Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
02-24-09 | 03:43 PM
#26
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
02-24-09 | 07:27 PM
#27
DVD Talk Godfather
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
I would think something like Cloverfield falls into this, as the whole premise was that it was being recorded on a handheld, right? Stuff like that or Blair Witch Project.
Also, I'd think that some of the older digital and/or computer-animated cartoons would suffer. Things like Transformers Beast Wars or some digital-only anime.
I assume something like Chuck Season 1 is due to bad encoding?
Also, I'd think that some of the older digital and/or computer-animated cartoons would suffer. Things like Transformers Beast Wars or some digital-only anime.
I assume something like Chuck Season 1 is due to bad encoding?
02-24-09 | 07:30 PM
#29
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
There are a few hi-def discs that didn't benefit from hi-def but it was strictly the quality of the release and not the source material. My Caddyshack HD and Total Recall BD were a total waste of money. The quality of the DVD was as good if not better. My Bullitt BD had a better picture but still just plain stereo sound. I shouldn't have bothered for a movie I won't watch much. My Titanic SE upscaled looks so stunning it rivals many of my hi-def discs. I probably won't upgrade that one for a long time when it is released.
Overall the vast majority of hi-def discs are superior to their SD counterparts. I haven't purchased a SD DVD since going hi-def in '07. I'll rent then wait for the BD. I don't spring for many when they are released so I have very few I paid the $25 for. Most I see from Blockbuster then wait for a sale or a used copy to show up if I feel it's a keeper. My most wanted I'll spring for when they are released but other than that my rental queue is fine.
Overall the vast majority of hi-def discs are superior to their SD counterparts. I haven't purchased a SD DVD since going hi-def in '07. I'll rent then wait for the BD. I don't spring for many when they are released so I have very few I paid the $25 for. Most I see from Blockbuster then wait for a sale or a used copy to show up if I feel it's a keeper. My most wanted I'll spring for when they are released but other than that my rental queue is fine.
Last edited by JimRochester; 02-24-09 at 08:09 PM.
02-24-09 | 07:40 PM
#30
02-24-09 | 10:33 PM
#31
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Midlothian, VA
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
Chuck Season 1 was shot on 16mm film, so it naturally has more grain than most everything else on Blu-ray that is from 35mm or better....
Also, I have the Blu-ray set, and have A/B'd it to the DVD, and the Blu-ray definitely looks better than the DVD version....
Also, I have the Blu-ray set, and have A/B'd it to the DVD, and the Blu-ray definitely looks better than the DVD version....
02-25-09 | 08:56 AM
#32
Senior Member
Re: Releases That Really Do Not Benefit From Hi-Def
My still-reigning champ for "Why did I bother?" actually is currently only on HD DVD. It is "Being John Malkovich." Jumping back and forth between the DVD and HD DVD on a 53" calibrated set, I could see no improvement whatsoever.
