New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HD-DVD is here. - Page 2

post #51 of 134
Thread Starter 
No, that's not me.

And I've been cruising some of the audio/video forums on the net and it seems most people who jumped the gun and bought the stuff are either videophiles who do it as a hobby, or people who were so excited about the energy from the people posting who'd already bought it, that they couldn't resist and went out on an impulse buy.

Most early adopters have disposable income, are well aware of the format war, and get a hard on everytime a new gadget hits the market. So none of this comes as a surprise.

I remember DVD coming out and I got one of the first players and T2. It was different then. VHS was shit, and you didn't need to see HD or DVD to realize it. Plus DVD had special features and just the cool factor of putting in a shiny disc and watching a movie like in some sci-fi movie. This launch is completely different. The only upgrade is picture quality (and the sound to a certain extent), and even though it's a substantial improvement (if you have the right display) you have to be a videophile to really jump the gun.

It's like we're in the middle of a technology tornado. We can't see, it's loud and scary and the future is uncertain. NTSC has been around more than 50 years, so it's going to take while for things to calm down. Transitional periods are always chaotic and scary.
post #52 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by CapitanAmerica
Higher resolution, and the ability to support real widescreen aspect ratios over broadcast. That sounds like a big enough difference to me.

Once you have a widescreen TV, wouldn't you prefer to watch widescreen content? (like Lost, Law & Order, 24, etc ... all broadcast in HD/widescreen)?
I have a normal fullscreen TV and have no difficulty adjusting the AR to 16:9 when my Freeview suscription offers a programme in that ratio (Europe has a 16:9 Action Plan that tries to standardise ratios of TV shows from the news to kids channels). It's a nifty - and quite unusual - function on my 4:3 TV, but my desire to enable an OAR has no baring on whether or not HD interests me. Films are shot in OAR, they're not shot at a certain 1000+ lines resolution. That's a totally modern development and applicable only rally to the most modern created entertainment. So the 'philistine card' is moot here.
post #53 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
I'm just curious what the appeal is that would drive people to say that there's no other way to watch sports.
Watching sports in HD is like being in the stadium. Watching sports in analog is like watching a tape of the game.

I'm profligate enough to buy a big HDTV but too cheap to spring for cable. Instead, I bought an HD antenna and installed it in my attic. The picture is phenomenal, the channel selection respectable, and the monthly bill zero.

It's awesome.
post #54 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
I'm just curious what the appeal is that would drive people to say that there's no other way to watch sports.
For me, $9.95/month is a small price to pay to watch HDTV (I have cable HD). I always knew I would buy a big screen TV, so once I had that, and HD became available to me for a reasonable price, I signed up. Now, I never want to go back.

I equate my preference of viewing the better picture quality of HDTV to paying for a new DVD version of a VHS tape you already own.

edit: Frank, we think alike.
post #55 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Instead, I bought an HD antenna and installed it in my attic. The picture is phenomenal, the channel selection respectable, and the monthly bill zero.
What model did you purchase? We were just debating getting a HD package with our cable box but an antenna would get about 90% of the programs I would want to watch on HD.
post #56 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Straxboy - An Anthony Hickox Film
I have a normal fullscreen TV and have no difficulty adjusting the AR to 16:9 when my Freeview suscription offers a programme in that ratio (Europe has a 16:9 Action Plan that tries to standardise ratios of TV shows from the news to kids channels). It's a nifty - and quite unusual - function on my 4:3 TV, but my desire to enable an OAR has no baring on whether or not HD interests me.
In the US, many widescreen TV shows are cropped (like Lost) so you don't even have that option. When you do, you lose a lot of resolution so it really sucks.

Quote:
Films are shot in OAR, they're not shot at a certain 1000+ lines resolution. That's a totally modern development and applicable only rally to the most modern created entertainment. So the 'philistine card' is moot here.
For viewing widescreen content at least in the US, HD is your best choice (even disregarding the much improved resolution).
post #57 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Watching sports in HD is like being in the stadium. Watching sports in analog is like watching a tape of the game.
No TV, no matter the resolution, will equal being at a stadium. It can have the clearest picture you want, it can't recreate the atmosphere of being there. So it's essentially still just a sharper, clearer picture.

My enjoyment of a football game isn't enhanced by being able to clearly read the script on the football on a 37"-plus screen. It just seems like a lot of ooohing and aaahing over what amounts to a sharper picture on a bigger screen. Yes, it's nice, but it's not reinventing the wheel.
post #58 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
No TV, no matter the resolution, will equal being at a stadium. It can have the clearest picture you want, it can't recreate the atmosphere of being there. So it's essentially still just a sharper, clearer picture.

My enjoyment of a football game isn't enhanced by being able to clearly read the script on the football on a 37"-plus screen. It just seems like a lot of ooohing and aaahing over what amounts to a sharper picture on a bigger screen. Yes, it's nice, but it's not reinventing the wheel.
WTF?
post #59 of 134
First off, here you go, Joe: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/produ...duct_id=872034

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
No TV, no matter the resolution, will equal being at a stadium. It can have the clearest picture you want, it can't recreate the atmosphere of being there. So it's essentially still just a sharper, clearer picture.
Agreed. It's like being at the stadium, but not equal to it. There are no drunk people spilling beer down the back of your shirt or cussing up a storm.

The picture is so much sharper and so much clearer that I'll only go back when I have to. Like when I'm watching Nats games because Channel 20's digital signal is so friggin weak that I have to use analog. Grr.
post #60 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Thanks Frank!

This may seem like a silly question, but you plug the antenna in through a coaxial cable and get HD picture? Or is there a different type of cord to use?
post #61 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
It just seems like a lot of ooohing and aaahing over what amounts to a sharper picture on a bigger screen. Yes, it's nice, but it's not reinventing the wheel.
You're right, it's not reinventing the wheel, it's much better.

Reinventing the wheel means an idiot thinks he's invented it when in fact a caveman did thousands of years ago.
post #62 of 134

It Is Murder

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
So, that's what the future of hi-def entertainment looks like. Whatever happened to fancy pants fiber optic wires that shot lasers and shit?
post #63 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigolo Joe
This may seem like a silly question, but you plug the antenna in through a coaxial cable and get HD picture? Or is there a different type of cord to use?
You run a standard coax cable into your HD receiver. Your TV may have a built in receiver, or you may have to buy one separately. If you do buy the receiver, be sure to run another cable (in addition to your digital HDMI or VMI connection) from your receiver to your TV to capture analog signals.
post #64 of 134
I knew there had to be something else. No HD receiver on my TV, just the HDMI input.
post #65 of 134
I've had an HDTV since December '03, but finally sprung for DirecTV HD two weeks ago. It's like my TV is brand new again (easily the best electronics purchase I've ever made...$1600 new). Got an OTA antenna installed as well, so it's good to go.

I'm a sports fan, but in my advancing age, I find it troublesome to go to the games now (along with the fact that it's insanely expensive). The best seat in the house has always been the one in my living room, so spending the dough to upgrade to HD was a no-brainer. The total cost for my upgrade was $350...I've spent that at a ballpark in one trip.

HD programming is all we watch now. It is that much better than regular programming. It's hard to explain why, especially to those already comitted to not getting it, but once you sit down and really pay attention, HD is for real. It's my new god.
post #66 of 134
On topic now:

I'm definitely not buying the new HD-DVD technology. At least not for a long, long time. As others have mentioned, cost and the fact that the upgrade from regular DVD to HD DVD isn't nearly as dramatic as regular cable to HD cable (or VHS to DVD).
post #67 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poulsonator
and the fact that the upgrade from regular DVD to HD DVD isn't nearly as dramatic as regular cable to HD cable (or VHS to DVD).
That's a misleading statement. You can't lump everything together like that. There's all kinds of HD cable... there's movies, there's video based sports, etc... video is much sharper than film and has a more obvious enhancement from NTSC to HD.

Film is different in that the quality varies from film to film. Some films are granier than others, some are much sharper, some shot with different lenses, filters, etc... The differences become subtler the higher the resolution. Not to mention you're talking about a first generation HD-DVD player and discs. Remember the first regular DVD releases? Compare them to today's transfers... like night and day. And your display is important. Of course you're not going to see much difference on a shitty discount HDTV vs. something more high end.

As players become more common, higher end HDTVs and player prices will drop. We're in a transitional period and to just write off a format because you haven't bothered to research the pros and cons and make an informed decision is stupid.

I've seen HD-DVD on properly calibrated sets and in the proper viewing environment (ie. darkened room without daylight or indoor light pouring in and washing out the image, makes a HUGE difference), and it blows regular dvd out of the fucking water. Not even close.

Does this mean you have to make an effort to get the most out of HD-DVD (and eventually BD)? Yes. But that's the trade off. When prices start to come down and we get more impressive movies the trade off will definitely be worth it.

NOTE: Keep in mind that the HD-DVD demo displays Best Buy has are shit; they don't properly calibrate the TVs and the place is filled with light. Ask them to show you what it looks like in the darker rooms on better sets.
post #68 of 134
Yet the ball is still going to have to get rolling with your techophiles, not your average joe.

And I know that's the norm, but the hype isn't something the average person is going to get behind until the price goes down.
post #69 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
I remember somebody saying that going back to watching football on a regular TV after seeing it on HD was like clawing their eyeballs out. The hyperbole is just ridiculous.
I couldn't care less about football, but seeing it in HD is pretty amazing. Usually when my buddies are watching football, I draw or occupy myself with something else, like heavy drinking. In HD I end up watching the crowds, fascinated by the fact I can clearly see the guy in the 10th row buying a hot dog. For me, a non football fan, to suddenly be entranced by a game, is pretty amazing. I can't imagine how happy I'd be if I were a fan.
I watched the Superbowl on the same television, only the local channel here doesn't broadcast in HD, after seeing the other games, I did want to claw my eyeballs out.
Probably a big reason for that though, is "normal" broadcasts on a TV that large are pixelated and/or blurry. If I had been watching on a "normal" set, I doubt I would have had as many problems. That said, I'm quite content with regular DVDs, and hell, regular DVDs on my friend's HD set look fine, depending on the film, and he doesn't even have a progressive scan player yet.

Oh, and back to my question earlier, how much are the HD-DVD discs? Just curious.
post #70 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus-6
Oh, and back to my question earlier, how much are the HD-DVD discs? Just curious.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...v=glance&n=130

$20.
post #71 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt45
NOTE: Keep in mind that the HD-DVD demo displays Best Buy has are shit; they don't properly calibrate the TVs and the place is filled with light. Ask them to show you what it looks like in the darker rooms on better sets.
Totally agree - and they are demoing on 37" screens. The average DVD watcher will not notice a difference between SD-DVD and HD-DVD on a monitor smaller than 50". The ones buying the players now most likely have the 100" screen with a projector. The difference on these types of monitors are extremely noticable.

I have probably have been reading the same thread you have been reading at another forum. The discussion is up to 60 pages now and I get a different impression than you. I find that some users are quite dissapointed with the package so far. The upconvesrion of standard DVDs works better on regular DVD players (Pioneer Elite, Denon, etc). There are audio bugs when using digital connections and the ugly head of software protecting will be rearing very soon. Of course, it doesn't help that the only software available now is a Joel Schumacher production and a crazy Scientologist in a kid's Samurai halloween costume.

I plan on saving up to purchase a new receiver and Blu-ray/HD-DVD player by the beginning of 2007. By that time the format war should be decided. Despite some of the bugs I hear that the new Dolby Digital Plus and DTS-HD audio formats are breath-taking. Good thing I sound-proofed my home theater room.
post #72 of 134
My 19 inch HDTV in my bedroom will suffice for awhile, and so will my non-HD DVD player. The payoff in resolution and picture really pays off when a film is shot in digital. COLLATERAL and REVENGE OF THE SITH, for example, look quite stunning on my HDTV.
post #73 of 134
Hate to start tangent, but I'm really, really curious:

Why did Beta lose to VHS? The tapes were smaller and the video quality was better.
post #74 of 134
VHS was cheaper.
post #75 of 134
Here's my 2 cents.

It's pointless to buy an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player until the format war is resolved or players that play both become standard. Plus they need to go down in price before joe schmoe will shell out his cash.

I also feel no need to replace my DVD collection. There are certain movies I would buy in High Definition like the Lord of the Rings films, Star Wars saga, Matrix trilogy, Braveheart, Gladiator, etc., but 90% of my collection won't be replaced. Will comedies suddenly be funnier? I don't think so and I certainly don't need to buy a movie like "Stripes" again just because it's in high def.

Does anyone know if HD-DVD will improve the quality of older films like King Kong and The Godfather? Those weren't shot with HD in mind and I would think the improved quality would make the cheaper film stock and print flaws even more apparent.
post #76 of 134
And VHS tapes used to cost $70 retail. Ha!
post #77 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Agreed. It's like being at the stadium, but not equal to it. There are no drunk people spilling beer down the back of your shirt or cussing up a storm.

The picture is so much sharper and so much clearer that I'll only go back when I have to. Like when I'm watching Nats games because Channel 20's digital signal is so friggin weak that I have to use analog. Grr.
Even when a show I watch isn't broadcast in HD, I still DVR it from the HD channel because NTSC's colors make me want to jump off a cliff while pouring gasoline in my pee-hole.
post #78 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroyle
Totally agree - and they are demoing on 37" screens. The average DVD watcher will not notice a difference between SD-DVD and HD-DVD on a monitor smaller than 50".
I wouldn't go that far. I've been hearing raves from people who have smaller than 50" sets... it's the TYPE OF DISPLAY that makes a difference. Some sets are EDTV, some are plasma, some only go as high as 720p... and supposedly you have to set the HD-DVD player to output 1080i and not 720p in order to get the best picture, EVEN IF YOUR DISPLAY ONLY GOES TO 720p. Toshiba doesn't tell you this, it came about from people fooling with the players.

The Best Buy HD-DVD demo TVs are shitty, cheap brands... and they're not even calibrated. I even heard some BBs aren't even using HD-DVD discs, but are using regular DVDs to demo the technology!

And the cheapest intial Blu-Ray players are supposed to be like $900 or something. So the $500 HD-DVD players are a bargain.

This is mostly Toshiba's fault. It's a lazy release, and I wouldn't be surprised if HD-DVD dies before Blu-Ray even gets here.
post #79 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Back Smith
Even when a show I watch isn't broadcast in HD, I still DVR it from the HD channel because NTSC's colors make me want to jump off a cliff while pouring gasoline in my pee-hole.
Exactly the kind of hyperbole that makes me want to never think twice about HD.
post #80 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Brigden
But DVD didn't have a rival format also trying to establish itself as the number one medium. The message we should want to send to the companies is that we're not going to by shit until this whole fucking format war is resolved, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Um, DIVX anyone?

Kurt is right: someone has to play the format wars; someone has to be the early adopter; someone not me.
post #81 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf
There's a huge difference but who cares? Is your American Idol experience changed THAT much by HDTV?
Only in HD can you see that Kellie Pickler has no pores. It's really unsettling.
post #82 of 134
Yes, at the time that DVD came out, DIVX was right there with it. It really didn't take long for DVD to win though. DIVX really didn't have a chance with its weird implementation. No one wanted to buy a disc that would "expire."

This situation is a little different, though. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are both very very closely related. It's going to be difficult for the average consumer to make a choice between the two.
post #83 of 134
Oh please.

DivX never had a fucking chance. That's like saying carrier pigeons were competing with the internet.
post #84 of 134
Thread Starter 
There's a very informative initial review of the format at thedigitalbits.


Quote:
(LATE UPDATE - 4/18/06 - 2:30 PM PDT)

Okay... a word of advice to all your folks out there who might have picked up HD-DVD players and software today. The audio levels on Warner's first two releases on the format, The Last Samurai and Phantom of the Opera, are mastered on the discs are a substantially lower level than the audio on Universal's Serenity. We're talking well below reference level, on all audio options. Why this was done by Warner is a mystery to us, but beware that if you start with one of the Warner discs and adjust your system volume to a normal listening level, and then switch to Serenity, you run the potential risk of damaging your speakers. More on this tomorrow.

(EARLY UPDATE - 4/18/06 - 12:30 PM PDT)

Well, here we are on the first day of class with HD-DVD... and Toshiba has announced that initial sales of their HD-A1 HD-DVD players are strong (click here and here for more on that). In fact, many stores carrying the hardware sold out this weekend. I drove over to a local Best Buy store here in Orange County this morning, and sure enough... there were a few diehards waiting to throw down their money at 10 AM.

As luck would have it, I managed to secure a loaner HD-A1 to use this week, while we wait for Toshiba to ship us official review hardware. I've also got three pieces of review software... Warner's The Last Samurai and The Phantom of the Opera, and Universal's Serenity (Warner's Million Dollar Baby is due later this week - it's apparently slightly delayed and is not in stores yet). What I'm going to do now is just give you some initial thoughts. Rest assured, I'll be posting more detailed reviews later this week.

First, the player. The construction of Toshiba's HD-A1 is fairly solid - not as good as my Pioneer Elite DV-59AVi DVD player, for example, but still better than most other entry level players. Setup is very easy and intuitive. I've had trouble with other DVD players in the past - I'm using HDMI to drive a native 1080 LCD video projector, and typically most upscaling DVD players need you to go into the setup menu to activate the HDMI output and upscaling. The HD-A1, however, recognized the HDMI connection right out of the box - there was no need to hook it up to a regular display via component cables and go into the menu screen to turn on the HDMI. The setup menus themselves are very simple and easy to use - very few settings, if any, needed to be changed in order to start viewing the discs.

The player does have a couple of big downsides right off the bat, however. The first is that the remote is absolutely awful. Just really a mess. It's basically the same as the one that's going to be included in the more expensive HD-XA1, except that it's not backlit. BIG mistake. The button labels are impossible to read in the dark, and few of the controls on the remote are intuitively laid out. At least on the cheaper unit, they could have labeled the remote in brighter paint or something. It's a disaster.

The other major downside is the time it takes the player to get into operating mode. When you first turn on the player itself, it takes a full minute to boot up into a usable configuration. You can't even open the disc tray during that time. Very irritating. Once it's ready to go, however, and you insert a disc, it takes about another 30 seconds to boot up the software. Again, very irritating. Still, it's worth noting that this is the kind of thing that's only going to get better as newer firmware becomes available, and as second and third generations of hardware hit the market.

Speaking of firmware, the player is designed so that you can connect it to the Net via a standard broadband LAN port, which will allow you to make fast and easy firmware upgrades to the hardware... and I suspect there's going to be a lot of them needed to add full interactivity and functionality.

In terms of backwards compatibility, the player seems to handle existing DVDs and CDs well. Its upconversion of standard definition DVD video is quite good, but still not quite as good as my Pioneer DV-59AVi, at least on first impression. I haven't really had the time to test and compare this in any kind of depth, however, so don't take that as gospel. I'll let you know more when I do.

Now for the software. Universal's Serenity is basically a port of the existing DVD release, simply with the film in high-definition video and Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 audio. No offense to Joss Whedon fans, but I do sorely wish the first title I'd watched on HD-DVD was something other than this film. Still, the picture quality is absolutely spectacular - vibrant color, fantastic contrast and VERY few compression or processing artifacts (and if you watch a lot of broadcast HD video, you've no doubt seen a lot of those). It's just utterly clean and clear without being too crisp or edgy - a very natural looking and extremely pleasing image. I knew it was going to be impressive, but I'm still surprised at the sheer improvement over regular DVD, at least when viewed in a very large projection format. You notice so much more of the characteristics of the actual film medium rather than any kind of video aspects, which is as it should be. Warner's The Last Samurai is equally impressive in terms of video, though I haven't watched Phantom of the Opera yet (again, not a title I would have chosen to release first on HD-DVD, but what the hell).

The Dolby Digital Plus audio quality on these discs is also stellar, though again I have yet to Phantom of the Opera (which has Dolby TrueHD). The Plus audio is lovely - easily on par with the best DTS tracks I've listened to. In terms of the overall audio quality and experience, you wonder just how much better Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD could possibly sound... and how most people are going to possibly be able to appreciate the difference. I'll have more on this tomorrow, after I've had the time to check out the 2.0 TrueHD the Tosh player will allow on Phantom.

It's worth noting that, like current DVD discs, Serenity has a film-themed root menu. Hitting the 'menu' button on your remote takes you back out to that root menu where you can access all the features and options. Warner's discs, however, do NOT have any kind of root menu. When you start playing them, they simply go right into the movie. Hitting the 'menu' button brings up a menu overlay while the movie continues to play, from which you can select all of the various features via pop-up/sliding menus. It's very similar to how the start/program bar works in Windows XP, except that the look of the bar is themed to the film itself. I do, however, wish the discs had a main menu. Maybe it's just that I've gotten used to the way standard DVD works, but not to be able to pop out to a main menu seems... wrong somehow. Some combination of the way Universal's menus work, and the new menu overlay, would seem to be optimal. The extras I've seen so far are all in standard definition (and they're not anamorphic widescreen either), but I've only really dug through Serenity so far. I will tell you, however, that it's jarring to see the difference in quality going from well-compressed HD video to less well-compressed standard definition video.

One other irritating thing I've discovered about the hardware when playing the discs, is that when you change audio tracks on the fly, there's no on-screen graphic that notes what language you're changing to. So you can't tell what language you're in until someone starts speaking. The 'display' button does bring up a nice read-out of the audio format you're listening to, and what the particular codec and resolution of the video is, but there's still no language indication.

I should also tell you that Warner's discs boot into a little promo video for the format, that explains how the discs work (how to use the menu overlay, etc). Thankfully, you can skip past it. Warner's discs also include a promotional flyer touting some 50 titles that are coming for Summer 2006 to the format from the studio, including The Matrix, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, Full Metal Jacket, The Perfect Storm, The Shawshank Redemption, Batman Begins, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Troy and The Dukes of Hazzard: Unrated.

Anyway, those are just my initial impressions. Overall, I would say that this is a pretty solid start for HD-DVD. I've experienced nothing so far that would, in theory, cause me to warn early adopters away from the format (other than what I've already said recently about the wisdom of waiting given the format war). And it's worth noting that even those things that I think are a little rough, less than fully functional and perhaps non-optimal about my HD-DVD experience so far, are all the same kinds of things I experienced in the very first DVD players and software way back in March of 1997. The picture and sound quality, as it stands, now is excellent and it's only going to get better. Of course, I expected no less from the HD-DVD launch... and I expect no less from Blu-ray Disc when it arrives in May/June.

I'm going to take the rest of the day to really soak all this in and try to process my thoughts more, so I'll have more to say about it tomorrow. I'll work on getting full reviews of the software posted over the next couple of days as well.

Stay tuned...

Bill Hunt, Editor
The Digital Bits
billhunt@thedigitalbits.com
post #85 of 134
Thread Starter 
http://www.videobusiness.com/article....html?nid=2705

Quote:
Kornblau called DVD bonus features “yesterday” and said HD DVD will change how consumers watch movies by allowing them to personalize objects in the film and connect online with friends to share opinions while watching the film—and, he emphasized, it will do it by the end of this year.

“The next phase will be a more robust personal interactive experience,” Kornblau said.

That connectivity also could open up new promotional opportunities for studios, which could allow users to click on a car or pair of shoes or any other item on the screen and connect online to a Web site for more information and to make purchases.
I can see it now. Get Ethan Hunt's shades in Mission Impossible 4.

Sounds cool enough. That's another thing that's exciting but also terrifying because these new formats aren't just about picture and sound quality, but the possibilities for creativity BEYOND THE MOVIE; which can allow filmmakers to become much more involved in the overall life of their creation and make it more than it could have been in the theater. The production of the HD-DVD or BD release will be just as involving as production on the movie itself. But the terrfying part is this will be lost on most filmmakers and studios and it'll just be DVD 2.0
post #86 of 134
Quote:
Kornblau called DVD bonus features “yesterday” and said HD DVD will change how consumers watch movies by allowing them to personalize objects in the film and connect online with friends to share opinions while watching the film—and, he emphasized, it will do it by the end of this year.
What, so I can put my name on a billboard in the film and then go online and tell me friends about it? Whoopee. I'd rather have storyboards and production diaries than be able to get online and share with people how much I love this movie. I can do that now without fancy new technology.
post #87 of 134
I don't want to interact with a movie for the same reason I don't want to interact with a painting or a sculpture. If your movie is so boring that I'm clicking on the Nikes in the corner, you have a problem.

Interactive movies are already their own thing: they're called video games. I'm not ready yet for those two things to be interchangeable.
post #88 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt45
That's another thing that's exciting but also terrifying because these new formats aren't just about picture and sound quality, but the possibilities for creativity BEYOND THE MOVIE; which can allow filmmakers to become much more involved in the overall life of their creation and make it more than it could have been in the theater.
Great. Now Lucas can change his movies while you're still watching them.
post #89 of 134
I'm not interested in the internet connectivity either. Not everything has to be hooked up to the web. Though I'd reconsider if I could use my toaster to let the entire internet community know how my english muffin turned out.
post #90 of 134
The main feature of these formats is improved image quality, the new interation APIs are an added bonus but not the main thing (HD-DVD is called what iHD? Blu-Ray has a Java VM).

Better uses of these new features are menus that can be onscreen without having you to clumsily exit to a "root -> setup menu to change settings" and nicer games for children DVDs (yes, DVDs have games too).

I can see why people don't want to buy these players now, I certainly don't, but the negativity is being focused here on the wrong reasons. If you argued that these new systems are too expensive or have draconian DRM which is unnaceptable, we can have an argument, but who can really say that higher quality images and more powerful authoring languages are a bad thing???
post #91 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg
Only in HD can you see that Kellie Pickler has no pores. It's really unsettling.
And seeing Paula's creases in her forehead...that's the first thing I noticed when I got HD.
post #92 of 134
I can change the audio output and subtitle features on my regular DVD player now without exiting to the main menu. Clearer, crisper image is the ONLY thing that calls for a new purchase. And, really, the only thing that needs upgrading.
post #93 of 134
Thread Starter 
It's a bit difficult to get excited about this stuff if you're a jaded internet veteran (God knows I'm one). But there are definite benefits that make the new technology attractive.

It's just going to depend on how it's used. I don't necessarily want to interact with movies either, but I'm saying there are probably going to be some interesting things coming out of this that nobody can understand yet. And that's what so exciting and scary about all this. It's like the gold rush out west; nobody knew what the fuck was what, they just knew there was amazing things possible in a new territory, and of course there were the typical paranoids who were confortable just where they were, so they stayed.

(not calling anyone specific a paranoid)
post #94 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by UserNameIndeed
Hate to start tangent, but I'm really, really curious:

Why did Beta lose to VHS? The tapes were smaller and the video quality was better.
No porn. Sony wouldn't have their product sullied by it. VHS, on the other hand, delivered truckloads of cheap nudie flicks into the hands of eager masturbators everywhere.
post #95 of 134
Ahh, porn. Once again showing us the way concerning technology.

And quite frankly, I just am trying to understand how much better an HD-DVD would look vs. a regular DVD upscaled on an HDTV, unless it's something like a Pixar or Lucas Star Wars movie. I watch movies on my HDTV from Voom, and the ones that have been "optimized" for the HD experience just don't look that much better to me. Unless the movie was filmed in HD, I don't see how putting that movie on an HD-DVD is going to look any better.

That being said, if there are other advantages (as discussed), then I might take a second look. But there's no way in hell I'm dropping $600-700 on a new player that might not even end up being the standard. I'd rather buy an Xbox 360.
post #96 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poprob
I can change the audio output and subtitle features on my regular DVD player now without exiting to the main menu. Clearer, crisper image is the ONLY thing that calls for a new purchase. And, really, the only thing that needs upgrading.
Again, not the main feature but should be an improvement. Right now you can't really "name" the audio tracks with labels like "Director's commentary, etc". At most I've seen them have labels for the languages.
post #97 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
I'm just curious what the appeal is that would drive people to say that there's no other way to watch sports.
The benefits of HD NFL football haven't been fully realized because the broadcast networks are still producing their television coverage with standard definition in mind.

A few years ago, I checked out the HD displays at Sound Advice, and one of the big screens was tuned into a college football game on HDNet. They were producing their own broadcast, so without having to worry about viewers with 4:3 aspect ratios, they made excellent use of the extra horizontal space.

In a typical broadcast, when the QB hikes the ball, the screen pans to center the QB in the frame as he steps back to make his reads, then as he throws the ball, the camera follows the ball as it hits the intended receiver.

On HDNet, when the ball is hiked, the camera zooms out and displays a huge chunk of the field, with the QB on one side. You actually get to see each receiver run his route as the play unfolds, and once the ball is thrown, the camera zooms in towards the action. Thanks to the increased resolution, you can still see all the action happening at the line of scrimmage, but the 16:9 frame allows you to see how the defensive team's secondary is covering the play.

It was a bit disconcerting at first, but after watching a few plays, I was hooked. It wasn't just a pretty picture, but a greatly improved telecast that was richer in content than the football games we're accustomed to seeing on TV.
post #98 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette
Oh please.

DivX never had a fucking chance. That's like saying carrier pigeons were competing with the internet.
My carrier pigeon is on its way with my rebuttal. Please have your squire ready to recieve it.

But your analogy doesn't really work as I'm pretty sure carrier pigeons and the Internet were NOT contemporaries. I'll have to double-check.
post #99 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gio Angles
The benefits of HD NFL football haven't been fully realized because the broadcast networks are still producing their television coverage with standard definition in mind.

A few years ago, I checked out the HD displays at Sound Advice, and one of the big screens was tuned into a college football game on HDNet. They were producing their own broadcast, so without having to worry about viewers with 4:3 aspect ratios, they made excellent use of the extra horizontal space.

In a typical broadcast, when the QB hikes the ball, the screen pans to center the QB in the frame as he steps back to make his reads, then as he throws the ball, the camera follows the ball as it hits the intended receiver.

On HDNet, when the ball is hiked, the camera zooms out and displays a huge chunk of the field, with the QB on one side. You actually get to see each receiver run his route as the play unfolds, and once the ball is thrown, the camera zooms in towards the action. Thanks to the increased resolution, you can still see all the action happening at the line of scrimmage, but the 16:9 frame allows you to see how the defensive team's secondary is covering the play.

It was a bit disconcerting at first, but after watching a few plays, I was hooked. It wasn't just a pretty picture, but a greatly improved telecast that was richer in content than the football games we're accustomed to seeing on TV.
Great post.

edited for snarkiness
post #100 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martianman

And quite frankly, I just am trying to understand how much better an HD-DVD would look vs. a regular DVD upscaled on an HDTV.
Go see one at the store in the proper viewing setup and you'll find out.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DVD General Discussion