Standard DVD Lovers - Unite!

I've received a lot of grief for posting in the wrong section, but I couldn't figure out where this thread should go, since Standard DVD doesn't rate a "general" forum, so my apologies to anyone who is immediately offended by the location of this thread.

So, who else is sticking by their regular DVD collection and DVD buying, even with all the hype around Blu-Ray and HD DVD? Personally, I've checked it out, and there is some improvement in the picture, but that's about it, and neither format seems worth the investment right now. Plus, there's some great standard discs coming out in the near future, so the whole HD craze is not going to slow me down from picking up the big Superman set later in the year, or Apocolypse Now, or even some of the better movies of the last year, like Syriana. I think we SD lovers who aren't jumping on the bandwagon of either format need a thread to discuss why we are sticking to our guns and still buying standard, when most of these threads are all from the people praising HD DVD.

We are a DVD Web site. In addition to the "New on DVD" section, you might have tried "Not on DVD," "DVD Defects," "DVD Players," "Projectors," "Plasma," etc.

We welcome all input, especially about standard-definition DVDs because there is no doubt that SD discs are going to be around for a very long time. However, there is no reason to think the SD format can't peacefully coexist with HD.

John

I'm with you! Curse those damn HD people!!! ;)

No, actually I'm happy there are people who can afford the new beast on the block and are able to share their experiences with us. However, I too have my reasons for holding out and it really has nothing to do with *format* wars. Persaonally, I could care less who wins that battle.

My reasons for holding out are:
a) Cost
b) The kinks need to be worked out
c) John won't stop yapping about how great it is!

Actually, I'm just joking on "c".

I'm with you on the "Wait it out campaign", though. I too have seen the differences and I can't say they are Jaw Dropping *Oh My God* differences. They're more like, "humm, that's not bad."

I think this whole DVD thing is the first time I've disagreed with something John has said on here. Usually his reviews are dead on. You're really dropping the ball on this one, John. :)

I find it very interesting that people can watch the same movie on the same format, on the same size screen, and have such huge differences of opinion on how much better it is. Maybe the SD people are playing it down to justify their "hold out" philosophy, while the hardcore HDers are boosting it up to fit their agenda.

interplanetaryspy,

I'm not sure what it is you're disagreeing with me about. That HD is an improvement over SD? That people can buy HD if they want to or not? That SD will be with us for a long, long time? That HD is not a threat to our normal way of life?

I don't mind someone disagreeing with me if at least I know what the disagreement is about.

Really, I'm so confused! I'm going to go downstairs and watch a movie. An SD movie ("Kiss Kiss Bang Bang").

John

Just disagreeing with your assessment in other threads that the improvement is worthwhile. I think we all agree that there is an improvement in picture, but I get the impression from all of your posts in various threads on the topic that, in your opinion, HD DVD is a very significant improvement, and is a viable option right now, which I disagree with.

I do however agree completely in your viewing choice for the evening - Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is one of my favorite movies of the year. One of the funniest, most unique scripts to come along in a long time.

Let me try to make myself clear one more time, since there appears to be some misunderstanding about my feelings on HD (HD-DVD or Blu-ray, assuming Blu-ray's picture quality will be the same as HD-DVD): I have never advised people who currently own SD televisions to go out and buy into HD. I have never said that in any of my reviews. In fact, I've reminded people that it is a costly proposition, esp. during this period of a format war.

I have told people that HD-DVD is an improvement over SD-DVD. It is. Fact. If you can't see it, either your eyesight is defective or the equipment you're watching is sub-par. However, as I keep saying, it is not a night-and-day difference. It will not knock your socks off. So it is not for everyone, even if you have the money to spend on it. It is for people looking for the very best audio-visual experience (because, yes, the DD+ audio through the 5.1 analogue outputs is an improvement over regular DD 5.1, too).

Finally, what I did say in another thread is that for people who already own televisions capable of high-definition reproduction not to investigate HD seems to me a waste of a good television. Why would people buy HD televisions if not to watch a better picture? If HD offers a better picture (and it does), and the person can afford another $499 (or even $999 if Blu-ray strikes your fancy), why not go for it?

I can understand Tim's argument that the investment in a new TV and player when you can't afford it and when there is a format war on is inadvisable. Agreed. I can also understand Eddie's argument that a person should wait and see how the format war shakes out. Agreed. But I cannot understand your argument, Spy, that people should stick with SD in any case.

(Not understanding or agreeing with your opinion, incidentally, does not mean I don't respect it. I just don't want my own opinions mischaracterized.)

John

Well, in John's defense, he really has not been one of the over-exaggerated HD fans, and as he has said, it's not a night-and-day difference. As it has been pointed out before, it is not the drastic change that we saw in the video industry close to ten-years ago. It's more like the comparison of a partly cloudy day turning into a perfect blue sky.

In reading John's reviews, yes, of course, he's happy with the technology but at no time has he given anyone the -- "Oh my God! Drop everything you're doing and go buy this unit now" -- green light. He's been honest in his evaluation and I appreciate his point of view in that aspect. Even in John's review of the A1 unit he points out the *flaws* the unit has, as well. So yes, I feel out of everyone here, his opinion has at least been the most honest and toned down.

Nevertheless, there is absolutely no reason a good progressive scan SD should be scoffed at or frowned upon because it still delivers a very, very good quality picture and I have no doubt that it will remain in the playing field for several more years. Fact is no one said the SD was dying, and if anything, it is just evolving and changing into a new future. *The bottom line* (TM, James Plath) is, we all see something visually different from one another and we all develop our own opinion from that. I say if you see a far more drastic change than I do, then I'm tickled pink for ya! I say go for it and indulge yourself until *hell freezes over* (TM, The Eagles). By no means am I against the new technology. I'm just being safe and evaluating everything it has to offer before I take the advice from some fan that has overrated and over-exaggerated the entire topic.

And isn't this really the main problem - that people went out the day the format came out, bought the player, bought the 3 discs that were available, without having any idea if it was any good. I'm sure John, as a reviewer on the site, probably has the discs and player sent to him for promo - he doesn't need to invest in it, he can just try it out. But the fact that so many decided that it was the greatest thing to happen to DVD ever, without ever seeing or trying it, makes me a little skeptical about their motives for worshipping the format so relentlessly. I've seen only 1 HD DVD, and there is an improvement, and the improvement is probably better the bigger screen you have. It simply seems odd to buy into a new, unproven format, when a new one (and possibly better one) is coming, just so that for the time being you can see the wrinkles on Harrison Ford's face a little bit better. Anway, I'm never going to convince anyone who bought into HD DVD that they were hasty, or that SD is still the best option until everything gets sorted out, or even that Blu-Ray or some future format could be better - they have simply invested too much to be objective.

It's all gonna come down to money. Whats affordable, and what costs too much for the average consumer.

Hey - if you win the lottery... YOU can pay for all the equipment for HD-DVD!

I'm holding on to my standard DVD's thanks....

Why pay MORE for the SAME movie that's probably not gonna be
more 'enhanced' as you'd really like it to be?

I also don't go out to the theatres anymore....

Why pay 10 bucks to go see "Garfield" or "MI3"
when it's gonna be out on DVD in just a few months?!

the impact of watching a movie on the big screen is so much more powerful than what you get from watching something on a tv. this applies even to "small" movies without any explosions or crazy stunts. for example, i saw "the world" ("shi jie") in a movie theatre and on dvd within about three months, and the difference was huge. in the theatre, i was completely immersed in the movie's world. at home, it's easy to get distracted by other things, even in a "home theatre" that's set apart from the rest of the house.

if 35mm film only had 700 lines of resolution when projected in a theatre, then people would've stopped going to cinemas a long, long time ago. have you seen the slide shows or the video programs that they play before a movie starts? that's how bad 700 lines of resolution would look like on the big screen.

Tyler,

Yes, you're the only one who thinks HD looks creepy. (Why would you want a picture to look blurrier?) Anyway, I thought creepy was how you liked your films. :)

John

"A theater image with 35mm film only puts up about 700 lines." --TwisterZ

Standard film stock, be it 35 mm or 70 mm does not have lines of resolution, period. Pictures on film stock are not like digital pictures composed of pixels. A picture on film stock is made up of fine gradations of color or black & white. It is only when actual filmed pictures are tranferred to the digital domain that they are broken down into pixels, with 4,000-5,000 lines of resolution needed to do justice to a good filmed image.

As far as film being degraded by postproduction copying, that could happen, of course, but from the major studios over the past 90 years, that's simply nonsense. You need only look at any 35 or 70 mm print projected on a screen anywhere in the years from 1910 to the present to see how good the final results are.

Where does this mysterious number of 700 lines come from that you keep mentioning? What is your source for this information?

And, please, don't compare a still shot from a movie with what you will actually see on screen. The stills are only a rough idea of what is in the picture.

John

Am I the only person who thinks HD looks too creepy. Maybe its just me but all the stuff I've watched in HD looks like those eerie freaks in "The Polar Express". I don't like the way it looks at all.

Anything recorded with digital equipment and post produced in digital will have the resolution of the original camera, be it 720 or 1080. When you use a 35mm camera then make a positive from that negative then cut and splice and copy and print, you will continue to loose reolution. A theater image with 35mm film only puts up about 700 lines. A 70mm film has 4 times the resolution of a 35mm and at that size it is posible to get about 1400 lines top to bottom. The newer method is to shoot in 70mm and scan the original negative, then you can get the much higher resolution. Post production done at this resolution in digital doesn't suffer from the copy of a copy lose that the older film method suffered from. The current review of Blazing Saddles talks about the picture quality improving from the original DVD to the 30th anniversary edition and even more on the new HD version, but look at the still shot, this is not what we will see as the entire movie process goes digital. That grainess is the copy of a copy break down of the older post production method.

"All the analog post production done on movies before this century makes it difficult at best to get to the 1080 lines of HD." --TwisterZ

Let me see if I follow the thread of your reasoning. Analogue postproduction editing makes it impossible to get more than 700 (or 1080) lines of resolution? And this is because...why? Because computer editing before 2000 could only be done at low resolutions? I don't think that works because computer editing even before 2000 (as today) was most often done at high resolutions of 4000-5000 scan lines on enormous, sometimes multiple hard disks. And, of course, the great bulk of postproduction editing before the year 2000 was done using the film stock itself because computers weren't even invented yet, nor when they were invented were hard disks big enough to hold entire movies even in small pieces.

Or are you saying that since films shot digitally before 2000 weren't in more than 1080 lines, they can't come up with more than 1080 lines in their HD DVD transfers? That I might agree with in part.

Or are you really saying that just because regular film stock (35 or 70 mm) was worked on in postproduction--editing, color correcting, whatever--it can now never be scanned well into anything higher than 700 lines? You'll have to explain that one further.

John

I'm still buying SD movies as well, but only the older TV series (That Girl, Big Valley) and the classics (John Wayne/Ford Collection, Classic Comedies, Harold Lloyd, etc). The prices are simply too good to pass up.

movies shot with HD video cameras max out at 1080p in resolution. therefore, movies like "star wars episode 2", "star wars episode 3", "collateral", etc. max out at 1080p, not 4000i/4000p.

70mm film offers twice the resolution of 35mm film, so i don't know from whence you got the 700 lines of resolution number.

I will start this with a lot of agreement. You all have touched on something that I have been thinking of for some time. Unless a DVD transfer company can find a perfect 70mm copy or 3 or 4 used copies in 70MM they can splice into one they are going to have a hard time getting more 700 lines of resolution. All the analog post production done on movies before this century makes it difficult at best to get to the 1080 lines of HD. I am sure you will see a much bigger difference when the new Star Wars movies make it to HD-DVD or BluRay or what ever comes out next week (LOL), there post production was done digitally at about 4000 lines and down converted.

With that said I will keep building my SD DVD collection, mainly on the older movies that will not benifit as much from HD. The great news is as HD discs gain in the market the SD discs will be cheeper, which should make most of us on a budget very happy.

By the way I still have about 400 Laserdiscs and 3 working players and only bought the DVD of Laser movies if it was widescreen or had extra footage.

Shookie,

I agree with Eddie on the movie theatre thing. It really is a completely different experience that you can't get at home no matter how many home theatre meatballs you buy. To me that's what the movies are all about; going to the theatre. Sure it may be spendy to go these days but this only means is to be more selective with your choices. I hate it when I see a good film on DVD -- great reviews and recommended by friends and family -- then have to kick myself for not seeing it in the theatre.

I live in a crappy southern town (*coughs* "Cartersville, Georgia" *coughs* "oh thank you for the RICOLI coughdrop, its sooooooo sooooooothing for my throat!").

But anyway, as I was saying, the town still is crappy, redneck-mixed-with-suburbanites-who-came-from-ATL, and the movie theater we have pretty much reflects what happens when you give the redneck populace management of a Carmike.

Ugh.

We have a new theater now that recently opened though I unfortunately haven't had the chance to visit it, if you dig what I'm blowing at you.

Some girl in my class said she took a trip over for some American entertainment at the local palace for American entertainment, left saying "smelled like farrats".

And I don't really dig farrats.

Ahh, college in one year... ahh.

Sorry I wasn't around yesterday, Wifes birthday, I was nowhere neer a computer or a tv.

This link might help shed some light on this topic.
- EXTERNAL LINK -

I am very sorry i didn't use the word "Equivalent" when talking about analog film.

Some of the info I have received was from conversations with engineers expressing there frustration trying to get even a good DVD from older film prints, sorry no documentation. Here again the Blazing Saddles example shows that what they start with will make a huge difference in the final DVD. I have a Laser disc of Animal House that looks like they dubbed it of a VCR tape, can't even watch it.

TwisterZ,

The article you reference is primarily concerned with the digital processing of digital photography at 2K (the current standard for digital filming) vs. 4K. You may be confusing this with the digital processing of photographic film content to disc.

Anyway, as you note with the "Blazing Saddles" example, the better the original film print and the higher the resolution used in its transfer to disc, the better will the digital reproduction of that film look. But, unfortunately, many great-looking older films have deteriorted over time and need complete (and costly) restorations before they will look good on disc, no matter what resolution is used in the transfer to the digital domain.

John

Hello John

It looks like we have come full circle and as I said up front "I will keep building my SD DVD collection, mainly on the older movies that will not benifit as much from HD"

This is the small part of the article that I was refering to
Due to the transfer process, a film-based workflow loses information at each step in the chain. This information loss starts in-camera, where lens and film movement reduce resolution of the images captured. The film itself has resolution limitations, and each stage of replication further loses information.

I just watched Way...Way out, the 1966 movie starring Jerry Lewis, on Comcast Cable INHD2. The picture was vary nice and the colors were very rich but there was almost no fine detail. I won't be replacing my DVD collection but I am looking forward to all the new movies in HD.


Here is another reference

- EXTERNAL LINK -

"I shared a surprising factoid offered by a THX executive during our prolonged telephone conversation of several years ago about the awful Phantom Menace transfer: the resolution of the 1080 format exceeds the resolution of motion picture theater distribution prints. The THX exec’s point was that distribution prints are several generations removed from the original negative. And every time an intermediate generation is struck, the resolution drops."

On a different issue check out "The Fourth Dimension" in this article