First HD-DVD Disc Reviews - Mixed Marks 262
An anonymous reader writes "As the first HD-DVD players and discs hit store shelves nationwide today, the new site High-Def DVD Digest has posted extraordinarily detailed reviews of the HD-DVD disc releases of 'Serenity' and 'The Last Samurai,' with more reviews to come later today. The site gives both discs mixed marks, with the Tom Cruise flick edging out the Whedon-fest for demonstrating more pure high-def eye-candy appeal. Also worth a look-see: a detailed account of their 'review reference system' (ie: their gear)."
Something else to consider... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's Just Beginning (Score:5, Insightful)
When both formats are up and running you will not be able to go anywhere and not read about this stuff. There is too much cash involved just to leave the decision up to the consumer. The companies backing the standards simply are not going to trust you to make the choice--they are going to let you know what to think. And the way they are going to do that is by running thousands of ads; ghost writing reviews, etc.
It's just beginning and you haven't heard nothing yet.
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
My wife would like me to replace it with a Plasma or LCD because the current one looks bulky, but I cannot think of any reason to "throw away" such an investment. It has to stay at least another 6 years. After that, we'll see.
Will NetFlix speed adoption? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:plays in Peoria?, redux (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm with you there. I really think the difference is noticeable but at the same time I don't think there are a whole lot of people who care about that noticable difference. What they have is good enough right now to not justify spending the extra money on HD. HDTV still isn't quite cheap enough yet, especially considering the sheer number of people who bought a big screen a few years ago during the big screen TV boom.
"Regular DVD's just look like trash on a large HD sceen"
That's usually because any NTSC signal looks like trash on an HDTV screen. Most manufacturers don't take the time to get a non-HD signal looking good on their TVs, which is unfortunate considering low-def video isn't going to just disappear any time soon. Upconverters on DVD players is a decent idea but the TV should be doing a good enough job of conversion that it's not neccessary.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes! (Score:1, Insightful)
Let's look back in my crystal ball:
0- VHS - insert press record
1- CD - cracked, press record
2- DVD - cracked, press record
3- BluRay vs HDdvd: easiest to crack will win
IMHO.
Re:cracked ? The key to adoption (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Something else to consider... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now compare this to the DVD -> HD-DVD/Blu-Ray transition. For starters, they essentially look the same. So whats the difference again? Oh yeah, the picture looks a little better. How many Joe 6-packs do you know who complain about DVD image quality (assuming a properly done transfer)? Not many.
Re:Something else to consider... (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't read something that dumb in a while. Digital and Analog are two different ways to store/transmit data, nothing more. The quality of each is bound to be the quality that it was designed to hold, nothing more, nothing less. The ONE property digital data has over analog, is that it _can_ be duplicated without loss.
A 8KHz PCM (no compression) stereo file will sound worse than a LP or a cassette, you can be sure of that.
Re:Why? (Score:1, Insightful)
The future of the PS3 is looking shaky with its delays and probable pricepoint and even if it is a smash success, somebody has to make blu-ray movies to play on it and purchasers have to care enough to buy the discs and by that time they may already have HD-DVD players which marginalizes it even more. Of course, there's still the question of whether people will allow the obsolesence of perfectly functional DVDs for crippleware with little additional to recommend it.
Re:Something else to consider... (Score:3, Insightful)
Compression is a BIG factor too. I can fit a seven-hour movie on a DVD-5 disc, but it'll look like ass. I can fit a two-hour movie on that same disc and it'll actally look decent. It varies by content quite a bit when you get any sort of lossy video format (which is used by both DVDs and both high-def formats) - some two-hour movies will fit on a DVD-5 with no compression from the orignal with room to spare while some 1.5-hour movies need to be shrunk to 70%. Take something like Saving Private Ryan - that thing looks absolutely horriffic shrunk even to a DVD-5 disc because of the content and how the algorithms run. When I Xvid my collection, I use "lossless" settings (100% quality, original ac3 audio), and while most movies are about 2-2.5GB in size, that puppy weighed in at over five gigs.
Yeah, ideally we'd have had movies shot on oversized ISO1 film (which would be crazy sharp) and then digitized at some equivalent resolution, probably well over ten times 1080i in both dimensions (IIRC, standard movie film equates to something like 5000 lines of resolution). It would be as lifelike as it could be without being there in person. But that's not going to happen any time soon As it is, the increase to HD from SD isn't that noticible, especially when compared to the numerous differences between VHS and DVD, most notably a much crisper picture.
I personally never touch the bonus content, and at least on most two-disc movies, that's true of most people. As it is, when I make backup copies of my movie so I don't damage the original somehow, I take out everything but the movie - I put it in, it starts playing, no previews or sitting at a menu while you're searching for the remote to hit enter because they couldn't have been smart enough to put that button on the player itself. I think it's safe to say that most people aren't looking for more interactivity, and I can safely say that most people wouldn't benefit from the quality increase right now unless someone hands them the equipment. I'd estimate at least 70% of people prefer fullscreen, since widescreen "cuts off the top and bottom of the original" (yes, they really think that. Of course, that would make perfect sense - remove picture and make it not fit most TVs).
Re:Something else to consider... (Score:4, Insightful)
I was an early adopter (still have my original Phillips 400AT player from 1997). And I wish I had a nickel for every naysayer back then who said "Joe Sixpack will never buy into DVD. He's already perfectly happy with his VHS. He's not going to notice the quality difference and doesn't care about the extras."
-Eric
SD and HD content. (Score:1, Insightful)
Serenity HD quality (Score:2, Insightful)
I am just tired of everyone saying Serenity had bad cinematography. Joss intentionally did zoom focus shots and motion blur shots to make it look like there was a camera guy right there filming the action. But of course since all the action is usually done against a green screen, or no screen at all, these affects were purposefully added later just like the space ships that were zoom focused on. It was a creative decision, and while it might not have been the best one, it has nothing to do with crappy cinematography. In fact after watching the making of on the dvd, I realized he went to great effort to make those effects happen.
Making everything look crisp and clear is easy today. He wanted the old spaghetti western camera shots for his space western movie. Show some respect for his genius even if you are too ignorant to appreciate it.