Films/DVD Asylum

• Huh! It certainly doesn't! - Victor Khomenko 13:52:48 02/24/06 (10)
  In Reply to: "Enjoying good movies has nothing to do with [optical] quality." Huh! It certainly does in the theatre. nt posted by clarkjohnsen on February 24, 2006 at 13:35:22:

  What, you trying to do AuPh on me? :-)

  But seriously, the movie theater experience has much more to do with image size, ambiance, idiots sneezing and eating their popcorn, that sort of things.

  I watched so many old films in the theaters... lousy quality, but great experience. I get similar sensation when I watch Wages of Fear on my 96" screen at home.

  To me the image quality is something one can quickly step over if films is good. Sure, good one is great, but it is like LP surface noise.

  On an even more serious note, unless you truly just watch for image quality, once it gets to a certain level, it drops from the picture. The limited capability HD picture is already better than what you see in 85% of theaters.

  But then... what do I know? I never watch any demo videos... I don't even listen to "demo" recordings...
  

  
  
  
  

  ---

  • Re: Huh! It certainly doesn't! - SF tech 19:56:23 02/27/06 (2)
    In Reply to: Huh! It certainly doesn't! posted by Victor Khomenko on February 24, 2006 at 13:52:48:

    "I watched so many old films in the theaters... lousy quality, but great experience. I get similar sensation when I watch Wages of Fear on my 96" screen at home."

    I'll bet! And I bet you've got a scaler driving the projector for your 96" screen, too! I'll also wager that you care more about visual quality than you're going to admit... C'mon Vic!

    CHeers
    
    
    

    ---

    • Re: Huh! It certainly doesn't! - Victor Khomenko 13:28:26 02/28/06 (1)
      In Reply to: Re: Huh! It certainly doesn't! posted by SF tech on February 27, 2006 at 19:56:23:

      People here seem to miss my point... it was not that quality didn't matter, it was that it doesn't matter *at some point*.

      To me that point was reached with good DVD's. The VHS tape was irritating often, unless it was a first gen tape - those could look quite good.

      My argument is that given the quality level achievable with the best DVD's, I am not gonna miss that little extra that the HD provides, if it doesn't happen. I guess I have bigger concerns.

      Couple that fact with another important one - that in all likelyhood what will be available (if ever...) for many years on HD DVD's will be something I will never want to watch, and you now have a complete picture.

      I have about a dozen HD channels today. Do I ever watch them? Hardly ever. I did watch the Olympics - an easy choice, given the totally atrocious quality of the standard network cable channel. Otherwise I only use them as conversation piece... turn them on for guests.

      In short, the HD DVD is completely irrelevant to my life, and so far nothing stated anywhere makes me feel contrary.

      If it happens, I will probably get a few "demo" discs... the ones I will never watch myself voluntarily, but show to the guests.
      

      
      
      
      

      ---

      • I understand your point... - SF tech 19:54:58 02/28/06 (0)
        In Reply to: Re: Huh! It certainly doesn't! posted by Victor Khomenko on February 28, 2006 at 13:28:26:

        But many of us are anxious to see the possible increase in image quality because we aren't happy with what we currently have. I'm sure you've got a good scaler/deinterlacer driving your projector... for a 96" screen, I hope you do! The point is this: video output from a Playstation 3 into a reasonably priced projector may soon rival what is available today for much more money (an understatement, for sure). It's undeniably an important development... just not for you (yet)!

        Cheers
        
        
        

        ---
  • Guess I'm just a *quality guy* in an unfocussed field. nt - clarkjohnsen 08:20:54 02/25/06 (1)
    In Reply to: Huh! It certainly doesn't! posted by Victor Khomenko on February 24, 2006 at 13:52:48:

    x
    
    

    ---

    • Are we now down to the pro- and anti-iPod argument? - Victor Khomenko 08:42:09 02/25/06 (0)
      In Reply to: Guess I'm just a *quality guy* in an unfocussed field. nt posted by clarkjohnsen on February 25, 2006 at 08:20:54:

      I know I am not supposed to enjoy my Shostakovich on the plane... should be illegal.

      Or maybe I am just not a "quality guy".
      

      
      
      
      

      ---
  • Well said but, let's remember, some films' (your Barry Lyndon, for example) - tinear 05:50:37 02/25/06 (1)
    In Reply to: Huh! It certainly doesn't! posted by Victor Khomenko on February 24, 2006 at 13:52:48:

    delights are to a large extent visual. To have the clearest, brightest, sharpest image makes a significant difference in the visual appreciation.
    I can think of several black and white films that I appreciated a lot more due to the new prints.
    
    

    ---

    • While this is true, let's not lose the focus of this discussion - Victor Khomenko 06:44:47 02/25/06 (0)
      In Reply to: Well said but, let's remember, some films' (your Barry Lyndon, for example) posted by tinear on February 25, 2006 at 05:50:37:

      I think we all should realize we were talking about not getting full HD over the analog connection... which is a far cry from sitting in an uncomfortable room watching a 17", old and out of tune TV.

      Like I said, at CERTAIN point the quality stops playing an important role. For BL that point will be higher, but still, that point exists. So pardon me if I am not gonna lose any sleep over that component video thing.

      Besides... if that HD format EVER becomes a reality (still a question), by that time pretty much every display will be HDMI.

      But nothing like creating an issue where there is none.
      

      
      
      
      

      ---
  • "To me the image quality is something one can quickly step over if films is good." - Unless you do it 'til you go blind! - Audiophilander 01:20:15 02/25/06 (0)
    In Reply to: Huh! It certainly doesn't! posted by Victor Khomenko on February 24, 2006 at 13:52:48:

    A good movie badly projected or shown with less resolution is a less fulfilling film experience; that doesn't mean that it can't be good, but it does mean that it won't be as impressive. Certainly there's the law of diminishing return at play here when discussing resolution, but it works both ways, and the crappier a picture looks visually the less involving it is, and if the image is crappy enough it will actually draw attention away from the picture.

    Film patrons should be interested in all improvements to the film experience, both in movie houses and in home theater presentation.

    That's my two cents; YMMV of course, but don't blame your stubborn attitude on Golum! ;^)

    AuPh
    
    

    ---
  • size matters - Bersani 19:35:13 02/24/06 (0)
    In Reply to: Huh! It certainly doesn't! posted by Victor Khomenko on February 24, 2006 at 13:52:48:

    I'd prefer to have both, but when it comes to motion pictures, I'll take size over quality. I've found that viewing a large moving image (on the scale of several feet, not inches) is usually a more involving experience than a viewing smaller picture, even one of greater resolution, contrast, and color gamut.

    -Anthony
    
    
    

    ---
  • Good Grief! This is worrying - dave c 16:16:48 02/24/06 (0)
    In Reply to: Huh! It certainly doesn't! posted by Victor Khomenko on February 24, 2006 at 13:52:48:

    I find myself agreeing with Victor!!!
    Apart from the bit about LPs anyway...
    
    

    ---

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Sonic Craft

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---