I have seen quite a few movies now on HD DVD and none of them really are that far off from the regular DVD's played on an upconvert player. Basically, if the movie wasn't originally filmed in High Definition, the difference in HD DVD and a regular DVD on upconvert isn't really noticeable. From now on, if the movie wasnt filmed originally in digital or HD format, it doesn't seem worth it to buy the HD DVD.

A good example is all of the TV DVD sets of classic television shows made before HD television. Keep those in regular DVD format and buy some of the newer tv shows that were shown on HD television.

Film always benefits from a upgraded format. I know not what you speak of as every film I have seen in HD has shown more detail and grain. Today a lot of HD DVDs use the same transfer that the DVDs used only downsized. They are probably similar but the HD is usually(read: nearly always) better. Most TV shows I believe were shot on video which is a lousy format really and mostly when the DVDs come out you benefit only from less compression artifacts. I don't even see those on HD DVDs so what are you complaining about? Even Pandora's Box will look better in HD and my god how old is that film. I highly suggest you make sure your equipment is decent and your TV is properly set up then perhaps seek out more HD content.

I have to point out that it really depends on the movie and the transfer. One classic in particular "The Searchers" on Blu-ray, really shines compared to the original DVD. Now, once again, other factors, such as transfers and mastering, may contribute to the difference (either positive on the Blu-ray, or negative on the standard DVD), but this is one title I think proves how good a classic can look in HD.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say this was a troll.

If you think a film source in HD doesn't look like an upgrade from SD, then pick one of the below choices:
A) Your eyes suck.
B) Your TV sucks.
C) All of the above.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

Film has no inherent resolution. Film elements can, however, be damaged and degrade over time if not properly cared for.

It's all dependent on the source material and how much care was put into the transfer. To me, one of the most enjoyable things about modern home video is seeing an old classic that looked like crap for years restored.

Case in point: Frankenstein (1932) shown on MonstersHD... looks like it was shot yesterday.

Shows shot on pre-HD video, however, are never going to look all that great.

Agreed.

After seeing how jaw-dropping films like Casablanca, The Adventures of Robin Hood, and The Searchers look in high definition, I'm much more interested in those sorts of catalog titles on HD DVD than more recent CGI spectacles.

Next to nothing on either format was shot on HD video. Film is still the gold standard.

Having watched (and reviewed, for the most part) somewhere around 150 HD DVDs, I disagree with pretty much every word of your post.

I think that this post pretty much sums it all up. OP, your post is word-for-word wrong. Welcome aboard. Change happens even if you don't want it to.

No kidding. The Adventures of Robin Hood is quite possibly my favorite HD-DVD. Just because a movie is older and shot on film doesn't mean it can't look incredible in HD. Look at the job Paramount did with Trading Places recently. Now if we can just get Universal cracking on those Hitchcock titles.

Have to agree with others... Watching Casablanca on HD-DVD is pretty much what made me come to the conclusion that for all intents and purposes, I was done with SD DVD.

I'm not into the 'classics' per se, but the films from the 70's/80's that I watched looked awesome in comparison to the regular DVD. Movies like Rambo, Smokey & the Bandit, Excalibur, etc... all look great, IMO.

See I think the 70s and 80s movies may be the ones that hurt the format's reputation. Smokey & the Bandit looked a bit better than the DVD, but just a bit. I felt the transfers of most of the recent Universal films from the 70s and 80s have been only slightly better than DVD at their best.

That is one of the reasons I am shocked at The Warriors looking so amazing in HD.

I will say all of the Vista Vision, 70mm or whatever films look absolutely amazing in HD. The Searchers, Battle of the Bulge, Mutiny on the Bounty and Grand Prix are jaw dropping in HD and give all the new CGI fest action movies a run for the money in visual quality.

To say older movies don't benefit is crazy though. Casablanca and Adventures of Robin Hood are proof that old movies can look breathtaking in HD.

Yea the Vistavision titles look amazing. Lets hope for North by Northwest sooner rather than later.

Give me a show from the 50s in HD over a show from the 80s in HD any time. The old shows are where the format really shines, imo. The Searchers looks like it could have been shot yesterday.

I was also incredibly impressed with how The Searchers translates to HD.

As long as there's decent source material, older movies can and do look fantastic in HD. Particularly those shot in 70mm.

I have a question: are older TV shows generally shot on film or video? I'm sure there's a difference between a sitcom (Seinfeld: video?) and an action series (A-Team: film, right?).

Also I finally got a chance to see a bit of Black Rain and have to say I'm supremely impressed. It looks awesome.

Seinfeld was shot on film. It was edited on video, though, so the cost of going back to the original film elements, cleaning 'em up, and piecing it back together was enormous. Sony did it, tho', and there are 4x3 HD masters ready to go.

Universal apparently mandated that all of their series shot on film be edited on film, so they can more easily accomodate high-def transfers. The A-Team should be ready to go.

Most not-so-modern series were shot on film aside from many sitcoms in the '70s and '80s, starting with All in the Family.

check out anything on HDNet Movies!

notably:

- 2001
- West Side Story

non '70mm' films, that looked stunning:

- Breakfast at Tiffany's
- Bye Bye Birdie
- Charade

It seems like a lot of sitcoms from the '80s were shot on video, for whatever reason. And shows like Star Trek: The Next Generation aren't getting released in HD unless they go back and redo every single effects shot, as it was edited on video.

There are titles out there that are old, but really look great... yes.

But there have been quite a few disappointments in transfer quality that I've seen as well, and not for just older older films either, I'm talking like Goodfellas, or even Dr. Seuss How The Grinch Stole Christmas. If done properly, a release can look magnificent. They managed to make The Mummy look incredible. But in many cases with older films, they haven't done a terrific enough job to say they've had a 'good track record' for it at this point. Things are improving though over time...