New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HD Purgatory

post #1 of 50
6/30/10 at 12:55am
Thread Starter 
I feel like I'm stuck in it. I've still got a standard definition TV, and it's starting to drive me crazy. The world has moved on.

Here's a great example: the Betty White episode of SNL, when Tina Fey came out during the news segment to do a bit. Her entire head was completely out of the frame for the entire skit. I heard her voice, and saw her shoulder, and that's it. It's weird, because SNL had started broadcasting in widescreen a few years ago, letterboxed on SDTV, but now it's full frame again, and important stuff is out of the picture frame. I guess the studios just expect everyone to have upgraded by now, and I can't really blame them.

I can't even watch any of my DVDs anymore. They all look like muddy crap. I'm a paycheck away from getting an HDTV, so I suppose I can wait, but I just can't play any of my movies right now. I know what DVDs look like on an HDTV played on a progressive scan player: they look almost as good as blurays compared to SD.

And there's a wider cultural phenomenon in all the growing pains which have accompanied the gradual shift toward universal HD which is the general lack of appreciation for the newer format on the part of the general public, as opposed to tech-savvy folks, even among people who were early HD consumers.

Everywhere I go I find people or businesses that are happy to show off their new HDTV but don't realize that the picture is not in HD because the signal isn't. They get the TV, but they don't realize they have to have a different cable package to watch all those channels in HD. They've always got it set so that "full frame" broadcasts are stretched out horizontally to fit the screen, all pixilated and crappy-looking, and they don't even notice.

Images shown in an improper aspect ratio are difficult for many people to notice, and many of those who do don't care. On the internet, in an age of too many competing file formats, uploaded or streaming videos are displayed in an improper aspect ratio far too often. It's a real pet peeve of mine. Will people eventually learn to pay more attention to these things?

While I'm lagging behind the tech curve, I know many of you are keeping up with it, more or less. I'd like to hear any comments any of you might have on the whole phenomenon. And is anyone else still in the same boat I'm in?

EDIT: Thanks to Phil for the thread title.
Reply
post #2 of 50
6/30/10 at 12:59am
I was late to it, and it has completely transformed the home video experience for me. Movies are a pleasure at home.
Reply
post #3 of 50
6/30/10 at 1:05am
Thread Starter 
The other problem this has caused for me is a reluctance to rent new releases or get a Netflix account. My refusal to watch a newer movie in SD has caused me to fall way behind on recent films I didn't see in the theater.
Reply
post #4 of 50
6/30/10 at 1:46am
Ironically, I'm watching CLOSE ENCOUNTERS on Bluray as I type this.

Go to Walmart, get a $500 Vizio HDTV, and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS for $15. Maybe pick up a Samsung refurbished Bluray player off the web. You won't be disappointed.
Reply
post #5 of 50
6/30/10 at 9:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hill View Post
I feel like I'm stuck in it. I've still got a standard definition TV, and it's starting to drive me crazy.

"HA HA!"
Reply
post #6 of 50
6/30/10 at 5:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott View Post
Ironically, I'm watching CLOSE ENCOUNTERS on Bluray as I type this.

Go to Walmart, get a $500 Vizio HDTV, and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS for $15. Maybe pick up a Samsung refurbished Bluray player off the web. You won't be disappointed.
If you've got a CompUSA in your neighborhood, I picked up a 32' hdtv from a company called AOC for about $330. It's not huge, but the picture is sweet. There are a couple of new companies that are selling their hdtvs in the lower sizes for really cheap to try and gain some market share.

It's so worth it. Throw in a ten-dollar Cables To Go HDMI cable from Amazon, a Netflix one-disk membership with streaming, and a refurbished, internet-connected BluRay player and a whole freaking *world* opens up.

Plus you get head from Tina Fey on SNL...not just the shoulder.
Reply
post #7 of 50
6/30/10 at 5:21pm
We had two SDTV and a HDTV, until movers broke one of the SDTVs. Since we had the super duper insurance (they threw it in for free as a selling point) and they couldn't find a SDTV and the repair cost was excessive, they had to buy us a HDTV.

Was a pretty great upgrade.
Reply
post #8 of 50
6/30/10 at 5:28pm
Maybe it's just my little experience with HD, but Standard Definition DVDs suit me just fine. Unless it's a bad transfer of a beautiful movie (like the Badlands DVD) I'm completel cool with that.

If I started to watch Blu-Rays, would all that change?
Reply
post #9 of 50
6/30/10 at 5:29pm
Yes.
Reply
post #10 of 50
6/30/10 at 5:52pm
Considering HD is closer to reaching the resolution of 35 mm film, I'd say yeah it is. Older movies (SLEEPING BEAUTY, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS) are better at convincing some than others.
Reply
post #11 of 50
6/30/10 at 5:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
I was late to it, and it has completely transformed the home video experience for me. Movies are a pleasure at home.
Totally.
I jumped a few months ago. And that definitively helped to ignite that movie watching fire i've been having.
Reply
post #12 of 50
6/30/10 at 6:00pm
In that case, I'm staying far far away. I don't need to want another thing I can't afford. I can't afford healthcare, a few hours with a Blu-Ray player might send my depression to another planet.
Reply
post #13 of 50
6/30/10 at 6:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
Maybe it's just my little experience with HD, but Standard Definition DVDs suit me just fine. Unless it's a bad transfer of a beautiful movie (like the Badlands DVD) I'm completel cool with that.

If I started to watch Blu-Rays, would all that change?
Patrick - the Badlands DVD is a 4x3 image containing a letterboxed widescreen frame within it. So what you'd see on a widescreen tv is a blown-up portion of the original video image, zoomed in to fill the tv screen. Most DVDs are anamorphic, 16 x 9 images, and when popped into a blu-ray (or upconverting DVD player), they look significantly better than what you're seeing on that Badlands DVD. Not quite HD quality, but a lot closer than you'd think. Any DVD that says "enhanced for widescreen TVs" on the back is going to still look pretty good.
Reply
post #14 of 50
6/30/10 at 6:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hill View Post
Everywhere I go I find people or businesses that are happy to show off their new HDTV but don't realize that the picture is not in HD because the signal isn't. They get the TV, but they don't realize they have to have a different cable package to watch all those channels in HD. They've always got it set so that "full frame" broadcasts are stretched out horizontally to fit the screen, all pixilated and crappy-looking, and they don't even notice.

Images shown in an improper aspect ratio are difficult for many people to notice, and many of those who do don't care. On the internet, in an age of too many competing file formats, uploaded or streaming videos are displayed in an improper aspect ratio far too often. It's a real pet peeve of mine. Will people eventually learn to pay more attention to these things?
This annoys me to no end. Especially the people who stretch the image at all times. I like how you can no longer buy a SDTV at Wal-Mart, but a good portion of their DVDs are still "full screen".
The whole HD thing is a clusterfuck for Normal Joe Consumer, I can imagine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hill View Post
While I'm lagging behind the tech curve, I know many of you are keeping up with it, more or less. I'd like to hear any comments any of you might have on the whole phenomenon. And is anyone else still in the same boat I'm in?
I'm lagging too, and unless I win the lotto I'm in no rush. I don't watch TV at home, and movies(unless I'm watching for the first time) are usually on just for background noise. But I do occasionally fire up the 360, which causes me a lot of grief with some games...
Gaming in the "HD Generation" is a pain in the ass sometimes, frankly. Developers just assume everyone has gone HD(when, I believe only half have, my stat might be outdated). Why no one tests games, or gives multiple graphics options(like PC games) on SDTVs is baffling. My TV is a good size(32"), and I can't read onscreen text? Not cool. The contrast in a few games leads them to being almost unplayable, some stages in certain games are so dark that you can't see, etc etc.
If I did upgrade, it would mostly be for games. Most of my anamorphic DVDs look a-ok upscaled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
Maybe it's just my little experience with HD, but Standard Definition DVDs suit me just fine. Unless it's a bad transfer of a beautiful movie (like the Badlands DVD) I'm completel cool with that.

If I started to watch Blu-Rays, would all that change?
With some stuff(Pixar for example), a big yes. I haven't been all that impressed with the difference/upgrade with most live-action films though, honestly. And I've watched TONS of Blus and HD-DVDs on properly calibrated HDTVs at this point.
Reply
post #15 of 50
6/30/10 at 10:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus-7 View Post
With some stuff(Pixar for example), a big yes. I haven't been all that impressed with the difference/upgrade with most live-action films though, honestly. And I've watched TONS of Blus and HD-DVDs on properly calibrated HDTVs at this point.
This is good to hear, I don't want to have to replace my entire DVD collection.
Reply
post #16 of 50
6/30/10 at 11:10pm
I waited a while before finally jumping onto HDTV this past Christmas. I was helped by the fact that a lot of my friends jumped on that wagon first in the preceding years. So I had access to such things pretty frequently, the big mooch that I am. And for the most part, I was fine with DVDs.

DVDs on an SDTV look fine though.

But it's true. Once you go hi-def (I mean REALLY go hi-def with blu-ray), it's hard to go back.
Reply
post #17 of 50
6/30/10 at 11:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hill View Post
...They've always got it set so that "full frame" broadcasts are stretched out horizontally to fit the screen, all pixilated and crappy-looking, and they don't even notice.

Images shown in an improper aspect ratio are difficult for many people to notice, and many of those who do don't care... It's a real pet peeve of mine. Will people eventually learn to pay more attention to these things?
No, they won't because ignorance is bliss.

This, too, is a MAJOR pet peeve of mine. So much so that when confronted with said stretched-out aspect ratio I get physically ill to an extent, usually a dull headache but sometimes nauseated. If social considerations require I watch such a picture I try to sit off to the side so my visual cortex is not strained to disorienting incredulity.

The worst part is when I demonstrate how the video can be watched in the proper aspect ratio 9 out of 10 people prefer filling their screen no matter what the cost, much as people couldn't stand to watch a letterboxed movie on the old 4:3 aspect ratio TVs. I guess black bars, horizontal or vertical, affect their non-sensibilities in much the same way as on-screen juggernauts stretched to Madden '94 proportions affect mine.

This problem is exacerbated by certain cable providers (um, Comcast, in my experience) broadcasting the signals in such a way that when the aspect ration is actually set properly part of the image is cropped, i.e. the score bar and news ticker during a sporting event.

Still, it pains me to see someone spend good money on a high-tech device only to absolutely ruin its output due to their unconscionable, perplexing ignorance and flat-out bad taste.
Reply
post #18 of 50
6/30/10 at 11:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahtheStud View Post
This is good to hear, I don't want to have to replace my entire DVD collection.
It's silly to have that mindset when buying a Bluray player. Do you need to upgrade THE BIG LEBOWSKI? Probably not. Do you need to replace your copy of PAN'S LABYRINTH? Fuck yeahhhhhh you do.
Reply
post #19 of 50
7/1/10 at 12:08am
I'm right there with you, Chris. Only my SD is a 36" 220# behemoth that is an absolute beast to move. I got it while similar sized HDs were still in the 2-3K range.

I'm moving in to a new apartment. If it is on the second or third floor, I'm buying a damn flat screen. If it's on the first floor... I can wait a few months. I think.
Reply
post #20 of 50
7/1/10 at 12:29am
You think the aspect ratio thing is a problem!? (it is...)

Let's not forget that all the big chains are trying to have TVs show off their SMOOOOOTH-MOTION PLUS features in order to get our dull cow-eyes used to watching movies that feel like History Channel dramatizations shot on video!!! ARGH!!!

I turn that shit off when I'm there, and it's right back on when I come back!
Reply
post #21 of 50
7/1/10 at 2:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
Let's not forget that all the big chains are trying to have TVs show off their SMOOOOOTH-MOTION PLUS features in order to get our dull cow-eyes used to watching movies that feel like History Channel dramatizations shot on video!!! ARGH!!!

I turn that shit off when I'm there, and it's right back on when I come back!
I saw a demo model with something a couple years ago with The Dark Knight where it looked like it was on video. Was this the technology of which you speak? It was nauseating.
Reply
post #22 of 50
7/1/10 at 2:13am
Most likely.
Reply
post #23 of 50
7/1/10 at 2:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott View Post
It's silly to have that mindset when buying a Bluray player. Do you need to upgrade THE BIG LEBOWSKI? Probably not. Do you need to replace your copy of PAN'S LABYRINTH? Fuck yeahhhhhh you do.
Words to live by. Certain movies really don't need an upgrade. If you're a fan of Big Trouble in Little China. Get it.
Reply
post #24 of 50
7/1/10 at 5:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott View Post
It's silly to have that mindset when buying a Bluray player. Do you need to upgrade THE BIG LEBOWSKI? Probably not. Do you need to replace your copy of PAN'S LABYRINTH? Fuck yeahhhhhh you do.
Exactly. Pixar stuff is a no-brainer(and the DVDs look GREAT already when upscaled), but like Billy Madison? Clerks? (hahaha) Nah.
Films with effects(2001, Star Wars whenever it happens, modern FX films) or great photography(No Country For Old Men) benefit a lot.

I don't mean to be so dismissive of HD. Really. If it's an amazing-looking film and the transfer is great, it will be amazing. Thing is, it's rarely worthy of the upgrade from DVD to Blu.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
You think the aspect ratio thing is a problem!? (it is...)

Let's not forget that all the big chains are trying to have TVs show off their SMOOOOOTH-MOTION PLUS features in order to get our dull cow-eyes used to watching movies that feel like History Channel dramatizations shot on video!!! ARGH!!!

I turn that shit off when I'm there, and it's right back on when I come back!
Woah that sounds awful. I've never heard of that.
Reply
post #25 of 50
7/1/10 at 10:58am
It's fine for stuff for Call of Duty or other things that run in 60 FPS but it's really awful and everyone I yell at to remove it don't understand why the default mode is preferred.
Reply
post #26 of 50
7/1/10 at 1:48pm
Higher refresh rates give that video-y look... 120hz, and now I think there's 240hz. It looks amazing for sports/Pixar movies, but trying to watch a live action film like that is just too off-putting.
Reply
post #27 of 50
7/1/10 at 2:24pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Dahlia View Post
The worst part is when I demonstrate how the video can be watched in the proper aspect ratio 9 out of 10 people prefer filling their screen no matter what the cost, much as people couldn't stand to watch a letterboxed movie on the old 4:3 aspect ratio TVs. I guess black bars, horizontal or vertical, affect their non-sensibilities in much the same way as on-screen juggernauts stretched to Madden '94 proportions affect mine.
I've had the same experience, and even pointed out that when shifted into the proper aspect ratio they are not losing any of the picture resolution so that it won't be any harder to see. And they still want it stretched out to fit the screen, as if that were the whole point of buying a widescreen TV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott
Go to Walmart, get a $500 Vizio HDTV, and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS for $15. Maybe pick up a Samsung refurbished Bluray player off the web. You won't be disappointed.
So a cheap TV like a Vizio is not a bad deal? I'm kind of hesitant to go for a less established brand, but Sony TVs are pricey.
Reply
post #28 of 50
7/1/10 at 2:31pm
I really like Vizio TVs. For the price, they're pretty solid.
Reply
post #29 of 50
7/1/10 at 2:39pm
Thread Starter 
Cool, I'll look into Vizio. When I'm at a Best Buy or whatnot, looking at a row of HDTVs playing the same thing, I always notice that some of them have a bright, crisp picture, and that some are muddy and dull, often regardless of brand. I have a feeling that if I were to start messing with the picture controls I could make them all look pretty good. Am I correct or are those display settings an indication of a TV's picture quality?
Reply
post #30 of 50
7/1/10 at 5:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hill View Post
Cool, I'll look into Vizio. When I'm at a Best Buy or whatnot, looking at a row of HDTVs playing the same thing, I always notice that some of them have a bright, crisp picture, and that some are muddy and dull, often regardless of brand. I have a feeling that if I were to start messing with the picture controls I could make them all look pretty good. Am I correct or are those display settings an indication of a TV's picture quality?
It's a bit of both. The sad truth is, it's hard to tell sometimes. The best thing you can probably do is both look in the store, ask to fiddle with ones you're interested in, and this is the biggie: RESEARCH.

Read lots and lots of reviews from as many reputable sites as you can.
Reply
post #31 of 50
7/1/10 at 5:38pm
Keep in mind the dregs at Best Buy don't get paid enough to optimize every TV. It's not like a Sony rep goes to every store to optimize each TV.

But yeah, do lots of research, which goes without saying when buying something that exceeds $500.
Reply
post #32 of 50
7/1/10 at 5:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCynic View Post
Higher refresh rates give that video-y look... 120hz, and now I think there's 240hz. It looks amazing for sports/Pixar movies, but trying to watch a live action film like that is just too off-putting.
[Pedant]It's not the refresh rate that causes the effect. However, the "smooth motion" algorithm (it goes by different names depending on the manufacturer) won't work without at least a 120hz refresh rate, because it's essentially doubling frames. The second frame is generated by the algorithm - it's a "best guess" at what a frame *between* two existing frames would look like. This algorithm-generated frame is then inserted between the two real frames. With 240hz sets, you can generate *more* fake frames, which sometimes looks even worse.

Also, these effects take time to process, so if you leave them turned on and try to play Call of Duty you'll have *noticeable* lag between your controller input and the corresponding action on-screen. You'll get *destroyed* online. "Game Mode" is there on HDTV's for a reason - it turns off all the extra processing shit in an attempt to eliminate input lag. Use it!

So: 120hz/240hz and the "soap opera"/video look aren't the same thing. The former just enables the latter. Turning off the effect does not change the refresh rate of your set, it just turns off the effect. With the effect disabled, you still gain benefits from the higher refresh rates - less judder, less blur, fewer artifacts.

I keep it off on my Samsung, and everything looks great.

[/Pedant]
Reply
post #33 of 50
7/1/10 at 10:34pm
Thread Starter 
I was in Best Buy today and they had The Dark Knight playing on a TV with that smooth motion feature, and shockingly, it really did look like the film had been shot on a home video camera. It was the interrogation scene and the Joker's make-up looked fluorescent.
Reply
post #34 of 50
7/1/10 at 10:44pm
It's too bad we associate the concept of higher frequency film and television (which should be an improvement in visual information) with 'cheapness' all due to the faster frame rates of home video cameras a long time ago.

I wouldn't mind seeing something CG rendered at 60fps just for comparison's sake.
Reply
post #35 of 50
7/1/10 at 11:01pm
I don't know if it's that it looks like home video, it's that it doesn't look like film.
Reply
post #36 of 50
7/2/10 at 12:45am
The point is that everything could be shot at 60FPS if desired but we don't. There doesn't seem to be any reason not to now except that it looks 'cheap.'
Reply
post #37 of 50
7/2/10 at 1:01am
I totally get the whole purgatory thing Chris. Ever since I decided to start saving for a projector, after seeing my friends awesome set up in action, I don't want to watch as many films. I want to save them for the experience of seeing them on the projector. I really haven't been watching as many films as I don't want to watch them in a lesser quality experience.
Reply
post #38 of 50
7/2/10 at 1:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontEATnachos View Post
The point is that everything could be shot at 60FPS if desired but we don't. There doesn't seem to be any reason not to now except that it looks 'cheap.'
That would really drive up CGI budgets, wouldn't it? Or is actually rendering the frames only a small part of digital effects budgets?

I figure 60fps would be welcome for 3D.
Reply
post #39 of 50
7/2/10 at 1:24am
You know what? I have an SD tv. A tv that requires that I smack it a bit every time the picture goes out (which is often). As a group of movie lovers, I think you know that this is hell. Here I was today, trying to enjoy another repeat of The Assassination of Jesse James on AMC (yes, I own it, it's my fav. movie of the last decade, but still it was on) while slappin the set every fifteen minutes. Truly, this is damnation.
Reply
post #40 of 50
7/2/10 at 1:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontEATnachos View Post
The point is that everything could be shot at 60FPS if desired but we don't. There doesn't seem to be any reason not to now except that it looks 'cheap.'
It looks cheap only because it's ingrained in us (or those who care enough) that it FEELS cheap. Who knows how long it'll take us to be weaned off a 'look' that we've been conditioned to accept in movies for as long as they've been around? All I know is that I hate it! It looks like b-roll footage, newscasts, cheap documentaries...

Frame rates higher than 24 fps are going to need more artists like Michael Mann doing something different and exciting to get us to break that powerful connection. And even those pushing for digital cinema haven't really pushed different film speeds.

Ebert pushes for 48 fps all the time, but that's usually regarding distribution. I'm not sure how that applies to the actual shooting of productions. Cameron also wants to shoot 48 fps, but he's taking his 'revolutions' one step at a time. 3D first...
Reply
post #41 of 50
7/2/10 at 3:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCynic View Post
Higher refresh rates give that video-y look... 120hz, and now I think there's 240hz. It looks amazing for sports/Pixar movies, but trying to watch a live action film like that is just too off-putting.
I'm no expert, but I realized quite a difference when I started watching my 120 Hz HDTV around November. But then again, I had been watching TV at 60Hz for 30 years of my life up until that point - of course it was going to look 'off'. I absolutely love it now, especially on sports. And BluRay movies look incredible, and I don't notice the difference anymore. It just comes across as unbelievably smooth & crisp.

I've pretty much turned into an HD snob because of this. I have a 65" HDTV in my living room that is several years old (got it from a friend recently for $175), but the difference between Blu & DVD is negligible on it. But put that same comparison test on my 42" HD set, and the difference is unreal...
Reply
post #42 of 50
7/2/10 at 3:22pm
I don't think the higher refresh rates are responsible for the video look that I'm complaining about. If anything, the higher refresh rates should only be more accurately displaying that 24 fps (or something close to it) transfer.

The video look is a specific mode on these new TVs that you can turn on and off.
Reply
post #43 of 50
7/2/10 at 3:43pm
The trouble really is that television makers tend to try to 'add value' by doing a bunch of computations and gimmicks to 'improve' the picture. Many of those things don't really work too well (like the effects of you get when listening to audio through your TV with it's 'surround mode' on or whatever).

It's using tricks to try to create information where there is none. And while the information in some cases may be pretty good, the truth is that it's not guaranteed to be accurate and in many cases can make the picture look worse.

It seems that until you get into the expensive/high end area though that companies want to keep trying to foist this junk onto unsuspecting consumers either to hide the poor performance of their product or to try to stand out in a common market segment. The result then is a bunch of sets with confusing names for things that work about 95% the same way (and are often licensed from the same companies) and are really annoying.

At the end of the day, I just want to display the content as created by the person who mastered the disc in the closest way to the way they wanted me to. I don't want to improve it, I don't want to post process it, I just want to show it as clearly and accurately as possible.
Reply
post #44 of 50
7/2/10 at 3:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
I don't think the higher refresh rates are responsible for the video look that I'm complaining about. If anything, the higher refresh rates should only be more accurately displaying that 24 fps (or something close to it) transfer.

The video look is a specific mode on these new TVs that you can turn on and off.
The "enhanced motion" option you're referring to will interpolate new, blended "make-believe" frames between the real frames, with leads to the buttery, camcorder-like effect.
Reply
post #45 of 50
7/2/10 at 3:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by A. Lively View Post
The "enhanced motion" option you're referring to will interpolate new, blended "make-believe" frames between the real frames, with leads to the buttery, camcorder-like effect.
Yep. See my long-winded post earlier in the thread. [/I'm ignored, as usual.]
Reply
post #46 of 50
7/2/10 at 3:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by McIrish View Post
I totally get the whole purgatory thing Chris. Ever since I decided to start saving for a projector, after seeing my friends awesome set up in action, I don't want to watch as many films. I want to save them for the experience of seeing them on the projector. I really haven't been watching as many films as I don't want to watch them in a lesser quality experience.
I went through this same thing during the build up to getting my projector. For a few months, I sort of stopped watching stuff on my old SD setup because I wanted to save it all for the nice 1080p projector.

And... still pretty glad I did. Gorging myself on films/shows new and old with the amazing new set up has been so enjoyable.
Reply
post #47 of 50
7/2/10 at 4:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyeball Kid View Post
Yep. See my long-winded post earlier in the thread. [/I'm ignored, as usual.]
Sorry, I just saw the question and didn't feel like quoting a previous post.

I will say that if you're OK with the "smooth" feel of the video, the effect works OK if the objects on screen are moving slowly. A quickly moving object will jump greater distances between frames, and the interpolated frame will be really far off. This gives the feeling of dropping back down to a lower refresh rate temporarily, which is even more jarring.
Reply
post #48 of 50
7/2/10 at 4:14pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyeball Kid View Post
Yep. See my long-winded post earlier in the thread. [/I'm ignored, as usual.]
I read it, and thought it was interesting. I also find dontEATnachos point about thinking the "home video" look is ugly just because we're used to the look of film intriguing. I suppose I haven't thought about whether or not hi-def digital video looks more like real life or not before. But I also suppose that it would create other problems: revealing too many flaws in the small details of make-up, for example. You could argue that the Joker's make-up in Dark Knight was supposed to be garish and fluorescent in bright light, but I think in other cases film-makers still want to be able to hide small flaws in production elements by not having the resolution be too high.
Reply
post #49 of 50
2/23/11 at 9:21am
Thread Starter 

I have changed the title of this thread from SD Purgatory to HD Purgatory, since that's where the world (at least for me) is now...

 

I've had an HD TV for about 2 1/2 months now.  An LG 37" LCD 1080p (only 60 Hz, though).  I love it and I don't know how I lived without it so long.  I also got a blu-ray player so that I can watch all my DVDs up-converted, and I've added a couple blu-ray discs to my collection.  Also invaluable is the DVR built in to my cable box, and the 3 months of free HBO I just got.

 

So yes, blu-rays and DVDs look awesome, as I expected.  What I didn't expect is how much enjoyment I'd get out of watching HD cable channels.  I can't watch any of the non-HD channels anymore.  I get such a kick out of stuff like Planet Earth in HD, and I really dug watching the Winter X-games in HD.  And HBO has allowed me to catch up on a lot of movies I couldn't bear to rent when I had the SD TV, like Fantastic Mr. Fox, which looked brilliant.  And Turner Classic Movies in HD deserves its own thread (which I guess it basically has).  Some of the old black & white flicks look incredible, and of course, since they are displayed in original aspect ration, I've now got the black bars on the sides of the screen.

 

Which brings me to the "Purgatory" point.  HD broadcast still seems to be going through some frustrating growing pains.  Most of the HD channels are "smart" enough to broadcast 4:3 ratio programs properly, with black bars on the sides, but sometimes I find that even these shows are stretched out improperly.  The most annoying perpetrator of this is Cartoon Network, which manages to correctly display all of their daytime programming while seeming unable to do this for the Adult Swim programming, with all of the shows in 4:3 ratio stretched out.  History International often has the opposite problem-- they show 1.85:1 programs compressed top-to-bottom, so that they are still stretched out, with unnecessary black bars at top and bottom.

 

The Disney channel and Disney XD are very good at getting it right, so why can't these other channels?  What is it about their broadcast methods that prevent them from properly displaying shows?  Disney XD often alternates between newer programs in 1.85:1 ratio, properly displayed so they fill the screen, and older 4:3 shows properly black-barred on the sides, so I know it's possible to be consistent on this issue.  Is it a lack in technological ability or proficiency or just laziness causing this problem?  Anybody know?

 

Anyone with some more general insight on the state of the industry re: HD?  I'm a layman but I find such tech-talk interesting.

Reply
post #50 of 50
2/23/11 at 9:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hill View Post
 I also find dontEATnachos point about thinking the "home video" look is ugly just because we're used to the look of film intriguing. I suppose I haven't thought about whether or not hi-def digital video looks more like real life or not before.


Not only are we used to the 'look' of film and 24 frames-per-second, but we've also been conditioned to associate 30 fps and the video-look with things that are decidedly UNcinematic.  Soap operas, telenovelas, reality TV, broadcast news, home videos...  

 

As someone who made short 'movies' as a kid, I was always frustrated with this look and my inability to make my videos feel like a 'real' movie.  So I've definitely had to struggle a bit to accept the look becoming more prominent.  Michael Mann, David Lynch, Danny Boyle, and David Fincher's work have made strides in expanding what kinds of stories can be told with video.  Some embrace the video-ness (Public Enemies... ugh... hahaha) while others work to make video feel like film (The Social Network... yay!).  

 

It's not really about whether or not film or HD-video looks more like real life or not.  It's really about what we've grown accustomed to.   

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Chewer Tech