What's new

A humble request to our HD-DVD brethren (1 Viewer)

Ted Todorov

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2000
Messages
3,706
When the Blu-ray vs. HD DVD format war is over and Criterion has switched from DVD to HD, please wake me up. Until then, I am sticking with DVD. And I'm totally bored with the format flame war -- I don't give a damn which one wins, so long as one does.

Ted
 

Sami Kallio

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 6, 2004
Messages
1,035
I also admit I have done assumptions in my life and been proven wrong when experiencing them. Feed a 60"+ 1080p screen 480p->480p, 480p->1080p and 1080i->1080p. You will see a major difference.

There is one major drawback...once you get used to HD picture SD doesn't look as good as it used to.
 

Walter Kittel

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 28, 1998
Messages
9,770
It's not 'pick on Joe' day :) , but I have to echo what Sami posted. I read from time to time the opinion that the jump to HD isn't as impressive as other format transistions or that HD can't look that much better than DVD. For me, that certainly is not the case.

Properly mastered HD DVD (and I'm sure the same holds true for Bd although I haven't seen it yet) looks phenomenal on a larger screen. I'm projecting onto a 102" 16x9 screen at 1080i and there is absolutely no contest between HD and DVD. Upscaled DVD does look nice at 1080i, but there are no gains in color space which, for my money, is where HD really shines. Seeing is believing and when you've seen it on a larger screen with proper calibration, you will believe. :)

And yes, once you've gotten used to HD, SD DVD doesn't look quite as good as it once did. My new rule, for my viewings, is to only view HD or SD, (or) not watch SD after HD in the same viewing period. I'm sure that sounds silly to some (all? :) ) but it helps me still appreciate SD DVD which I am certainly not abandoning.

- Walter.
 

PerryD

Supporting Actor
Joined
Aug 28, 2000
Messages
736
I have a question that relates to this discussion. Recently the Twilight Zone Seasons were remastered in high definition for their DVD releases. HDNet also shows Hogan's Heroes and Charlie's Angels in high def.

Is there anyone who would agree that old TV shows being presented in high-def is probably never what the director intended? I can imagine that the director of these TV shows knew very well that their final product was being shown in low resolution mostly B&W TVs, so I can imagine that their attention to detail regarding make-up and sets wasn't a priority. Perhaps that would be the job of new TV restoration experts that would correct flaws with the show(such as removing wires used to make things appear to float, making plastic trees look more real, etc) after scanning the show into high-def?
 

Jack _Webster

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
166

Well....

...on the day that I happen to be watching tv on a 102" 16x9 screen (?!!!), I'm sure I'll want to upgrade to HD-DVD.


(No wonder so many of you guys go nuts over HD - sometimes I forget I'm on a Home Theater Forum - as opposed to just some random movie board; I'm still quite far behind - the biggest thing I have is the 60" 4x3 projection tv in my living room.
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826
Jack,

I know that 100" sounds like a "really big" screen... like something that's "way out there" in ultra-enthusiast-land.

The honest truth is that for the same price most of you guys paid for your flat-screen TV under 50", you could have bought a projector on a budget (some awsome ~ 2K machines out there) and gotten a 100" image without much fuss or trouble. In my former studio apartment I had a pull-down screen hidden behing the valence of my curtains in front of the main living room window. The projector just sat on the coffee table! Folks would walk into the room and say "I thought you said you have a home-theater? Where's your movie system?" Then I'd walk up to the curtains, reach up behind the valence, and pull down the screen like a big window shade.

That screen cost me less than $400 and looks fantastic.

In other words, at first it sounds like those of us with these big screens must be rich or really-into-HT as though we're going out on a limb to really push the limit. The truth is that we're spending no more money on our display systems than most flat-screen viewers and we're not even having to re-arrange the furniture in the living room!!

What's the "big deal" problem with going projection? I have to turn out the lights when I watch a movie.

That's it!

:D

BTW, once you see movies wide-angle like they are *meant to be seen* by their creators, you can't go back to "TV" viewing angles... it's just not close enough to the real-thing.



VERY GOOD POINT.

Yes, this is a debatable issue! Perhaps presenting the film both ways... in HD and in "TV res" so viewers can choose which way they'd like the dice to fall... on the side of resolution or on the side of what the director problaby intended you to see?

You can always de-focus the lens on your projection system to simulate a blurry NTSC broadcast!

dave ;)
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
You have to make a distinction between those who are in love with technology and those who properly view it as a means to other ends. If you think movies must show only eye popping colors with zero grain, scratches, print damage, etc., and loud sounds coming out of all speakers with lots of bass, you're not a movie lover. But if you love MOVIES, and DON'T think that means you must have a technologically "perfect" presentation (icluding the absurd notion that you and the movies must be a slave to the aspect ratio of your screen), then you won't care seeing grain or a scratch or two at all (in fact, you'll LIKE seeing whatever grain was in the film to begin with). Seeing Freaks in a form very much closer to 35 mm film would be a more satisfying experience for a MOVIE lover, warts and all.
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008

If that's so, I'll just say that when the "next" format comes along in 10 years or so, then HD will not look "as good". I'm more interested in enjoying the movie.
 

Walter Kittel

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 28, 1998
Messages
9,770
Thanks David. Yep, a nice Front Projector and screen can be obtained for around the same $ as a 42" or 50" widescreen set. If you can control the light in the room, it offers its own advantages not the least of which is an immersion factor that really enhances, IMHO, the film viewing experience.

Joe - I've went from VHS to LD, from LD to DVD, and am now purchasing HD DVD (and possibly Bd depending on how things work out.) If the next big thing replaces HD and I'm still alive then I'll be on board for that as well. I'm interested in enjoying films as well (I still spin the occasional LD). Presentation is not a substitute for the film viewing experience and the content therein, it merely augments it. (Would you rather watch a damaged print at the theater or a pristine print?)

- Walter.
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008

Pristine, naturally (though in your example I'd hardly call the best SDVD prints the equivalent to "damaged"). But what strikes me as funny is that often times, a DVD presentation looks far more "pristine" than it ever did at the theater!
 

Ruz-El

Fake Shemp
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
12,539
Location
Deadmonton
Real Name
Russell
I have to admit, I have a hard time with this thread, for as interesting as the tech discussion is, and I'm not being sarcastic, alot of it is preaching to the choir. I don't think anyone here is saying down with HD. To get back to the original point, I don't really see the benifit of adding "I'm waiting for HD" in every thread about SD DVDs. Aren't all of us doing that, to some degree?

But anyway, that's not why I'm posting. I'm posting because of this:


Now, I fully understand where this comes from, and I'm not getting pissy with Dave or anything. It's just that, all I really look forward to on a DVD is something representative of what the movie creators inteaded. Boosting the details and all, even though it may give a more pleasant picture to a modern eye, just doesn't really appeal to me. In the "Twilight Zone" example above, I don't really see the point of boosting more detail out of the image than what was intended. I'm sure this applies to many films as well.

Mr. Harris often talks about how SD DVD represent the films accurately. That's really all I need, and I have to admit, my enthusasm for HD is pretty low because of it.

And based on the 10 years of going to the theater, that de-focus line by Dave is applicable to pretty near every film released theatrically in that time frame. ;)
 

Walter Kittel

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 28, 1998
Messages
9,770
Joe - I wasn't trying to associate SD DVD with "damaged", merely pointing out via an example that most can relate to, that presentation can be a factor in enjoyment level.

As I posted before, I am not in the process of abandoning SD DVD; I still enjoy it immensely. There are too many great catalog titles being released that will take years, if ever, to reach HD media.

- Walter.
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826

Hugh?!?

From what I remember, most every accolade RAH has given a DVD has always been "outside of HD or the real film, the DVD does a great job". In fact, he's contantly reminded everyone (even in his "a few words about" praise-worthy threads) that SD presentations are also a compromise... one that we enjoy because it's what we get with DVD and it's much better than anything that's come before for home-viewing, but not a compromise that we shouldn't be thrilled to cast off once HD resolution is a realistic option!

Have you *read* his "a few words about" threads regarding the HD DVD titles that he's screened? He's not shy about saying that in direct-comparison with SD resolution on DVD, the new HD presentation is a SERIOUS improvement and serves the film and the visual artwork of the creators much more faithfully... with a meaingful improvement in one's enjoyment of the film as a result.

dave :)
 

Ruz-El

Fake Shemp
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
12,539
Location
Deadmonton
Real Name
Russell

Not all of them, I think it was "Phantom of the Opera". and yes he does say that. But he also has pretty high praise for "the Searchers" and many other SD discs. It has only been since March/April or so that he has specifically added the "SD" part to his thoughts.

Full discloser: I know that this is potentially going to get me kicked in the nads, but I really don't think that film studios owe us the 35mm experiance in our homes. Considering past formats, DVD is fine by me, and when HD/Blu-Ray gets resolved to a single format, and a catalog of titles I want (seriously, is anyone getting hot pants for "The Punisher" in HD? ;) ) , I know I'm going to love the extra resolution. I'm also not knocking those that are adopting early, or strive to replicate that film experiance. For me, and only for me, if a SD-DVD is said to accurately represent a film, and the HD is said to more accuratly represent the same film, at this time, I'm good with the SD. This doesn't mean that I love or don't love movies as much or less than anyone else. Hence I'm loving Mr. Harris for recommending many a title that I might of otherwise overlooked/passed on, knowing full well that there might be a version out there now or in the future that well offer more detail (which let's face it, well probably happen in 10 years or so agian when a new post HD format comes around.)

This is also why I was hesitant to participate in the thread. I know I'm in the minority, and I also know that this really isn't that important to me. I just agreed with the original post, and thought I'd comment.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,311
Real Name
Robert Harris
The studios "owe" you nothing.

And there are many in the studio system that couldn't care less about film.

Yet, within that same studio system, you have home video and asset protection executives, who might still show up to work if they weren't being paid. Well, not quite. But the point is made.

And it is these people who continue to push the envelope, whether making The Searchers or Singin' in the Rain look as perfect as possible, or making the Chan films, which were in the recent past close to unviewable, a decidedly pleasureable experience once again.

These are the people that want both SD and HD to shine, and are doing everything that they can to make the HD experience the exceedingly special upgrade that it is from SD.

There are actually people behind this work which bring you DVDs that love film as much as those on HTF.

RAH
 

Walter Kittel

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 28, 1998
Messages
9,770

Despite my enthusiasm, I most assuredly would not purchase a film that I hate, or even dislike, for the simple purpose of demonstrating A/V capabilities. (raises hand) I pledge to never purchase The Prey (1984) on any recorded media. :)

- Walter.
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826

Did you see it displayed in full 1920 x 1080p resolution with full 1080p thru-put (ie, full frame reconstruction without bob/weave)? Did you view it at 1.25-1.5 screen widths distance?

If so, I can assure you that even if you personally did not find the difference dramatic, the average viewer *would*.

We all sat *in awe* of the 1080P demo of BD at Tyon's corner in Va on Saturday viewing on the 70" 1080P RP Qualia set. And we weren't even seeing full-resolution because the TV was doing it's own DRC deinterlacing so it wasn't true 1080P.

even so, the image was *shockingly* better than DVD.

Not subtle. Not marginal. Not just something that an enthusiast would care about.

Longshot's wife was there with the baby in the stroller and after seeing the image on the screen she said to him that it would be "alright" if he spent the money on the new gadget. She was quite impressed...

:D
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
There's nothing contradictory about that. It's a QUALITY issue. Suppose hidef is the norm for movie releases say, 6 years from now. Of COURSE people would be pissed if George Lucas said "I don't care if other studios routinely release in hidef. Standard def is what you get". That's not being "spoiled". That's demanding industry standard QUALITY.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,311
Real Name
Robert Harris
Mr. Elliott...

Let's view the numbers inversely. If Million Dollar Baby rates a 4.3 out of 30 on standard definition, it rates a 26 out of 30 in High Definition.

We are not discussing a diffential based upon tenths of points.

On a quality system, the difference is not arguable. It is definite. Between resolution, color densities, black levels, steadiness and a host of other factors, some of which I lack the full understanding to properly explain, the quality differential between SD and HD is a factor of 6.

The difference between 35mm and 70mm is a factor of 5.

RAH
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,711
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top