Originally Posted by Edward Karlinski
Well, it is interesting that you needed to resort to ad hominem attacks. That speaks poorly for your position. Your entire post just reeks of elitism. For your information, BTBuck, I have been reading this forum for months. I finally decided to join and post today.
For someone who's been reading this forum for "months" I think your post should have contained atleast some factual content as to why you feel this way, instead it was just a condescending, slapped together post with you enlightening us with your opinion and then you dipped out.
I see people at Best Buy and Circuit City looking at HD software being played and they are usually not that impressed. I have never seen someone blown away by watching Blu-ray or HD-DVD in a store. I have watched films for over a year now on HD channels and they do not look significantly better than they do on standard definition channels. You can call me a "shmuck" all you like, however, we "shmucks" are not buying HD, and we are the majority of consumers.
How do you know they are not impressed? Do you ask? Because I spend enough time at Best Buy 40+ hours a week to tell you a completely different perception.
You've watched films for over a year now on "HD-Lite" and now your the expert on all things High def? Do you own HDDVD, Blu-ray? I do and I can tell you now that the "KONG" on HBOHD can't hold a candle to the HDDVD VC-1 encode, not even mentioning it's cropped on HBO...Then there is the DVD, looks like someone threw up all over the screen and someone carelessly wiped the residue away (yes it's that bad in comparison).
It's obvious the "Majority" isn't buying HDDVD they continue to purchase up sub-par 480i content and watch them on their bubble tv's. So yes, this IMHO is Schmuck like behavior.
I have read the arguments which use statistics to argue that HD is so much better than DVD. What those statistics cannot deal with is the fact that humans can only perceive so much with regard to quality before it simply does not matter to them.
well apparently there are hundreds of thousands of people who disagree with you as is evident by the numbers of HDDVD/BD players sold. (and growing)
Film may be 5 times the resolution of HD, but the 1931 Dracula is never going to blow anyone away on HD. There is such a thing as a point of diminishing returns. Most films have reached that point on DVD when viewed on a high end system with a good upconverting player.
Because the 1931 dracula would be a bigger seller than M.I: III
Come on dude, get a clue.
Why don't movies on HD channels look anywhere near the quality of a HD broadcast of a football game or a Discovery nature program filmed in HD? Obviously because programming which is filmed in HD has an advantage over programming which is filmed. This is something we "shmucks" observe with our eyes. We "shmucks" are not interested in statistics, we prefer the evidence of our own eyes.
since you haven't actually read anything in your Several months of being registered here I will go ahead and answer that, The reason movies on HD channels don't look as good is maninly bandwidth/bitrate constrainments. If you think a football game is reference HD you should get your eyes examined. Unless you think all that macroblocking and motion artifacting is showing the definition
The reason Discovery looks so good is it is shot digitally and generally of landscapes etc. for what might as well be still 35mm or DSLR photography 80% of the time. You won't introduce many artifacts when nothing on the screen is moving. I think you should actually test drive some HD content from an optical disc format in your own home (not window shopping at best buy) before you come in here with your presumptuous comments and assume you know something about something you clearly know little about further proving my comments that you are making yourself look like a schmuck.
take that to your debate professor.