An HDMI connection is digital – the cable either works or it doesn’t and the signal either gets there or doesn’t. There’s no in-between. A working $5 HDMI cable and a $500 one will have exactly the same image quality. The cheaper cable may be less rugged, or more prone to interference, or what have you. But if it can transmit a signal from one component to another, the image will be exactly what was transmitted, no more, no less.
GuanoLad: I’m pretty sure the jump to Blu-ray will mean more extras, even to the point of whole other shows being packaged alongside the main, advertised feature. (Pixar already likes to include shorts on its DVDs, and the studios have deep libraries.) They know they’ll have to sell this format if they want anyone to buy it given the installed base of DVDs.
And you can’t forget about writable Blu-ray disks. Single-layer BD-Rs have a capacity of 25 gigs, which is nothing to sneeze at.
See that is where you are wrong. A better picture and better sound does improve the entire movie experience IMHO.
Watching Pirates of the Caribbean on BR, there were some scenes that I swear looked 3D. Amazing is the only word I can use to describe it.
FTR I am not one of those Monster cable buying “audio/video philes” that claim a $500 dollar cable is better than a $20 dollar one. I’m just a guy that decided to get a bigger TV so I did some research, and went and looked at a lot of TVs in a lot of installations before I made my decision.
Everyone that has come in to the house has had the same reaction:
SD 480i
:eek: (size matters)
Cable HD (IIRC 720i)
:eek: :eek: (picture fills entire screen)
Upscaled DVD 1080 (not sure i or P, to lazy to go look)
:eek: :eek: :eek:
Blu-ray
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Gukumatz according to my buddy that sells high end AV stuff the next gen of Blu-Ray players will have Profile 2+. According to him those players are due in the stores ::: Looks at watch::: anytime now.
What on earth makes you think the detial enhancement is only for background stuff. EVERYTING in the scene is more detailed in HD. Why would you NOT want more detail? (porn aside of course 
)
That guy had to use 65 feet of HDMI cable to see problems. He also goes into a lot of detail about how different cables are more susceptible to noise and more or less rugged. Which is what I said.
If it’s going to be given to me for free, then I’ll take it. Next time I feel I’m ready for upgrading, I’ll happily have Super-Duper-Extra-Dazzle-HD circa 2015 in all its glory and look at my favourite actors’ nose hairs quiver at their every breath. But it’s not free, and it will not alter my personal enjoyment of a movie’s content, so I’m happy to stay SD until then.
I was expecting less people to fall for this marketing tactic, is all I’m saying.
Marketing tactic? 
It’s a far superior picture. Compare the HD blue area to the SD red area… we’re talking over 4x the resolution and detail. IMO, after viewing movies and TV in SD for so long, re-watching them in HD is like someone removing cataracts from my eyes. A luxury, yes – marketing tactic, no way.
Also, with LCD or Plasma, it’s far more lightweight than a picture tube.
In principle, yes, you’re entirely correct. A digital binary sequence is transmitted and translated perfectly through any HDMI cable. My statement that there is a marginal difference in quality between cables was essentially incorrect on the face of it. My intent with saying it was to comprise the concerns and marginal errors shown in the link Rick posted - which is actually what I had been thinking about when I wrote it - into a simplified explanation that would imply that one should still take care when buying HDMI cables.
It turned into a gross oversimplification and in essential error.
So to retcon my point, I’d like to emphasize that while all HDMI cables in theory - and mostly in practice - are of the same quality, there are factors you must take in consideration when buying or planning a home cinema. (Length, possibility of interference and whether or not your HDMI system is v1.0, v1.1, v1.2 or v1.3 which have different bitrate demands)
GuanoLad: I find that I disagree with you here and I am a bit surprised that you’d label it “falling” for a “marketing tactic.”
I’d written a six-paragraph response to this, but I found it stupid and bias confirming on my own part. What I’d just like to say is that while higher resolution and better quality sound or better ease of use does not make a movie inherantly better, it does significantly enchance - and improve - the experience of a movie. Just like high-quality CGI is less disconcerting than low-quality, although there are some people who would prefer we made do without it at all.
Quantatively, the difference is even more significant - seeing as VHS and DVD had the same effective resolution. The DVD was a great replacer because of its stability, longevity and ease of use. Of course, there were also improvements on the write/read parts of the film which improved the visual quality to bearable levels. (Watching VHS movies pained me, and I even grew up with them)
However, I can of course appreciate what you’re saying, but keep in mind that we’ve been around computers displaying HD graphics (anything past 800x600 is technically “HD Ready”) for the last ten years or so, which raises the bar of what we expect from a “drastic technical improval in visual quality.” The fact is that the Full HD formats only raise the bar to just under what we expect from a normal computer monitor. Further, Batman Begins was a direct port from an early-stage HD-DVD made just when it kicked off. Meaning the quality leap is both restricted from the HD-DVD level of quality, to which Blu-Ray is signiificantly superior (in terms of bitrate and space). If you are able, I would like you to compare the Batman Begins BR quality to the teaser for the Dark Knight which is also on the disc.
I know! I have seen it, and experienced it myself. What I’m saying is it doesn’t actually improve the movie, it just clarifies the image. Big fucking deal, is what I say, and I expected more people to be like me, but I am surprised that it’s not the case.
I will leave this thread now, I have repeated myself too often.
Just to reiterate the point I think both me and cmyk were trying to make, it does not enchance the quality of the movie, but the quality of the experience.
So what am I chopped liver? (see post #23)
Perhaps my problem, then, is not understanding what this “experience” is supposed to be. To me, movies are stories I watch unfold on a screen. It’s like TV, only in a bigger room with crowds of annoying people.
Well, movies, like a lot of things are more than just a story being told. Yes, in essence, it’s a story. But it’s also a very intensely visual medium. The colors, tone, framing, details, clarity, etc. are all information and can enhance the experience if heightened close to the resolution the eye naturally resolves. It’s a gradient of experience that lives between watching it on a 320x240 iPod display, and experiencing it on a 100-foot movie screen, taking up as much as your field of vision as possible. A lot of people would rather try and recreate the experience they get at the theater than just settling for the NTSC (or PAL) standards that were created at a time when people couldn’t bring movies into the home like we can now, let alone in color.
Enjoying a story can be enhanced or degraded by the experience of the medium.
And as you are, so is the world, for ever and ever, Amen. 
Seriously, a lot of people love being able to immerse themselves in the movie in a way that isn’t possible without a big screen and kidney-rattling bass. Home theater systems sell for a reason. 5.1 surround sound sells for a reason, and you sure as hell don’t need that to appreciate what’s basically a larger version of Law & Order. Blu-ray is a step on a curve towards a truly immersive experience, and to suggest we stop now is going to get you odd looks from the people who want immersion.
Also, would you listen to music on a 1" mono speaker? You can, and you might even enjoy it, but it’s a much better experience to listen to music on a high-fidelity stereo system.
I get just as much satisfaction from viewing entertainment through HD, as I do by listening to music though a high-quality audio system. Why is that so hard to understand?
It’s not hard to understand. I just thought more people were like me, and these things didn’t matter to them. As I have said several times, it surprises me how many people are into things at that level, which I think of as superficial and unnecessary for enjoyment. I honestly don’t care that much about things like that, as long as the story is told properly.
Hey, Guanolad – I’d at some time gotten the impression you were involved in film making or digital effects, is that correct?
D’alright. Fair enough.