Posted March 23 2008 - 09:03 AM
| Originally Posted by Lew Crippen |
Obviously I’ve just been eliminated from the enthusiast club as this is my ‘best available’ option. BD hardware is not the issue, but purchasing disks is a big problem—mostly not available here for purchase (so far I’ve not seen any, but there might be a few somewhere) and none for rent—at least in my area. Buying via mail has the disadvantage of paying very high import fees. And the mail service is far too slow for Netfilx (and I suspect that one would pay import fees for those disks also).
I would suggest that for very many movies (probably most) 5.1 DD is better than what was on the original soundtrack and that the difference between 720P and 1080P (though real) will not be seen on any but the highest end displays.
No, you're not eliminated "from the club" because what you describe is YOUR best available option. However, all else being equal, would you "settle" for what you're getting now if you could just as easily get "full HD"
(to borrow a hokey marketing phrase--useful shorthand, though)? That is my point. I distinguish an "a/v enthusiast" from a "non-enthusiast" based on choices made where convenience/indifference trumps quality and where price is not really an issue. (And, in my opinion, anyway, there is a difference between an "A/V enthusiast" and a "movie/film enthusiast".)
Clearly, the situation you describe means that you are going with the best option available to you. But if you take a poll in here, and remove price from the equation (leaving only convenience vs. quality), the "A/V enthusiasts" will NOT settle for less than "full HD" when available, as a general rule (there are always individual exceptions).
IF the best available option to me was less than "full HD", then I would go with that, obviously. AND IF "full HD" was only theoretical (much like the SED displays I once wanted to wait for before taking the "HD plunge"), then "A/V enthusiasts" would also accept it (grudgingly, perhaps, but still--they accept 1080p when, if they really wanted to, they could hold out for even higher resolutions).
As for the other points (720p not all that different from 1080p--real but only "high-end" gear can appreciate it; DD 5.1 better than the original soundtrack, etc.)--those are things that I believe will ultimately satisfy "the masses" (among whom there are many "movie enthusiasts" but, on a percentage basis, far fewer "A/V enthusiasts" than you would find, say, at HTF, AVS, and a plethora of other boards). I will say, though, that on my modest (1100$ 720 projector with a DIY screen that cost me under 100$ in time and material) display, I have compared 720p to 1080i/p and the latter (using the same player and disc) looks better. But, in fairness, not everyone who has seen both on my gear finds all that much difference (but then, they aren't "A/V enthusiasts"
Don't get me wrong. Being an "A/V enthusiast" doesn't require one to be as anally retentive about spotting the most minute flaws (audio or video) that appears to be the case among some. But it does represent an interest beyond simply "seeing the movie". My wife loves movies (at least, certain genres of them)--she would qualify (on my personal little scale) as a moderate "movie enthusiast". She is not at all an "A/V enthusiast". I consider myself a moderate "A/V enthusiast" in that, within comparable price, I favour quality over convenience (I don't buy music downloads, I buy CDs--and hi-res audio when it is available and matches my tastes; I buy or rent HDM versions of films under the same conditions. I DON'T avoid music or films that are not available in hi-res audio or hi-def video, though I do avoid (except when I have no other choice) lo-res audio or video.).
Ultimately, my (long-winded) point is simply this--IF there is no NEED to settle for less than "full HD" (for whatever reason), then doing so indicates that one is less of an A/V enthusiast than someone else might be. It's not a moral judgment (if I only remained friendly with A/V ethusiasts, I'd be a lonely guy) but simply a statement of fact.