|
Originally Posted by Spiky
It is not a noticeable improvement over HD channels, unless the channel is REALLY bad. It is the same technology, just stored on a disc.
Sounds like House IV may have been an upconvert. |
Its definitely a bit better than HBO HD looks to me, but I won't claim its a night and day difference and it will vary greatly by film and how much the cable provider is compressing the signal.
|
Comcast in my area compresses the signal to death and I get a good amount of blocking. After watching Phantom of the Opera last night on HD-DVD I can tell a definate difference compared to the HBO-HD braodcast. Not to metion that the DVD is also in OAR, while HBO is not.
|
I looked at about a minute of 'Knight Rider" on Universal HD and changed the channel since the picture was cropped to 16X9. Not acceptable. I have noticed that they are beginning to show more 2:35 to 1 movies though, so that's a good sign.
Fry's had a couple of the HD-DVD movies marked $19.99 yesterday, but with such a poor selection, I'm not yet interested. The demo looked excellent, though. |
Originally Posted by Steve Phillips
I looked at about a minute of 'Knight Rider" on Universal HD and changed the channel since the picture was cropped to 16X9. Not acceptable. I have noticed that they are beginning to show more 2:35 to 1 movies though, so that's a good sign.
Fry's had a couple of the HD-DVD movies marked $19.99 yesterday, but with such a poor selection, I'm not yet interested. The demo looked excellent, though. |
Originally Posted by digitalfreaknyc
Knight Rider isn't cropped. It was originally filmed. That's OAR.
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/4249/s1e1kr119no.jpg 4x3 on DVD: http://www.davidhasselhoffonline.com/Phoenix1.jpg It's cropped. |
There's more information on the side of the HD. That means it's open matte most likely. Regardless, it was still originally filmed.
|
Originally Posted by digitalfreaknyc
Knight Rider isn't cropped. It was originally filmed. That's OAR.
Stuff originally filmed for television (especially in the 1980s) probably did not use mattes or anamorphic lenses and then later cropped the image to fill the 4x3 screen for broadcast. They probably just shot it using the full frame, making the widescreen version cropped. |
Again, the widescreen version above shows more image on the right side.
Edit: actually, both sides do. |
Universal HD is usually very good about having it in the right format. I only got the channel during the Olympics, but everything I saw during that time was OAR and looked great. Knight Rider is open matte I believe (like T3).
Scarface in HD was great. |
Originally Posted by digitalfreaknyc
There's more information on the side of the HD. That means it's open matte most likely.
The negligible difference on the sides probably owes more to the different transfers of this material than anything else. (Find any movie released multiple times on DVD, study them closely, and you're likely to see similar variations.) The 4x3 and 16x9 versions are 'stretched' a little differently, but I tried to match them up as closely as I could: http://www.wittydomainname.net/me/images/photos/126.jpg |
White Lion says: Wait
|
Originally Posted by Vandelay_Inds
Have we seen any commitment to OAR and a rejection of edited/syndicated/censored features? How come so much good stuff like Wonder Years have not been made available yet? Wouldn't changes in the way that movies and TV shows are owned and distributed leading to far wider availability be much more significant and meaningful for our enjoyment of moving pictures?
Originally Posted by Vandelay_Inds
Have you seen Three's Company on DVD? How do you think it will look like on HD?
|
Originally Posted by mbs
Unless the film was mastered poorly, you are totally, utterly, undeniably wrong. Sorry, but film has WAY more resolution than 1080p provides. Certainly a few films might not have a proper negative available for a great master, but making a sweeping claim that older films won't look benefit is absurd.
|
Originally Posted by jiggawhat
Why don't you read the whole sentence? I said unless the studios master them well you won't see a huge difference on older movies.
|
Originally Posted by jiggawhat
Why don't you read the whole sentence? I said unless the studios master them well you won't see a huge difference on older movies.
If you are trying to say that a new master of an older film will look no better than SD, or that making it look better will require more work, I disagree. Any film shot on good quality 35mm contains more than four times the detail of HD, even 1080p. These films, properly mastered, will look amazing on HD-DVD/Blu-ray, regardless of their age. I can't imagine any studio attempting to use an old, non-HD master as the source for a new HD disc. For such cases it stands to reason that a new HD master will be created. On the other hand, if you are talking about restoration and preservation of older films, that is a totally different matter. |
Originally Posted by jiggawhat
Why don't you read the whole sentence? I said unless the studios master them well you won't see a huge difference on older movies.
"I will upgrade to HD-DVD/Blu-Ray to buy a few certain titles that will shine on HD-DVD/Blu-Ray (Star Wars, Matrix, LOTR) but I think for the most part many titles older titles will not benefit from HD." Now. How does that clarify your position? I'm sorry, but it's a silly notion that only newer movies will benefit from HD. And what studios have not been mastering everything in HD for the past 5 (10?) years? If a release needs a new master, it will be done. And why does the mastering only matter for older movies? Again, that makes no sense. A shitty master will give a shitty transfer regardless of film age. Specifying older movies as a problem makes no sense at all. |
Originally Posted by Vandelay_Inds
Believe it or not, the latest hot hits are not the main interest for many of us.
|
Originally Posted by Vandelay_Inds
Believe it or not, the latest hot hits are not the main interest for many of us.
I never mentioned anything about "hot hits." And btw? The "movie snob" attitude is getting old. |
Originally Posted by Adam Tyner
You're (deliberately?) misinterpreting his message. The studios, big and small alike, have been mastering damn near everything -- from blockbusters like Lord of the Rings down to obscurities like Lemora: A Child's Tale of the Supernatural and never-released-on-DVD films like Night of the Comet for a number of years now. Doesn't matter if it was released in 1964 or this past February: 1080p HD masters have been the industry standard for quite some time.
and even Criterion teases us with their standard DVD are being mastered and restored from High Definition digital transfers. oh the wait is painful. |
Originally Posted by Vandelay_Inds
May I ask then, what accounts for newer material looking so much better than older stuff?
I've watched well over a hundred movies in high-definition from the mid-'50s on, and the transfers come in all shapes and sizes. I don't see how someone could watch Forbidden Planet in high-definition and say that there's little-to-no difference between the DVD and the HD presentation. Even long-forgotten, lower-budget TV shows like Square Pegs look astonishing in HD. |
Originally Posted by Adam Tyner
Improvements in cameras, lenses, and film stocks, but there's no cut-off point where HD transfers of movies look dramatically better, and there's no reason why older films should inherently look worse than newer ones.
|
I'm betting the classic films that Warner has restored recently like Gone With the Wind and Wizard of Oz are going to look amazing in HD. I bet the original King Kong might even be worth getting again in HD.
|
Originally Posted by Adam Tyner
Improvements in cameras, lenses, and film stocks, but there's no cut-off point where HD transfers of movies look dramatically better, and there's no reason why older films should inherently look worse than newer ones.
I've watched well over a hundred movies in high-definition from the mid-'50s on, and the transfers come in all shapes and sizes. I don't see how someone could watch Forbidden Planet in high-definition and say that there's little-to-no difference between the DVD and the HD presentation. Even long-forgotten, lower-budget TV shows like Square Pegs look astonishing in HD. |
Originally Posted by mbs
And what studios have not been mastering everything in HD for the past 5 (10?) years?
What really sucks about this is that Image owns Criterion, and Criterion has been mastering in HD, but because the parent company won't support either format neither will Criterion. |
Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema
I saw a few minutes of Jaws: The Revenge on Universal's HD channel and it looked amazing. It was only a few minutes because the movie obviously sucks ass.
|
Universal HD is usually very good about having it in the right format. |
Originally Posted by johnglad
Universal HD is usually very good about having it in the right format.
|
Originally Posted by Josh Z
Image, apparently. Which is why they're not supporting either HD format, citing too much expense in converting to HD mastering.
It may be the case that Image hadn't been transferring their films in HD, but if they weren't, that might make them the largest of those smaller shops not to do so. |
Originally Posted by yellowbedwetter
Jaws the Revenge is worth is just for Mario Van Peeble's performance (and death scene) alone!
Unfortunately, the only place to see the original theatrical version is, AFAIK, cable TV. |
Originally Posted by digitalfreaknyc
He doesn't die in the Home Video/Universal HD version.
Unfortunately, the only place to see the original theatrical version is, AFAIK, cable TV. |
Re: Bill Hunt says: Wait
I have usually defended Hunt and the Digital Bits, but I'm getting a bit tired of them misinforming people and then not correcting their remarks. Last week, Hunt posted this regarding the cancellation of the Ran Criterion Blu-ray:
Also today, we've learned a little more about Criterion's cancellation of Ran on Blu-ray, but just so you know this is NOT official, so it should be considered Rumor Mill-worthy. It seems that the U.S. home video release rights to the film are owned by Wellspring (who have released it on DVD in the past), the parent company of which is Genius Products, now 70% owned by The Weinstein Company. There have been industry rumors over the last year that Weinstein Co. is in some financial difficulty, so it's possible the Brothers want a better deal with Criterion (i.e. more or too much money) from Criterion to licence the title for Blu-ray. Hopefully, a deal of some kind will be struck soon, because (I'll say again) nobody would do better by this title in high-definition than Criterion. We are SO dying to see Kurosawa films in 1080p... GNPR acquires 60% of Genius New owner make take homevid unit private By DIANE GARRETT Genius Products, the troubled homevideo distributor majority owned by the Weinstein Co., now has a new majority owner. GNPR Investments, an affiliate of investment firm Quadrant Management, has acquired 60% of the company. TWC now owns 15% of the company and Genius retains 25% of the company. The new ownership is part of a restructuring of the homevid distributor, which was delisted by the OTCBB on Dec. 24. The company has renegotiated its distribution terms with TWC. The company will also renegotiate existing agreements with vendors and content partners. Company may go private. Under the new ownership by Quadrant, three of the company's directors appointed by TWC resigned and will be replaced with representatives from Quadrant. TWC remains the biggest content partner for Genius, which also distributes discs from ESPN, Sesame Street, IFC and Animal Planet. The TWC deal will remain through 2010, with an option to extend until a year later. Bob Weinstein said the new owners will allow him and his brother more time to concentrate on their movie slate. "We look at this as an ongoing partnership and something that will grow in the future," he said. It has been almost 5 days after that post and he hasn't corrected his information or put a retraction on the site. How can he expect for people to take him and his site seriously when he writes stuff that is completely wrong? From now on, I'm going to be taking everything he says with a grain of salt. |
Re: Bill Hunt says: Wait
Originally Posted by dx23
(Post 9373703)
It has been almost 5 days after that post and he hasn't corrected his information or put a retraction on the site. How can he expect for people to take him and his site seriously when he writes stuff that is completely wrong? From now on, I'm going to be taking everything he says with a grain of salt.
|
Re: Bill Hunt says: Wait
Holy necrobump Batman!
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:35 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.