HD TV, Difference Obvious?

[Tapir]

Do you have HD? or can't you afford it.

 

Of course I have it. It was really cheap too for top quality stuff as I have friends who live on the Manor.:hihi:

[GordonBennet]

35mm film has lots more resolution than current full HD let alone 70mm, the new remasters of Bond, Hitchcock etc look stunning in HD. The Blu-Ray (BR) release of North By Northwest is fecking awesome and I don't even have a full HD TV. Same goes for stuff like Dr No on BR.

 

Most US TV series were recorded on film, going way back when. Why do you think they've remastered the original Star Trek series? Because they can and it looks fantastic.

 

I'll give you that in the UK we used to use video tape for TV series so the best bet for that is cram more episodes on one disc. The same with some 90s US TV shows, they were recorded on film but mastered on video tape so unless they redo special effects etc then there's no point moving to HD with it. They're even going to be releasing Friends on BR as it was produced on film and will look better on BR.

 

Gordon you clearly have no understanding of anything on this subject so why post?

 

Because the thread topic is asking people's opinions as to whether they personally can notice a significant difference between HDTV and bog standard digital TV. It's a subjective matter, therefore anyone who owns a television is entitled to post, and I personally don't see the massive improvement that some of the more geekier members of the forum would suggest. Neither can most of the people I've spoken to about it.

 

As to your "Why do you think they've remastered the original Star Trek series?" question, why do you think companies release "remastered" versions of any of their shows? It's to con people into buying the same product over and over again in different formats and thus make more money!

 

So I think I'll just wait a couple of years until HD gains mass market rather than specialist appeal and full HD TVs come down to a more reasonable price.

[Guest]

Because the thread topic is asking people's opinions as to whether they personally can notice a significant difference between HDTV and bog standard digital TV. It's a subjective matter, therefore anyone who owns a television is entitled to post, and I personally don't see the massive improvement that some of the more geekier members of the forum would suggest. Neither can most of the people I've spoken to about it.

 

As to your "Why do you think they've remastered the original Star Trek series?" question, why do you think companies release "remastered" versions of any of their shows? It's to con people into buying the same product over and over again in different formats and thus make more money!

 

So I think I'll just wait a couple of years until HD gains mass market rather than specialist appeal and full HD TVs come down to a more reasonable price.

 

But that's not what you said in your post is it? You were saying what's the point in releasing old films and TV series because they're analogue, indicating no idea of what film and video actually are and how they apply to digital formats.

 

You also completely ignored examples provided of why HD is better i.e. Star Trek. You're saying companies should rerelease series on new formats? Yes, that's very sensible, with your point of view we'd stick with VHS as new formats are just to make people buy stuff again right?

 

As for mass market, you can buy 32" HDTVs for less than £300, how is that not mass market? You can buy smaller sets for less and they all accept HD signals. What exactly do you consider reasonable in this case?

[Karis]

It's funny that people are saying there's little to no difference as it's blu ray night and on my setup, the visuals are astonishing...

 

I love blu ray and I have no problem in buying movies on multiple formats. I accept a format has a limited lifespan and I happen to love seeing movies in blistering HD.

 

In summary, the difference between DVD and blu ray is huge...