I was reading a quote like this one and it made me think if HD is necessarily better than SD.

It's not smugness, it's reality. The original poster is defending SD because he hasn't gotten used to HD. Once you do, there's no going back.

I have been thinking about upgrading to a HD source like HD DVD for about 6 months now, but wonder what I am going to do with all my old content on DVD.

In some ways, I think you are better off watching old movies in SD like Jaws. At first you may say "Blasphemy!" Film back then was not nearly as good as it is now. They would have to digitally re-edit it to make it work with 1080p. I have a mame arcade machine that plays on a HD CRT. It is really fun... but in the end there is nothing like playing Ms Pacman on the original blurry smudgy old coin op machine. HD doesn't necessarily mean better. I think this carries through with HD DVDs (and bluray for that matter)

You could never make this argument in the past when you think about it. you couldn't play a vhs tape in Laser disc or play it in dvd player. you couldn't play an album on an 8 track, or an 8 track in cassette player or cassette player in cd player. When you upgraded, you inevitably bought it on what you would be playing on down the road.

This is the first time that I can think of that next generation is directly backwards compatible with the old technology.. Now that I think about star wars, I think I actually like the original star wars with all the flaws before Lucas "remastered" it into what became his platinum and gold edtions and then again later on DVD by adding Jabba to episde 4. A movie is should be an event. Many people argue that we need to upgrade these old titles HD to preserve the original footage of older films. These older films weren't originally HD. Man what I would give to go back to before 1940 and watch a classic like King Kong on the original rickety equipment.

I think I may never upgrade my old DVDs like Jaws now that I think about it. Will you?

Watching content mastered in 1080 is better than watching 480 lines upconverted.

Watch a 40 year old movie like 2001: A Space Odyssey and you'll realize where your argument is flawed. You are right, the older films weren't shot in HD. They were shot in FILM, which inheriently has a much higher resolution than any of the HD specs. I can see your point about cheap and/or outdated effects looking worse with a higher resolution, but suggesting that we not use new HDM equipment for viewing purposes is absurd in my book.

But you are missing the point... they weren't originally show in "HD" either. Most films weren't. 2001 is a bad example... what about the Wizard of Oz? or King Kong?

Watch a 40 year old movie like 2001: A Space Odyssey and you'll realize where your argument is flawed. You are right, the older films weren't shot in HD. They were shot in FILM, which inheriently has a much higher resolution than any of the HD specs. I can see your point about cheap and/or outdated effects looking worse with a higher resolution, but suggesting that we not use new HDM equipment for viewing purposes is absurd in my book.

Yeah, the idea is that a properly remastered film like Jaws will look the same on HDM as it did for moviegoers in 1975 when it was in theaters. In the case of something like Casablanca, the idea is that it will look BETTER than it ever did in the theater.

to answer your title question, yes, the vast majority of the time.:D

If we could make King Kong 3D, would you? I think I would rather see it in the old way.

But you are missing the point... they weren't originally show in "HD" either. Most films weren't. 2001 is a bad example... what about the Wizard of Oz? or King Kong?

I just linked you to a review of Casablanca. The picture quality on it is amazing, better than it EVER was for people in the 1940's who saw it at the theater. How can you be disappointed by something like that? For newer films (1970's and later), the idea is to replicate the theatrical experience. If they remaster the film and clean it up properly, it should look just as good if not BETTER than the original theatrical presentation.

I have been thinking about upgrading to a HD source like HD DVD for about 6 months now, but wonder what I am going to do with all my old content on DVD.

you are going to watch them on your hddvd/bluray player

In some ways, I think you are better off watching old movies in SD like Jaws. At first you may say "Blasphemy!" Film back then was not nearly as good as it is now. They would have to digitally re-edit it to make it work with 1080p. I have a mame arcade machine that plays on a HD CRT. It is really fun... but in the end there is nothing like playing Ms Pacman on the original blurry smudgy old coin op machine. HD doesn't necessarily mean better. I think this carries through with HD DVDs (and bluray for that matter)

nope. they don't have to digitally "re-edit" it. you don't need to "change" the film in any way, the resolution exists on the film in order to create hdm from it.

You could never make this argument in the past when you think about it. you couldn't play a vhs tape in Laser disc or play it in dvd player. you couldn't play an album on an 8 track, or an 8 track in cassette player or cassette player in cd player. When you upgraded, you inevitably bought it on what you would be playing on down the road.

This is the first time that I can think of that next generation is directly backwards compatible with the old technology.. Now that I think about star wars, I think I actually like the original star wars with all the flaws before Lucas "remastered" it into what became his platinum and gold edtions and then again later on DVD by adding Jabba to episde 4. A movie is should be an event. Many people argue that we need to upgrade these old titles HD to preserve the original footage of older films. These older films weren't originally HD. Man what I would give to go back to before 1940 and watch a classic like King Kong on the original rickety equipment.

what lucas did is abominable. but that's not necessary to create hdm. appropriately mastered/encoded hdm should look even MORE like the original movie did than any sddvd ever could.

I think I may never upgrade my old DVDs like Jaws now that I think about it. Will you?

yes, i'd upgrade every movie that i have given the opportunity.


i think you may have a few misconceptions about the hddvd/bluray mastering process.

If we could make King Kong 3D, would you? I think I would rather see it in the old way.

HD is not 3D, so what's your point? HD is simply a clearer image. Nothing more, nothing less.

If we could make King Kong 3D, would you? I think I would rather see it in the old way.

again, you are missing the point of hdm. the point isn't to make it "different" or "updated" from what it originally was. the point is to make it faithful to the original film.

But you are missing the point... they weren't originally show in "HD" either. Most films weren't. 2001 is a bad example... what about the Wizard of Oz? or King Kong?

Why is 2001 a bad example? It's 7 years older than Jaws. You need to be a bit more concise with your argument. Are we talking about movies in the 40s and 50s, or are we talking about movies from the 60s and 70s?

again, you are missing the point of hdm. the point isn't to make it "different" or "updated" from what it originally was. the point is to make it faithful to the original film.

That is what I am saying. By remastering Casablanca, you are altering the original experience. It was not originally seen that way. For some movies like 2001, it is a plus... but is it a plus when you are watching a nestalgic film like Jaws, Casablanca.... Citizen Kane

Why is 2001 a bad example? It's 7 years older than Jaws. You need to be a bit more concise with your argument. Are we talking about movies in the 40s and 50s, or are we talking about movies from the 60s and 70s?

But jaws was not filmed to be like 2001... 2001 was WAY ahead of its time in film quality. Jaws was filmed like a through back movie.... not like a state of the art feature feast

My saying 3d was not what I meant.. If you could remake Jaws in holigraphic format in 3D, would you or is it more fun to watch it in the original content with all its flaws.. Sometimes I think some the coolest things are when there is still a flaw that carries though to the DVD when it is transferred.. you know those lines in the film. I have seen a few in older films

Just because you can do something... doesn't mean you should. You could add a power locks to an old Model T,, but should you?

That is what I am saying. By remastering Casablanca, you are altering the original experience. It was not originally seen that way. For some movies like 2001, it is a plus... but is it a plus when you are watching a nestalgic film like Jaws, Casablanca.... Citizen Kane

no, you aren't.

and please don't put "jaws" in the same sentence as "casablanca" and "citizen kane"... ;)

That is what I am saying. By remastering Casablanca, you are altering the original experience. It was not originally seen that way. For some movies like 2001, it is a plus... but is it a plus when you are watching a nestalgic film like Jaws, Casablanca.... Citizen Kane

Yes. I guarantee you people who saw Jaws in 1975 had a better quality print than the one that has been on VHS and DVD all these years. A cleaned up version of that film on HDM would be good. It would not alter the film in any way whatsoever.

no, you aren't.

and please don't put "jaws" in the same sentence as "casablanca" and "citizen kane"... ;)

Jaws is one of the best movies ever made. So is Casablanca, so is Citizen Kane. What's wrong with mentioning them in the same sentence?

That is what I am saying. By remastering Casablanca, you are altering the original experience. It was not originally seen that way. For some movies like 2001, it is a plus... but is it a plus when you are watching a nestalgic film like Jaws, Casablanca.... Citizen Kane

Remastering does not equate to re-butchering (a la the original Star Wars trilogy, which is a discussion unto itself). Remastering means doing a new transfer, maybe cleaning (physically and/or digitally), more or less. It does not mean monkeying with the film in any narrative or compositional sense, etc..

Also, your Ms. Pacman analogy is flawed as film has far more resolution, not to mention latitude and colorspace. :p Also, it's a raster graphics game. A vector graphics game, like Asteroids, should scale much more nicely. ;)

Remastering does not equate to re-butchering (a la the original Star Wars trilogy, which is a discussion unto itself). Remastering means doing a new transfer, maybe cleaning (physically and/or digitally), more or less. It does not mean monkeying with the film in any narrative or compositional sense, etc..

I agree ... I hate monkeying around like star wars....

but, when you watch Jaws, for instance, do you want it cleaned up and brough to today's standards of definition.. or would you rather watch it the way it was originally shown on the screen. I have seen jaws in a theater. I have seen it on the DVD. There is no difference. The film is analog so you could theoretically enhance it to almost any resolution, but my question is do you really want to see it that way... or the way you remember seeing it?

I think there are many films that looked better in lower resolution like the original star wars. HD would bring out too many flaws and ruin the film. Which is why lucas dragged his feet for so long before releasing it on DVD. He felt compelled to edit it for that fact as is shown on the extra on the DVD

Is this thread for real? Seriously? Yeah why watch something as it was MEANT to be seen, lets store it on media like we watched it in our childhood - scratchy dirty print on an out-of-focus cheap projector in our local cinema.

You want nostalgia, go to an auction and buy some some old crap. But keep it out of my home theater!

Oh dear. Not the "HD was invented in 1996, so everything filmed before then must have been filmed in SD" point-of-view.

Jaws (an original, clean print) will appear significantly better than a SD-DVD. If your theater experience is similar to SD-DVD, you need to go to a theater where they focus the projectors better.

Film, ever since the 1930s, has an analog equivalent to 2000p (4000 x 2000 -ish) or better. So audiences have been watching "mega-HD" for years in the theaters. And HD has a much better color-space than SD-DVD - much closer to the possibilities of film.

Yes, I want everything remastered into HD, or better yet, the mega-HD some digitizers are capable of.

shinksma

but, when you watch Jaws, for instance, do you want it cleaned up and brough to today's standards of definition.. or would you rather watch it the way it was originally shown on the screen. I have seen jaws in a theater. I have seen it on the DVD. There is no difference. The film is analog so you could theoretically enhance it to almost any resolution, but my question is do you really want to see it that way... or the way you remember seeing it?

When a director shoots a film, he wants you to see what he sees. The blurry, faded, ripped, torn, "burned" film you remember seeing was not part of his "vision". It was the result of the technological limitations of the respective times. HD more accurately reproduces the director's original intent. If that's not important to your movie watching experience, stick with DVD.

as in most of these forums/threads, i think a lot of disagreements are derived from folks mis-understanding/mis-using/mis-typing/mis-spelling/lack of proper grammar/etc of english language.:eek:

i wonder if more peeps actually agree w each other more than is realized. its just the mis-application of language and words. :D or, as i am 'want' to say, 'or not'!

xcept 4 this thread! LOL!

but, when you watch Jaws, for instance, do you want it cleaned up and brough to today's standards of definition.. or would you rather watch it the way it was originally shown on the screen. I have seen jaws in a theater. I have seen it on the DVD. There is no difference. The film is analog so you could theoretically enhance it to almost any resolution, but my question is do you really want to see it that way... or the way you remember seeing it?

But you haven't seen it in HD, so how can you say for sure? Cleaning meaning repairing any damage done, removing dirt, etc., in order to restore it as closely as possible to it's original state. Again, film has more resolution than SD ever will. If SD DVD does it for you, be happy, but please don't try to convince other people here with your rationalizations, it will only end in tears. ;)

Is this thread for real? Seriously?

Yes, but what puzzles me is why it's here as it so clearly belongs in the general HDTV Software Media Discussion (unless this is another guy trying to talk himself out of buying an XA2 :rolleyes: ).

as in most of these forums/threads, i think a lot of disagreements are derived from folks mis-understanding/mis-using/mis-typing/mis-spelling/lack of proper grammar/etc of english language.:eek:

i wonder if more peeps actually agree w each other more than is realized. its just the mis-application of language and words. :D

Totally agree.

Mods? More smilies, please!

There, that should fix it. :D

Yes, but what puzzles me is why it's here as it so clearly belongs in the general HDTV Software Media Discussion (unless this is another guy trying to talk himself out of buying an XA2 :rolleyes: ).

There is already a similar thread in there from someone who is complaining about seeing too much detail from his movies....:rolleyes:

Is this thread for real? Seriously? Yeah why watch something as it was MEANT to be seen, lets store it on media like we watched it in our childhood - scratchy dirty print on an out-of-focus cheap projector in our local cinema.

You want nostalgia, go to an auction and buy some some old crap. But keep it out of my home theater!

just as real as 'yoda'!:D

There is already a similar thread in there from someone who is complaining about seeing too much detail from his movies....:rolleyes:

Tell him to turn down the sharpness on his display. :rolleyes:

There. Another problem solved. :D

When a director shoots a film, he wants you to see what he sees. The blurry, faded, ripped, torn, "burned" film you remember seeing was not part of his "vision". It was the result of the technological limitations of the respective times. HD more accurately reproduces the director's original intent. If that's not important to your movie watching experience, stick with DVD.

Not necessarily. Have you ever watched the making of star wars on the DVD. Lucas knew that the audience would not be able to see the smudges under the land speeder or the outlines around the planets when it was viewed at the cinema. Many directors used shoot a film and then degrade the quality to hide lines and such in special effects.

Tell him to turn down the sharpness on his display. :rolleyes:

There. Another problem solved. :D

ok... i did get a chuckle from that.

I was reading a quote like this one and it made me think if HD is necessarily better than SD.



I have been thinking about upgrading to a HD source like HD DVD for about 6 months now, but wonder what I am going to do with all my old content on DVD.

In some ways, I think you are better off watching old movies in SD like Jaws. At first you may say "Blasphemy!" Film back then was not nearly as good as it is now. They would have to digitally re-edit it to make it work with 1080p. I have a mame arcade machine that plays on a HD CRT. It is really fun... but in the end there is nothing like playing Ms Pacman on the original blurry smudgy old coin op machine. HD doesn't necessarily mean better. I think this carries through with HD DVDs (and bluray for that matter)

You could never make this argument in the past when you think about it. you couldn't play a vhs tape in Laser disc or play it in dvd player. you couldn't play an album on an 8 track, or an 8 track in cassette player or cassette player in cd player. When you upgraded, you inevitably bought it on what you would be playing on down the road.

This is the first time that I can think of that next generation is directly backwards compatible with the old technology.. Now that I think about star wars, I think I actually like the original star wars with all the flaws before Lucas "remastered" it into what became his platinum and gold edtions and then again later on DVD by adding Jabba to episde 4. A movie is should be an event. Many people argue that we need to upgrade these old titles HD to preserve the original footage of older films. These older films weren't originally HD. Man what I would give to go back to before 1940 and watch a classic like King Kong on the original rickety equipment.

I think I may never upgrade my old DVDs like Jaws now that I think about it. Will you?


Let me guess - you hate film grain and those damned black bars too?

Why did you ever upgrade to DVD and not just stick with VHS?

Or perhaps you could check out my review of Mutiny on the Bounty and see what a movie can look like on HD, anything old is better than new again!!

Searchers, Mutiny, Forbidden Planet, Casablanca, just to name a few killer apps!

Not necessarily. Have you ever watched the making of star wars on the DVD. Lucas knew that the audience would not be able to see the smudges under the land speeder or the outlines around the planets when it was viewed at the cinema. Many directors used shoot a film and then degrade the quality to hide lines and such in special effects.

Yes, but that doesn't apply to every shot in every film. Not every filmmaker uses the old vaseline on the lens trick to get things done. Take a look at something like Dune, where a good deal of the effects shots were done in camera (forced perspective, etc.), they look incredible in HD. Don't worry though, plenty of optical effects that weren't redone digitally so they still have that soft look to them. :D

Having a sharper image can help you see things you might miss in SD, like seeing what the cinematographer is doing with selective focus in Elizabeth, for example. Also keep in mind that every theatrical film screening is different (lenses, lamp, screen, the condition of the screen, the condition of the film, etc.).

EDIT: eizenga13 reminds me of another point: Films like Mutiny on the Bounty and Grand Prix were filmed in 70mm (65mm negative) Super Panavision. Now, add in some letterboxing and tell me that the SD DVD equates what anyone saw in the theater (not saying the the HD versions will either, but they'll do in a pinch ;) ).

I agree ... I hate monkeying around like star wars....

but, when you watch Jaws, for instance, do you want it cleaned up and brough to today's standards of definition.. or would you rather watch it the way it was originally shown on the screen. I have seen jaws in a theater. I have seen it on the DVD. There is no difference. The film is analog so you could theoretically enhance it to almost any resolution, but my question is do you really want to see it that way... or the way you remember seeing it?

I think there are many films that looked better in lower resolution like the original star wars. HD would bring out too many flaws and ruin the film. Which is why lucas dragged his feet for so long before releasing it on DVD. He felt compelled to edit it for that fact as is shown on the extra on the DVD

I don't get your obsession with saying Jaws wasn't shown in HD? It was shown in film on a projector. The 35mm panavision film has higher resolution than HD.

Your original argument was sticking to SD DVD is better because you get the original experience. Then you go on to say Star Wars was butchered on the DVD version. The orginal Jaws print was transferred to DVD using a similar process to what would be done for HD-DVD or BLU-Ray. So obviously DVD as a medium is not as important to your argument as the director's/studio's intentions to intervene in the process.

If you saw Jaws in 1975 and encountered flaws induced by the projector mechanics like scratches or blips and somehow enjoyed that experience and think that was preserved on the DVD you are mistaken. If you had gone to a different movie theater your experience would have been different.

Jaws is one of the best movies ever made. So is Casablanca, so is Citizen Kane. What's wrong with mentioning them in the same sentence?
thank you.

Jaws is the original "blockbuster" event movie.

While the original film reals were 2000p... you are sitting about what.. 50-100 feet away from the screen. In your home you are sitting 8-14 feet back. While the proportion to screen size may be the same, the human will lose detail at distance. do in reality... a film projector is not 2000p unless you sit right up front.

While the original film reals were 2000p... you are sitting about what.. 50-100 feet away from the screen. In your home you are sitting 8-14 feet back. While the proportion to screen size may be the same, the human will lose detail at distance. do in reality... a film projector is not 2000p unless you sit right up front.


Now you are really grasping at straws. What is the size of the screen compared to the one in your house?

The projector is 2000p no matter where you sit, get it?

If you want the same experience as in the theater, why not sit in a different room an watch your TV for the same effect?

thank you.

Jaws is the original "blockbuster" event movie.

And the world of cinema was changed forever by a malfunctioning mechanical shark. :D Even if you don't like it, you can't argue that it's not an important film.

bjmarchini, sitting right up front cause neck problems. I don't recommend it. :p Look at it this way: someone once said, "HD means a bigger TV." What sort of display are you using now? Are you already upconverting your DVDs?

And the world of cinema was changed forever by a malfunctioning mechanical shark. :D Even if you don't like it, you can't argue that it's not an important film.

bjmarchini, sitting right up front cause neck problems. I don't recommend it. :p Look at it this way: someone once said, "HD means a bigger TV." What sort of display are you using now? Are you already upconverting your DVDs?

720p projector at 92" about 9 feet away. 5th element looks amazing. I use a HTPC that is tweaked for better than oppo upscaling.

And jaws was amazing

While the original film reals were 2000p... you are sitting about what.. 50-100 feet away from the screen. In your home you are sitting 8-14 feet back. While the proportion to screen size may be the same, the human will lose detail at distance. do in reality... a film projector is not 2000p unless you sit right up front.

If you sit in a typical theater and the screen fills the same viewing angle as your TV, then identical resolutions will result in the same appearance: it is all relative angles. 1920 horizontal pixels filling 30 deg of your viewing angle will not degrade over distance to appear otherwise, unless smoke or fog is involved.

Most folks sit a little further away than optimal at home, to allow the whole room to see the TV, but AVSers with true home theaters probably get it right. So if film is 2000p or so, then a home theater demands the same - too bad we have to settle for 1080p. :p

Anyway, it seems you've come to a conclusion, and are looking for a way to prove it right. All I can say is: if SD is good enough for you, so be it, but to "walk into" AVS and proclaim such a vision will likely get an energetic reaction of the opposite opinion.

shinksma

I have been reading this forum for years... not all that new.

Just tossing a question out to see what people thought. Movies that people are bringing up like 2001 are the ones that I would not upgrade. I would upgrade the graduate though... what is the point. Personally, I like an "older" film to look old. The same with Star Trek the original series. I am just happy with the sub 480p that is now on my dvds (i think it is actually less than 480p in acutally quality) But I would love a HD SG1 or the original series in high depth.

I think some films just look better a little umm.... antiquated.

Here is another good example... Night of the living dead. the low resolution is part of that film. I would never even think to upgrade it if it came out.

720p projector at 92" about 9 feet away. 5th element looks amazing. I use a HTPC that is tweaked for better than oppo upscaling.

And jaws was amazing

Well, pffft :p, you don't need me to tell you anything then. You throw an Xbox add-on on that yet (assuming it would work with your set-up)?

I have been reading this forum for years... not all that new.

Just tossing a question out to see what people thought. Movies that people are bringing up like 2001 are the ones that I would not upgrade. I would upgrade the graduate though... what is the point. Personally, I like an "older" film to look old. The same with Star Trek the original series. I am just happy with the sub 480p that is now on my dvds (i think it is actually less than 480p in acutally quality) But I would love a HD SG1 or the original series in high depth.

I think some films just look better a little umm.... antiquated.

A good idea would be to rent those HD titles you already have on DVD to see if they're worth the upgrade to you.

EDIT: It's also not like DVD is going away anytime soon, or that there's a flood of old films coming out on HD formats.

To the OP:

The purpose of HD for films (as opposed to video) is not to provide a "super clean, super sharp" alteration, but rather to utilize the increased resolution to get us closer to the original. Unless Jaws gets seriously scrubbed over with all sorts of image processing to make it look like a Pixar feature or an HD video broadcast of sports or something like that, it should look more like it did on opening night at a good theatre and that is what we should be striving for.

I don't plan to "double dip" all my DVDs (I own more than I would care to buy twice, thank you very much :D ) but I do plan to "upgrade" a select few of my DVDs and all future purchases will be made by checking if a hi-def version is available now (or shortly) before I decide. I do the same with SACD/DVD-A and any music I plan to buy, though I anticipate a greater sense of satisfaction with HD DVD/Blu-Ray.

This 2000p everyone is throwing around.. If those movies were 2000p and my DVDs are 480p. Why do those ones form the 70s like Earthquake not look nearly as good qualitywise as those made more recently like volcano. If it were true that both the films of the 70s and modern films (not CGI'd) were better than 480p, then they should both look of the same quality if they are limited by the 480p resolution of DVDs. Even my name is Earl looks like better quality than many of those movies. Look at rocky 1 versus rocky 4.. the film quality is night and day on 480p.

HD is LOTS better than SD. I mean WAY better.

HD-DVD is better than SD by a LARGER MARGIN than DVD was compared to VHS.

If you can't see it, you're either partially blind or have a display device that can't depict it.

I don't plan to "double dip" all my DVDs (I own more than I would care to buy twice, thank you very much ) but I do plan to "upgrade" a select few of my DVDs and all future purchases will be made by checking if a hi-def version is available now (or shortly) before I decide.

Glad to see atleast one other person feels this way. I get tired of people saying they don't watch their 480p stuff after they upgrade.

HD is LOTS better than SD. I mean WAY better.

HD-DVD is better than SD by a LARGER MARGIN than DVD was compared to VHS.

If you can't see it, you're either partially blind or have a display device that can't depict it.

I didn't say that there wasn't a difference. I use a 720p projector at 92". I don't know about the VHS comment.

This 2000p everyone is throwing around.. If those movies were 2000p and my DVDs are 480p. Why do those ones form the 70s like Earthquake not look nearly as good qualitywise as those made more recently like volcano. If it were true that both the films of the 70s and modern films (not CGI'd) were better than 480p, then they should both look of the same quality if they are limited by the 480p resolution of DVDs. Even my name is Earl looks like better quality than many of those movies. Look at rocky 1 versus rocky 4.. the film quality is night and day on 480p.

the transfer has way more to do with what you are "seeing" here than anything else. not the initial resolution of the film. a more recent film will (in all likelihood) have a master that is in better condition.

fwiw, i watch plenty of 480p dvds still as well. but given the choice between a hdm or a sddvd copy, i know which one i'm choosing.

I get tired of people saying they don't watch their 480p stuff after they upgrade.

Yeah, I have to wonder about that as well. It kind of limits your viewing choices in the near term, putting it mildly. I actually bought an XA2 because of it's ability to upscale DVDs (as well as play HD DVDs, too, of course).

Of course, I'm using a "Not Full HD™" XGA res 42" plasma, so WTF do I know. :rolleyes:

This 2000p everyone is throwing around.. If those movies were 2000p and my DVDs are 480p. Why do those ones form the 70s like Earthquake not look nearly as good qualitywise as those made more recently like volcano. If it were true that both the films of the 70s and modern films (not CGI'd) were better than 480p, then they should both look of the same quality if they are limited by the 480p resolution of DVDs. Even my name is Earl looks like better quality than many of those movies. Look at rocky 1 versus rocky 4.. the film quality is night and day on 480p.

Why do you think there are multiple transfers of some movies like 5th element? Each of them have different qualities on 480p.

While resolution has remained the same quality of film cameras and film chemistry has improved things like colors. So you are argument based solely on resolution is dubious at best.

To conclude, HD is absolutely needed. In fact 1080 lines is not enough!

I didn't say that there wasn't a difference. I use a 720p projector at 92". I don't know about the VHS comment.

Yeah VHS was pretty ******. Now, HDTV vs. standard cable is a similar upgrade to DVD over VHS. I think DVD over VHS was bigger than high def movies over DVD. DVD already looks much better than standard cable or satellite (which looks like utter crap).

What about compression artifacts? Are they true to the original experience? I highly doubt it. More space on HDM means less compression, which is always good. Jaws will look even better than SD (and closer to what was originally intended) given the mastering process is done properly.

I also want to say that film as a medium can hold much more information than HD can. I don't know how 2000p came up, but I was certain that film was much higher resolution than that. Of course, things such as optics/lenses, film stock, etc. could limit that.

-Brad

I also want to say that film as a medium can hold much more information than HD can. I don't know how 2000p came up, but I was certain that film was much higher resolution than that. Of course, things such as optics/lenses, film stock, etc. could limit that.

-Brad

35mm projector positive film has 2000 lines of resolution after it is processed. Apparently the negative can have upto 6000.

Maybe people shouldn't get laser eye surgery or wear glasses because they are used to seeing things blurry? Why would you not want to watch things in the best possible form? Im not sure I get the logic of this thread.

What about compression artifacts? Are they true to the original experience? I highly doubt it. More space on HDM means less compression, which is always good. Jaws will look even better than SD (and closer to what was originally intended) given the mastering process is done properly.

QFT. Also, HD is not just more res, but better codecs.

I also want to say that film as a medium can hold much more information than HD can. I don't know how 2000p came up, but I was certain that film was much higher resolution than that. Of course, things such as optics/lenses, film stock, etc. could limit that.

-Brad

I think someone meant to say 2K, which refers to a Digital Cinema Initiative spec, like 4K. FWIW, I also saw an archive of an old Cinematography Mailing List (http://www.cinematography.net/) discussion of which film stocks would rate 6K.

EDIT: akrosdabay beat me to it.

Also keep in mind older 4:3 films use more negative for the actual image than 1.85:1 ('scope uses the full 4-perf area like 4:3...unless it's shot Super35, which is becoming more common with digital intermediates).

But jaws was not filmed to be like 2001... 2001 was WAY ahead of its time in film quality. Jaws was filmed like a through back movie.... not like a state of the art feature feast

Huh? The DVD of Jaws looks good, the film looked incredible on UniversalHD, and I can't wait until I can get it on HD DVD. What are you talking about???

That is what I am saying. By remastering Casablanca, you are altering the original experience. It was not originally seen that way. For some movies like 2001, it is a plus... but is it a plus when you are watching a nestalgic film like Jaws, Casablanca.... Citizen Kane

So nostalgic films were meant to be viewed in 480 lines of resolution??? You're not making any sense.

The OP is nuts. Film from the 1950s' and 1960's looks far far superior to anything shot in 1080P. The detail available in 1950's film stock is miles and miles superior to any HD tape.

40+ year old Battle of the Bulge looks more pristine, colorful and crisp than any HD tape shot today. Forbidden Planet from the 1950's is more detailed than any 1080P tape. The list goes on and on...the Hitchcock transfers on HDNET are mind blowing sharp

This is more wacky stuff from the ill informed.

COUGH....casablanca ...COUGH

Hey Red,

thanks for this post, dude. I am a brand new HD DVD owner(XA2), and missed this one at Amazon while searching for titles.

It's in my shopping cart now!

Jeff

I was reading a quote like this one and it made me think if HD is necessarily better than SD.



I have been thinking about upgrading to a HD source like HD DVD for about 6 months now, but wonder what I am going to do with all my old content on DVD.

In some ways, I think you are better off watching old movies in SD like Jaws. At first you may say "Blasphemy!" Film back then was not nearly as good as it is now. They would have to digitally re-edit it to make it work with 1080p. I have a mame arcade machine that plays on a HD CRT. It is really fun... but in the end there is nothing like playing Ms Pacman on the original blurry smudgy old coin op machine. HD doesn't necessarily mean better. I think this carries through with HD DVDs (and bluray for that matter)

You could never make this argument in the past when you think about it. you couldn't play a vhs tape in Laser disc or play it in dvd player. you couldn't play an album on an 8 track, or an 8 track in cassette player or cassette player in cd player. When you upgraded, you inevitably bought it on what you would be playing on down the road.

This is the first time that I can think of that next generation is directly backwards compatible with the old technology.. Now that I think about star wars, I think I actually like the original star wars with all the flaws before Lucas "remastered" it into what became his platinum and gold edtions and then again later on DVD by adding Jabba to episde 4. A movie is should be an event. Many people argue that we need to upgrade these old titles HD to preserve the original footage of older films. These older films weren't originally HD. Man what I would give to go back to before 1940 and watch a classic like King Kong on the original rickety equipment.

I think I may never upgrade my old DVDs like Jaws now that I think about it. Will you?


Do you think Robin Hood should not be in HD also?

HD-DVD is better than SD by a LARGER MARGIN than DVD was compared to VHS.



Couldn't disagree more with this statement.

Watching content mastered in 1080 is better than watching 480 lines upconverted.

especially when Jaws looks really bad upconverted. (Hear that Speilberg??)

That is what I am saying. By remastering Casablanca, you are altering the original experience. It was not originally seen that way. For some movies like 2001, it is a plus... but is it a plus when you are watching a nestalgic film like Jaws, Casablanca.... Citizen Kane

It was originally seen that way by the director.

I agree ... I hate monkeying around like star wars....

but, when you watch Jaws, for instance, do you want it cleaned up and brough to today's standards of definition.. or would you rather watch it the way it was originally shown on the screen. I have seen jaws in a theater. I have seen it on the DVD. There is no difference. The film is analog so you could theoretically enhance it to almost any resolution, but my question is do you really want to see it that way... or the way you remember seeing it?

I think there are many films that looked better in lower resolution like the original star wars. HD would bring out too many flaws and ruin the film. Which is why lucas dragged his feet for so long before releasing it on DVD. He felt compelled to edit it for that fact as is shown on the extra on the DVD

You don't seem to be grasping the concept. We're not watching it as it was originally seen on the screen. We're watching a very poorly done version of what was on the big screen..

The transfer used on the DVD was not a particularly good one, and upconverted, every single flaw on that transfer stands out and begs for Spielberg to throw it away and start over.

HD offers more than extra resolution - DVD often struggled with compression and other digital artifacts.

are people real?

Originally Posted by stephenj
HD-DVD is better than SD by a LARGER MARGIN than DVD was compared to VHS.

Couldn't disagree more with this statement.Then you clearly don't have the equipment and/or the environment to display HD to it's full potential.

Vern

Watched a corny movie the other night in HD: Tremors. I had seen it 2 or 3 times years ago, but the movie was much better and even more interesting. It gave the movie a whole new look even though I'd already seen it. I do this with a lot of movies to see if the HD version makes much difference, and in this movie it made a lot of difference.

HD is LOTS better than SD. I mean WAY better.

HD-DVD is better than SD by a LARGER MARGIN than DVD was compared to VHS.

If you can't see it, you're either partially blind or have a display device that can't depict it.

Couldn't disagree more with this statement.

Well, technically VHS was about 320i, DVD was 480i. HD at 1080p offers a much better resolution improvement percentage-wise.

Color-space-wise, HD is about the same improvement over DVD as DVD was over VHS (more accurately, the ability of VHS to reproduce the colors it supposedly supported...).

Audio-wise, DVD did a really big jump from VHS with old Dolby encodes, and although HD media with 7.1 lossless is much better, most folks are quite satisfied with DVD's DD 5.1.

So, on paper, HD is a larger improvement, except that VHS was pretty crappy with colors and tape mechanisms and non-random access, while DVD was quite nice and also had widescreen as a common presentation, so the apparent change to HD from DVD is not seen as valuable.

It really is a case of in the eye of the beholder.

IMHO,

shinksma

Not only does HD media blow away SD media, there are some other great plusses, such as:

- Not worrying about what version of a movie to buy. You ALWAYS get the anamorphic picture, you ALWAYS get great sound, you pretty much ALWAYS get solid features and extras. SD DVD is a nightmare trying to make sure you have the "right" version of a film and the fact that some titles have been released 5 times proves this.

- Changing sound/picture/options while the movie is playing is a bigger deal than I thought....I freegin love that!

- The sound.... oh man is the sound a HUGE improvement. DTS and DD 5.1 on SD discs sound like a clock radio compared to PCM or TrueHD. Not even remotely close.

- The cases are all basically the same. Sounds stoopid? Not to me.... howe many SD DVDs came in those damned cardboard-flap things? Plus, the RED and BLUE are soooo "in".

- Advanced hardware with updatable firmware. Never had that on SD players and you never will.

Thats that. :D

Lord of the Rings had a car in the background of a scene when it was shown in theaters. The car was digitally removed on the DVD release. Do you want them to keep the car because "that's the way it looked in theaters"?

Old movies have many flaws that were obvious in theaters, however audiences were much more forgiving than they are now. Many of the effects that seemed real and scary at the time, now seem phoney and humorous. Therefore, presenting movies like "Jaws" in HD is not going to produce the suspence and tension of the original theater experience, instead the movie becomes a sad parody of its former self. In that respect, I think there are some movies that are better off in standard definition.

While the original film reals were 2000p... you are sitting about what.. 50-100 feet away from the screen. In your home you are sitting 8-14 feet back. While the proportion to screen size may be the same, the human will lose detail at distance. do in reality... a film projector is not 2000p unless you sit right up front.
Absurd. 50 - 100ft back? 2000p?

Jaws came out in 1975 - the age of small multi-plexes. In the average theater 50' would put you out the door. As for the "2000p" you really should learn about how films are digitized before you even mention a number. Sitting 8 - 14" away from a "large" 110" home screen compares to sitting 30' away from a 25'+ theater? At such sizes it's easy for the human eye to resolve details.

I saw Jaws in the theaters, a fairly large theater for the time. The PQ of the film was better than any I've seen yet.........& that includes showings on the HD channels. One of the things that made it a blockbuster was the filming - you were brought into the film, it seemed real.

But you are missing the point... they weren't originally show in "HD" either. Most films weren't. 2001 is a bad example... what about the Wizard of Oz? or King Kong?

Onscreen film is more "HD" than "HD."

I wish more folks would understand this!:eek:

I wonder why the OP even bought a 720p projector if he didn't care about HD. Apparently there is some benefit to upscaling, even tweaking it for maximum effect, so what's wrong with having the actual resolution of the software be higher?

I suspect this is really about being afraid that a large collection of DVDs will seem obsolete.

Old movies have many flaws that were obvious in theaters, however audiences were much more forgiving than they are now. Many of the effects that seemed real and scary at the time, now seem phoney and humorous. Therefore, presenting movies like "Jaws" in HD is not going to produce the suspence and tension of the original theater experience, instead the movie becomes a sad parody of its former self. In that respect, I think there are some movies that are better off in standard definition.

What are you afraid of seeing in Jaws? You think being in HD is going to turn the shark into cardboard or something? If anything you get to see more of the work that went into the model.

Do you think Robin Hood should not be in HD also?


To each his own. I am just asking what you think and what you will upgrade in your collection. For me, I see the benefit in upgrading certain movies like 2001 but not movies like Citizen Kane.

I never said that HD doesn't look better. Of course it looks better. It is 4 times the resolution. I am just saying that I like old movies to look old. I wouldn't want star trek the original series to be cleaned up and made to look modern.

People hear sometimes get too fanatical on their points of view. You ask a question to see what other people think and they take it as an assault on everything they believe in.

Not only does HD media blow away SD media, there are some other great plusses, such as:

- Not worrying about what version of a movie to buy. You ALWAYS get the anamorphic picture, you ALWAYS get great sound, you pretty much ALWAYS get solid features and extras. SD DVD is a nightmare trying to make sure you have the "right" version of a film and the fact that some titles have been released 5 times proves this.

Of course you have to worry about which version... bluray or HD DVD

- Changing sound/picture/options while the movie is playing is a bigger deal than I thought....I freegin love that!

Everything that I have red is that the menus in DVd are much faster than on HD players at this time

- The sound.... oh man is the sound a HUGE improvement. DTS and DD 5.1 on SD discs sound like a clock radio compared to PCM or TrueHD. Not even remotely close.

Not that DVD DTS is all that bad though

- The cases are all basically the same. Sounds stoopid? Not to me.... howe many SD DVDs came in those damned cardboard-flap things? Plus, the RED and BLUE are soooo "in".

Except the fact that they are larger and don't fit in some DVD holders

- Advanced hardware with updatable firmware. Never had that on SD players and you never will.

Um... I updated my Phillips 642 via firmware update

Thats that. :D

You are a little off there

Lord of the Rings had a car in the background of a scene when it was shown in theaters. The car was digitally removed on the DVD release. Do you want them to keep the car because "that's the way it looked in theaters"?

Old movies have many flaws that were obvious in theaters, however audiences were much more forgiving than they are now. Many of the effects that seemed real and scary at the time, now seem phoney and humorous. Therefore, presenting movies like "Jaws" in HD is not going to produce the suspence and tension of the original theater experience, instead the movie becomes a sad parody of its former self. In that respect, I think there are some movies that are better off in standard definition.

I agree with you to an extent... of course this also justifies how lucas sodomized star wars

On the vast majority of TVs in the US there is NO difference between HDM and DVD (because they are 480i). Even ED TVs will not show too much of a difference.

I am not sure how many scan lines TVs had back in the days of VHS. My 19" TV said it only had 300 or so. I guess there would not have been much difference between VHS and DVD on it...until the tape started to wear.

I suspect this is really about being afraid that a large collection of DVDs will seem obsolete.
I think it's really about being afraid that the movies won't live up to our memories and expectations of them.

I know I'm afraid of that. It happened to me with Superman. I was dazzled by its effects when I was a kid. But I watched it again last year, for the first time in a long time. Even in standard definition, the effects looked so phoney and cheesy! That movie did not live up to my memories, and it ruined my fond memories of the film. I would have been better off leaving the film in my memories.

I wonder why the OP even bought a 720p projector if he didn't care about HD. Apparently there is some benefit to upscaling, even tweaking it for maximum effect, so what's wrong with having the actual resolution of the software be higher?

I suspect this is really about being afraid that a large collection of DVDs will seem obsolete.

A 720p projector erases the screen door effect for me. I plan to upgrade. I do watch HD TV and will eventually get HD. But I don't see the need to upgrade older titles as much

Theres a difference between SD DVD and HD DVD even on regular sets.

1. Just to put this issue to bed on the resolution of a movie sourced from 35mm - what resolution YOU see on the screen:

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

2. Take a 35" HDTV and put on a VHS tape. Then put on a DVD (enhanced for 16x9). Then put on an HDM film . . . and let your eyes versus specs tell you how much improvement you are seeing from each format as you go up the line in technology. And make sure to sit at the proper distance - about 7 feet away.

Because of the 50+ million HDTV's that 35" HDTV is the average size and 80% of them are NOT 1080P. They are either 720P or 768P.

I think I understand what the OP is trying to say, but disagree with his conclusion.

I believe he's pining for the "experience" he had when he originally viewed the film. Unfortunately (or fortunately), that experience consisted of more than the quality of the audio and video. It would be very difficult, probably impossible, to duplicate. The video game example in the first post is what I'm drawing this from. Playing Ms Pacman on a old coin op machine probably brings certain memories with it. The same goes for movies.

Maybe it involved a built up anticipation and discussion during the hour long drive to the cinema. Maybe it was the experience of going to see Star wars (for example) for the first time with your Dad. How the audience broke in to applause when the title was flashed on the screen and also at the end of the movie. The awe you had as your senses were filled and your mind opened up to a whole new universe. Maybe it was the taste of the extra butter popcorn or even the way the floor felt (sticky). Maybe it was discussing, arguing, for days afterward with your friends. Maybe it was how you wouldn't go into the water at the beach that whole summer after watching Jaws. Maybe it involved a deep seeded fear or joy that the movie tapped into.

All those example have nothing to do with the quality of the video and audio. You'll never be able to duplicate that experience or nostalgia. Not with DVD and not with HDM. To say that Jaws on DVD is closer to the theater experience than HDM is wrong. Technical specs aside, the whole experience added to the film.

Director intent is another thing altogether. Here, I think HDM gets us closer than DVD with the older films. Mainly because of the resolution factor, but also because of compress artifacts. HDM should have less of both, which should match the film medium better. It's still not going to be perfect though because they are different mediums.

John

1. Just to put this issue to bed on the resolution of a movie sourced from 35mm - what resolution YOU see on the screen:

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

2. Take a 35" HDTV and put on a VHS tape. Then put on a DVD (enhanced for 16x9). Then put on an HDM film . . . and let your eyes versus specs tell you how much improvement you are seeing from each format as you go up the line in technology. And make sure to sit at the proper distance - about 7 feet away.

Because of the 50+ million HDTV's that 35" HDTV is the average size and 80% of them are NOT 1080P. They are either 720P or 768P.

Here's a concise table from the link, showing that the *observed* resolution of the screen image in a theater from typical projected film prints is about what you get from anamorphic DVD, give or take a few lines of resolution.

I think I understand what the OP is trying to say, but disagree with his conclusion.

I believe he's pining for the "experience" he had when he originally viewed the film. Unfortunately (or fortunately), that experience consisted of more than the quality of the audio and video. It would be very difficult, probably impossible, to duplicate. The video game example in the first post is what I'm drawing this from. Playing Ms Pacman on a old coin op machine probably brings certain memories with it. The same goes for movies.

Maybe it involved a built up anticipation and discussion during the hour long drive to the cinema. Maybe it was the experience of going to see Star wars (for example) for the first time with your Dad. How the audience broke in to applause when the title was flashed on the screen and also at the end of the movie. The awe you had as your senses were filled and your mind opened up to a whole new universe. Maybe it was the taste of the extra butter popcorn or even the way the floor felt (sticky). Maybe it was discussing, arguing, for days afterward with your friends. Maybe it was how you wouldn't go into the water at the beach that whole summer after watching Jaws. Maybe it involved a deep seeded fear or joy that the movie tapped into.

All those example have nothing to do with the quality of the video and audio. You'll never be able to duplicate that experience or nostalgia. Not with DVD and not with HDM. To say that Jaws on DVD is closer to the theater experience than HDM is wrong. Technical specs aside, the whole experience added to the film.

Director intent is another thing altogether. Here, I think HDM gets us closer than DVD with the older films. Mainly because of the resolution factor, but also because of compress artifacts. HDM should have less of both, which should match the film medium better. It's still not going to be perfect though because they are different mediums.

John

this is a VERY VERY VERY good post... :)

I think I understand what the OP is trying to say, but disagree with his conclusion.

I believe he's pining for the "experience" he had when he originally viewed the film. Unfortunately (or fortunately), that experience consisted of more than the quality of the audio and video. It would be very difficult, probably impossible, to duplicate. The video game example in the first post is what I'm drawing this from. Playing Ms Pacman on a old coin op machine probably brings certain memories with it. The same goes for movies.

John

I think the Pac Man example was very appropriate.

If material was designed for 480i display (or whatever the low scan rate number was, with obvious scan lines), like the video games of yore or TV shows/concerts shot with 480i cameras, some purists prefer viewing/playing with material on displays that match the era. Not everyone's cup of tea, but a growing facet of the hobby.

I have hung onto several 21" CRT PC monitors for arcade machine emulation because of this, against the wishes of my wife, who'd rather I dump them for panels for space reasons. But the frame buffers and scan rates don't make the experience "authentic".

Similarly, I've been hoarding good quality 480i CRt TV's being given away by coworkers and family members as they "upgrade" to panels. There's a lot of great 27"-36" CRT tubes out there, basically free. I like to watch TV shows and other material designed for and/or shot on 480i media on 480i CRTs.

I think I understand what the OP is trying to say, but disagree with his conclusion.

I believe he's pining for the "experience" he had when he originally viewed the film. Unfortunately (or fortunately), that experience consisted of more than the quality of the audio and video. It would be very difficult, probably impossible, to duplicate. The video game example in the first post is what I'm drawing this from. Playing Ms Pacman on a old coin op machine probably brings certain memories with it. The same goes for movies.

Maybe it involved a built up anticipation and discussion during the hour long drive to the cinema. Maybe it was the experience of going to see Star wars (for example) for the first time with your Dad. How the audience broke in to applause when the title was flashed on the screen and also at the end of the movie. The awe you had as your senses were filled and your mind opened up to a whole new universe. Maybe it was the taste of the extra butter popcorn or even the way the floor felt (sticky). Maybe it was discussing, arguing, for days afterward with your friends. Maybe it was how you wouldn't go into the water at the beach that whole summer after watching Jaws. Maybe it involved a deep seeded fear or joy that the movie tapped into.

All those example have nothing to do with the quality of the video and audio. You'll never be able to duplicate that experience or nostalgia. Not with DVD and not with HDM. To say that Jaws on DVD is closer to the theater experience than HDM is wrong. Technical specs aside, the whole experience added to the film.

Director intent is another thing altogether. Here, I think HDM gets us closer than DVD with the older films. Mainly because of the resolution factor, but also because of compress artifacts. HDM should have less of both, which should match the film medium better. It's still not going to be perfect though because they are different mediums.

John

You hit it exactly on the nose. I saw stars wars on the big screen as a kid. But now that I think about it, it was at a drive in. Perhaps that is why I like scratchy looking older films. Alot of times, the drive-ins would get the movies that were passed down from another theater.

The nostalgia is what I am talking about. One of the best things that I ever got for my movie room was a retro kettle corn popper. Makes the experience more like a real theater.

Perhaps I am remembering the quality being less than it was.

Makes me think about older TV shows though.

So here is a follow up question. Would you get HD to see a redigitized version of Star Trek the original series or would you prefer the older version in SD.

I know even with DVD, Star Trek the next generation shows more flaws than I remember seeing on broadcast TV.

To each his own. I am just asking what you think and what you will upgrade in your collection. For me, I see the benefit in upgrading certain movies like 2001 but not movies like Citizen Kane.



That's crazy talk.

ANY movie benefits from a transfer process that allows a closer approximation to the source material. Which is what HD does.

Before I moved into sound post production I worked in production as well as the picture editing department, and hence was used to watching pristine film rushes and answer prints. In general (unless the film was deliberately shot to look low-res and grainy) the images were gorgeously sharp, clean and pure. THAT is what the director and DOP is hoping you'd be able to see. And THAT is what HD media brings us closer to being able to experience. UNFORTUNATELY it's a fact of striking final prints that the multiple generations will lower sharpness/contrast/increase grain...to a degree. Add that to the crappy state of projection in many commercial theaters and the image can be significantly degraded...although often STILL you get more resolution with film in a commercial theater than home displays.

But it's not like the director or DOP WANT all that degradation to occur. They would like you to see it in as pure and unsullied a form as possible, with the details they went to the effort to capture on screen.

HD media allows us to see this. And as to the benefit of HD in very old films Casablanca is a beautiful example, like seeing a print struck from the original film negative. It's like being in the audience with the best print possible. I was thrilled beyond belief when I was able to experience the print quality of Casablanca in HD.

I would LOVE to see Citizen Kane in an HD transfer...after having seen all to many scratchy, old prints of that film it would be a dream to virtually "travel back in time" and view the film in a condition that the director/DOP and original audiences saw it!

Now, if you have some form of nostalgia for having seen bad film prints in crappy theaters and you want that re-created, then...uh...yeah...SD might be said to be "better" at recreating that lower quality experience.

But why anyone would want the worst aspects of projected film replicated rather than the best aspects is beyond me.

1. Just to put this issue to bed on the resolution of a movie sourced from 35mm - what resolution YOU see on the screen:

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

2. Take a 35" HDTV and put on a VHS tape. Then put on a DVD (enhanced for 16x9). Then put on an HDM film . . . and let your eyes versus specs tell you how much improvement you are seeing from each format as you go up the line in technology. And make sure to sit at the proper distance - about 7 feet away.

Because of the 50+ million HDTV's that 35" HDTV is the average size and 80% of them are NOT 1080P. They are either 720P or 768P.

Lee, you and I have touched on this before. I have to admit, much of that article was over my head. The general impression I get is that theater film resolution is just adequate given screen size and distance. To my eyes, DVD was a bigger step up over VHS than HDM is to DVD, perhaps I'm wrong, and many will disagree. There is no way I could sit 6 feet from a 50" screen running VHS and like it, on the other hand, a SD DVD looks just fine. As far as the theater is concerned my eyes tell me movies look better at home. They have more detail, color, and contrast. My wife also agrees with this. Some will say the theater is better, I say it isn't. Perhaps this will change as better theaters come on line. I don't think this issue is as cut and dry as film resolution specs and screen sizes make it out to be.

That's crazy talk.

ANY movie benefits from a transfer process that allows a closer approximation to the source material. Which is what HD does.

Before I moved into sound post production I worked in production as well as the picture editing department, and hence was used to watching pristine film rushes and answer prints. In general (unless the film was deliberately shot to look low-res and grainy) the images were gorgeously sharp, clean and pure. THAT is what the director and DOP is hoping you'd be able to see. And THAT is what HD media brings us closer to being able to experience. UNFORTUNATELY it's a fact of striking final prints that the multiple generations will lower sharpness/contrast/increase grain...to a degree. Add that to the crappy state of projection in many commercial theaters and the image can be significantly degraded...although often STILL you get more resolution with film in a commercial theater than home displays.

But it's not like the director or DOP WANT all that degradation to occur. They would like you to see it in as pure and unsullied a form as possible, with the details they went to the effort to capture on screen.

HD media allows us to see this. And as to the benefit of HD in very old films Casablanca is a beautiful example, like seeing a print struck from the original film negative. It's like being in the audience with the best print possible. I was thrilled beyond belief when I was able to experience the print quality of Casablanca in HD.

I would LOVE to see Citizen Kane in an HD transfer...after having seen all to many scratchy, old prints of that film it would be a dream to virtually "travel back in time" and view the film in a condition that the director/DOP and original audiences saw it!

Now, if you have some form of nostalgia for having seen bad film prints in crappy theaters and you want that re-created, then...uh...yeah...SD might be said to be "better" at recreating that lower quality experience.

But why anyone would want the worst aspects of projected film replicated rather than the best aspects is beyond me.


As you said, you were in the business. So you have a different perspective. When you made a model of a B-52 when you were a kid, you probably made it look brand new. So did I. If I made one today. I would probably make it weather because that is how it was in real life. Most people watched movies like Rocky and Jaws in non state of the art theaters with 2 speaker behind the screen.

They dealt with film jitters, scratches and everythign else. For some movies, I would definitely want to see then redigitized. I am not asking whether it is right or wrong to do that.

What about another type of classic film. The three stooges. I have never seen a "clean" version of that film. I wasn't around then. For me, re-editing the stooges for HD wouldn't work. I would rather see the version of the film that I remember seeing. the same with king kong and godzilla.

I would also rather hear stereo than a remixed "virtual" surround for many of those older movies too.

Anyone live or visited NYC? Been to Times Square? The Sony Jumbotron (or what ever manufacturer it is now) looked fantastic from 2 blocks away. It was sourced from a MUSE HD LD.

But get within a block of it and it looked terrible. You could see all the "pixels" that made up the display because they were so big.

This has a bearing on what we are discussing. Sit closer than "intended" and you will see flaws. Sit at the correct spot and everything is fine. Sit back further and even bad video will look OK.

DO NOT forget about Spatial Resolution - how the eye/brain works.

Anyone live or visited NYC? Been to Times Square? The Sony Jumbotron (or what ever manufacturer it is now) looked fantastic from 2 blocks away. It was sourced from a MUSE HD LD.

But get within a block of it and it looked terrible. You could see all the "pixels" that made up the display because they were so big.

This has a bearing on what we are discussing. Sit closer than "intended" and you will see flaws. Sit at the correct spot and everything is fine. Sit back further and even bad video will look OK.

DO NOT forget about Spatial Resolution - how the eye/brain works.

No I don't really think the "jumbo tron" has any bearing, but you have the right to your opinion. Screen size does affect what you can see, but I have about the same ratio in a theater in my set up at 92" I sit closer at 8' but I always preferred to be closer to the screen in the theater too (unless I was with a gal... but that is another type of viewing experience... ;))

[QUOTE=Evan_H;12393038]Lord of the Rings had a car in the background of a scene when it was shown in theaters. The car was digitally removed on the DVD release. Do you want them to keep the car because "that's the way it looked in theaters"?


Lets hope the guy in the background in Gladiator will be removed from the HD version as well!... Why is he still here in the EE ?... I'd guess it's not that hard to clean up...

A 720p projector erases the screen door effect for me. I plan to upgrade. I do watch HD TV and will eventually get HD. But I don't see the need to upgrade older titles as much

How about you set the player to output 480 when you watch older titles? Problem solved!

I think this thread more appropriately belongs in a psychology forum than an a/v forum....jeesh.

How about you set the player to output 480 when you watch older titles? Problem solved!

Now that just makes no sense. why would I buy an HD title instead of a SD DVD and downmix it to 480p.

What about Airplane. Let's say you could buy an SD DVD in the bargain bin for 4.99 or the new HD version for $30. Me I go with the bargain bin. I have only seen it on TV. not in the theater. So the DVD version is already better than what I have seen.

I think this thread more appropriately belongs in a psychology forum than an a/v forum....jeesh.

This whole forum is a is a psychology forum.. We are all a bit nuts when you think about how much time we all fuss over this stuff.. lol

:D

So here is a follow up question. Would you get HD to see a redigitized version of Star Trek the original series or would you prefer the older version in SD.

I know even with DVD, Star Trek the next generation shows more flaws than I remember seeing on broadcast TV.

I would buy the remastered Star Trek HD DVD set and did. I just watched Charlie X and Balance of Terror last night. It is by far the best the show has ever looked.

Personally I want any show or movie that can benefit from an HD transfer on HD media. By cleaning up and mastering film for HD presentation you are seeing the film closer to it's original form than ever before. I don't see how the muted color palette or decreased resolution of SD DVD can be of any benefit. The idea that because it's more flawed on SD DVD and the original experience you had was flawed due to the theater doesn't make sense. The flaws won't be the same (dirt on the print, scratches, vs digital compression, muted colors, etc). And the SD DVD is less accurate to the source.

Take the HD plunge. I doubt seriously that you will regret it. This hobby should be about recreating the film as close to it's original form as possible. HD brings us a big step closer.

HD is LOTS better than SD. I mean WAY better.

HD-DVD is better than SD by a LARGER MARGIN than DVD was compared to VHS.

If you can't see it, you're either partially blind or have a display device that can't depict it.


Gotta love subjective BS on this site lately :eek: then the guy throws in a small insult. I disagree and anytime you want to compare lives, houses, equipment, eye sight, Im more then welcome to challenge those who insult :D

Okay, I dont find HD to be a HUGE, LARGE, ENORMOUS IMPROVEMENT over DVD like DVD was to VHS.

I love HD but I dont get bent out of shape if I watch a SD movie EVERY night! I have over 300 of them on a server ready to play with a touch of a screen so why duplicate.

And YES I have more then most do! Equipment, sound, better eye sight then 99% of the population and so on.

Its my choice to enjoy what I want to enjoy, no one can tell me its ignorance either. I have experienced it all (Imax is cool too but I still watch movies elsewhere) and at the end of the day I can watch a movie on my notebook over a crappy network speeds in a hotel and enjoy it AS MUCH AS watching the same movie in HD at home.

Others can enjoy HD all they want but lets not get crazy and thinks there is nothing else because that just makes one of us ignorant ;)

Exactly why it is important that the highest quality possible be placed on HDM of today since screen sizes keep getting bigger and most peoples family rooms don't just grow so you can sit further away and make the picture look nicer.

Lets get this right!! MOST people's family rooms dont have HD and dont care about EITHER format!! :D Just want you to make sure what "MOST" you are talking about ;)

A 720p projector erases the screen door effect for me. I plan to upgrade. I do watch HD TV and will eventually get HD. But I don't see the need to upgrade older titles as much

Okay, then don't upgrade older titles. If you want to just buy new titles in HD, that's fine. Many people are doing just that.

I would buy the remastered Star Trek HD DVD set and did. I just watched Charlie X and Balance of Terror last night. It is by far the best the show has ever looked.

Personally I want any show or movie that can benefit from an HD transfer on HD media. By cleaning up and mastering film for HD presentation you are seeing the film closer to it's original form than ever before. .

Did you watch the original star trek on TV? I don't think most sets even had 480i back then... there were still alot of black and whites out there then.

I was reading a quote like this one and it made me think if HD is necessarily better than SD.The quote is right. For almost anyone who gets HD, SD slowly but surely becomes non-relevant for viewing.


In some ways, I think you are better off watching old movies in SD like Jaws. At first you may say "Blasphemy!" Film back then was not nearly as good as it is now.This is 100% completely erroneous.

The answer is YES. HD is better. I see no reason to elaborate further.

If you disagree PM for and maybe we can work something out for a big box of VHS tapes.

How this thread got to 4 pages is beyond me.

Now that just makes no sense. why would I buy an HD title instead of a SD DVD and downmix it to 480p.

What about Airplane. Let's say you could buy an SD DVD in the bargain bin for 4.99 or the new HD version for $30. Me I go with the bargain bin. I have only seen it on TV. not in the theater. So the DVD version is already better than what I have seen.


Did you get the pan and scan version with commercials inserted?

The "real" version, for lack of a better word, is the version that is on the original master of the film when released to the theaters. Every subsequent version (that is not true to the original master) is definitely not "better", it is worse. The closer you get to the original master, the better, and HDM lets us get closer than ever before.

Nobody should insist on an old transfer complete with wear and tear just because of nostalgia. If we did, then I should only watch The Magnificent Seven in pan and scan on a 19" B&W RCA with a coathanger for an antenna, because that's how I first saw it back in 1970. Just because you personally never saw Airplane outside of a crappy edited for TV version, doesn't mean that the crappy edited for TV version is a proper release and certainly doesn't mean it is better than HDM.

Nobody should insist on an old transfer complete with wear and tear just because of nostalgia.

I am not saying they should. Just asking which you would prefer. If you had the choice of the two with a price difference of $25, which would you get? Me... I would get Airplane on SD. It is much different for movies like 2001 and more modern movies like transformers. For those, I would without a doubt opt for the HD.

Going back to the stooges. I would actually perfer the SD rather than the HD... if they digitally recleaned the stooges which they most likely would if they were going to rerelease it on HD.

doesn't mean that the crappy edited for TV version is a proper release and certainly doesn't mean it is better than HDM.


Exactly. You can say HDM doesn't have the value that SD has. But you can't say it isn't better. IT JUST IS.

Why is it that people continue to compare the Bin O' Movies at WalMart to HDM? New releases on SD cost $15-24. New releases on HDM cost $20-28.

Yeah VHS was pretty ******. Now, HDTV vs. standard cable is a similar upgrade to DVD over VHS. I think DVD over VHS was bigger than high def movies over DVD. DVD already looks much better than standard cable or satellite (which looks like utter crap).

People have to remember there was other benefits other than picture quality. (no rewinding, scene selection, better sound quality etc. etc). HD cable/Digital Cable,Sat (as well as DVD) were leaps and bounds better than their analog counterparts IMO.

Either way I think we are in the ole transfer argument here. Unfortunately for HDM succeed I beleive we will see more EE and DNR to make the picture pop like the Pixar movies. That is how people are going to justify spending the additional money on HDM IMO.

I am not saying they should. Just asking which you would prefer. If you had the choice of the two with a price difference of $25, which would you get? Me... I would get Airplane on SD. It is much different for movies like 2001 and more modern movies like transformers. For those, I would without a doubt opt for the HD.

Going back to the stooges. I would actually perfer the SD rather than the HD... if they digitally recleaned the stooges which they most likely would if they were going to rerelease it on HD.

I thought I answered that question. I would opt for the version that is most close to the original master. I have no nostalgia for the crappy TV presentations of my youth. That is why I have a home THEATER, so I can relive films as they were shown in the THEATER, including The Three Stooges, which were theater shorts when first seen.

And please stop writing "digitally recleaning" as if film restoration is a dirty word. You can't generalize on the condition of a master that a transfer is from and you have no idea what type of restorative measures are taken to return a film to it's original glory. Please don't demean the efforts of master film restorers by referring to their work in terms that sound like you are talking about renting a rug shampooer.

PORN . . .HD is terrible - unless the model is 18 and has 100% "squeaky" clean skin.

PLEASE leave it in SD!

Did you watch the original star trek on TV? I don't think most sets even had 480i back then... there were still alot of black and whites out there then.

I wasn't alive when it first aired. However I have fond memories of staying up late and sneaking the 15" TV on at low volume to watch them late at night. The fact that my first viewing was on a small color set with horrid color calibration and a poor off air signal does not in any way diminish my appreciation of viewing these cleaned and restored episodes on my 110" screen today. In fact if anything it makes me appreciate it more.

Restoring and cleaning a film is not altering it, nor adding information. It is merely allowing us to finally see more of what was originally there in the first place.

>>I don't think most sets even had 480i back then...<<

Good Lord!

ALL sets back then were "480i" - it's called the NTSC standard with 525 lines, around 480 being visible, the rest being used for 'housekeeping' - in 1953 it was upgraded to color via the efforts of the NTSC-2, but the number of scanning lines, interlacing, etc... stayed the same. The first color standard in the USA was in 1951 via the (highly) incompatible CBS Field Sequential System. It was abandoned in October of 1951 and the 100% compatible NTSC-2 color television format came into being in 1953.

PORN . . .HD is terrible - unless the model is 18 and has 100% "squeaky" clean skin.

PLEASE leave it in SD!

There ya go Lee, now there is one source material where higher resolution may NOT be what you want...:D

>>I don't think most sets even had 480i back then...<<

Good Lord!

ALL sets back then were "480i" - it's called the NTSC standard with 525 lines, around 480 being visible, the rest being used for 'housekeeping' - in 1953 it was upgraded to color via the efforts of the NTSC-2, but the number of scanning lines, interlacing, etc... stayed the same. The first color standard in the USA was in 1951 via the (highly) incompatible CBS Field Sequential System. It was abandoned in October of 1951 and the 100% compatible NTSC-2 color television format came into being in 1953.

Thanks for pointing this out. I was about to say the same thing. :)

For clarity, when people referred to the resolution of TV's, VHS, LD, etc, they were talking horizontal lines of resolution. VHS is around 250, I believe, SVHS added another 100 or so and LD was 425. Many TV's at the time could only resolve around 300 lines of horizontal resolution. Compare with DVD at 720 horizontal lines (I think it's 500 visible, to compare it with the previous numbers). All of these formats have 480 visible vertical lines of resolution.

-MD

I am fine with analogue SD cable (yes really) over composite (yes composite) on my 7" LCD screen.
I am OK with DVD using DVI or component on my 27" LCD TV, but much prefer HD.
I am OK with DVD using component on my 32" LCD TV, but much prefer HD.

However...

DVD doesn't look so great on my 42" LCD TV, and HD is a huge improvement at moderate seating distances.
With my 90" projector screen, DVD sometimes makes me want to rip my eyes out. Unfortunately, even some HD on my 90" projector screen makes me want to rip my eyes out. Any encoding artifacts are totally obvious. While I really dislike DVD (even upscaled) on that screen, I dislike poor quality artifact-ridden HD even more.

Thanks for pointing this out. I was about to say the same thing. :)

For clarity, when people referred to the resolution of TV's, VHS, LD, etc, they were talking horizontal lines of resolution. VHS is around 250, I believe, SVHS added another 100 or so and LD was 425. Many TV's at the time could only resolve around 300 lines of horizontal resolution. Compare with DVD at 720 horizontal lines (I think it's 500 visible, to compare it with the previous numbers). All of these formats have 480 visible vertical lines of resolution.

-MD

To my best recollection on the subject of Hort. Res for NTSC formats:

1. VHS - 250
2. Beta - 300
3. SVHS - 400 (but the same color res as VHS - 80 lines)
4. LD - 425 (with 160 for color)
5. DVD - 480 (with 240 for color)
6. ED-Beta - 500 (color unknown)

Did you watch the original star trek on TV? I don't think most sets even had 480i back then... there were still alot of black and whites out there then.

I wasn't alive when it first aired. However I have fond memories of staying up late and sneaking the 15" TV on at low volume to watch them late at night. The fact that my first viewing was on a small color set with horrid color calibration and a poor off air signal does not in any way diminish my appreciation of viewing these cleaned and restored episodes on my 110" screen today. In fact if anything it makes me appreciate it more.

Restoring and cleaning a film is not altering it, nor adding information. It is merely allowing us to finally see more of what was originally there in the first place.

Even at 480i, how is transferring Star Trek the Original Series to 1080p keeping it to its original quality. The original quality as was aired was 480i. Roddenberry knew this when making it. SciFi had used the limits of TV in those days to enhance the illusion of what they were showing was "real". Taking the original footage and re-imaging it for HD is taking away from that illusion. The only way around it is to digital re edit it as well and then you are changing the image.

If you watched the full documentaries on Star Wars, this is one of the things that held back the release of the first trilogy on DVD. Lucas had his team go back and re-edit the film to "hide" the flaws that would have been apparrent on DVD.

As a film buff and history buff, I like the original "vasolined" speeder that luke used. It dates the film.

On a side note, Is there any way of getting the original Star Wars on DVD besides transferring from VHS or a bootleg version. I really wish they had released both the edited and unedited versions on DVD.

I am fine with analogue SD cable (yes really) over composite (yes composite) on my 7" LCD screen.
I am OK with DVD using DVI or component on my 27" LCD TV, but much prefer HD.
I am OK with DVD using component on my 32" LCD TV, but much prefer HD.

However...

DVD doesn't look so great on my 42" LCD TV, and HD is a huge improvement at moderate seating distances.
With my 90" projector screen, DVD sometimes makes me want to rip my eyes out. Unfortunately, even some HD on my 90" projector screen makes me want to rip my eyes out. Any encoding artifacts are totally obvious. While I really dislike DVD (even upscaled) on that screen, I dislike poor quality artifact-ridden HD even more.

Dude, if you are seeing that many artifacts, you need to get a better upscaler or something. I don't get artifacts on my display. Are you ouputting with an hdmi or DVI... or are you using component or D-sub? I have my HTPC tweaked for DVD and don't get any artifacts or jaggies. I upscale the Video from 480p to 720p using filters and then output it in straight digital format via hdmi to my 720p DLP projector at 92". And there is no reason you should be getting artifacts on an HD screen from an HD source like HD DVD or BD ... unless the screen is 720p and you're TV is having trouble downscaling the video. I have seen some LCDs that have problems converting with a work internal converter. We have a 42" Vizio LCD here at work that is terrible at upscaling. Most TVs .. even HD ones... have trouble scaling. I think you may be better off letting a good player (not the $49 walmart brand) or htpc do the upscaling. From what I have read the HD-A35 for instance has a hands down better upscaler than its little brother the A3. My own projector upscales the ok, but I definitely see a difference if I keep the source the same as the output.

Dude, if you are seeing that many artifacts, you need to get a better upscaler or something. I don't get artifacts on my display. Are you ouputting with an hdmi or DVI... or are you using component or D-sub? I have my HTPC tweaked for DVD and don't get any artifacts or jaggies. And there is no reason you should be getting artifacts on an HD screen from an HD source like HD DVD or BD ... unless the screen is 720p and you're TV is having trouble downscaling the video.
I'm talking about some broadcast HD. They can be riddled with encoding artifacts. Scaling has nothing to do with it.

HD DVD usually looks glorious.

Oh and lots of DVDs have visible encoding artifacts. This is minimized on better DVDs, but so far from what I've seen, easily visible encoding artifacts are much more common on DVD on average than HD DVD. However, broadcast HD is sometimes much worse.

I'm talking about some broadcast HD. They can be riddled with encoding artifacts. Scaling has nothing to do with it.

HD DVD usually looks glorious.

Oh and lots of DVDs have visible encoding artifacts. This is minimized on better DVDs, but so far from what I've seen, easily visible encoding artifacts are much more common on DVD on average than HD DVD. However, broadcast HD is sometimes much worse.

You can't go by HD cable.... it is limited by bandwidth. but it sounds like you already know that.

You can't go by HD cable.... it is limited by bandwidth. but it sounds like you already know that.
Yeah. My local provider apparently is pretty good by broadcast HD standards, but "pretty good" means up to 19+ Mbps MPEG2... which clearly still isn't good enough.

Oh and lots of DVDs have visible encoding artifacts. This is minimized on better DVDs, but so far from what I've seen, easily visible encoding artifacts are much more common on DVD on average than HD DVD. However, broadcast HD is sometimes much worse.


Then you need a better converter. It depends which HD player you have. It sounds to me like either your source is having problems or you projector is having problems... or both.

If you are working with an A1, A2 or A3, they are designed more for HD playback than upconverting. It doesn't mean they can't. It is just not their strength. That is where the Xa2 and a35 excel.

Then you need a better converter. It depends which HD player you have. It sounds to me like either your source is having problems or you projector is having problems... or both.

If you are working with an A1, A2 or A3, they are designed more for HD playback than upconverting. It doesn't mean they can't. It is just not their strength. That is where the Xa2 and a35 excel.
Converter? Like I said, scaling/upconversion has nothing to do with it.

There are lots of DVDs with noticeable encoding artifacts. The jaggies that you mentioned are not encoding artifacts. It's gotten a lot better in recent years, but nonetheless on average it's more common to see encoding artifacts on DVD than HD DVD.

>>1. VHS - 250
2. Beta - 300
3. SVHS - 400 (but the same color res as VHS - 80 lines)
4. LD - 425 (with 160 for color)
5. DVD - 480 (with 240 for color)
6. ED-Beta - 500 (color unknown)<<

*VHS - 'around' 240-250 - measured to -3db, around 120 lines. Chroma res, around 30 lines horizontally. It only had .5mhz of chroma bandwidth.

*Beta - exactly the same as VHS.

*SuperBeta - around 270 lines

*LD - 'claimed' 425, but Pioneer never produced a disc proving that - typically pressed title, around 380 or so. LD had around 120 lines of color horizontally and 480 horizontally (even OTA NTSC could have chroma resolution of 480 vertically). Chroma res was raised a bit at the end by Kuraray plastics with their mastering using the Faroudja SuperNTSC Encoder.

*DVD - yep, 480 or so - with 240 for color both horizontally and vertically.

*ED-Beta - 'claimed' 500 - color resolution, .5mhz, so around 30 lines. Same with SuperVHS.

One thing to remember about color resolution claims - very, very few television sets used any higher bandwidth color decoding than .5mhz. They threw the orange-cyan information away. Even now days, hardly any sets or Y/C decoders decode chroma with full NTSC I/Q bandwidth.

Even at 480i, how is transferring Star Trek the Original Series to 1080p keeping it to its original quality. The original quality as was aired was 480i. Roddenberry knew this when making it. SciFi had used the limits of TV in those days to enhance the illusion of what they were showing was "real". Taking the original footage and re-imaging it for HD is taking away from that illusion. The only way around it is to digital re edit it as well and then you are changing the image.


They aren't adding anything, they are simply recreating the original with greater resolution. It's not like you are now going to magically see something that was not on the original. All this rationalizing is getting a little tiresome. I can understand why the price of the HD DVD Star Trek series is daunting and why you may be looking for a justification to not spend the money, but this silly denigration of HD and those who are apparently (in your opinion) stupid for buying it is not working. Either buy it or don't buy it, but quit trying to infer that HD is not "better" than the SD versions, because it simply is not true.


If you watched the full documentaries on Star Wars, this is one of the things that held back the release of the first trilogy on DVD. Lucas had his team go back and re-edit the film to "hide" the flaws that would have been apparrent on DVD.


Take any excuse for "re-editing" done by Lucas with a big grain of salt (about the size of Montana). Film is higher resolution than HD or DVD. Any "flaws" you'd see on DVD, you'd see it on film. Matter of fact, you'd see more flaws on film.


As a film buff and history buff, I like the original "vasolined" speeder that luke used. It dates the film.


So do the hairstyles. :rolleyes:


On a side note, Is there any way of getting the original Star Wars on DVD besides transferring from VHS or a bootleg version. I really wish they had released both the edited and unedited versions on DVD.

Uhhh, he did:Star Wars Episode IV - A New Hope (1977 & 2004 Versions, 2-Disc Widescreen Edition) (1977)
(http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Episode-IV-Widescreen/dp/B000FQJAIW******pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1196800099&sr=8-1)

Except the old editions are non-anamorphic (but you probably like that because it "dates" the film;)).

Converter? Like I said, scaling/upconversion has nothing to do with it.

There are lots of DVDs with noticeable encoding artifacts. The jaggies that you mentioned are not encoding artifacts. It's gotten a lot better in recent years, but nonetheless on average it's more common to see encoding artifacts on DVD than HD DVD.

Wow! I don't get them. The only time I see artifacts is when I reencode something too much with a program like DVD shrink. Oigh.

They aren't adding anything, they are simply recreating the original with greater resolution. It's not like you are now going to magically see something that was not on the original.
They added all sorts of CGI to Star Trek for the new HD DVD/DVD combo. From the little I've seen, most is very tasteful, but some of it looks NOTHING like the original.


Wow! I don't get them. The only time I see artifacts is when I reencode something too much with a program like DVD shrink. Oigh.
Well, it depends. Like I said, in recent years it's much better. But it still depends on what you watch. Older DVDs, and DVDs from smaller studios aren't always as cleanly encoded.

The same can be true on HD DVD by the way. For example, I just received HDScape's Antarctica Dreaming (http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=64884), and it has some obvious artifacting as well:

"The quality of the compression is also not particularly good, with visible macro-blocking and a considerable amount of fine detail being eroded during camera movement. Given that flowing water (always a major compression bugbear) is particularly prevalent on both discs, the effect of the poor encoding on the material is often catastrophic."

They added all sorts of CGI to Star Trek for the new HD DVD/DVD combo. From the little I've seen, most is very tasteful, but some of it looks NOTHING like the original.

I didn't know that, I'm not really interested in the title. If the CGI looks nothing like the original or even a representation of the original, I'm even less interested. But that has little to do with the transfer to HD.

I didn't know that, I'm not really interested in the title. If the CGI looks nothing like the original or even a representation of the original, I'm even less interested. But that has little to do with the transfer to HD.


AFAIK - the CGI work was to replace the outdated and sometimes laughable "space shots" using a model and compositing with planets and such in the background. These are on the screen for only seconds at a time.

AFAIF - the episodes are untouched with the exception of a few "inclusions" like making the "lizard man" blink where before his eyes were always open.

One of the new CGI shots of the Enterprise:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/enterprise.jpg

AFAIK - the CGI work was to replace the outdated and sometimes laughable "space shots" using a model and compositing with planets and such in the background. These are on the screen for only seconds at a time.

AFAIF - the episodes are untouched with the exception of a few "inclusions" like making the "lizard man" blink where before his eyes were always open.


Well, I saw those "space shots" back on my afore mentioned 19" B&W RCA with the coat hanger antenna. They always showed one of those cheesy shots just before the crew beamed down to the planet. A few minutes after, the unknown guy in the medium grey shirt gets killed. :D

Star Trek remastered (http://trekmovie.com/category/tos-in-hd/episode-screenshots/)

Old:
http://www.trekmovie.com/tosrem/BoT/comet_old.jpg

New:
http://www.trekmovie.com/tosrem/BoT/new_comet.jpg

Not bad, but I was disappointed they messed with the Tricoder readout though. I liked the old 60s style. I can't find a pic of it at the moment though.

You are WRONG. Star Trek was FILMED. With FILM cameras. It was not shot on SD video. I don't know why it is so hard to pound this into your skull....

Your point about manipulating the video is completely different than arguing about whether or not an older film should be presented in HD or not.

AFAIK - the CGI work was to replace the outdated and sometimes laughable "space shots" using a model and compositing with planets and such in the background. These are on the screen for only seconds at a time.

AFAIF - the episodes are untouched with the exception of a few "inclusions" like making the "lizard man" blink where before his eyes were always open.

One of the new CGI shots of the Enterprise:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/enterprise.jpg

Now thats just not right..... I will not buy the HD versions then.. I am definitely sticking with me old DVDs on this... Why oh why did they feel the need to sodomize obviously dated historical series like star trek. Unless you are going to modernized every little detail of.. then why would you bother change a few items like that. Did lizard man really need to blink. I like the old cheesy phaser shots.

You are WRONG. Star Trek was FILMED. With FILM cameras. It was not shot on SD video. I don't know why it is so hard to pound this into your skull....

Your point about manipulating the video is completely different than arguing about whether or not an older film should be presented in HD or not.

But it VIEWED via film. It was originally VIEWED and intended to be viewed at 480i on a tube TV... not 1080p

Even at 480i, how is transferring Star Trek the Original Series to 1080p keeping it to its original quality. The original quality as was aired was 480i. Roddenberry knew this when making it. SciFi had used the limits of TV in those days to enhance the illusion of what they were showing was "real". Taking the original footage and re-imaging it for HD is taking away from that illusion. The only way around it is to digital re edit it as well and then you are changing the image.

If you watched the full documentaries on Star Wars, this is one of the things that held back the release of the first trilogy on DVD. Lucas had his team go back and re-edit the film to "hide" the flaws that would have been apparrent on DVD.

As a film buff and history buff, I like the original "vasolined" speeder that luke used. It dates the film.

On a side note, Is there any way of getting the original Star Wars on DVD besides transferring from VHS or a bootleg version. I really wish they had released both the edited and unedited versions on DVD.

Star Trek was shot on film as another poster pointed out. So therefore the data to create a 1920x1080 master was already there. Nothing about the film print need be altered to take advantage of HD. Again film has more resolution than the current HD standards.

The changes made to things like the effects shots in Star Trek or some of the awful things Lucas has done, are a separate issue. And that is up to the purchaser as to whether these changes are objectionable or not. Oh and a lot of Star Wars shots were cleaned up for contrast reasons (the box around the models) not resolution.

But the main point is that older films and film based television do not need anything added to them to take advantage of HD's increased resolution. That companies are taking the time to clean the prints and remove scratches is icing on the cake. Star Trek could have been transferred as is, bad effects and all, and still have benefited greatly from HD.

Side note: To those wondering about Star Trek. I'm a lifelong fan and watched the first couple episodes of this with 2 other fans and none of us found the new effects to be objectionable. In fact one of them made the comment that Lucas could learn from this. I urge anyone who loves the show to give the new effect shots a chance. Even if you only find them tolerable, the wonderful job they did cleaning up the prints will make it worth it.

But it VIEWED via film. It was originally VIEWED and intended to be viewed at 480i on a tube TV... not 1080p

So buy a circa 1960's television and watch it as intended. Your projector is scaling it to 720p, so there is no chance you can view it at 480i.

Seriously, the only reason it was viewed this way was a limitation of the technology of the time. It's crazy to think that they would not have wanted a better display medium for television had it existed.

Your projector is scaling it to 720p, so there is no chance you can view it at 480i.


Heathen!!! Blasphemer!!!! ;)

So buy a circa 1960's television and watch it as intended. Your projector is scaling it to 720p, so there is no chance you can view it at 480i.

Seriously, the only reason it was viewed this way was a limitation of the technology of the time. It's crazy to think that they would not have wanted a better display medium for television had it existed.

But they used the limitations of the time to their benefit when designing the special effects .. which leads to studios digitally editing the original film after transfer to HD in order to compensate the limitations of the original 480i... Upscaling is different in that it does not add content that was not in the original broadcast. Transferring to HD does. further digital editing does.

But they used the limitations of the time to their benefit when designing the special effects which leads to digitally editing the original film after transfer to compensate it originally designed for 480i...

They choose to do this. They did not have to do this.


Upscaling is different as it does not add content was not in the original broadcast. Transferring to HD does. further digital editing does.

Upscaling can add artifacts if done improperly. Transferring to HD does not, repeat with us, DOES NOT add anything that was not there with film based material. The picture information was there the whole time, we simply lacked a way to see it before.

They choose to do this. They did not have to do this.



Upscaling can add artifacts if done improperly. Transferring to HD does not, repeat with us, DOES NOT add anything that was not there with film based material. The picture information was there the whole time, we simply lacked a way to see it before.

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

You are missing the whole point. Star Trek was historical film. Millions of people viewed it at 480i. It was intended to be viewed at 480i. Sure the film has more detail, but the broadcast did not. If you are going to use a phaser glued together from household objects as they did, you do enough to make it so it looks like a phaser on TV is real at 480i. By going back to the original film and re transferring at 1080p, you are degrading the original experience by adding more content. I don't understand how you can not see this.

Let me give you an example. They publish a photograph of Marylin Monroe on Life magazine. It is how the photo was intended to be viewed. You could go back to original negative and get a better resolution picture but then you might see imperfections in Marylin herself that cannot be seen on the cover of the image. Hence you have distorted the originally produced art piece. Sure, you can see Marylin's acne and wrinkles in skin, but is that better or are you better off seeing the "fuzzier" cover?

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

You are missing the whole point. Star Trek was historical film. Millions of people viewed it at 480i. It was intended to be viewed at 480i. Sure the film has more detail, but the broadcast did not. If you are going to use a phaser glued together from household objects as they did, you do enough to make it so it looks like a phaser on TV is real at 480i. By going back to the original film and re transferring at 1080p, you are degrading the original experience by adding more content. I don't understand how you can not see this.

Let me give you an example. They publish a photograph of Marylin Monroe on Life magazine. It is how the photo was intended to be viewed. You could go back to original negative and get a better resolution picture but then you might see imperfections in Marylin herself that cannot be seen on the cover of the image. Hence you have distorted the originally produced art piece. Sure, you can see Marylin's acne and wrinkles in skin, but is that better or are you better off seeing the "fuzzier" cover?

All those millions of people had no choice - 480i was IT.

And what you are saying is . . . .

"Studio's . . . ALL your TV shows up until a few years ago can not and should not be shown in HD. They were not shown that way when they came out."

And you believe your opinion is correct?

Do you turn off the Stereo and make a program Mono because that's they way it was shown on TV 40 years ago?

Side note: To those wondering about Star Trek. I'm a lifelong fan and watched the first couple episodes of this with 2 other fans and none of us found the new effects to be objectionable. In fact one of them made the comment that Lucas could learn from this. I urge anyone who loves the show to give the new effect shots a chance. Even if you only find them tolerable, the wonderful job they did cleaning up the prints will make it worth it.
Yup, that's why I ordered it. However, while I fully support remastering it to clean it up and even adding a bit of CG to clean up certain parts, I do find it a bit disappointing that a few things were drastically changed.

It's almost as if Paramount had everyone on a tight leash, but every once in a while the CG jockeys broke free of their chains briefly. ;)

OTOH, I've seen it 100X on TV already, so it will be refreshing to get a bit of a change now and then. :p

Well, I saw those "space shots" back on my afore mentioned 19" B&W RCA with the coat hanger antenna. They always showed one of those cheesy shots just before the crew beamed down to the planet. A few minutes after, the unknown guy in the medium grey shirt gets killed. :D

i sometimes used old guitar strings for antennae back in those days.:confused: worked ok.:D

arent those 'space shots., old and/new, used as segues from one segment/scene to the next? i kind of like the new ones.

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

I imagine it does. But in the spirit of your opinion here have you watched it on a 480i set to verify that it is indeed being displayed properly?


You are missing the whole point. Star Trek was historical film. Millions of people viewed it at 480i. It was intended to be viewed at 480i. Sure the film has more detail, but the broadcast did not. If you are going to use a phaser glued together from household objects as they did, you do enough to make it so it looks like a phaser on TV is real at 480i. By going back to the original film and re transferring at 1080p, you are degrading the original experience by adding more content. I don't understand how you can not see this.

I see this point completely. Whereas you see increasing the picture quality beyond the capabilities of a 480i CRT as a detriment, I view seeing more of the original detail in a cherished program as a plus. And lets not forget the restored color and more correct color pallet. So even if you argue that SD DVD is doing Star Trek a favor by capturing it's broadcast resolution, it's still compromising color correctness due to the formats limitations.

And this argument completely falls flat with older films which were originally shown with their resolution uncompromised in the theater. The fact that some theaters are better than others is not relevant. When a classic like Jaws was originally shown with a pristine print in a top notch theater it would have easily outstripped anything DVD could do with it. In all honesty, it would be better than what HD can do it with it as well. But HD media would undoubtedly be much closer.


Let me give you an example. They publish a photograph of Marylin Monroe on Life magazine. It is how the photo was intended to be viewed. You could go back to original negative and get a better resolution picture but then you might see imperfections in Marylin herself that cannot be seen on the cover of the image. Hence you have distorted the originally produced art piece. Sure, you can see Marylin's acne and wrinkles in skin, but is that better or are you better off seeing the "fuzzier" cover?

Well how about you find a negative of a large old family photograph. With todays technology you can produce a photo that you can see faces of cherished loved ones that were previously fuzzy. Would you do it or leave it the way it was because that's as good as the photographer could do at the time?

Do you turn off the Stereo and make a program Mono because that's they way it was shown on TV 40 years ago?

I don't follow this one because a rerun of an old show will still be broadcast today in mono anyway (unless it was rejiggered like Star Trek).

All those millions of people had no choice - 480i was IT.

And what you are saying is . . . .

"Studio's . . . ALL your TV shows up until a few years ago can not and should not be shown in HD. They were not shown that way when they came out."

And you believe your opinion is correct?

Do you turn off the Stereo and make a program Mono because that's they way it was shown on TV 40 years ago?

I understand what you are saying about more modern shows... for me I would upscale many of them. But Star Trek is a period piece in so many ways. I don't look at an 89 Ford as a classic yet.. a little old but not a classic like a 65 Mustang.

And it all depends on the type of show too. Star Trek was not trying to be cutting edge in technology. Roddenberry original series was more about social statements and story line than about high tech. On the other hand a film like 2001 was made for state of the art tech.... this is much different.

The next generation was trying to push what a show could do with better special effects and I would like to see those pushed forward to HD.

But as I have said all along. I am not against them making HD versions, but I won't buy many of those on HD DVD. I am not saying I wouldn't buy 2001 on HD. Any new film that could take advantage of HD to make it worth and extra $15 would get my purchase too. Many films like oh...um.... meet the fockers would not appeal to me in HD. Fantastic 4.. heck yeah

I am not alone in this type of though you know. Many audiofiles prefer their old vinyl to digital media even though it has the needle his and distortions in it.

Yes: The extra resolution is awesome and I can only watch HD channels/content.
No: My 1200+ DVD collection has been marginalized and I dont watch DVD's much anyomre plus I have fewer channels to watch.

I'm considering selling off my huge SD DVD collection, but am not sure if/when titles will be released on HD formats. I would save a ton of space if I divested myself of my DVD's though!

HD rocks and should have come much earlier in the late 80's / early 90's.
I can still remember the crap Comcast was broadcasting as early as 2003 on SD cable when I had my old 27" Sony CRT TV (cicrc 1995)

I am not alone in this type of though you know. Many audiofiles prefer their old vinyl to digital media even though it has the needle his and distortions in it.

bad analogy... the audiofiles (sic) "prefer" their old vinyl because they think it sounds better, not worse...

might as well give up guys... similar to those who "hate black bars", you aren't going to change his mind...

I was reading a quote like this one and it made me think if HD is necessarily better than SD.



I have been thinking about upgrading to a HD source like HD DVD for about 6 months now, but wonder what I am going to do with all my old content on DVD.

In some ways, I think you are better off watching old movies in SD like Jaws. At first you may say "Blasphemy!" Film back then was not nearly as good as it is now. They would have to digitally re-edit it to make it work with 1080p. I have a mame arcade machine that plays on a HD CRT. It is really fun... but in the end there is nothing like playing Ms Pacman on the original blurry smudgy old coin op machine. HD doesn't necessarily mean better. I think this carries through with HD DVDs (and bluray for that matter)

You could never make this argument in the past when you think about it. you couldn't play a vhs tape in Laser disc or play it in dvd player. you couldn't play an album on an 8 track, or an 8 track in cassette player or cassette player in cd player. When you upgraded, you inevitably bought it on what you would be playing on down the road.

This is the first time that I can think of that next generation is directly backwards compatible with the old technology.. Now that I think about star wars, I think I actually like the original star wars with all the flaws before Lucas "remastered" it into what became his platinum and gold edtions and then again later on DVD by adding Jabba to episde 4. A movie is should be an event. Many people argue that we need to upgrade these old titles HD to preserve the original footage of older films. These older films weren't originally HD. Man what I would give to go back to before 1940 and watch a classic like King Kong on the original rickety equipment.

I think I may never upgrade my old DVDs like Jaws now that I think about it. Will you?

I read the first two pages of this thread and then had to stop because it was giving me a headache. I apologize to the other patrons of this thread if I'm reheating old hash with this post, but you (the OP -- and a couple of other people here) have some serious misunderstandings of what it means to encode a film in HD.

1) An HD encode does not ADD DETAIL: If done properly, it simply extracts more of the detail from the original print than is possible with DVD. (Oh, I suppose someone might chime in and mention the few sources where detail is added through MCD, but neither the OP nor I are talking about that, so far as I can tell).

2) DVD does not faithfully reproduce a 35mm+ film experience. In the theater, you did not watch Jaws in 480p. And you certainly didn't watch it with rampant edge enhancement or the restricted color space of DVD... Sorry, but you just didn't. You didn't watch it in 1080p either, mind you, but one of these resolutions comes a lot closer to original print than the other, and it's not 480p -- especially true when you consider that very few HDMs actually make full use of the full 1920x1080 available per frame.

3) Most film stock has lots more resolution than DVD. If someone came over to your house with a pristine film-print of Jaws and a projector to play it on, would you tell them, "Go Away. DVD is much closer to what I originally saw in theaters, so take your 35mm film out of here."

Is this thread serious? Really?

How are we ever going to convince studios to make pristine HD transfers if Joe Six Pack wants crappy ones? Maybe you guys should just stick to DVD and be happy.

bad analogy... the audiofiles (sic) "prefer" their old vinyl because they think it sounds better, not worse...

might as well give up guys... similar to those who "hate black bars", you aren't going to change his mind...

It is the nostalgia that I want... not the pure quality. For that I think DVD does just fine.

bad analogy... the audiofiles (sic) "prefer" their old vinyl because they think it sounds better, not worse...

might as well give up guys... similar to those who "hate black bars", you aren't going to change his mind...

And similar to those who hate black bars, they spout pages and pages of BS to justify an opinion that has no basis in fact or art. You notice he's skipped the question about the pristine print of Jaws being seen in a top notch theater being better than HD? Just like the screen fillers, they only answer questions that fit their beliefs.

What are you afraid of seeing in Jaws? You think being in HD is going to turn the shark into cardboard or something? If anything you get to see more of the work that went into the model.
Yes, I'm afraid that HD is going to expose the styrofoam and cardboard, and that is going to break the suspension of disbelief. The styrofoam and cardboard was visible on film when the movie was originally shown in theaters, but audiences were much more tolerant because that was as good as it got.

People were amazed by the picture quality of DVD 10 years ago, but now it looks poor relative to HD. DVD hasn’t gotten any worst, it’s our expectations that have changed. The same thing has happened to effects. Styrofoam and cardboard looked fine 35 years ago, but now it looks poor relative to CG effects. Our expectations have changed, and what was once scary now appears cheesy. And that’s definitely not the way the director intended the effects to look.

It is the nostalgia that I want... not the pure quality. For that I think DVD does just fine.


Your definition of "nostalgia" fits your "opinion" of HD DVD vs. DVD. Your cherry picking of questions to answer also fits your "opinion." How convenient for you.

By the way, how about actually answering the question posted before: Would you really refuse to view a pristine original print of Jaws in order to watch it on SD?

Yes, I'm afraid that HD is going to expose the styrofoam and cardboard, and that is going to break the suspension of disbelief. The styrofoam and cardboard was visible on film when the movie was originally shown in theaters, but audiences were much more tolerant because that was as good as it got.

People were amazed by the picture quality of DVD 10 years ago, but now it looks poor relative to HD. DVD hasn’t gotten any worst, it’s our expectations that have changed. The same thing has happened to effects. Styrofoam and cardboard looked fine 35 years ago, but now it looks poor relative to CG effects. Our expectations have changed, and what was once scary now appears cheesy. And that’s definitely not the way the director intended the effects to look.

B-b-b-but the original poster wants his films to look "dated!" He claims HD will take away from the dated look. :D

And by the way, the shark looks fake on SD DVD too.

You are missing the whole point. Star Trek was historical film. Millions of people viewed it at 480i. It was intended to be viewed at 480i. Sure the film has more detail, but the broadcast did not. If you are going to use a phaser glued together from household objects as they did, you do enough to make it so it looks like a phaser on TV is real at 480i. By going back to the original film and re transferring at 1080p, you are degrading the original experience by adding more content. I don't understand how you can not see this.

If you're after the broadcast (NTSC) quality, you shouldn't be viewing on DVD. DVD has better specs than NTSC, so you won't be viewing it properly. All the arguments you're making against HDM are true for DVD as well (if NTSC is what you're after).

In fact, it'll probably be pretty hard to recreate a late 60's viewing environment. Technology has progressed to much.

John

It is the nostalgia that I want... not the pure quality.
I want both. Star Trek with no changes but a cleaned up video would be awesome. However, they didn't just do that. They changed some material.

Star Wars updated went too far IMO. The jury is still out on Star Trek cuz I have only seen small clips and pix of the changes, but the changes are MUCH more muted than Star Wars.

OTOH, for Casablanca then didn't change a thing AFAIK. And it looks glorious on HD DVD. I'm very pleased they remastered it and offered us an HD DVD release for it.


Yes, I'm afraid that HD is going to expose the styrofoam and cardboard, and that is going to break the suspension of disbelief. The styrofoam and cardboard was visible on film when the movie was originally shown in theaters, but audiences were much more tolerant because that was as good as it got.

People were amazed by the picture quality of DVD 10 years ago, but now it looks poor relative to HD. DVD hasn’t gotten any worst, it’s our expectations that have changed. The same thing has happened to effects. Styrofoam and cardboard looked fine 35 years ago, but now it looks poor relative to CG effects. Our expectations have changed, and what was once scary now appears cheesy. And that’s definitely not the way the director intended the effects to look.
Note that the fake effects and crappy makeup are quite obvious in many Star Trek episodes even on DVD. Stuff I saw on DVD even on my 20" CRT weren't obvious to me with analogue cable.

If anything, HD should get much closer to what was shown in theaters. Does anyone really think that SD DVD matches the limits of film resolution, even from 1975? That it preserves more closely the "director's intent"?

It is the nostalgia that I want... not the pure quality. For that I think DVD does just fine.

from m-w:

nostalgia: a wistful or excessively sentimental yearning for return to or of some past period or irrecoverable condition...

yup. i'd say that covers it... :) go back and read the post where someone outlined what it is you are REALLY looking for... unfortunately, viewing a movie in lesser quality won't recapture it... if only it was that easy...

"Is HD necessarily better?"

...Yes.

Is this thread serious? Really?Unfortunately, I think it is. Sad but true.

"Is HD necessarily better?"

...Yes.
Except maybe for porn. ;)

P.S. When I bought my HD projector, the sales guy asked what type of stuff I wanted to watch. I then asked him how much our choices vary, and he said he'll never forget the answer he got from one customer:

Salesman: What do you want to watch on your projector?
Customer: Porn.
Salesman: What else? We want to get a picture of what you want to watch so we can give you good recommendations based on your budget.
Customer: Nothing else, just porn.

:D

Except maybe for porn. ;)

P.S. When I bought my HD projector, the sales guy asked what type of stuff I wanted to watch. I then asked him how much our choices vary, and he said he'll never forget the answer he got from one customer:

Salesman: What do you want to watch on your projector?
Customer: Porn.
Salesman: What else? We want to get a picture of what you want to watch so we can give you good recommendations based on your budget.
Customer: Nothing else, just porn.

:D

well, give him props for being honest in his response... :)

So we are at the point in the thread that some have said that HD shows too much:

1. Older TV shows (?)
2. Porn (Yuk)

How about 2D "flat" cartoons? Is HD going to improve these?

I watched HEAVY METAL in HD on HD CBL and did not like it at all. It looked like someone turned the Edge Enhancement to 11 on a scale of 1 to 10. It didn't look like that in the theater when I have seen it (a number of times - Midnight Movie Specials).

Should we add this one to the list?

Except maybe for porn. ;)

P.S. When I bought my HD projector, the sales guy asked what type of stuff I wanted to watch. I then asked him how much our choices vary, and he said he'll never forget the answer he got from one customer:

Salesman: What do you want to watch on your projector?
Customer: Porn.
Salesman: What else? We want to get a picture of what you want to watch so we can give you good recommendations based on your budget.
Customer: Nothing else, just porn.

:D

Front projection is for porn
Front projection is for porn...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWEjvCRPrCo

HD is better depending on your equipment, especially 1080p. No point watching 1080p on a 42" screen.

HD = better sound and picture.

I have already replaced some of my SD titles for HD depending on it's aspect ratio. As for movies that aren't 2.40:1 or non-action, or non-special effects movie = pass.

Now thats just not right..... I will not buy the HD versions then.. I am definitely sticking with me old DVDs on this... Why oh why did they feel the need to sodomize obviously dated historical series like star trek. Unless you are going to modernized every little detail of.. then why would you bother change a few items like that. Did lizard man really need to blink. I like the old cheesy phaser shots.

Oh please, it's time to get off of your melodramatic soap box. You're the one missing out, not us.

I then asked him how much our choices vary, and he said he'll never forget the answer he got from one customer:

Salesman: What do you want to watch on your projector?
Customer: Porn.
Salesman: What else? We want to get a picture of what you want to watch so we can give you good recommendations based on your budget.
Customer: Nothing else, just porn.

:DHeh! I didn't know Rain Man had got himself a projector! :D

Dude, just stick with DVD. Sounds like you've made up your mind. And I don't think anyone here cares what you buy.

Plus, the way you keep confusing HD with artistic/material alteration makes me think you're trolling. No one could be this obtuse on accident.

Yes, I'm afraid that HD is going to expose the styrofoam and cardboard, and that is going to break the suspension of disbelief. The styrofoam and cardboard was visible on film when the movie was originally shown in theaters, but audiences were much more tolerant because that was as good as it got.

People were amazed by the picture quality of DVD 10 years ago, but now it looks poor relative to HD. DVD hasn’t gotten any worst, it’s our expectations that have changed. The same thing has happened to effects. Styrofoam and cardboard looked fine 35 years ago, but now it looks poor relative to CG effects. Our expectations have changed, and what was once scary now appears cheesy. And that’s definitely not the way the director intended the effects to look.


Fewer lines of resolution cannot make that shark look real. It looks fake on DVD. It looked fake in the theaters. And it looks fake in HD. If you want the shark to look real, read the screenplay and use your imagination.

But Jaws is still a great movie because it's not ABOUT special FX. It's about real, 3-dimensional characters chasing a shark that only pops up on camera a few times. And when it pops up, you'll believe it's real because you'll want to. That's the magic of a great movie.

State of the art special FX is always evolving. There's no reason to try to hide the historical nature of the FX just because audience expectations have changed.

Appreciation of historical films requires HISTORICAL perspective.

State of the art special FX is always evolving. There's no reason to try to hide the historical nature of the FX just because audience expectations have changed.


I can only imagine what audiences years from now will say about our current CGI effects. But I think they'll still watch Jurassic Park. ;)

Then you clearly don't have the equipment and/or the environment to display HD to it's full potential.

Vern


Guess again.

A few titles like T2, Traffic, XXX, Fifth Element First release etc proves that HD is NOT necessarily better.

Yes. I guarantee you people who saw Jaws in 1975 had a better quality print than the one that has been on VHS and DVD all these years. A cleaned up version of that film on HDM would be good. It would not alter the film in any way whatsoever.
You can not fully replicate the 35mm film look with compressed 8 bit HD video. You can get close, but differences remain (color gamut and highlight and shadow delineation for starters).

A few titles like T2, Traffic, XXX, Fifth Element First release etc proves that HD is NOT necessarily better.


Well, to me this is a separate issue than the one being discussed. Just because a specific HD transfer is not significantly (or any) better than its DVD counterpart does not mean that HD is not better in general.

Fewer lines of resolution cannot make that shark look real. It looks fake on DVD. It looked fake in the theaters. And it looks fake in HD. If you want the shark to look real, read the screenplay and use your imagination.

But Jaws is still a great movie because it's not ABOUT special FX. It's about real, 3-dimensional characters chasing a shark that only pops up on camera a few times. And when it pops up, you'll believe it's real because you'll want to. That's the magic of a great movie..
So, you're basically saying that you can enjoy the movie because its a great movie, regardless of how real it looks. By that arguement, DVD should be good enough. And I feel that DVD is good enough for a movie like Jaws. DVD fully reproduces the story, acting, and directing that makes a movie good. The only thing HD adds is resolution, but for a movie that already looks like crap, seeing its crappy visuals in higher resolution doesn't improve the movie for me.

State of the art special FX is always evolving. There's no reason to try to hide the historical nature of the FX just because audience expectations have changed.
I agree, but I also see no reason to go out and re-buy a movie on HDM just so that I can see the "historical" styrofoam and cardboard models more clearly.

This thread has been ridiculous for some time. The OP has his opinion, and that is fine. In his view, certain older movies do not need to be remastered in HD. I think that the majority of us would certainly like to have the improvement that HD offers. We are not going to be able to change his mind.

HDM does not "just" have higher resolution than DVD. It has a more accurate color gamut which many people see immediately. This is more important than the resolution.

And for all you resolution geeks - remember that resolution is #4 on the 1 to 4 most important aspects of what makes up a good image.

1. Contrast Ratio
2. Gray Scale
3. Color Saturation
4. Resolution

HDM does not "just" have higher resolution than DVD. It has a more accurate color gamut which many people see immediately. This is more important than the resolution.

And for all you resolution geeks - remember that resolution is #4 on the 1 to 4 most important aspects of what makes up a good image.

1. Contrast Ratio
2. Gray Scale
3. Color Saturation
4. Resolution
Also, one big consideration is that there are lot of DVDs out there with significant encoding artifacts. While HD DVD is not immune to encoding artifacts, it seems to me that on average they've minimized these on HD DVD much better than they have on DVD.

Except maybe for porn. ;)

P.S. When I bought my HD projector, the sales guy asked what type of stuff I wanted to watch. I then asked him how much our choices vary, and he said he'll never forget the answer he got from one customer:

Salesman: What do you want to watch on your projector?
Customer: Porn.
Salesman: What else? We want to get a picture of what you want to watch so we can give you good recommendations based on your budget.
Customer: Nothing else, just porn.

:D

I must admit, I have this morbid curiosity to check out porn on HD DVD, as I haven't seen one in HD. Must be nice to see how much makeup they apply, all of the razor burn, pimples, stretch marks, ingrown hairs, and all of the other disgusting things in glorious HD. Come on, you guys would peek if you saw it:D

So, you're basically saying that you can enjoy the movie because its a great movie, regardless of how real it looks.
The goal of the A/V hobbyist is not to make films look "real." It is to make films appear faithful to their original prints.

Sure, Jaws is a great movie, even if viewed on a 27 inch tube TV on VHS... but that's not quite the same immersive experience as watching it in a dedicated home theater on a 96 inch screen in the pitch dark in a format that more closely approximates the original theatrical presentation. And if you doubt me, you're welcome to come over to my house and watch it. I currently have Jaws recorded in HD on my DVR.


By that arguement, DVD should be good enough.

DVD is clearly enough for you, and that's fine. Stay with DVD then. But I think you're missing the point. Whether you agree with the point or not is another matter.


And I feel that DVD is good enough for a movie like Jaws. DVD fully reproduces the story, acting, and directing that makes a movie good.

Yes, Jaws is still a "good movie," even on DVD. If it wasn't, no one would be interested in viewing it in HD. But the HD presentation is more faithful to the original print. And dare I say that an HD presentation is absolutely critical if you want to simulate a theater experience on a large screen with a 40+ degree horizontal viewing angle. Macroblocking, EE, lower resolutions, and uninspiring color become very noticeable at these sizes.

The only thing HD adds is resolution, but for a movie that already looks like crap, seeing its crappy visuals in higher resolution doesn't improve the movie for me.

I disagree with a couple of your points here. For starters, HD doesn't just add "resolution." It also adds a more faithful reproduction of color, which is so important for films. And it's still not quite good enough to capture all the colors in the original print... In other words, HD isn't quite good enough (although we will have to settle for it), quite the contrary to this thread.

Secondly, the transfer to HD often eliminates macroblocking and excessive EE and other things that have plagued DVD transfers.

Secondly, Jaws does not look like crap. I thought the HD version of it that I saw was pretty nice. It didn't look like Spiderman3, but it did look much better than DVD. You have to keep in mind, I watch my movies on a 96 inch screen because I am trying to simulate a legitimate screening room experience... DVDs look PAINFUL on my 96 inch screen, and I've got good equipment.. The problem with DVDs isn't just the resolution, it's all the freakin' edge enhancement and macroblocking too.


I agree, but I also see no reason to go out and re-buy a movie on HDM just so that I can see the "historical" styrofoam and cardboard models more clearly.

Dude, the shark doesn't look any more fake in HD than it does in DVD. That shark looks fake period. And 95% of that movie does NOT involve any shots of the fake shark.

I disagree. I do not think Jaws looks like crap. I thought the HD version of it that I saw was pretty nice. It didn't look like Spiderman3, but it did look much better than DVD. You have to keep in mind, I watch my movies on a 96 inch screen because I am trying to simulate a legitimate screening room experience... DVDs look PAINFUL on my 96 inch screen, and I've got good equipment.. The problem with DVDs isn't just the resolution, it's all the freakin' edge enhancement and macroblocking too.

What kind of projector are you using? Is it a single lens, native resolution one?

I had a Zenith Pro 900X 3 CRT FPTV projecting a 144" 16x9 image going through a Dwin Line Doubler and the image was gorgeous. My image was almost 3X the size of yours and I never saw all the stuff that you are talking about. And I watched hundreds and hundreds of DVD's in my HT.

So, you're basically saying that you can enjoy the movie because its a great movie, regardless of how real it looks. By that arguement, DVD should be good enough. And I feel that DVD is good enough for a movie like Jaws. DVD fully reproduces the story, acting, and directing that makes a movie good. The only thing HD adds is resolution, but for a movie that already looks like crap, seeing its crappy visuals in higher resolution doesn't improve the movie for me.


I agree, but I also see no reason to go out and re-buy a movie on HDM just so that I can see the "historical" styrofoam and cardboard models more clearly.


This is absurd. HD offers no more resolution (in reality, much less) than offered on film in the theater in 1975. Just because the passage of time has dated the special effects does not mean one does not have to or want to replicate as close to the theater experience as possible. HD gets us as close to the theater experience as possible. Besides, Jaws is a hell of a lot more than special effects. The scenery on Martha's Vineyard, the phenomenal scenes at sea, the brilliant camera work on the beach, etc. Believe it or not (and very hard to believe for a generation weaned on "you gotta see the monster real quick or else you lose the audience"), the shark doesn't make a major appearance until 2/3's through the movie.

Plus, as someone said above, Jaws does not suceed because of the F/X, it succeeds in spite of the F/X. The thing that makes the movie great is the phenomenal acting done in roles that are fleshed out and allowed to fully develop. Jeez, is it really not so obvious to anyone that this is a character piece, not a F/X extravaganza? Personally, I'm fond of saying that the shark is only there so Robert Shaw can tell us about the USS Indianpolis. Anything that can give me more of the theater experience of first seeing that single tour de force piece of acting is not only wanted, it is very much needed, especially considering the crappy print/transfer of the current DVD. Why? Because it's not just "story, plot, acting, and directing", it's ART!!

What kind of projector are you using? Is it a single lens, native resolution one?

I had a Zenith Pro 900X 3 CRT FPTV projecting a 144" 16x9 image going through a Dwin Line Doubler and the image was gorgeous. My image was almost 3X the size of yours and I never saw all the stuff that you are talking about. And I watched hundreds and hundreds of DVD's in my HT.

Lee, I use a Sony 1080p VW50 LCOS projector. I honestly don't remember what the DVD presentation of Jaws looked like (re the quality of the transfer), since it's been so long since I viewed it. EE and macroblocking may not have been real problems on that disc... I can't say for sure, which is why I editted my original post so that it generalizes about DVD (which is fair) and doesn't single out Jaws except where Jaws would most certainly be effected: color palette, detail, etc.

In generall, EE and macroblocking are big problems with a lot of DVD releases. EE specifically is a problem, it seems, on the vast majority. This is not merely my opinion, and if you search enough threads around here and look for a Web tutorial on EE, you'll see that I am correct.

My advice? Don't bother trying to find EE on your DVDs. Once you find it, you can never un-find it. Leave well enough alone and be thankful that it doesn't bother you.

Speaking about fake looking effects: The Thing has a fair number of them... and it's totally awesome on HD DVD.

In contrast, Casablanca has basically no effects... and it's also totally awesome on HD DVD.

I must admit, I have this morbid curiosity to check out porn on HD DVD, as I haven't seen one in HD. Must be nice to see how much makeup they apply, all of the razor burn, pimples, stretch marks, ingrown hairs, and all of the other disgusting things in glorious HD. Come on, you guys would peek if you saw it:D
Yeah, you're probably right. ;)

BTW, many, many years ago a friend of mine got a pr0n DVD as a gag birthday gift. I immediately asked to borrow it... not because it was pr0n, but because it was the very first disc I had seen in person that supported the multiple angle feature. :) Our friends somehow didn't believe I wanted to see it just because of the multiple angles. :p

Speaking about fake looking effects: The Thing has a fair number of them... and it's totally awesome on HD DVD.

In contrast, Casablanca has basically no effects... and it's also totally awesome on HD DVD.




Casablanca has some major (for the time) effects shots. The rear screen in the Paris driving sequence is one. The plane to Lisbon flying overhead is another. But the major one that no one ever sees is the long shot of the plane to Lisbon in the final scenes. Because of studio size, the plane had to be a 1/2 scale model to simulate distance in the long shot. But, but . . . there were people in that shot! Workers were milling around the plane, getting it ready for takeoff! How'd they do that!!?? Well, the workers were played by "little people" (they called them midgets in that day). So much for "dated" special effects, huh? :D

Casablanca has some major (for the time) effects shots. The rear screen in the Paris driving sequence is one. The plane to Lisbon flying overhead is another. But the major one that no one ever sees is the long shot of the plane to Lisbon in the final scenes. Because of studio size, the plane had to be a 1/2 scale model to simulate distance in the long shot. But, but . . . there were people in that shot! Workers were milling around the plane, getting it ready for takeoff! How'd they do that!!?? Well, the workers were played by "little people" (they called them midgets in that day). So much for "dated" special effects, huh? :D
Yeah, you're right. I had ignored the driving scenes. But then again that looks just as fake in low rez as it does in HD. :p

And you're correct: I was not aware they shot the plane scene with a "little people". Even HD didn't expose this "effect" to me! :D

Yes, I'm afraid that HD is going to expose the styrofoam and cardboard, and that is going to break the suspension of disbelief. The styrofoam and cardboard was visible on film when the movie was originally shown in theaters, but audiences were much more tolerant because that was as good as it got.

People were amazed by the picture quality of DVD 10 years ago, but now it looks poor relative to HD. DVD hasn’t gotten any worst, it’s our expectations that have changed. The same thing has happened to effects. Styrofoam and cardboard looked fine 35 years ago, but now it looks poor relative to CG effects. Our expectations have changed, and what was once scary now appears cheesy. And that’s definitely not the way the director intended the effects to look.


Exactly

Well, to me this is a separate issue than the one being discussed. Just because a specific HD transfer is not significantly (or any) better than its DVD counterpart does not mean that HD is not better in general.

But that is the point that I am trying to make. It is not that DVD is always better than HD or that HD is always better than DVD. I think there are some cases where DVD is better or just as good. I do plan on getting an HD within 12 months. There are tons of titles that I plan on getting HD. But there are some that I definitely won't.

Also, one big consideration is that there are lot of DVDs out there with significant encoding artifacts. While HD DVD is not immune to encoding artifacts, it seems to me that on average they've minimized these on HD DVD much better than they have on DVD.

I don't know if you get the bargain bin DVDs or what. I very rarely get them. Mostly it is just when I do a bad recode using DVD shrink or something. I am using a 92" screen with 720p projector so I would definitely see them. From your responses, I would think that 1 out of 2 are bad encodings. It is probably more like 1 in 20 or 30 and those are probably movies that aren't that great.... I do remember seeing one on Sound of Thunder, but OMg that was such a cheesy movie... cool... but cheesy. Perhaps you are confusing artifacts with bad contrast ratio. I used to see them in my old projector only to realize that it was the projector, not the dvd.

I agree with what you wrote gremmy. Although about this...

... DVDs look PAINFUL on my 96 inch screen, and I've got good equipment.. The problem with DVDs isn't just the resolution, it's all the freakin' edge enhancement and macroblocking too.
.

I've actually been amazed at how good decent DVD transfers look at image sizes MUCH larger than yours, from a viewing distance of 11.5 feet. It's not that I'm unaware of edge enhancement or I'm not a critical viewer. I appreciate HDM very much and would hardly dispute the obvious advantage HDM brings in providing even better clarity/color/better mastering.. But I find many SD DVDs to offer a wonderful experience at even more "cinematic" size.

Sure, Jaws is a great movie, even if viewed on a 27 inch tube TV on VHS... but that's not quite the same immersive experience as watching it in a dedicated home theater on a 96 inch screen in the pitch dark in a format that more closely approximates the original theatrical presentation. And if you doubt me, you're welcome to come over to my house and watch it. I currently have Jaws recorded in HD on my DVR.


I will admit that is a good point. You could relate that to Star Trek as well. While Star Trek is 480i originally, it was not meant to be viewed at 92" ... or even +40". Most TVs back then were what ... 20-27" at most?

Perhaps I was wrong on the star trek thing, although I still don't like them add special effects, but that is another thread.

By going back to the original film and re transferring at 1080p, you are degrading the original experience by adding more content. I don't understand how you can not see this.


bjmarchini,

You know this stuff is like religion to people around here and you are simply wasting your time debating it.

I agree with your point, its a valid one no matter what the HD fan club thinks. HD is like religion to some around here, they simply believe everything should be HD, of course the truth is there is NO ABSOLUTE and that there is always something that doesnt need to ne HD. Heck, there are BluRay nut jobs pumping it daily like its the birth of a new religion.

At the end of the day we all can agree to disagree and go watch whatever format we want to watch.

think there are some cases where DVD is better or just as good.

Yep, I like Usual Suspect in SD as much as HD. HD gave it nothing because its about the dialog and story. HD for me is only important wrt visual effects and if you dont have many of those who cares.

You know, I still watch the Matrix and even the new transformers in SD recently just because it was on and I do have HD copies . Call me crazy but its just not that important to always watch HD.

bjmarchini,

You know this stuff is like religion to people around here and you are simply wasting your time debating it.

I agree with your point, its a valid one no matter what the HD fan club thinks. HD is like religion to some around here, they simply believe everything should be HD, of course the truth is there is NO ABSOLUTE and that there is always something that doesnt need to ne HD. Heck, there are BluRay nut jobs pumping it daily like its the birth of a new religion.

At the end of the day we all can agree to disagree and go watch whatever format we want to watch.

We should force them to watch an HD Porn title . . . THAT will change their opinion REAL fast.:D

But that is the point that I am trying to make. It is not that DVD is always better than HD or that HD is always better than DVD. I think there are some cases where DVD is better or just as good. I do plan on getting an HD within 12 months. There are tons of titles that I plan on getting HD. But there are some that I definitely won't.

The "point" you are trying to make has nothing to do with the quality of the transfer and everything to do with the "nostalgia" of the movie. If you were saying you wouldn't buy an HD release because the transfer was sub-par, then no one would argue with you. But you are saying you won't buy an HD release because the transfer is too good and thus ruins your childhood viewings of a crappy print with tears and scratches viewed on a 480i television.

This is where people are calling you misguided. Sorry, but not even your cherry picking of posts you respond to can save your opinion this time. By the way, you still haven't answered whether you'd want to watch a pristine quality film print of Jaws in a quality theater or would prefer to watch it on SD.

The beauty/purpose of HD is to remove or should I say, move the goal posts further apart . . as to the size of the image you can create without expensive processors, and still maintain detail and color accuracy.

Yep, I like Usual Suspect in SD as much as HD. HD gave it nothing because its about the dialog and story. HD for me is only important wrt visual effects and if you dont have many of those who cares.

You know, I still watch the Matrix and even the new transformers in SD recently just because it was on and I do have HD copies . Call me crazy but its just not that important to always watch HD.

I couldn't agree more. It drives me nuts when I see people post, "once you get HD, you will never watch SD again." I have HD cable. Only about 20% of the shows are in HD. Does that mean I don't watch the other 80%? Heck no. I know I first came across this site when I was setting up my HTPC about 2 years ago. Alot people find it that way. If I read these sites nowadays, I would think that getting an HD TV necessitates throwing away my DVD collection and starting fresh with HD only.

Honestly, how much of a benefit is there to getting a classic like "one flew over the cookoo's nest"? (sorry about the mispelling). This movie is about the drama... not the image clarity.

I have a grammophone at home. A real one. Something that looks like this:

http://www.bucyrusonline.com/bhs/images/Phonograph_Edison.jpg

It's very cool to be able to play those ancient 78s on original hardware, with that cool nostalgic grammophone sound.

However, if I could get pristine CD-quality recordings of some of that old stuff, I'd jump at the chance.

I couldn't agree more. It drives me nuts when I see people post, "once you get HD, you will never watch SD again." I have HD cable. Only about 20% of the shows are in HD. Does that mean I don't watch the other 80%? Heck no. I know I first came across this site when I was setting up my HTPC about 2 years ago. Alot people find it that way. If I read these sites nowadays, I would think that getting an HD TV necessitates throwing away my DVD collection and starting fresh with HD only.

Honestly, how much of a benefit is there to getting a classic like "one flew over the cookoo's nest"? (sorry about the mispelling). This movie is about the drama... not the image clarity.

Would you like to view a pristine film print of Jaws in a quality theater or would you rather watch the sub-par transfer on DVD? Simple question.

But that is the point that I am trying to make. It is not that DVD is always better than HD or that HD is always better than DVD. I think there are some cases where DVD is better or just as good. I do plan on getting an HD within 12 months. There are tons of titles that I plan on getting HD. But there are some that I definitely won't.

No, the point that I made is not the point that you're making. They are night and day.

My point was that a particular HD disc may not be superior to its DVD counterpart BECAUSE OF A CRAPPY HD ENCODE that fails to make use of HDMs strengths.

Your point is that some movies are better on DVD because a quality HDM transfer is actually detrimental.

These are not even remotely the same point.

I agree with what you wrote gremmy. Although about this...



I've actually been amazed at how good decent DVD transfers look at image sizes MUCH larger than yours, from a viewing distance of 11.5 feet. It's not that I'm unaware of edge enhancement or I'm not a critical viewer. I appreciate HDM very much and would hardly dispute the obvious advantage HDM brings in providing even better clarity/color/better mastering.. But I find many SD DVDs to offer a wonderful experience at even more "cinematic" size.

I respect your opinion, Rich. But the EE on some DVDs (POTC, for example) is so bad that I find it distracting. Of course, it could be said that I'm a little too OCD about these things, and sometimes I do have to remind myself just to sit back and enjoy the movie -- a challenge for many of us in this hobby.

Would you like to view a pristine film print of Jaws in a quality theater or would you rather watch the sub-par transfer on DVD? Simple question.


Did you get the anniversary edition of Jaws or the cheapy bargain bin. The Anniversary edition was good transfer. The extras were great too - one of the few DVDs where I actually enjoyed the Extras.

No, the point that I made is not the point that you're making. They are night and day.

My point was that a particular HD disc may not be superior to its DVD counterpart BECAUSE OF A CRAPPY HD ENCODE that fails to make use of HDMs strengths.

Your point is that some movies are better on DVD because a quality HDM transfer is actually detrimental.

These are not even remotely the same point.


Not necessary. There are some cases where I think the added detail is detremental. There are also some cases where I think the HD does not make enough of an improvement to warrant an upgrade as in the fifth element. There are some cases where the HD is night and day better as in the new King Kong. I watched that on my friends and that is a movie that is definitely better in HD.

Do you think it is fair to tell other people what they are saying?

Let me guess? are you the kind of person that looks at picasso and complains because the image does not look life like? sorry.. that was a little low

My original argument is simply that I don't think HD is always necessarily a real improvement over SD DVDs

Did you get the anniversary edition of Jaws or the cheapy bargain bin. The Anniversary edition was good transfer. The extras were great too - one of the few DVDs where I actually enjoyed the Extras.


I own both. Both transfers are not up to par. But I'll rephrase: Would you like to view a pristine film print of Jaws in a quality theater or would you rather watch it on DVD? Simple question.

My original argument is simply that I don't think HD is always necessarily a real improvement over SD DVDs


No, your original argument was this (minus the Star Wars stuff that we all agree is a bastardization of the original film):
In some ways, I think you are better off watching old movies in SD like Jaws. At first you may say "Blasphemy!" Film back then was not nearly as good as it is now. They would have to digitally re-edit it to make it work with 1080p. I have a mame arcade machine that plays on a HD CRT. It is really fun... but in the end there is nothing like playing Ms Pacman on the original blurry smudgy old coin op machine. HD doesn't necessarily mean better. I think this carries through with HD DVDs (and bluray for that matter)


I ask again: Would you like to view a pristine film print of Jaws in a quality theater or would you rather watch it on DVD? Simple question.

Let me guess? are you the kind of person that looks at picasso and complains because the image does not look life like? sorry.. that was a little low

Congratulations. You win. Free Kewpie doll for you. I have more important things that I could be doing -- like beating my head against a wall. I'm not going to waste my time trying to hit a moving target, since you seem to change your argument at will.


My original argument is simply that I don't think HD is always necessarily a real improvement over SD DVDs
Well, I don't think this was your original point, but whatever. Carry on with your bad self. I've said before and I'll say again -- no one cares what you do with your money or what you watch with your eyes. Live in freedom, man.

I own both. Both transfer are not up to par. But I'll rephrase: Would you like to view a pristine film print of Jaws in a quality theater or would you rather watch the it on DVD? Simple question.

Who wouldn't want to watch it in a theater? but as you have all stated... neither SD nor HD is theater quality. I do not agree that theater quality is necessairy better than 1080p off the film. Oh god.. here comes a can of worms..... By this, I am not saying that the original negatives do not have many times the detail of 1080p. The production reals that are sent to cinemas are copies (not originals). these copies are then diplayed on a moving reel which itself will have errors. It is not digital and ergo not the same every showing. Most viewers sit back. much further back than many of us do in our home theaters. There are distractions from the audience as well. I have been to cinemas (major multi million dollar cinemas with cutting edge technology) that have flaws in the film that do not show up on dvd (I am not talking about production errors like the car in LOTRs)

The HDM transferrors are TOO meticulous.. They transfer.. frame by frame by frame. It is their job. They are paid to make perfect copies... not include errors. But this near perfect transfer to HD creates an experience that is not always what was originally shown in the theater.

So back to your original question. Would I get up, drive to the theater, sit in a seat that someone hurled on at one point, deal with people talking, miss a scene to go the restroom because I drank too much soda.... or sit down and watch it on DVD projected with my 720p projector upconverted with my SOTA HTPC on my 92" screen firehawk screen 9' feet away on my comfy leather studio recliner with my kettle popcorn popper full of popcorn with the ability to pause it if needed. hmmm. I think I will choose the home theater thank you.

Jaws is an excellent example of why HD is not necessarily better. Why is jaws a classic? Is it because of a malfunctioning mechanical shark? No, it is the drama between the three actors and the directing of Spielberg that make this a classic. So how does HD magnify that drama make it better. The answer is it doesn't. but HD can show the flaws of that darn mechanical shark. So once again.. how does that improve the experience? My answer is that it doesn't. How does seeing more texture on the sides of a building or more wrinkles on hooper or more scratches in the boat improve the movie in any real way?

Will HD improve Star Wars episode 3.. absolutely. but that is a different type of movie.

Let us even take it a step further into the theoretical. If you can transport back in time and be on the set and see it in real life, would it be a better experience as a story forgetting all the editing factors. It wouldn't because then the shark would look really bad. In star wars a new hope... the effects would look really bad. There is a point at which too much detail is a detriment to the film.

Sorry, but HD is not more resolution than a pristine print. Scientific fact! Notice I said pristine print. A first run, direct from the master internegative print. You inserting the drive to the theater, crowds, vomit, reel errors, etc., are just a smokescreen. Why? Because those things don't exist in my home theater (or yours). And if I can approach a pristine print with more accuracy on HD than I can on SD, then both you and I should prefer it over the SD. But you don't prefer it because you "do not agree that theater quality is necessairy better than 1080p off the film." But you are wrong; film is better than HD, it's a fact. So your whole premise is based on a factual error. Good luck with that.

Jgatie, this guy's not worth it. I say we let him enjoy his DVDs. Hell, I say we all pitch in and buy him a lifetime supply of DVDs so he'll have something to do besides shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Jaws is an excellent example of why HD is not necessarily better. Why is jaws a classic? Is it because of a malfunctioning mechanical shark? No, it is the drama between the three actors and the directing of Spielberg that make this a classic. So how does HD magnify that drama make it better. The answer is it doesn't. but HD can show the flaws of that darn mechanical shark. So once again.. how does that improve the experience? My answer is that it doesn't. How does seeing more texture on the sides of a building or more wrinkles on hooper or more scratches in the boat improve the movie in any real way?
Cuz it looks better?

Like I said, The Thing looks WAY better on HD DVD than it does on DVD, and because of that I enjoy it more on HD DVD than DVD.

Jgatie, this guy's not worth it. I say we let him enjoy his DVDs. Hell, I say we all pitch in and buy him a lifetime supply of DVDs so he'll have something to do besides shouting fire in a crowded theater.

It's not worth it to try and convince him. But it is worth it to demonstrate how his argument is not based on facts. I couldn't care less what he watches. I do care if misinformation about the benefits of HD are thrown out willy nilly without any basis in fact.

I must admit, I have this morbid curiosity to check out porn on HD DVD, as I haven't seen one in HD. Must be nice to see how much makeup they apply, all of the razor burn, pimples, stretch marks, ingrown hairs, and all of the other disgusting things in glorious HD. Come on, you guys would peek if you saw it:D

i wanna see the surgical scars on the undersides of their plastic t*ts! :eek: not!

It's not worth it to try and convince him. But it is worth it to demonstrate how his argument is not based on facts. I couldn't care less what he watches. I do care if misinformation about the benefits of HD are thrown out willy nilly without any basis in fact.

I feel for you, man. And I relate. But if you take this guy's trollish "arguments" too seriously, he'll eat you alive. I really don't think this guy's serious. He has all the markings of a troll -- keeps switching his argument around and very rarely addresses counterpoints, except when they help him make a point.

He's the one making all the "points" and leaving it to us to offer up the "counterpoints," which he quickly ignores and offers up more "points." Silly.

I feel for you, man. And I relate. But if you take this guy's trollish "arguments" too seriously, he'll eat you alive. I really don't think this guy's serious. He has all the markings of a troll -- keeps switching his argument around and very rarely addresses counterpoints, except when they help him make a point.

agreed.

I feel for you, man. And I relate. But if you take this guy's trollish "arguments" too seriously, he'll eat you alive. I really don't think this guy's serious. He has all the markings of a troll -- keeps switching his argument around and very rarely addresses counterpoints, except when they help him make a point.


Naw, been posting about HT for a long time (not here, but other places) and haven't been eaten alive by a troll yet. He knows what he is and he knows what he does. Just the fact that he had to say he disagrees with a scientific fact about resolution in order to keep his argument straight tells more about this thread than anything else he said. If anything, that speaks volumes.

By the way, I really don't think he is a troll. He's just someone who is trying to justify not buying an HD player and/or HD upgrades for his DVD collection. IHMO, he's trying to mind wrestle the daunting future financial investment vs. the tantalizing improvements he knows he will see, if only he spends the money and in the process minimizes the perceived value of the current DVD collection he so obviously loves (I love mine too - I lost count at around 900). But instead of facing the fact that something new has come along that offers an improvement on something that took vast amounts of time, effort and care to collect, he rationalizes against all rational facts by denying there is any improvement. It's called bargaining with oneself. I sympathize, because I too find it hard to justify upgrading every one of my DVD's. But I don't fool myself into thinking it wouldn't be an improvement if I did. I just accept that my current DVD's aren't as good as HD media and go on with life, upgrading as I personally see fit. Rationalizing against facts is never good for anyone, especially those who come here for the facts.

I agree with what you wrote gremmy. Although about this...



I've actually been amazed at how good decent DVD transfers look at image sizes MUCH larger than yours, from a viewing distance of 11.5 feet. It's not that I'm unaware of edge enhancement or I'm not a critical viewer. I appreciate HDM very much and would hardly dispute the obvious advantage HDM brings in providing even better clarity/color/better mastering.. But I find many SD DVDs to offer a wonderful experience at even more "cinematic" size.

well said! i also have absolutely no issues w (upscaled) sd dvds on my 108" screen and we sit 13' back. they look and sound great and hdm is even great-er! i couldnt be happier.:D

Yep, I like Usual Suspect in SD as much as HD. HD gave it nothing because its about the dialog and story. HD for me is only important wrt visual effects and if you dont have many of those who cares.

You know, I still watch the Matrix and even the new transformers in SD recently just because it was on and I do have HD copies . Call me crazy but its just not that important to always watch HD.

what he said.

"I have already made up my mind . . . don't confuse me with the facts."

:D

Naw, been posting about HT for a long time (not here, but other places) and haven't been eaten alive by a troll yet.

I get eat alive by them quite often. That's why I have a quick escape hatch on conversations like this one. :-) I've learned my lesson. I'm way too serious about this stuff to argue with someone who isn't interested in an honest exchange. Seems you've got a better handle on that than I do.




By the way, I really don't think he is a troll. He's just someone who is trying to justify not buying an HD player and/or HD upgrades for his DVD collection.

Perhaps you're right. I guess there's no way to know.

I've gotten to the point now if there's and HD version out there I can't watch the movie. My brain constantly is missing the detail. Even great DVD's, the first thought that pops into my head when I play them is "well, it's just DVD" I can no longer see a "great" transfer in them, even the best are just that. SD.

I am not switching my view. A person is allowed to adjust his thinking if someone makes a good point. A dullard is someone who won't adjust his thinking against the face of obvious facts. I did not take into account that a film has a higher natural higher resolution than 1080p.. I always remember older films as a little fuzzier. Thinking back, I would like to see certain films in HD like 2001, citizen kane, wizard of oz...etc. I was wrong there

Is is HD more detailed? yes. I am not saying that there is no difference in detail between 480p DVD and 1080p HD. But there are some films that I still do not think do not benefit from more detail than DVD. IMO Jaws is one of them for the reason below. One flew over the Cuckoo's nest is another. A great movie is more than detail and special effects. there are times when I think more detail is not necessarity a good thing. I think my argument below sums up very well why I feel this way. If you disgree then fine.


Jaws is an excellent example of why HD is not necessarily better. Why is jaws a classic? Is it because of a malfunctioning mechanical shark? No, it is the drama between the three actors and the directing of Spielberg that make this a classic. So how does HD magnify that drama make it better. The answer is it doesn't. but HD can show the flaws of that darn mechanical shark. So once again.. how does that improve the experience? My answer is that it doesn't. How does seeing more texture on the sides of a building or more wrinkles on hooper or more scratches in the boat improve the movie in any real way?

I have a grammophone at home. A real one. Something that looks like this:

http://www.bucyrusonline.com/bhs/images/Phonograph_Edison.jpg

It's very cool to be able to play those ancient 78s on original hardware, with that cool nostalgic grammophone sound.

However, if I could get pristine CD-quality recordings of some of that old stuff, I'd jump at the chance.

a little ot; we've had a table-top grammophone in my family at least since the '50s, maybe earlier. i used to play 'beach boys' 45s on it; needless to say, those records didnt last long.

when i was younger i always wanted to mount a more modern turntable in g'phone cabinet but never did, good thing. i didnt at the time realize its antique/nostalgia value.

my dad has a huge warehouse for all the family possessions/heirlooms, cars, boats, etc; maybe its stashed in there. i gotta check.

I am not switching my view. A person is allowed to adjust his thinking if someone makes a good point. A dullard is someone who won't adjust his thinking against the face of obvious facts. I did not take into account that a film has a higher natural higher resolution than 1080p.. I always remember older films as a little fuzzier. Thinking back, I would like to see certain films in HD like 2001, citizen kane, wizard of oz...etc. I was wrong there

Is is HD more detailed? yes. I am not saying that there is no difference in detail between 480p DVD and 1080p HD. But there are some films that I still do not think do not benefit from more detail than DVD. IMO Jaws is one of them for the reason below. One flew over the Cuckoo's nest is another. A great movie is more than detail and special effects. there are times when I think more detail is not necessarity a good thing. I think my argument below sums up very well why I feel this way. If you disgree then fine.

No one would disagree if your arguments were that you personally don't feel it is an improvement because you aren't interested in higher definition, you are only interested in plot, characters, etc. It is quite different from you saying that the improvements HD brings aren't important to you and you telling everyone here it is a fact that HD is a detriment to movies like Jaws.

PS - It takes a big man to type this: I did not take into account that a film has a higher natural higher resolution than 1080p.. I always remember older films as a little fuzzier. Thinking back, I would like to see certain films in HD like 2001, citizen kane, wizard of oz...etc. I was wrong there


Seriously.

It's something you don't often see on the internet. Kudos to you (and your taste in movies. It gets a little boring arguing about the black bars on Transformers ;)) Besides, any thread where I can break out both my "little people" in Casablanca trivia and my "The shark is just there so Robert Shaw can tell us about the USS Indianapolis" quote is a good thread in my book. :D

Peace!

a little ot; we've had a table-top grammophone in my family at least since the '50s, maybe earlier. i used to play 'beach boys' 45s on it; needless to say, those records didnt last long.

when i was younger i always wanted to mount a more modern turntable in g'phone cabinet but never did, good thing. i didnt at the time realize its antique/nostalgia value.

my dad has a huge warehouse for all the family possessions/heirlooms, cars, boats, etc; maybe its stashed in there. i gotta check.

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.

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.
Dammit. Now I have to get myself one of these.

Is is HD more detailed? yes. I am not saying that there is no difference in detail between 480p DVD and 1080p HD. But there are some films that I still do not think do not benefit from more detail than DVD. IMO Jaws is one of them for the reason below. One flew over the Cuckoo's nest is another. A great movie is more than detail and special effects. there are times when I think more detail is not necessarity a good thing. I think my argument below sums up very well why I feel this way. If you disgree then fine.

The flaw in your argument is that these movie were shot and shown on film. As has been pointed out several times, film has several advantages over even HDM (at 1080p). So, you're basically saying that the theater showing was too detailed? These movies were not shot with DVD (480p) in mind. So saying that the DVD version is more fateful is a falsity.

John

I did not take into account that a film has a higher natural higher resolution than 1080p..
I think that's the important point many have made. We haven't even reached the point of matching the original theatrical presentation, much less adding to it. There's no doubt that, preferences notwithstanding, HD gets us closer than ever to the original.

I always remember older films as a little fuzzier.
Memory tends to do that. :)

Since the original film is higher resolution than any of the HDM formats, any comment about too much detail is pretty phony, isn't it? That HDM is more detailed than DVD begs the issue. The only valid comparison is to the original source and that is what the "chase" is about - comparing to the original source.

Congratulations. You win. Free Kewpie doll for you. I have more important things that I could be doing -- like beating my head against a wall. I'm not going to waste my time trying to hit a moving target, since you seem to change your argument at will.


Well, I don't think this was your original point, but whatever. Carry on with your bad self. I've said before and I'll say again -- no one cares what you do with your money or what you watch with your eyes. Live in freedom, man.

if "no one cares...", wouldnt this thread have died pages ago?:D

Dammit. Now I have to get myself one of these.

Oh yeah... Even if you don't use it.. it is enhances the feel of it being a real theater. I have also been thinking about getting a soda fountain.... but that may be a little overboard.

If prices were the same, I would get the HD of course, but as they are not the same... I am not sure I would get HD for about half the films released so far. It is not like DVD is total garbage. People were going off about VHS earlier in this thread. I don't think it was as much the quality of VHS that was so bad (although DVD is much better), but the film degredation and the physical mechanics of it were terrible. The great thing about DVD, and HD disks, is the fact that it is digital prevents it from degrading (unless you get a scratch which is why I rip and play it off an iso as soon as I get it)

I use an HTPC as well so I would have to think about how much more storage putting a drama into ISO would eat up. I could convert to HD H263 but that is a pain. I used to do that but making an ISO is so much easier and faster.

Once storage hits about $150 per TB, I will probably upgrade it to an HD machine. I will probably hold off on a standalone player... I have gotten too used to the convenience of my HTPC. I would hate to step backward in convenience. Plus, there are so many title that are available in SD that I don't have yet.

From what I have read, HD is unfortunately becoming more of a niche like LD was. I think part of the blame is the not the dual format war, but competition from HD cable movie on demand services. I am not saying that HD on demand is better than BD or HDDVD mind you, but Joe public with an HD set just sees HD and figures it is the same

Since the original film is higher resolution than any of the HDM formats, any comment about too much detail is pretty phony, isn't it? That HDM is more detailed than DVD begs the issue. The only valid comparison is to the original source and that is what the "chase" is about - comparing to the original source.

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

From what I have read, HD is unfortunately becoming more of a niche like LD was. I think part of the blame is the not the dual format war, but competition from HD cable movie on demand services. I am not saying that HD on demand is better than BD or HDDVD mind you, but Joe public with an HD set just sees HD and figures it is the same
While I do think HD will not supplant DVD, I don't it's really comparable to LD. LD was basically completely ignored by the average person in North America. HD optical media is actually desirable to many in the general public, especially now that HD displays are commonplace.

The fact that laserdisc movies often cost $100 certainly didn't help either.

Everyone has their own preferences but I've seen Jaws in the theater & on HD cable - the theater had a better PQ. The filming at the beach was very well done & looked excellent.

A friend of mine & I went to see the movie about two weeks before he went with us on the family vacation................to Cape Cod. He'd never been to the ocean before - needless to say "it was filmed about 20 miles out there" gave him the creeps :D (it's geographically very similar)

While I do think HD will not supplant DVD, I don't it's really comparable to LD. LD was basically completely ignored by the average person in North America. HD optical media is actually desirable to many in the general public, especially now that HD displays are commonplace.

The fact that laserdisc movies often cost $100 certainly didn't help either.

And HDM is being ignored by the average person also. Do not confuse the sale of game consoles with movie players.

LD can easily be defined as the format of choice (at the time) for the movie lover who wanted the very best available source for his movies. The Apex of PQ and AQ.

So how does HDM differ from this descritption?

And less than 5% of all LD titles were $100. The prices were $34.99 and $39.99 and some at $29.99.

By the way, I really don't think he is a troll. He's just someone who is trying to justify not buying an HD player and/or HD upgrades for his DVD collection. IHMO, he's trying to mind wrestle the daunting future financial investment vs. the tantalizing improvements he knows he will see, if only he spends the money and in the process minimizes the perceived value of the current DVD collection he so obviously loves (I love mine too - I lost count at around 900). But instead of facing the fact that something new has come along that offers an improvement on something that took vast amounts of time, effort and care to collect, he rationalizes against all rational facts by denying there is any improvement. It's called bargaining with oneself. I sympathize, because I too find it hard to justify upgrading every one of my DVD's. But I don't fool myself into thinking it wouldn't be an improvement if I did. I just accept that my current DVD's aren't as good as HD media and go on with life, upgrading as I personally see fit. Rationalizing against facts is never good for anyone, especially those who come here for the facts.

Man, this is like 100% percent accurate. Bravo.... well said!

;)

Oh yeah... Even if you don't use it.. it is enhances the feel of it being a real theater. I have also been thinking about getting a soda fountain.... but that may be a little overboard.

If prices were the same, I would get the HD of course, but as they are not the same... I am not sure I would get HD for about half the films released so far. It is not like DVD is total garbage. People were going off about VHS earlier in this thread. I don't think it was as much the quality of VHS that was so bad (although DVD is much better), but the film degredation and the physical mechanics of it were terrible. The great thing about DVD, and HD disks, is the fact that it is digital prevents it from degrading (unless you get a scratch which is why I rip and play it off an iso as soon as I get it)

I use an HTPC as well so I would have to think about how much more storage putting a drama into ISO would eat up. I could convert to HD H263 but that is a pain. I used to do that but making an ISO is so much easier and faster.

Once storage hits about $150 per TB, I will probably upgrade it to an HD machine. I will probably hold off on a standalone player... I have gotten too used to the convenience of my HTPC. I would hate to step backward in convenience. Plus, there are so many title that are available in SD that I don't have yet.

From what I have read, HD is unfortunately becoming more of a niche like LD was. I think part of the blame is the not the dual format war, but competition from HD cable movie on demand services. I am not saying that HD on demand is better than BD or HDDVD mind you, but Joe public with an HD set just sees HD and figures it is the same

So buy one of these and stick it in your HTPC:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136133&Tpk

As for LD, if HD DVD / BD ended up in that niche I'd honestly not mind to much.

As for a movie like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, this movie would benefit from HD media. Whether it's enough to justify a purchase is a matter of opinion. As far as Star Trek goes it would be interesting for you to screen a few HD DVD episodes and see what your thoughts are.

The HDM transferrors are TOO meticulous.. They transfer.. frame by frame by frame. It is their job. They are paid to make perfect copies... not include errors.

Right now, one of the restoration people at Criterion is reading this, a single tear rolling down his cheek....

Yep, I like Usual Suspect in SD as much as HD. HD gave it nothing because its about the dialog and story. HD for me is only important wrt visual effects and if you dont have many of those who cares.

You know, I still watch the Matrix and even the new transformers in SD recently just because it was on and I do have HD copies . Call me crazy but its just not that important to always watch HD.

Sorry, but your point about watching the sd version of transformers b/c it was 'just on' doesn't make sense. Where did you see sd tranformers "just b/c it was on". Do you mean it was on cable because it has not been broadcast on cable yet. If you are refering to watching the sd dvd copy of transformers that doesn't make sense either. You say in your post you own transformers in HD, if the sd transformers was "just on" as you put, it means your either bought or rented the sd version. First off why would you but two copies of the same movie. If you you answer you bought the sd version to watch in the car, why would you buy two versions and watch the inferior version on HD DVD capable setup. IF you spent money on 2 different version of transformers and choose to watch the sd dvd, i would say you are a little crazy or are making things up to make a point. If it isn't that important to watch new releases in HD why buy a player?

Naw, been posting about HT for a long time (not here, but other places) and haven't been eaten alive by a troll yet. He knows what he is and he knows what he does. Just the fact that he had to say he disagrees with a scientific fact about resolution in order to keep his argument straight tells more about this thread than anything else he said. If anything, that speaks volumes.

By the way, I really don't think he is a troll. He's just someone who is trying to justify not buying an HD player and/or HD upgrades for his DVD collection. IHMO, he's trying to mind wrestle the daunting future financial investment vs. the tantalizing improvements he knows he will see, if only he spends the money and in the process minimizes the perceived value of the current DVD collection he so obviously loves (I love mine too - I lost count at around 900). But instead of facing the fact that something new has come along that offers an improvement on something that took vast amounts of time, effort and care to collect, he rationalizes against all rational facts by denying there is any improvement. It's called bargaining with oneself. I sympathize, because I too find it hard to justify upgrading every one of my DVD's. But I don't fool myself into thinking it wouldn't be an improvement if I did. I just accept that my current DVD's aren't as good as HD media and go on with life, upgrading as I personally see fit. Rationalizing against facts is never good for anyone, especially those who come here for the facts.

I agree to an extent.. but I still think HD is a bit overated for about half the titles available. The big difference between this and laserdisk is that you couldn't put a vhs tape in a laserdisk player. With the HD standalones, you in essence can. So when buying a new movie, I don't necessarily know that I would want to pay a premium for HD content when it will play just fine on DVD

And HDM is being ignored by the average person also. Do not confuse the sale of game consoles with movie players.

LD can easily be defined as the format of choice (at the time) for the movie lover who wanted the very best available source for his movies. The Apex of PQ and AQ.

So how does HDM differ from this descritption?
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.

So buy one of these and stick it in your HTPC:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136133&Tpk

As for LD, if HD DVD / BD ended up in that niche I'd honestly not mind to much.

As for a movie like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, this movie would benefit from HD media. Whether it's enough to justify a purchase is a matter of opinion. As far as Star Trek goes it would be interesting for you to screen a few HD DVD episodes and see what your thoughts are.

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.

Richer colors, more detail, less compression, closer to the original print. If thats not a better film experience to you than I guess sd-dvd with its washed out colors is good enough.

Honestly, how much of a benefit is there to getting a classic like "one flew over the cookoo's nest"? (sorry about the mispelling). This movie is about the drama... not the image clarity.

I think Haskell Wexler, one of the greatest cinematographers in the history of cinema, would beg to differ. It is a beautifully shot film, and it would look fabulous in HD. Certainly the movie is about the "drama" and the performances, but film is also a visual medium. I'm sure if he were alive today, Wexler would love to see his work represented in the best possible way.

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.

Its the convenience factor that I think will kill it as a mainstream product - not competition from DVd, but competition from cable and online services. Average joe with HD cable can just click the on demand and watch it on "HD" cable and figures there is not enough of a difference to warrant buying it. I think this is also why DVD sales are down as well.

Its the convenience factor that I think will kill it as a mainstream product - not competition from DVd, but competition from cable and online services. Average joe with HD cable can just click the on demand and watch it on "HD" cable and figures there is not enough of a difference to warrant buying it. I think this is also why DVD sales are down as well.
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.

>>LD was like vinyl in terms of its hassle factor, in a world where the convenience of CD was already firmly established.<<

Not totally. LaserDisc was launched in December of 1978 in Atlanta, GA and if MCA DiscoVision and Magnavox (Philips) hadn't messed it up so much, it would have been a good success. There was a HUGE amount of interest in the optical disc format at the time, especially considering the cost of the discs at first, from $5.95 to $15.95. But, quality control problems with both discs and players (MCA rejected fully 90% of its initial disc output and discs had to be hand-checked for the launch - Magnavox players underwent hundreds of changes during the first few years.) Pioneer stepped in and took over everything once IBM got in and then quickly wanted out...

Anyway, at the launch, there were no 'drawbacks' seen to a large form-factor or flipping discs. The format simply had 'problems' that soured it for most people and by the time the problems were worked out, tape had completely taken over as a low-cost video medium.

>>LD was like vinyl in terms of its hassle factor, in a world where the convenience of CD was already firmly established.<<

Not totally. LaserDisc was launched in December of 1978 in Atlanta, GA and if MCA DiscoVision and Magnavox (Philips) hadn't messed it up so much, it would have been a good success. There was a HUGE amount of interest in the optical disc format at the time, especially considering the cost of the discs at first, from $5.95 to $15.95. But, quality control problems with both discs and players (MCA rejected fully 90% of its initial disc output and discs had to be hand-checked for the launch - Magnavox players underwent hundreds of changes during the first few years.) Pioneer stepped in and took over everything once IBM got in and then quickly wanted out...

Anyway, at the launch, there were no 'drawbacks' seen to a large form-factor or flipping discs. The format simply had 'problems' that soured it for most people and by the time the problems were worked out, tape had completely taken over as a low-cost video medium.
Well, I personally specifically avoided LD for two main reasons:

1) Cost.
2) Hassle.

I do admit however, that I wasn't looking into it in 1978. It was the 80s before I even considered it. It is my recollection that it wasn't until the 80s before it actually became a viable format for the masses... and that would agree with your comments about the initial 1978 rollout being totally screwed up.

I agree to an extent.. but I still think HD is a bit overated for about half the titles available. The big difference between this and laserdisk is that you couldn't put a vhs tape in a laserdisk player. With the HD standalones, you in essence can. So when buying a new movie, I don't necessarily know that I would want to pay a premium for HD content when it will play just fine on DVD

I agree. DVD is sub-par to HDM in every way, but is an amazingly versatile product for being based on 1950's technology and can still shine even in 2007. I only disagreed with your statement that a good HD transfer is detrimental to a film when compared to DVD. I'm not disagreeing with you that HDM is not worth the premuim in some cases for some people (me being one of them). Personally, I've not double dipped except for Casablanca, which is amazingly good in HD, mainly due to the 2K restoration scan done by Lowry, and Unforgiven, which was a horrible transfer on DVD and is great on HD. Then again, when I first started collecting DVD's, I wanted to showcase the original AFI 100 Greatest Movies and waited a long time for 99 of them (where the hell is The African Queen!!!), so these would be a definite rebuy for me.

I think Haskell Wexler, one of the greatest cinematographers in the history of cinema, would beg to differ. It is a beautifully shot film, and it would look fabulous in HD. Certainly the movie is about the "drama" and the performances, but film is also a visual medium. I'm sure if he were alive today, Wexler would love to see his work represented in the best possible way.

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?