Results 1 to 10 of 23
- 04-30-2004 03:46 PM #1
Disappointed with HD vs DVD movies
ADVERTS 1
So I had a chance the other night to compare directly a HD movie to a DVD movie. It was Star Wars Episode II. TV settings were the same for both componant sources.
Now I've heard that SWEPII was a bad HD transfer, however, I expected it to be at least comparable to DVD. First was the OAR. Not only were the sides chopped off, but also the top and bottom were missing some. So I take it they just zoomed in to get the 16:9 ratio.
Finally was color and resolution. The color on the HD feed was very red and saturated. Also the resolution seemed worse than the DVD when it's actually 6x? as high.
So I have to say I'm extremely disappointed with the premium channel's HD movies. I hope if/when they offer PPV movies that they at least show them in OAR. But until HD-DVD arrives, I think DVD is higher quality overall than HD for movies.
- 04-30-2004 03:46 PM # ADS
Register Today & This Ad Goes Away! Circuit advertisement- Join Date
- Always
- Posts
- Many
- 04-30-2004 04:14 PM #2
HAve you been smoking something?
The early bird gets the worm, but the 2nd mouse gets the cheese.
- 04-30-2004 04:18 PM #3
They had to the bad transfer for public safety reasons. If people were allowed to watch the rolling around in the grass scene in their homes in flawless HD, people would smash their TVs with the nearest available weapon in rage. The social costs of loss of property and potential for injury outweighed any benefit of a quality transfer.
Also, I believe we as a forum need to take a stand on something very important. As most of you know, the DVD set of Episodes 4-6 that is being released in Septemeber is crap. It is in fact the 90s special edition, and there are no plans to release the originals. The special editions sucked. Han Solo shot Greedo b/c he Han was a bad-ass MF, not b/c Greedo shot first as portrayed in the special editions. I will never buy thais filth.
None of this "Lucas intneded to make the movies like this, but technology at the time limited him." First off, the technology was there to make Greedo shot first. Just Lucas giving into wussies who like their good guys with smooth edges. Second, clearly Lucas suffered some form of head injury between 85 and 95. How else to explain the horrible decision making thereafter. I'm done.
FREE HAT. FREE HAT. FREE HAT.
- 04-30-2004 05:07 PM #4
- Join Date
- Nov 18th, 2003
- Posts
- 124 Thread Starter
I've already boycotted the SW Trilogy DVD's. I don't care about CG for CG sake, which is what all of the new shots look like. I especially hate the cartoony characters in Jabbas palace.
- 04-30-2004 05:40 PM #5
Oh, the CG is indeed intolerable. But the whole Greedo thing in Episode 4 just bugs me more than any other scene in particular. If I'm spelling Greedo wrong, I apologize. I have 15 year old letterboxed editions of the trilogy, and that'll have to do.
- 04-30-2004 06:16 PM #6
Something had to be not right!!
Something wrong somewhere; because I watched SW Episode II ATOTC the other night and it was full screen glorious clarity and DD sound..I was right in the middle of all the action baby!!!
Originally Posted by slffl
May the force be with you!!
- 05-04-2004 01:56 AM #7
I have seen both the DVD version of Episode II and the HD version. I find that the colors in most DVDs are a bit oversaturated (especially when they are dark). But the colors in Episode II HD were a bit overpowering even for HD. But other than then oversaturation (which was still less saturated than the DVD version), the picture was much better and sharper. I know that people love their OAR, but to be honest, I generally find them to be a waste of screen (with the black bars on the top and bottom). Most movies do not require the scoped format of 2.35:1. Most of the movies shot today are actually framed and shot for a standard 1.85:1 aspect ratio and the scoped versions either contain extraneous extra viewing area to the side that was never really important to the shot or the 1.85:1 aspect ratio film was modified by chopping off part of the top and bottom of the picture to give the impression of a wider 2.35:1 aspect ratio. I know that sounds rediculous to shoot for 1.85:1 and then cut the top and bottom of the picture off to make it 2.35:1, but just check out the Harry Potter movies when they are on HD (especially the Sorcerer's Stone). Watch the HD version and the DVD version side by side and you will see that the 2.35:1 ratio on the DVD was achieved by that exact method. I believe the DVD producers do this because that is the aspect ratio people seem to think is the best and the only way to get the entire picture, but that is not always the case. Now, I have a 16x9 projector and to me, I love the way HD movies use the entire screen. If you only watched the 16x9 version of the Episode II film, I doubt that you would have even noticed any difference. Of course, you are entitled to disagree...
- 05-04-2004 12:35 PM #8
SatelliteGuys Regular
- Join Date
- Apr 19th, 2004
- Posts
- 142
If you think DVD is better than hi def....a) you are watching the sd feed-not hd or...b) you simply dont recognize quality when you see it. or lastly...c) something is wrong with the source or the tv. I have friends who have no interest or bias who take one look at say.."BLADE2" or "Lord of the Rings" and instaantly they recognize that they are seeing something extraordinary. Happens a lot with movies someone has seen 20-30 times on DVD like "Matrix" or "Spiderman".
- 05-04-2004 03:51 PM #9
- Join Date
- Nov 18th, 2003
- Posts
- 124 Thread Starter
Well, there's nothing wrong with the tv or settings. I just watched Blade II last night, and let me tell you, it's something with VOOM. If any of you have ever realized that the picture on D* is more washed out (especially in dark scenes) than E*, this is the same thing I'm seeing on these VOOM premium movie channels. Blade II is a dark movie and it was very hard to make out any details.
And as far as OAR, why not just watch the 4:3 version if chopping off the movie doesn't mean anything to you?
- 05-04-2004 04:34 PM #10
SatelliteGuys Regular
- Join Date
- Apr 18th, 2004
- Posts
- 288
Originally Posted by slffl
Nothing "sarcastic" about those rollers.

LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks