HD Finally!
- Thread starter StCoop
- Start date
YES
FUCK YES!
FUCK YES!
One could have said the same about widescreen or colour for that matter. Doctor Who of all series should be one to embrace new technology (as it did many times in the past).
I watched the Blu-ray of 2001 at the weekend and not only did it look like the film was made yesterday but despite having seen it many times before the amount of new detail that could be seen, down to being able to clearly read tiny labels on instrument panels was amazing.
Heathen! Boil his face!
I've seen it in action, I have a HDTV and Freesat HD, and I still don't see what all the fuss is about... I mean yeah you can see a difference, but it's not worth all the hype.
This colour lark is just a fad too. Mark my words!
Seriously though; would you rather watch a DVD or a Video? Listen to a CD or a tape? Use a modern PC (like the one I assume you posted your message on) or a Vic20?
Technology improves, things move on. No reason for DW to be left behind.
I'm not saying things should stay the same, or even saying HD is a fad, just that it's not worth all the hype. Does it look better, yes, is it worth all the praise people give it, no.
My sisters boyfriend just spent £1400 on a HD TV.
The fucking thing has a 52" screen. Looks like a window.
One of the settings makes it look too clear. I know that's a funny thing to say, but It made Iron Man look like it was shot on a hand held camera.
Telly is good though.
The fucking thing has a 52" screen. Looks like a window.
One of the settings makes it look too clear. I know that's a funny thing to say, but It made Iron Man look like it was shot on a hand held camera.
Telly is good though.
The difference is staggering imho. Not just visually, but the prospect of 5.1 audio on broadcast is exciting too.
I'll have to wait until the Freeview HD standard is sorted out though, can't even get bloody Freesat in this building. Ofcom says 2009, so I'll be expecting it by 2015 then.
I guess I could, sort of, "procure" it elsewhere but am I fuck watching a day after every bugger else!
Ah, that'll be one of those "motionflow" settings, this frame interpolation shite that all the TV manufacturers are fellating themselves over right now. Waste of time IMHO. Watched Ghostbusters at a friend's house once who had it turned on and it made the damn film look like an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. Not only that, but it introduced unwelcome artifacts every time there was a fast-ish motion.
The tech behind it is really rather impressive, I used a similar thing in software form to achieve slow motion from a PAL MiniDV camera. But applying it to all of your video sources is just an "improvement" too far. In an age obsessed with "home cinema" and preserving "directorial visions", it seems out of place to be pushing a feature that essentially dicks about with the motion.
I'll have to wait until the Freeview HD standard is sorted out though, can't even get bloody Freesat in this building. Ofcom says 2009, so I'll be expecting it by 2015 then.
I guess I could, sort of, "procure" it elsewhere but am I fuck watching a day after every bugger else!
Ah, that'll be one of those "motionflow" settings, this frame interpolation shite that all the TV manufacturers are fellating themselves over right now. Waste of time IMHO. Watched Ghostbusters at a friend's house once who had it turned on and it made the damn film look like an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. Not only that, but it introduced unwelcome artifacts every time there was a fast-ish motion.
The tech behind it is really rather impressive, I used a similar thing in software form to achieve slow motion from a PAL MiniDV camera. But applying it to all of your video sources is just an "improvement" too far. In an age obsessed with "home cinema" and preserving "directorial visions", it seems out of place to be pushing a feature that essentially dicks about with the motion.
My sisters boyfriend just spent £1400 on a HD TV. The fucking thing has a 52" screen. Looks like a window. One of the settings makes it look too clear. I know that's a funny thing to say, but It made Iron Man look like it was shot on a hand held camera.
.
That'd be the 100hz mode. Good for watching sports, or anything shot on video. Bad for anything on film.
My sisters boyfriend just spent £1400 on a HD TV. The fucking thing has a 52" screen. Looks like a window. One of the settings makes it look too clear. I know that's a funny thing to say, but It made Iron Man look like it was shot on a hand held camera.
.
That'd be the 100hz mode. Good for watching sports, or anything shot on video. Bad for anything on film.
It doesn't just double the scan rate though, which is my problem. I had a 100hz telly back when widescreen was relatively new and it was brilliant. Just provided a more stable, flicker-free image. It didn't squeeze new information between frames like the new stuff does, it just displayed what was there twice.
It'll really depend on when your area is switched over. Which looks to be 2011.
Maybe I don't sit close enough to the TV, or seen as I only have a 720p/1080i plasma screen and I haven't seen 1080p source video, most stuff looks to me like it's just upscaled SD at a good bit rate. Some stuff does look excellent though, Planet Earth, and Galapagos looked fantastic, the Architecture thing that was on not too long ago looked good for cityscapes and detail shots, but wide shots looked just the same as the SD one (I flicked back and forth to compare.)
That's true, although in every of these examples, the new technology is significantly easier to use than the old technology and more versatile too.
HD is just my old TV with sharper pictures, and honestly I can hardly notice the difference when I'm sitting on my couch.
God how bad will Tennant's skin look in HD
I don't know if my TV can handle the paleness of Matt Smith either.
The brightness it burns!
At the end of the day there's a limit to what the human eye can percieve, but you just know people will still sign up for superHD and UltraHD
I'm such a luddite!
I wish I could bring everyone who doesn't see much improvement in HD round to my house and have you watch my Blu-Ray of 'Baraka'* on my (properly set-up) 52" TV.
Admitedly Broadcast HD isn't up to that level yet but it'll get there in the end.
*http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081016/REVIEWS08/810150290/1023
Well the human eye isn't exactly a digital device, but I believe it's been estimated that the limit to what the eye can perceive would be around 576 megapixels while HD is only at 1080p which I believe is around 1 to 2 megapixels?At the end of the day there's a limit to what the human eye can percieve, but you just know people will still sign up for superHD and UltraHD
I'm such a luddite!
Similar threads
