What is most important!

For this thread choose a side! What is most important
Audio Quality and sound impact
OR
Picture Quality and clarity

For me audio quality and impact is very important!
I love a clear bright picture but audio is the difference between an ok movie and an awesome movie!

What's most important? . . .

Love.

"All you need is love" -- John Lennon, smart man . . . shot in the back . . . very tragic.

That sir is from ID4! Cool movie good sound for the 90's!

[Post edited by Ironbull on Mar 25, 2008]

Audio Quality and Sound Impact...

With the audio you feel the movie's environment...the helicopters blazing from the back (Apocalypse Now Redux)...or the pod race in Phantom Menace...

I love audio, and I've been reviewing audio products, LPs, and CDs for over thirty years, so I'm not saying the following because I'm biased in any way. But of the two, video or audio, I'd have to say the picture is more important in high definition because, frankly, the Dolby Digital 5.1 audio on regular, standard-definition DVDs is already darned good. A lot of folks, especially those with ordinary speaker systems, probably can't even tell the difference between a good DD 5.1 track and a TrueHD, DTS Master Audio, or LPCM track. Even I have a little trouble sometimes unless I'm directly A-B comparing the different sound tracks side by side.

So if it's the biggest difference in HD we're talking about that an average person can easily detect (unless he's blind), I'd go with the video. Yet even here, there are people who say they can see no difference in HD and SD video quality. As I say, blind.

John

[Post edited by John J. Puccio on Mar 26, 2008]

Audio.

Quote:
What's most important?

To crush your enemies. To see them driven before you. To hear the lamentation of the women.

Quote:
What's most important? . . .

Getting lucky.

aside from that... Audio is what got me hooked to home theater several years ago w/ standard dvd. w/ standard dvd it was the audio hands down. now that hd is in the picture,(ha-ha) they are both equally important. Sound and realism is important, but so is a beautful,stable, artifact free image. honestly w/ hd media among us i can't choose between the 2.

I would have to say VIDEO without a doubt.

Video is what is driving the High Definition race. That is what every consumer use to determine what TV or Blu-Ray or DVD player to buy . Audio is a compliment to the video. Most consumer most likely may not even have a home theater setup to listen to the different audio formats. They care more about the picture quality. IMHO

Audio IS MY PRIORITY. With my Bose satellites, I can have the same RIVETING EFFECT w/ the movie "OPEN WATER" whether watching from my old 36-inch CRT, or my 46-inch 1080p. You can't have that same effect with stock speakers from your tv.
Sound first.

Sight comes second.

[Post edited by xplaytendo on Mar 26, 2008]

Without a doubt it has to be picture. You can have the greatest sound system in the world but if you're looking at a crappy image it's all for nothing. Why do you think people invest more money in big screens than they do their sound systems?

If I could I would have a 100" or larger screen to duplicate the theatre experience. Great picture on a big screen makes all the difference in the world.

Having said that video and audio go hand in hand. Even George Lucas says that the movie experience is 50% video and 50% audio which is why he created the whole THX standard in the first place.

[Post edited by Falcon01 on Mar 26, 2008]

Audio was more important to me when DVD first came on the scene, I was blown away by the 5.1 discrete channels of the Eagles in DTS.

Now that HD DVD/Blu Ray is here I am more concerned with the video, the audio quality with True HD is an improvement to be sure, but it's the 1080P resolution that keeps me buying discs. I have an expensive set up with good quality speakers and receiver, the average Joe out there wouldn't be able to hear much if any difference on their cheap/shitty HTIB . Because of this, I think video is driving the progression to hi def material.

[Post edited by Bosshog7 on Mar 26, 2008]

"I swear I married Him for his SIGHT, not his SOUND!"


[Post edited by xplaytendo on Mar 26, 2008]

For me, it used to be audio. Since the implementation of HD...it's VIDEO.

John said,

Quote:
I'd have to say the picture is more important in high definition because, frankly, the Dolby Digital 5.1 audio on regular, standard-definition DVDs is already darned good

I agree 100% John.

vidaudio.

lol

Kuco is hitting the sauce again.

Quote:
"All you need is love" -- John Lennon, smart man . . . shot in the back . . . very tragic.

Don't forget Paul, he wrote it too you know? (I know that quote is from ID4) Anyway, as of now I think is more important sound quality. An SD-DVD still looks great using an HD/BD player on a HDTV, but now that I got my 7.1 system fully set up, I can't see myself watching a movie at home using only the TV's speakers. Specially is the movie is action/adventure.

having grown up in a two channel world and spending many, many years striving for the perfect sound stage from either two channel or multi channel formats, I have to say that the aural experience supercedes the visual experience...

let's face it, video is just the eye candy...but the aural experience will actually move you...

when i saw this thread title, i thought that someone was going to ask something substantive. instead, we get another A/V thread... (N)

conan and chris have the best answer.

"TO CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES, SEE THEM DRIVEN BEFORE YOU, AND HEAR THE LAMENTATIONS OF THEIR WOMEN."

[Post edited by posters5 on Mar 26, 2008]

Ok Posters, what is most important to YOU!

This is a general question so the responses can be many.

falcon,

here's what's most important to me.

"Purcius, more grapes . . . more wine . . . and bring me the Russian girl, she amuses me."



[Post edited by Tim Raynor on Mar 26, 2008]

"It's good to be the King."

I really like how wolfen worded it (see his post on page 2), because, in my opinion as we get OLDER the picture quality is more important to our eyes!

Looking back... I not only chose the LaserDisc format in 1982 for it's visual quality, but also the GREAT AUDIO quality! I had been listening to the 'linear stereo' (low-fi) quality of VHS/Beta a few times, and was very disappointed, along with the blurry and dark video images. So I chose LD, since it was a vast improvement in both areas, compared to videotape.

But as I get older (mid-40s), like John and others have said, the video quality is more important - after watching HD images, every time you watch something of lesser quality you're reminded of how good HD looks, and you REALLY WANT to watch HD again!

As for premium sound quality, with today's digital systems and great amplification, it doesn't matter that much (to me) whether a film is DD+, DTrueHD, DTS, PCM, etc - although I love to hear them all regardless of course. Remember, it's also important to have stronger bit rates, as this factor improves both the audio and video quality of the presentation - easily noticeable when compared to SD-DVD.

-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

Even if Ironbull had specified if he was talking about HD, I still would go with Audio.

Close your eyes and you can feel the movie...shut your ears, and video is not enough (don't even say subtitles)...or do...

Cannot choose.

In addition to great video and audio, the movie itself has to pull me in. Otherwise it just fails. However, if the movie itself is great, you can forgive less than stellar video or audio quality (though it would be nice to have the complete package).

For example, watching Pirates of the Caribbean's fun and witty characters is a joy, and so the sights and sounds add all the more to it. However, watching Transformers is an annoying experience because the truly idiotic plot and poor dialogue detaches me from the awesome sights and sounds.

Quote:
For example, watching Pirates of the Caribbean's fun and witty characters is a joy, and so the sights and sounds add all the more to it. However, watching Transformers is an annoying experience because the truly idiotic plot and poor dialogue detaches me from the awesome sights and sounds.

Ironic that both are just pure popcorn/eye candy movies and you think highly of Pirates (which I also like more than Transformers)...don't tell me that POTC 2 & 3 have a plot that's enjoyable, easy to follow and engaging???

Quote:
Audio Quality and sound impact
OR
Picture Quality and clarity

It has to be a good balance of both, you can't have one without the other. and still have a regular movie. One way it's a silent movie with an awesome picture, the other way you may as well be listening to an HD radio show.

Quote:
Ironic that both are just pure popcorn/eye candy movies and you think highly of Pirates (which I also like more than Transformers)...don't tell me that POTC 2 & 3 have a plot that's enjoyable, easy to follow and engaging

Not ironic. It's an example of what I think a popcorn movie is done right. POTC1 was new and is a leaner classic than its sequels. POTC 2 and 3 are somewhat overlong but I've come to love them after repeat viewings. Since I like the characters and the banter in the POTC movies I don't mind the serpentine plot - in fact, it's become quite fun once you get the hang of the machinations.

However, I won't give Transformers a chance for repeat viewings because the dialogue is terrible, there's a lack of wit, the characters are boring, and the plot is simple but totally stupid. Some action scenes were decent but the very last battle between Optimus and Megatron lacked any real tension of a good showdown. Watching Transformers was one of the biggest waste of my cinema money and time in years. It's pure eyecandy (effects + hotter than usual Megan Fox) without any other goods to support it - and so it's a failure to me.

Quote:
However, I won't give Transformers a chance for repeat viewings because the dialogue is terrible, there's a lack of wit, the characters are boring, and the plot is simple but totally stupid. Some action scenes were decent but the very last battle between Optimus and Megatron lacked any real tension of a good showdown. Watching Transformers was one of the biggest waste of my cinema money and time in years. It's pure eyecandy (effects + hotter than usual Megan Fox) without any other goods to support it - and so it's a failure to me./quote]

IMO...POTC1 was long, but had a good plot and was well developed...POTC2 is the most entertaining, the one I like the most, it goes fast and the 'plot' is not that complex...POTC3 is long, confusing, the plot loses itself into the sea of traitors and good and bad and...oh, you get it...the best of all the movies is Depp's Sparrow, no doubt about it, one of the great characters of this decade...

Transformers falls under the Raiders- category a popcorn movie with a plot good enough to keep you hooked to the action. Just as POTC is based on a ride, Transformers is based on toys, so there will never be a good backstory for them...

For me, Transformers is more visually appealing that POTC, and sorry to say, the lead human character has way too much charisma enough to overpower Depp's performance...yes, I said it...just overall, Transformers is on par with POTC as a great popcorn/eye candy movie none is better, none is worse, just good enough for repeat viewings...and honestly, I think that LeBeouf overshadowed the robots, yes he did.

mvckalel, was I misreading or did you just put Transformers in the same category as Raiders of the Lost Ark?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/raiders_of_the_lost_ark/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_the_movie/

Even saying the title of these two movies in the same sentence scares the dickens outta me!

[Post edited by Skyhawk on Mar 27, 2008]

My buddy watched Master and Commander at his house just on a TV and said the movie was Good. Then I let him watch some clips in DTS at my house and he said that was better. I think there are some movies that if I watched on a TV in stereo I may have found them to be boring. Audio makes the difference.