Is it worth the upgrade? (1 Viewer)

.

My position is no for all-- until the format war is settled. Until a 'winner' is evident I'll stick to buying HD media I don't already own on SD.

Jeff, with all due respect, I think a thread like that is a bad decision.
It would function like the Tier threads over on AVS, with a result of deingrating and ostracizing discs that are 100% faifthful to their sources, and elevating ones that are not faithful, but that have been manipulated to look appealing to currents standards and fashions.
Whats worse, threads like that send messages- especially to weak minded studios (like Paramount, for instance) that it's ok to screw around with these films because HD customers only value a certain set of parameters (3D, no grain, vibrant colors, etc).
Of course, any HDM that lacks any or all of those qualities would be dismissed as "not worth the upgrade" wouldn't it? See what I'm getting at?

Ultimately, whether something is 'worth an upgrade' or not depends on things like the quality of someones gear, the distance in screen widths that they view the material (not just raw screen size), and how much they value they place on the content itself.
I've seen way too many good discs get slagged and tagged with "Keep Away This Isn't Good HD" when I find them to be 100% faithful representation of the source.

Sorry, just think its a bad idea. I've never seen one disc yet that hasn't been an upgrade. If you have any concerns at all in this area, maybe you should just stick with sd all around . I've watched many DVDs recently that I found to be more than watchable, and more than sufficent for an entertaining viewing.

OTOH, I would have no problem with a thread that calls out studios and certain titles for unacceptable things like EE or poor compression. Those are the kinds of things that to me render something as a problematical upgrade.
If that was the focus and intent, I would be all for it- otherwise I think it would quickly degenerate into a list of what films look pretty and which ones don't. Something like The Untouchables or Face Off would make the cut while things like Deliverence and A Room With A View wouldn't- and I find the latter far superior representations of their respective sources than the former.

.

But Jeff, the problem is someone with a 1080p projector viewing it at 1 screenwidth away, will likely have a very different opinion on the significance of the improvment than someone watching on a 720p from 3 screenwidths away.
Do you see what I'm getting at.
Are you then going to tell the person with the 720p display that their opinion doesn't matter, or should be deleted from the thread?

I personally have not seen one HDM that didn't provide an improvment over the DVD. But what is significant to one person, is a shoulder shrug to another. And I see way too many reviews dismissive of excellant discs because the reviewer feels they don't look like "HD is suppose to" and therefore not a good upgrade.
On the other hand, things like EE or compression artifacting are either there or they aren't. And that is something I would want to be alerted to.
Much moreso than someone else's subjective opinion that ____ doesn't look that much better than the dvd.

An enthusiastic, amen.

.

.

.

If you happen to really love a particular movie, I can't see why you wouldn't want the best possible a/v version of it- if you are going to own it at all.
So far there have been several movies I own on DVD that I haven't bothered upgrading simply because when I am honest with myself, I just don't need them (in either standard def or HD). It doesn't matter that reviews on them have been mixed- If I valued the particular films more highly, I would have upgraded because HD has never not yielded a benefit on my system.
Then there are discs like the Untouchable, Le Pact Des Loup, and 40 Year Old Virgin that I find to be highly compromised (usually due to EE), yet they are still overall a net upgrade for me.
In your original post, you mentioned reading mixed opinions on Mission Impossible. If you are projecting these on a 100" wide screen, this wouldn't even be a question. It is absolutely worth it.
No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
The problem is the question of significance is related to a subjective perception which is dependant on someones gear, viewing conditions, and love for the specific material.
So far every HDM I have seen, even the compromised ones, have been the 'reference' for that particular film (ona home video format).
And as a film lover, that is the only criteria I need to warrant another purchase for a film I love.

Reference quality is not the same as demo quality- and I think what you are ultimately looking for is a demo quality list of upgrades.

I agree with Paul. We have threads all over the place here where people do reviews and comparrisons of sd and hdm discs. If you ever wanted to get opinions on a particular title you'd need only post a thread about that title. People here are free with thier opinions and will give em to ya like it or not. A thread like that would also change rapidly. One day we're talking DIE HARD the next KING KONG and so on. I can see Paul's point that, because no two home theater systems in peoples homes are alike, you could never truely gage what was really better. What's better is also based on a persons perceptions, as Paul stated. Bottom line, if you want to know whether a title is worth the upgrade, rent it. That's what alot of people here seem to be doing and I will be joining in that. If you don't want to waste your hard earned dollars then that's your best bet.