Yes. I help out on short films and do visual effects for a hobby.
OK. I was just surprised that you’re not more passionate about film quality/resolution. I’ve worked with folks who felt this was really important, though I admit most of my experience comes from people doing SD/Indy type of work who are really pissed (and rightfully so) when my application degrades some aspect of the video accuracy. But increasingly there’s a huge pull toward HD workflow, and I tend to spend a lot of time working out issues in that workflow. I’m just surprised to find a quasi film maker who laments (if I’m not misrepresenting you, please jump in) having more visual fidelity. I respect your position that a bad movie in HD isn’t better. No question.
You sure about this? DVDs generally support 720×480, whereas from what I can find, VHS was typically 330×480. That, combined with the inferior method of transferring said imagery resulted in a, comparatively, significantly degraded picture.
Maybe there were similar arguments around the time DVD was taking over from VHS but it does seem from this thread that I’m not alone in not seeing a significant enough difference to make me want the new format. It reminds me a bit of the SA-CD format that was being pushed for a while. Bear in mind also that there are a significant chunk of people who are used to watching movies/tv shows at worse than DVD level by downloading them on the sly.
As mentioned above, if you have the right equipment there’s a HUGE difference in image quality if the transfer was done correctly. See *The Searchers *on Blu-Ray; whenever we play it in the store customer drop everything and run out to buy a bluray machine. It’s breathtaking, a world of difference. (See *Patton *for an example of a film NOT transferred well.)
Also, the break between disc and tape was more extreme; dvd players are not backwards compatible to VHS, while bluray players do play dvds.
The jump from vhs to dvd was, for me a matter of getting rid of all those heavy bulky vhs tapes and getting slimmer and less troublesome dvds. I have never had a dvd or cd eaten by the machine. If the machine dies with the dvd in it, I could be fairly sure I could retrieve the disk. I never really noticed better picture quality until many years later. When and if Blu-ray becomes the standard and the price of the set top and movies are in the regular price realm, Who knows. I got cruddy eyes anyway so, just my experience.
Well there’s his first mistake.
Knowing Dixon’s I’m surprised they didn’t show him a camera tripod or a carpet tile or a cardboard box with a skidmark on it. They may be completely different on the Emerald Isle but over here asking that lot about anything technical is like pissing up a stick. I’ve seen them showcasing high-def LCDs TVs by displaying analog standard-def TV on the wrong aspect ratio. A whole wall of :smack:
Here’s some examples of the difference between DVD’s and HD-DVD (not even blu-ray’s which have superior bit-rate).
Take this shot:
http://www.cornbread.org/FOTRCompare/FOTR_Compare2_DVD.html
A pastoral view of Hobbitown as Gandalf and Frodo cross the bridge. This shot is from the DVD of Lord of the Rings. While Gandalf and his pony are fairly detailed, anything in the background is pretty much a blur. There appears to be hobbits going around their chores/playing but what exactly they are each doing is pretty much anyone’s guess.
Now click on the picture to see the HD-DVD shot of that same scene.
Ahhh, I now see a girl playing with chickens, were before I saw a blob amongst what might have been some rocks (middle). A hobbit ans his dog, and not a hobbit standing next to nondescript tree (left), Lots of animals in the background are clear as well (right).
The detail of the stone work on the bridge, and the houses/market in the background is amazing and rich. The difference is Like putting on my pair of glasses in the morning. The horse buggy and the girl on the right are also much mroe detailed and rich.
Try this shot:
http://www.cornbread.org/FOTRCompare/FOTR_Compare6_DVD.html
By Clicking on the image you can compare it to the HD-DVD shot. Suddenly Rivendell is nicely detailed amongst the trees (which now you can see individually). Which of these two ways do you envision the director of the film would have you experience his art?
More shots: