Paul_SD

er...um...that's probably because I am. A videophile grade picture (both source and display) isn't really the province of Joe 6 pack. If he demonstrates an interest and wants to educate himself about the technology and the origin of the sources, then he ceases to be a "joe 6 pack". A J6P by his nature does not demand the highest grade A/V because he doesn't appreciate nor is he willing to make any sacrifices for it. Look how many people have and are enthused about HDMs and then show them off to friends and neighbors only to get "I guess it looks better" or "I can't really tell a difference"?
Before DVD I collected LDs. Transpose the argument here to that era- should studios be busting their nuts trying to make VHS look as good as LD? Why on earth would anyone think that? Both are designed to serve their own seperate and distinct niche. One is for the mass consumer who value convienence- the other is for the 'phile who puts a premium on the total experience. Anyone could buy into LD- you didn't need a special license. Few did because few valued what the medium offered. It is almost the exact same thing here.

sure there is Because in the past (the recent past) the studio wasn't going to the trouble of putting the same content out across multiple mediums. When Azkaban was released, an HD release was neither concurrent nor imminent. They had ONE SINGLE release to concentrate on. And the marketplace was focused on only one release of that content.
Please understand that I am not saying just because HD is here, that should give the studios carte blanche to release every single dvd in a careless, thoughtless way. When there is no HD release concurrent or imminent, then I fully expect the studio to put forth the effort to make the ONE SINGLE home video release look and sound as good as it possibly can.

I don't know where you are getting this impression from what I wrote.
I'm saying that from 4/06 on- whenever a specific title, be it a catalog or new release, is targeted for both an HD and SD release, that there is no longer any reason to expect the standard def version to enjoy the same amount of A/V TLC it would have got prior to 4/06. From 4/06 on, for certain titles, the consumer has a choice- Why is this a bad thing?
You are flying on an airline that only has one type of jet. everyone sits in the same cabin- there is no first class, yet everyone recieves top flight service.
The airline then changes planes and now on your flights they offer a choice of first class and coach. Why should you continue to get first class treatment when you only want to pay for the coach seat?

I still buy plenty of sd too. Again, if there is no equivilent HD release imminent, then I am flying in the jet with only one cabin- in that circumstance I expect the studio to put forth a high effort with the a/v- and if they don't I'm not a happy traveler. If there is a first class seat (HD version), and I chose to buy the coach ticket( standard def version) because it is cheaper or has more extras or whatever...then I am not going to complain if the service (A/V quality) isn't state of the art. Not when I was the one who made a concious decision to pass on that version in the first place.

Master Robin

It's a pretty damn good fake... even though you're probably right. The details are tremendous though. A summary on the back, the correct running time. The DVD disc small type around the edges. It's pretty convincing even though it probably is a fake... it might be just a concept WB made on the computer. Who knows!

Even if it is a fake, I wish they had gone with this design, just has more continuity with the other covers...

EDIT: Wow! Okay... sorry Mr.Salty, I defiantly didn't know what you were talking about. Yeah, it's a lot softer. Too bad I hate Blue Ray, just because it means I'd have to deal with my old DVDs "poor" (in comparison to BR) quality or buy them all again on BR or HD DVD. I've just decided not to get into them...

darkside

As do I. There are some movies and a lot of TV that I just don't need in HD. However, I'm not going to turn around and complain because they didn't put enough effort into the DVD version. DVD is the mass market format. Sales are pretty much a given regardless so studios are going to release them with the least amount of production cost possible.

If you care about AV quality you have to bite the bullet and go HD. I care about movies not disc formats. I'm not passing on high quality versions of the movies I love because I'm emotionally or financially tied to a disc format. DVD was great, but there is something better now and its time to move on for certain titles. It also couldn't be much cheaper to buy in. I found buying into both formats much cheaper than buying DVDs I will just have to replace later.

With all the B1G1 sales, 10 percent off and flat out free discs my cost of 100+ HD DVDs and Blu-rays is easily under $10 a disc. Hardly a risk to support one or both formats.

mzupeman2

This is terrible logic. If you care about quality, yes it's worth it with newer films such as this to bite on either BR or HD-DVD. But in the long run, newer SD releases look freaking great and will certainly be more than acceptable. Yet somehow, for some reason, the last two Harry Potter releases were rather poor. A little soft, some murky blacks, there's no excuse for such a high profile release. Many other films that get released onto multiple formats have no issues at all, so why Harry Potter?

harpo787

--I've been sort of idling, just reading along, but these comments just beg for a response, which you've surely gotten by now.

First, the VHS comparison - that I forgot to include in the quote - I don't think holds. As DVD took over, I get a feeling that the quality that VHS had provided did not decrease. They simply stopped producing them. They never lost the quality they provided.

The first quoted paragraph is what really grabbed my attention, because the second quoted paragraph would seem to back up the very idea that they ARE "dumbing down" the product. DVDs have reached a certain peak of the quality they can provide. They can do no better. Just because a new, better format is on the horizon does not mean that the quality that DVD has provided should decrease.

As you suggest in the second paragraph, if the studios choose to stop "treating it like it is the ne plus ultra videophile format of choice," or that "Don't expect it to continue to be what it was," would suggest to me that the studios will stop putting effort into it. If that's the case, they need to stop wasting money on the format, PERIOD, like what happened with VHS.

As long as the format for DVD is provided, I expect it to be the same quality it has always been. If I see enough high-def stuff, then when I look back at my standard DVD, it may appear to be lesser quality because it is. I'm trying to think of a good comparison...

Take ANY product. It's constructed a certain way, performs a certain service etc. The fact that a newer version of the product comes along does not mean that the quality of said product in the original format DETERIORATES in quality. The same quality should be provided. Take regular tvs to hi-def tvs. We've come to expect a certain quality from regular tvs. The fact that Hi-def tvs have come along doesn't mean that the quality of regular tvs should diminish. New ones being created should be EXACTLY THE SAME as they have always been.

Does that make sense? I may not be getting the point across...I guess in summary, just because new and improved comes along does not mean that the original's quality is lessened. It still does what it has always done.

DVD Polizei

Well, I think you're just allowing a problem to be carried over into another format as well. We currently do not have every HD release being treated like it was something that you and I value as an avid movie collector. HD releases, as they are picking up speed, are also picking up in numerous bad transfers. I'm sure we have a few DVD Talk Reviewers here who can give you a list of HD releases which could have been better, but were not.

But I will say, thank goodness for places like Netflix who have HD titles to rent from, so I can get an idea if I should buy the title myself.

I really don't think it's that difficult to make sure a high-quality transfer from the master print is downconverted to SD DVD. If anything, why not make a great transfer on HD, then downconvert it from there. At least with this theory, the quality would be relative. But from many titles I've seen, the SD DVD is almost as good as the HD title. Now, I'm not saying a majority, but there are several HD titles which could have been better, but due to release pressure, it was slapped with an HD logo, and there you go.

So, I'm saying be careful what you wish for. We have a history of bad transfers on DVD, and I don't see why you would think we will have the same idiot behavior when an HD transfer is made as well. Because I haven't seen a clear and cut dedication by HD DVD or Blu-ray supporters, to create the best HD transfers as possible. I see it from a few studios, but look at Universal and their track record. Who the fuck is at the HD switch over there. And that's just one example of a studio who appears to be not really excited in the backroom studio for demonstrating to a consumer, what they can give them.

Mr. Salty

I was curious about your post, so I flipped the HD DVD over tonight and watch a little of the SD version of the movie with the different subtitle options. Did you watch the movie with the standard English subtitles or the English subtitle for the deaf and hard-of-hearing? The latter seemed pretty easy to follow, at least 90 percent of the time.