I dont think I understand what HD is.

[Augustine864]

I'm coming to realize that I don't think I understand what HD is. What I thought was HD were scene like the 'running on the rooftops' scene in 3:10 to Yuma or some of the shots of the police and commotion outside of the held up cafe in Swordfish. They looked like I was sitting in bleachers somewhere watching these acts unfold before my eyes in person. But other than that I haven't seen other movies like that. The only other movie I've been really amazed by was Casino Royale, but it didn't even look like that two scenes I just described. Is this just different camera usage? I don't understand. Everything else I've seen just seems like regular movies that actually look good on an HDTV unlike SD stuff on an HDTV.

[Rabidhunter]

These days, High Definition is movies and sound. Most movies to see a huge improvement in their Hi-Def glory. But also, it's about the sound, get a decent receiver and sound system and everything is crystal clear, every little detail. My fiance and I were in a Best Buy and she saw the Pirates of the Carribean Blu-ray playing on a Sony XBR, she said it was like watching a play. But picture details are so much cleaner on HD. You are seeing more of what the director wanted you to see (and sometimes what they didn't intend).

[un4gvn94538]

well, hd stands for harley davidson.....

[richteer]

Originally Posted by Augustine864

I'm coming to realize that I don't think I understand what HD is. What I thought was HD were scene like the 'running on the rooftops' scene in 3:10 to Yuma or some of the shots of the police and commotion outside of the held up cafe in Swordfish. They looked like I was sitting in bleachers somewhere watching these acts unfold before my eyes in person. But other than that I haven't seen other movies like that. The only other movie I've been really amazed by was Casino Royale, but it didn't even look like that two scenes I just described. Is this just different camera usage? I don't understand. Everything else I've seen just seems like regular movies that actually look good on an HDTV unlike SD stuff on an HDTV.

For PQ, some TVs are better than others.

High def is also about the audio quality.

[jsteinhauer]

Originally Posted by richteer

High def is also about the audio quality.

Amen!

If I had to choose between 1080p and lossless audio, audio wins hands down!

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Augustine864

I'm coming to realize that I don't think I understand what HD is. What I thought was HD were scene like the 'running on the rooftops' scene in 3:10 to Yuma or some of the shots of the police and commotion outside of the held up cafe in Swordfish. They looked like I was sitting in bleachers somewhere watching these acts unfold before my eyes in person. But other than that I haven't seen other movies like that. The only other movie I've been really amazed by was Casino Royale, but it didn't even look like that two scenes I just described. Is this just different camera usage? I don't understand. Everything else I've seen just seems like regular movies that actually look good on an HDTV unlike SD stuff on an HDTV.

I think that you are reffering to a general grain that appears in most films. Most directors like the artistic merit of "film grain" because it makes the film look like a film instead of a window onto the action taking place just beyond the screen. I have never been a fan of this technique and would like the paradigm to shift to the clarity of which you spoke of. There are plenty of movies out there that are really clear... it's just a matter of finding the right ones. As for the "artistic grain", it becomes more clearly pronounced on Blu-ray, but it's a lot less distracting than the poor colours and artifacting of SD DVD.

[SkullPhyre]

Without the new lossless codecs getting decoded on a reciever with at least a 5.1 set-up you just are not experiencing things right.

[Augustine864]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

I think that you are reffering to a general grain that appears in most films. Most directors like the artistic merit of "film grain" because it makes the film look like a film instead of a window onto the action taking place just beyond the screen. I have never been a fan of this technique and would like the paradigm to shift to the clarity of which you spoke of. There are plenty of movies out there that are really clear... it's just a matter of finding the right ones. As for the "artistic grain", it becomes more clearly pronounced on Blu-ray, but it's a lot less distracting than the poor colours and artifacting of SD DVD.

Do you know why these shots are in some scenes and not others? I feel like it must be because of certain equipment that is used. Seems like if the director was making the choice to have the scene one way or the other, he would choose to have the entire movie that way. Otherwise, for me at least, when the quality changes quickly, I'm briefly brought out of he movie. I agree with you in regards to wanting more of that clarity. Although I must admit it takes some getting used to for me somtimes.

[Augustine864]

Originally Posted by SkullPhyre

Without the new lossless codecs getting decoded on a reciever with at least a 5.1 set-up you just are not experiencing things right.

I'm speaking specifically of the PQ aspect of HD. While the audio adds to the experience I'm sure, it doesn't add to the PQ. I really do need to get a reciever with HDMI inputs though. Right now I have a sorround sound system that is completely idle. It's hooked up the DVD player and reciever only.

[ryoohki]

The only goal of HD MEDIA = Look closer to the Master as Possible.

While this was the goal of DVD , it failed miseribly because of a shortcoming in Codec and Bandwitdh imho... most studio have to use EE and DNR to be able to compress their movies to DVD...

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by Augustine864

I'm coming to realize that I don't think I understand what HD is. What I thought was HD were scene like the 'running on the rooftops' scene in 3:10 to Yuma or some of the shots of the police and commotion outside of the held up cafe in Swordfish. They looked like I was sitting in bleachers somewhere watching these acts unfold before my eyes in person.

You are making a VERY common mistake... confusing film and video. Movies are usually shot on 35mm (or Super35 ) film. There is no such thing as HD or SD film. There are many different film stocks available for a director/DP to choose from, in order to get the exact look they want for a given scene. Sometimes that will be a very fine-grain high-speed stock to give you that "watching from the bleachers" effect, other times they will use a low-light stock with coarser grain to give a more "gritty" look.

HD and SD are video terms. SDTV refers to 480i/576i video. EDTV refers to 480p/576p video. HDTV referes to 720p, 1080i, or 1080p video. Anything being displayed at any of those resolutions is technically "HD" (unless it has been upconverted). For Blu-ray (and movies shown on TV), the original source was most likely film at 24fps. The goal of the video format and any display is to attempt to recreate the original film presentation as closely as possible... whether that's razor-sharp ultra-clean scenes like you are describing, or very grainy gritty scenes. Either way, on Blu-ray, it's almost always in 1080p... thus, HD.

Honestly, films generally aren't supposed to look like super-clean HD video. Film operates at a lower frame rate and is inherently made up of grain. Blu-ray is the format best able to recreate that original theatrical presentation on your home screen.

[WriteSimply]

OP: Do yourself a favor. Rent a DVD of the movie in question and play it back on your DVD player (either upconverted or at SD) and compare it to the BD version. Then get back to us.


fuad

[Bobby Henderson]

Yes. Those are my thoughts exactly.

Even on a modestly decent "digital TV" a Blu-ray disc version of a movie is going to look a hell of a lot better than its DVD counterpart. Anyone claiming not be able to tell the visual difference must be legally blind.

Sorry to sound like such a hard ass on this point, but that's just how it is.

Probably the worst looking Blu-ray disc I own is American Psycho. Even still, the BD version of it looks a LOT BETTER than its DVD counterpart. Anyone would have to be afflicted with terrible eyesight or just be plain crazy not to see a significant level of improvement in image quality.

Earlier this evening I sold some close friends of mine on the merits of Blu-ray (and Playstation 3) by showing them the DVD version of Bladerunner: The Final Cut and then switching inputs to the Blu-ray version of the movie. They saw the huge difference in image quality very easily. I'm sure they'll have a PS3 in their living room before this month is done.

[JasonR]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Yes. Those are my thoughts exactly.

Even on a modestly decent "digital TV" a Blu-ray disc version of a movie is going to look a hell of a lot better than its DVD counterpart. Anyone claiming not be able to tell the visual difference must be legally blind.

Sorry to sound like such a hard ass on this point, but that's just how it is.

Probably the worst looking Blu-ray disc I own is American Psycho. Even still, the BD version of it looks a LOT BETTER than its DVD counterpart. Anyone would have to be afflicted with terrible eyesight or just be plain crazy not to see a significant level of improvement in image quality.

Earlier this evening I sold some close friends of mine on the merits of Blu-ray (and Playstation 3) by showing them the DVD version of Bladerunner: The Final Cut and then switching inputs to the Blu-ray version of the movie. They saw the huge difference in image quality very easily. I'm sure they'll have a PS3 in their living room before this month is done.

Compare Almost Famous UK import Blu against the DVD....

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

Honestly, films generally aren't supposed to look like super-clean HD video. Film operates at a lower frame rate and is inherently made up of grain. Blu-ray is the format best able to recreate that original theatrical presentation on your home screen.

nice summary !

[dixonhill]

To me "HD" or Blu-Ray" is the same thing as "DVD" or "SACD":
"HD" or whatever is just an industrial term or industrial norm.
A container in a manner of speaking which of course should contain the best quaility possible, but doesn't necessarily has to.

In my opinion the quality usually associated with these terms should not be taken as granted (apparently it can't).
The quality is produced by the original source and the mastering process.
If any of this is merely mediocre, then your Blu-Ray or SACD will be mediocre too!

I prefer to see it more like .. um ... well, how to put it .. like a "horizon of a technical possibility" ...
but unfortunately not every single music or video title does reach this particular horizon...know what I mean?

[lch]

to me, hidef mean you can see all the actors wrinkles

[Maxell]

HD is high definition, but not perfect definition.

[Anthony P]

Everything else I've seen just seems like regular movies that actually look good on an HDTV unlike SD stuff on an HDTV.

and that is exactly what HD is.

[Anthony P]

Do you know why these shots are in some scenes and not others? I feel like it must be because of certain equipment that is used. Seems like if the director was making the choice to have the scene one way or the other, he would choose to have the entire movie that way.

well for one thing film grain is on all film and each stock is different (so maybe in scene X it was a grainier film that was used while in Y it had less grain) also grain is the "finger print" of the part of the film that reacts to light, so if a scene is darker or brighter it will also affect it. It is true that sometimes to some extent a director will add it on purpose, 300 is one that easily comes (the director added fake grain) to mind and 28 weeks later is an other (where the director used grainier film stock in some scenes) but not always. Also as said grain is a by-product of film, so every time a copy of a copy is made it will affect the grain (and for the most part make the image grainier).

The last thing is that grain is extremely hard on CODECs which are used for compressing the picture, if each pixel is slightly different (due to grain), and that you compress it to keep that detail (and all else just as fine detail) then it needs much higher BW. So sometimes grain (and other fine detail) is sacrificed in order to lower BW.

One last thing, since grain is a slight variance in colour in something that should be monotone. So in scenes where you have a lot of things happening you would naturally notice it less even if there is as much grain as in an other scene where there is less happening