcorn with butter at home and replace it with stale popcorn topped with used motor oil, so I can better match the theater experience (better than saying original source? :).

You are using a theoritcal value attached to what has been published . . . but not seen.

DARN YOU YOU GUYS AND THIS FORUM! You got me looking at HD again.... They have single blur-ray drive for 189 at newegg. Hm.. wonder if that dual format player comes with PowerDVD with HD playback.. the BD Rom does... Darn you all! rrrrrrrrr. my wallet is getting angry.

LOL... I was reading the reviews on that dual format drive... the 3rd review said this, "But any way I got my Netflix membership rented a few Blu-ray and HD DVD movies, Hi-def cinema is nice, but some of the movies look only slightly better than regular dvd. " Yes ... I know already.. you going to say he probably only watches on a 480p TV or a 32" LCD TV.....

Still looks interesting though.. maybe I will upgrade sooner than 18 months. but definitely until after christmas. Just picked up two DS Lite Zelda bundles and about 5 games... got the Wii last year.

Someone please tell me this is a joke thread.

LOL... I was reading the reviews on that dual format drive... the 3rd review said this, "But any way I got my Netflix membership rented a few Blu-ray and HD DVD movies, Hi-def cinema is nice, but some of the movies look only slightly better than regular dvd. " Yes ... I know already.. you going to say he probably only watches on a 480p TV or a 32" LCD TV.....

He probably only watches on a 480p TV or a 32" LCD TV. :p

Someone please tell me this is a joke thread.

It is now....

Join with me in my boycott of Earthquake, Midway, and Rollercoaster until all home theaters are equipped with Sensurround speakers!

shakers... ;)

shakers... ;)

Better . . . D-Box:p

Better . . . D-Box:p

darn, trumped... :(

someday! :D

HD is crap, take it from me, i got the PS3 VHS adapter, and i have stopped watching Blu ray all together, i mean i cant tell the difference it all looks the same on my 9" RCA TV. Mind you i dont use COAX, i actually have it hook up via S-video, which is a hell of alot better ;)

HD is crap, take it from me, i got the PS3 VHS adapter, and i have stopped watching Blu ray all together, i mean i cant tell the difference it all looks the same on my 9" RCA TV. Mind you i dont use COAX, i actually have it hook up via S-video, which is a hell of alot better ;)

Don't you hate when people try to be funny and are not?

Let me ask this question then. What movies in HD have you been disappointed in?

There was one post on here that said 5th element on HD was not all that much better. And I don't mean extras. I could care less about extras.

Don't you hate when people try to be funny and are not?

Let me ask this question then. What movies in HD have you been disappointed in?

There was one post on here that said 5th element on HD was not all that much better. And I don't mean extras. I could care less about extras.

You are now discussing the transfer of a film. This opens up a whole new can of worms because it depends on so many variables . . . and the biggest is the condition of the film elements used for the actual transfer. Because film is Analog - each step away from the Camera Negative results in some loss of PQ. The farther away you get - the worse it gets.

Then there is the skill of the colorist because video - even HD can't replicate the color palet of film. So we have introduced human intervention.

Then we have the compressionest/encoder. A 120 minute HD movie takes up either 1 Terrabyte per hour or 1 Terrabyte for the whole movie ( can't remember which is correct) with zero compression. We are working with 30GB and 50GB media - a fraction of the size.

HDM is no different than DVD was in it's first 50 releases - there were quite a few stinkers in there because they did not have the experience working with a digital media and they tried to cut corners and use LD Masters to create DVD's - which looked poor at best.

You are trying IMO to label things with Black and White descriptions . . . but the things you are labeling are all in shades of Gray.

Don't you hate when people try to be funny and are not?

Let me ask this question then. What movies in HD have you been disappointed in?

There was one post on here that said 5th element on HD was not all that much better. And I don't mean extras. I could care less about extras.

The remaster of TFE element is amazing on Blu RAy. Not the mention the True hd track. TFE was intially released with the launch of blu ray and that presentation was not a great step up from the sd dvd. The remaster is an amazing upgrade. The problem with intial TFE was that the engineers needed time to hone their skill and get the most out of HDM. Also it used mpeg 2 copression which isn't as good as AVC in most cases. I realize from reading your earlier posts that you don't think lossles sound is better, but i found the difference between dd and a true hd or uncompressed pcm track to be night and day. If you keep telling yourself that HDM isn't a majpr step up in PQ and just as important AQ, maybe you can continiue to resist an upgrade. However, personally i can't watch sd dvd when i know there is something better out there.

Here is a review:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/fifthelement_remastered.html

You are now discussing the transfer of a film. This opens up a whole new can of worms because it depends on so many variables . . . and the biggest is the condition of the film elements used for the actual transfer. Because film is Analog - each step away from the Camera Negative results in some loss of PQ. The farther away you get - the worse it gets.

Then there is the skill of the colorist because video - even HD can't replicate the color palet of film. So we have introduced human intervention.

Then we have the compressionest/encoder. A 120 minute HD movie takes up either 1 Terrabyte per hour or 1 Terrabyte for the whole movie ( can't remember which is correct) with zero compression. We are working with 30GB and 50GB media - a fraction of the size.

HDM is no different than DVD was in it's first 50 releases - there were quite a few stinkers in there because they did not have the experience working with a digital media and they tried to cut corners and use LD Masters to create DVD's - which looked poor at best.

You are trying IMO to label things with Black and White descriptions . . . but the things you are labeling are all in shades of Gray.

Exactly, +1

LOL... I was reading the reviews on that dual format drive... the 3rd review said this, "But any way I got my Netflix membership rented a few Blu-ray and HD DVD movies, Hi-def cinema is nice, but some of the movies look only slightly better than regular dvd. " Yes ... I know already.. you going to say he probably only watches on a 480p TV or a 32" LCD TV.....

Still looks interesting though.. maybe I will upgrade sooner than 18 months. but definitely until after christmas. Just picked up two DS Lite Zelda bundles and about 5 games... got the Wii last year.

Well to be fair the display does have a huge factor. Distance, size, and resolution all have their part to play. The fact that you have a 92" 720p projection setup makes you a prime candidate for HD.

Thats a cool turntable. I love old time stuff like that. I picked up a an old fashioned kettle type popcorn maker from an old theater. It is by far the best addition to my home theater. There is nothing like the smell of real movie popcorn when a good mvie starts.

fer sher, fer sher!:D

It was March 1997, actually. I know because I laid down a cool $500 for a Toshiba that month. :)

Yep. I happened to be travelling in California and picked up my first movies there as DVD was being test marketed in several states- Cal was just one of those- and I didn't own a player yet. I got home and ordered a Pioneer DVD/LD player from crutchfield/

The remaster of TFE element is amazing on Blu RAy. Not the mention the True hd track. TFE was intially released with the launch of blu ray and that presentation was not a great step up from the sd dvd. The remaster is an amazing upgrade. The problem with intial TFE was that the engineers needed time to hone their skill and get the most out of HDM. Also it used mpeg 2 copression which isn't as good as AVC in most cases. I realize from reading your earlier posts that you don't think lossles sound is better, but i found the difference between dd and a true hd or uncompressed pcm track to be night and day. If you keep telling yourself that HDM isn't a majpr step up in PQ and just as important AQ, maybe you can continiue to resist an upgrade. However, personally i can't watch sd dvd when i know there is something better out there.

Here is a review:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/fifthelement_remastered.html


No, I understand the audio end of it which is probably what would sway me the most. You cant match straight feed without compression well except if it was true analog but that is another discussion. But again, there are some movies where it would matter to me. Do I need analyze that in pcm and HD. nope. I may be upgrading sooner than I thought though. They really have some good flicks coming out over the next few months.

Anyone know if you can still send the straight feed to a 5.1 system or do you need a 7.1 to get it?

A good movie experience is more than just the plot, characters and performances. Much like a great dining experience is more than just the food.

Take a gourmet dinner, shovel it into a Kentucky Fried chicken bucket, and eat it in a cafeteria. The food will still taste great.

Take that same gourmet dinner, have it properly arranged on some nice dinnerware in a fine dining establishment with beautiful lighting, live musical background, served by pleasant and helpful waiters and waitresses, and eat it with some great friends or significant other. Same food. Far greater experience.

Film is visual. It is more than just story and characters. There is lighting, shot composition, cinematography, costumes... if it was only story and character, we might as well just go back to listening to radio.

Movies don't have to be orgasmic spectacles to be enhanced by High Definition. I also believe that for people like me that bought projectors and screens, we didn't only buy them to experience Star Wars on a big screen. I know in my case that ever since I was a kid, I always dreamed of having a movie theater at home. I wanted to see ALL movies on a BIG screen in as high detail as possible. I want to get as close as possible to the theater experience as possible. So I want to see as close to a film-like experience as possible.

Take Citizen Kane, for example. For years, like the vast majority of people here, first saw it either on television, or on VHS. Then later, on DVD. The 50th anniversay restored DVD of Citizen Kane completely blows the VHS away.

Around the time the DVD of Citizen Kane was released, the film was also re-released to theaters. I was lucky enough to have seen it in a theater, and I thought it was positively orgasmic. Not even the DVD revealed the detail the film did. Not even close. I am positive that a High Def release of Citizen Kane would look absolutely fabulous.

This is such a ridiculous friggin thread.

1) If the OP has an opinion that he wants to keep away from HD for certain titles because it won't be like he originally viewed it.. then FINE. Let him be. Unfortunately he is not understanding that nostalgia is just that. Definied by something you are trying to recreate but will NEVER be able to recreate. You kettle corn machine will never bring you back to the day you left the movie theater from Star Wars: A new Hope. Period.

2) I think you also need to reverse the order in which you think about viewing sizes and resolutions. If you have the means, try this (I know it wouldn't be feasible though, but you'll get my point) Rent out 1 room at a quality movie theater. Instead of film, set up a projector (this would have to be a serious projector) that you could plug a VCR or DVD player into. Now watch your movie in 480i or 480p on a 25'-30' screen. the bottom line is you might throw up. It will look gross. Larger screens bring larger possibilities of seeing the compression issues, blurriness, etc..etc. It's like watching a video clip on youtube.com. In a 4x4 inch window, a movie trailer looks really nice. Click it to full screen and you almost can't make out what is going on because it is sooo compressed. Film is NOT compressed. It's film.

NOW, bring one of those projectors from the movie theater to your house and put THAT up on your 90" screen. Lets just say you are watching your fav, JAWS, on film. You will notice that the clarity in the picture is beyond HD.

Screen size is crucial. Alot of people say 1080p is the way to go. What about people with 37" 1080p screens? (not many I know) It's just too small to really notice that big of a difference. On the contrary, put it up in 144", and you have an entirely different opinion.

I had a friend who claimed that he couldn't see the difference in clarity between watching a DVD, and a HD-DVD. Well that is because he is watching it on his 19 INCH COMPUTER MONITOR. From a few feet back, of course you won't notice. He still has yet to see what a DVD looks like on a huge TV.

In my opinion, I can certainly notice the difference between watching a DVD and a HD-DVD on a large TV or projection. You can see the compression issues. I know upconversion cleans things up, but it can't transform it into what you would experience watching the same movie in HD.

You can sculpt a barrel of turds into Michelangelo's David, but it's still ******

No, I understand the audio end of it which is probably what would sway me the most. You cant match straight feed without compression well except if it was true analog but that is another discussion. But again, there are some movies where it would matter to me. Do I need analyze that in pcm and HD. nope. I may be upgrading sooner than I thought though. They really have some good flicks coming out over the next few months.

Anyone know if you can still send the straight feed to a 5.1 system or do you need a 7.1 to get it?

Not sure what you mean by that question. All but a few releases are 5.1. New line and Lionsgate seem to be the only studios supporting 7.1 tracks, and not all of them are. I have a 5.1 setup and absolutely love uncompressed pcm and dolby true hd bitstreamed to my onkyo 705. To me the audio upgrade with HDM is as good if not better then the visual upgrade. When you compare the uncompressed pcm on potc 1,2 or 3 to the dd you will understand. The deep bass and sustained ambient surrounds are spine tingling good. On the HD DVD side the true hd tracks on batman begins and the matrix are definitely worth the price of upgrading IMHO. You don't need to update your receiver either my A35 has analog outputs and can decoded true hd internally.

When I worked in Large Format projection, the screen was 5 stories tall - we also had a 35mm projector and a digital LCD (720P) projector. Because a print didn't show up on time one New Years Eve, we ended up using the digital projector and a DVD to show an N'Sync concert film (blech!). Boy, the picture was awful, and it was just a subset of the full screen. 35mm can't even fill the screen without looking INCREDIBLY soft and grainy. I got so used to 15/70 that everything else seemed 'wrong'.

BTW, I was a 15/70 projectionist at the iWerks Extreme Screen at Union Station in Kansas City, MO from November 1999 to July 2004. My partner still works as a projectionist there.

I recently watched the original Psycho on DVD. During the opening credits I was surprised to see streaks/scratches in the transfer. But I quickly became immersed in the movie and I honestly can't remember what the rest of the transfer looked like.

I now realize that if a movie is good I don't spend a lot of time visually processing it; it sort of just goes straight to my imagination. So I've decided to sit out HD until it is on par with DVD in terms of general consumer acceptance.

I do not get artifacts on my upscaler htpc.. it is top notch....

You must have a magic htpc, hurray!

You must have a magic htpc, hurray!

I don't. The only artifact that I ever see are on DVDs I reencoded. No reason to be rude about it though.

The digital TV system allows a higher resolution image broadcasting, raising the TV image quality a lot. However, to use the new resolutions allowed by digital television you need a high resolution TV set, known as HDTV (High Definition TeleVision).

Older analog TV sets can tune in digital broadcasting using a converter box, but they are limited to shows aired in the standard TV resolution of 480 lines using interlaced scanning (also known as 480i, see table below).

HDTV is a reality in developed countries and there you can watch some shows – even the whole progamming, in some channels – in higher resolution for those who have already HDTV sets. The resolution varies accordingly with the TV station. In the USA, for example, some HBO and CBS shows are aired in 1080i resolution, while the format used by Fox in the shows that are aired in HDTV format is 480p, and on ESPN HD – which is a channel where all their transmitions are in HDTV format – the standard used is 720p.

HDTV sets can run basically in three resolutions: 480, 720 and 1080 lines. The screen scanning technique can be interlaced ("i") or non-interlaced ("p", for progressive). On the table below you can check all posible HDTV resolutions.



The difference in image quality between interlaced scan and progressive scan is huge. The analog TV system uses interlaced scanning. In this method first the odd lines are drawn (line 1, line 3, line 5 and so on) then, after the screen is filled, the even lines are drawn (line 2, line 4, line 6 and so on), and the process starts all over again. In total 60 frames per second are drawn (i.e. the screen is filled 60 times per second), being 30 frames made of odd lines and 30 frames made of even lines, intercalated. So which frame displays only half of the lines the TV set can shown.

In non-interlaced scanning (or progressive scanning, as it is being called now) all lines are drawn. From the 60 frames per second each frame has all lines the TV set is capable of showing.

You have to be very careful when comparing different resolutions. For example, the 1080i resolution is not necessarily better than 720p resolution. Even though 1080i resolution has more pixels on the screen its scanning is interlaced, while 720p uses progressive scanning, making its image quality better (basically better sharpness) than 1080i.

The biggest problem is that HDTV panels, like LCD monitors, have a native resolution (for more information on this issue, please read our tutorial about LCD monitors).

In order to show images from a resolution different from its native resolution, the HDTV set has to convert the image, which can be well done or not, depending on the HDTV model. Let's pick a random example. 42" plasma TV Panasonic TH42PA20UP has a 848x480 (480 lines) native resolution. To show 720p images it has to convert the image, making its image quality not so good as compared with a HDTV set with a native resolution of 720 lines.

/\ TV is different in the UK. 576 lines in SD :)
Digital terrestrial that can't do HD. :(

the format used by Fox in the shows that are aired in HDTV format is 480p
Is 480 lines really high definition?

Fox uses 720P NOT 480P. Your information is years out of date.

Well to be fair the display does have a huge factor. Distance, size, and resolution all have their part to play. The fact that you have a 92" 720p projection setup makes you a prime candidate for HD.

I agree, but really, ANYONE with an HDTV and reasonably decent vision is a prime candidate for HD media. Its just soooooo much better.

And again.... lets not overlook the sound upgrades which are arguably even more extreme. ;)

I dont feel like reading the whole 10 pages so I apologize if its been said. Most of my HD material is better than an upscaled DVD, but then again.....


Terminator 2 on BD is not worth it, the upscaled extended cut looks almost identical on a 1080i display. I have a few Blu rays that have disappointed me actually, its a good thing they were the ones on sale for $19


Overall HDM is worth it, even on a 56" 1080i display, especially the sound, my display might not keep up, but my sound system definately can and I notice a HUGE difference with the PCM tracks

I got to page 7 before I finally realized that reading this thread was a colossal waste of time. I'm not sure what it says about me, but it sure doesn't say a lot about the OP. He has no consistent point and keeps changing the subject slightly once it seems most people have come to a consensus, which indicates to me he just wants attention.