DTLongo Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Apologies for starting a new post but who has time to wade through the previous string(s) on this subject? The jury is still out though HD-DVD seems to be on the ropes. I too hope that some standard HDTV-DVD format survives since I want to have selected such items "on my shelf" for myself and my heirs. But in the real world, in my view HDTV-DVD as regards Hollywood movies has been a joke. For whatever reason, Hollywood directors, cinematographers, etc. "soften" their movies anyway such that the full HDTV sharpness potential is not realized. I have viewed any number of movies on both standard DVD's and on Comcast cables's so-called HDTV. Apart from the different aspect ratio on HDTV there is no or nil difference in visual quality! Yet even on regular DVD's when you go to the special features there is somethimes dramatically enhanced sharpness and qualty on the latter relative to the main film. For whatever reason Hollywood purposely softens and degrades the quality of their films. I am utterly puzzled as to why. Can anyone explain? Ergo, in my view there is no reason now to switch from standard DVD. Except for perhaps the aspect ratio, standard DVD on a competent system will yield as good a picture as the (degraded) one you will see in your local movie theater. Not to mention the better sound if you have a good audio system at home. Comments welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougdrake Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 If we start enough threads on this topic it will be like a Denial of Service attack on mas [] I think you may be seeing the difference between filming on film, and filming on videotape. Extras are often shot on videotape, and it produces a different look than shooting on film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest srobak Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Indeed. Can we have one "official" hddvd/br war thread? It gets old restarting the same dialogue over and over again instead of just continuing on... http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/t/99795.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Oh Snap. Perhaps they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbuckster Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 REST IN PEACE HD-DVD .......................go join Beta, Pro-Logic, super VHS, and all the rest to the Media Graveyard ........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye_Nut Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 my view HDTV-DVD as regards Hollywood movies has been a joke. For whatever reason, Hollywood directors, cinematographers, etc. "soften" their movies anyway such that the full HDTV sharpness potential is not realized. I have viewed any number of movies on both standard DVD's and on Comcast cables's so-called HDTV. Apart from the different aspect ratio on HDTV there is no or nil difference in visual quality! Yet even on regular DVD's when you go to the special features there is somethimes dramatically enhanced sharpness and qualty on the latter relative to the main film. For whatever reason Hollywood purposely softens and degrades the quality of their films. I am utterly puzzled as to why. Can anyone explain? Ergo, in my view there is no reason now to switch from standard DVD. Except for perhaps the aspect ratio, standard DVD on a competent system will yield as good a picture as the (degraded) one you will see in your local movie theater. Not to mention the better sound if you have a good audio system at home. Comments welcome. You said it all right here........... "I have viewed any number of movies on both standard DVD's and on Comcast cables's so-called HDTV". You're assumption is correct.. Cable/Sat HD and BD/HD disc sources are apples and oranges.(two completely different things) Don't mistake an inferior cable source with the real thing. Cable HDTV is not full bandwidth HD, and it can only be considered 'near-HD' at best. The inferior source carries much, but not all, of the blame. As you stated.....many programs seem to be softened intentionally, and many more are stretched/cropped, not to mention the signal isn't full bandwidth. The only current way to experience full bandwidth HD is via BD/HD discs, and yes......the difference is dramatic and obvious compared to a cable/sat near-HD source . To take it one step further, stooping even lower to an upscaled 480p source is like watching movies through a thick unfocused fog comared to a full BD/HD source. Your logic doesn't seem to make much sense. Why would you question BD/HD picture quality based on your dissatisfaction with cable TV? How is one related to the other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye_Nut Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Indeed. Can we have one "official" hddvd/br war thread? It gets old restarting the same dialogue over and over again instead of just continuing on... http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/t/99795.aspx His point is a completely different topic. You must not have read the post[] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTLongo Posted January 24, 2008 Author Share Posted January 24, 2008 "Why would you question BD/HD picture quality based on your dissatisfaction with cable TV? How is one related to the other?" I think you missed the point or maybe I did not state it clearly enough. Recall that I said, "Yet even on regular DVD's when you go to the special features there is somethimes dramatically enhanced sharpness and qualty on the latter relative to the main film." Ergo, the point is not whether HD/BR DVD's are better than cable so-called HDTV. They undoubteldly are. But HD/BR DVD's can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If the source movie is fuzzed up or degraded for whatever reason, it will be fuzzed up and degraded on HD/BR as well. My lament is not with the HDTV technology per se. It is with Hollywood's poor quality source material. And, given that flawed source, if one's main purpose is to watch movies in HD and they still look like, well, just movies, why bother to upgrade until at least after the HD/BR format war is settled? Some programs, e.g. Discovery Channel and the evening Leno/Letterman/OBriend network programs, look great even on cable HDTV. So why not Hollywood movies? Answer: the source film, alas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest srobak Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 His point is a completely different topic. You must not have read the post You're right.. I read the topic... which said "Has Blu-Ray won?" and read the first line of his post... which said "Apologies for starting a new post but who has time to wade through the previous string(s) on this subject?" - saw that it was in fact not only titled similarly to existing topics - but also pretty much said, "I don't want to be bothered enough to read what everyone has already discussed about the topic, so I'm gonna start my own", and also read the entire first paragraph talking about BR vs HDDVD and didn't figure it would be a different topic. A topic saying something like "why are special features of different quality than the actual film" - or at least in the first few sentences vs. using the entire first paragraph to contribute to the BR/HDDVD discussion already happening in other threads - would have been of more direct benefit. That being said however - just because there is a difference in quality of extra bonus features (which yes, are frequently shot on video vs. film as someone else mentioned) really isn't a reason to engage or not engage in the HD market... $.02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest srobak Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 If the source movie is fuzzed up or degraded for whatever reason, it will be fuzzed up and degraded on HD/BR as well. Unless of course they have been cleaned up. Examples include Blade Runner and of course what Lucas did to the holy trilogy some 10 years back. However - you are right about a lot of the titles being released on both BR and HDDVD... they are simply upscaled versions of what you have already on DVD. If it wasn't shot with hidef cameras, or thoroughly re-processed for HD... you would actually be better off keeping your SD copies, and playing them in an HD/BR deck, using it's upscaler or the one in your display. Of course - this only makes sense if you have the anamorphic widescreen version. Unfortunately about 70% of the BR/HD stuff currently in print will not look any better than popping in your SD copy and letting the scaler do the work, and thereby there is no justification for purchasing a BR/HD copy at this time. Now - of course newer films and shows actually shot with HD cameras will look loads better than their released SD counterparts. Yes, Leno and such look really good coming over your cable box in HD... but it is so heavily compressed (by the cable or dish company) that it still pales in comparison to if it were on a disc of either format. You thought the Planet Earth things looked good on cable? Go pick up the HD or BR discs and prepare to be put back in your seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTLongo Posted January 25, 2008 Author Share Posted January 25, 2008 Thank you, srobak. For everyone: OK, I get the point, I should have titled this string differently. Apologies to anyone who's felt inconvenienced. But now that I've acknowledged the criticsm, can future posters stick to the intended main subject as srobak did? That intended subject is the question: Since very much Hollywood movie source material is not shot in HD from the outset and is also apparently fuzzed up or degraded in the "artistic" cinematographic process to boot, in view of the HD/BR format war in which one or the other format will eventually be orphaned, if your main purpose is to watch movies, why upgrade to HD or BR now and risk buying the losing format? (Dual-format players are not presently the answer for most of us since they're so expensive.) By the way I have the Oppo-991 upscaling player, a nice machine, and it's hooked up to my HDTV via HDMI as it should be. I haven't noticed that the upscaling makes a major difference, though. It all comes back to the source material; one can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest srobak Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Since very much Hollywood movie source material is not shot in HD from the outset and is also apparently fuzzed up or degraded in the "artistic" cinematographic process to boot, in view of the HD/BR format war in which one or the other format will eventually be orphaned, if your main purpose is to watch movies, why upgrade to HD or BR now and risk buying the losing format? Well - a lot of movies are now being shot with HD cameras, or their film is being processed in such a way where it actually makes use of the nearly infinite "resolution" capabilities of film. Also - filming movies at 24fps and broadcast tv at 29fps is starting to become a minority - so higher native frame rates coupled with the film resolution will make for a much prettier picture when run back on a player and display which natively refreshes 60 times a second (or 30 per line if interlaced). Of course anything done with CGI or animation is going to look absolutely stellar - to the point of being totally fluid in action. DLP projectors are also becoming more common in theatres as well... It's coming - it will take a little time, but it is indeed coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomer9911 Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 I don't think I have to add much....but imo pretty much....[<)] reminds me of the vhs vs beta war years ago....go team....anyone for 8 track......[:#] PS...I WANT IMAX ON MY THEN NEW PLASMA BY 2010.... think that worked....[*-)] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMcD Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Well, HD-DVD lost a bit. That doesn't mean that BR wins. There are too many options. Let's look at history: - - - - - - In the old days it was: BETA vs VHS vs Computers with floppies dial up connections. which is to say, nothing. - - - - - Now there is: SD-DVD BR HD-DVD Cable - Satellite with TVO Very fast download on broadband in most homes. Anthing that computer data systems will create in the near future. - - - - In my view, the Beta vs VHS was like WW-II with only two players (ahem). Thinking about BR vs. HD-DVD in this way is just unrealistic. Gil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 I agree that some movies seem soft. In some cases they are movies that I have experienced as being sharp as a tack in the theater, so these particular movies were not softened by the original filmmakers for artistic reasons.Why is it that even with conventional, "low def" DVDs, some movies appear much softer than clips from the same movie in the "special features?" One possibility is that if the special features are in "full screen" and the movie itself is in an extreme aspect ratio, so there aren't enough pixels from top to bottom of an extreme letterbox image to provide much sharpness. I suspect this is the case with Ben-Hur. Ben-Hur's MGM Camera 65 (AKA Ultra-Panavision 70) aspect ratio is one of the most extreme ever used (approx. 2.75:1), so it is very ribbon like on the screen, with very few pixels from top to bottom to form the image. In the full screen special features, there are plenty of pixels vertically. In the theater, in 1959, with a very large, deeply curved screen and 70mm projection, one could see detail in every glistening pore! I'd be curious to know if Coulter and other photographers agree with the following:- Most 35mm film images from the late 1970s on, even after several generations (e.g. camera film or negative, internegative, printing master, print etc.) should have higher resolution that any digital format available in the home, unless the film has been abused, or softened for artistic effect. - Even films of the 1950s, if photographed on an especially large negative (e.g., 65mm), and printed in 70mm, would have higher resolution than HDDVD or BluRay, unless abused or softened. - In theaters, images from film prints can be many times as large in degrees of arc (i.e., the one place it counts -- on your retinas) as an ordinary HDTV, and still maintain sharpness. Theatrical digital projection is beginning to look very sharp, with close-ups as detailed as 70mm, but the ones I've seen seem to lack depth of focus ("depth of field"), and, so far, haven't been near as bright as the film projection of the 1950 & '60s with the old carbon arc projector light sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye_Nut Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 "Yet even on regular DVD's when you go to the special features there is somethimes dramatically enhanced sharpness and qualty on the latter relative to the main film." Ergo, the point is not whether HD/BR DVD's are better than cable so-called HDTV. They undoubteldly are. But HD/BR DVD's can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If the source movie is fuzzed up or degraded for whatever reason, it will be fuzzed up and degraded on HD/BR as well. My lament is not with the HDTV technology per se. It is with Hollywood's poor quality source material. Some movies might be filmed in a dark dreary grainy manner, but I can't really think of any movies that are soft and 'fuzzed up' as you put it. Cable TV.........yes it definitely happens, but that's not what I see with high definition movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye_Nut Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 35mm film has resolution limits capable of pushing well beyond 4k. It's not the film that is at fault but rather......it's the tranfer. Keep in mind, we're comingling the analog world with digital so there is no exact pixel limit to 35mm film because technically speaking.....film doesn't have pixels. With that said, 35mm film converted to digital has enough detail to contain up to 20 million "quality" pixels in a single top-quality 35mm shot!!! The image capturing ability of 35mm is many times greater than video. If you think 50gig blu-rays are big files, just imagine how large a movie file would be at that resolution!!! Unfortunately, no home televisions are capable of displaying anywhere near that much detail. Maybe sometime in the distant future, most of us will be watching TV with 8098p Displays. Of course, there will be a few lagging behind in denial while proclaiming they cant see any difference between 8098p and 1080p.[] The old classics are capable of looking every bit as good as the new releases if only they put the time and effort into the transfer process. Just look at how great the newly remastered Blade Runner looks if you want to see the true potential of how good an older movie can look in HD!! While it's true that a some of the old classics don't look quite as crisp as some new blu-ray releases, you're kidding yourself if you think any low-def movie PQ looks anywhere remotely near as good as high definition. Those are words of denial. IMO.... several of the posts in this thread read like those who've never owned a HD/BD player of any kind, and they're trying to rationalize to themselves to gain comfort for their decision to lag behind and for continuing to live in the land of low definition. my 2 cents.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye_Nut Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 If the source movie is fuzzed up or degraded for whatever reason, it will be fuzzed up and degraded on HD/BR as well. Unless of course they have been cleaned up. Examples include Blade Runner and of course what Lucas did to the holy trilogy some 10 years back. However - you are right about a lot of the titles being released on both BR and HDDVD... they are simply upscaled versions of what you have already on DVD. If it wasn't shot with hidef cameras, or thoroughly re-processed for HD... you would actually be better off keeping your SD copies, and playing them in an HD/BR deck, using it's upscaler or the one in your display. Of course - this only makes sense if you have the anamorphic widescreen version. Unfortunately about 70% of the BR/HD stuff currently in print will not look any better than popping in your SD copy and letting the scaler do the work, and thereby there is no justification for purchasing a BR/HD copy at this time. Now - of course newer films and shows actually shot with HD cameras will look loads better than their released SD counterparts. LOL Case in point..... You couldn't be any further from the truth. So long as it makes you feel better while you're watching low definition[] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye_Nut Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Most 35mm film images from the late 1970s on, even after several generations (e.g. camera film or negative, internegative, printing master, print etc.) should have higher resolution that any digital format available in the home, unless the film has been abused, or softened for artistic effect. - Even films of the 1950s, if photographed on an especially large negative (e.g., 65mm), and printed in 70mm, would have higher resolution than HDDVD or BluRay, Very well stated.... and very true. I wish I had seen your post before making my own reply on this subject, because it would have saved me the effort of making a large post. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest srobak Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Case in point..... You couldn't be any further from the truth. So long as it makes you feel better while you're watching low definition You do realize you are contradicting your own post with that statement, right? If you read in the portion of my post which you quoted - I specifically identified Blade Runner as one of the re-mastered titles - just like you did several days later. Fact of the matter is - the majority of the old titles (~70%) being released on HD or BR are NOT being re-mastered before being put on the shelf. They are simply up-scaled - even at 29fps - less than half the frame rate of HD, and it does show. The other 30% of old titles (ala Blade Runner, 5th Element, the original Star Trek series, all the Star Trek movies, Halloween) which have been remastered of course look worlds better. But if you are trying to say that ALL released titles look better on a BR/HD disc vs. an SD disc... you are the one who could not be further from the truth, and are actually huying into the studio hype. But hey - if you want to blow your coin on purchasing a new copy of Ferris Beuller's Day Off which you already own on a different format and convince yourself it looks better than letting your HiDef deck upscale your SD version... enjoy. All they did was transfer it from the production master for the SD DVD to the HD format, with no re-mastering. Don't believe me if you don't want to... perform the test yourself. Those of us that have already know better than to blow a bunch of money re-investing in the media library, nevermind the fact that only a select handful of titles would actually be worth re-purchasing anyhow, even if they were lost in a fire. $.02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.