HD movies
- Thread starter BigKal
- Start date
Know what? I watched ST VI on my new 42 inch plasma, and it looks DAMN good. I could see every pore on the shat's face.
To hell with HD DVDs
To hell with HD DVDs
The myth again!!
I hope they do a major clean up of the movies before any new release.
Some of the Season 1 episodes just released in HD DVD look absolutely pristine and without a mark and others got a less than 100% cleaning--but they've never looked better!!
But the movies should get a massive, major clean-up.
I'd even go for a removal of matte lines and 'see-through' FX shots.
I'd buy for sure........
TMP--with the 2001 FX fixed for 1080
TWOK
TSFS
TFF--only if they upgraded the FX
TUC
FC
Insur.
Nem.
No doubt in 2008 for some of these.
I hope they do a major clean up of the movies before any new release.
Some of the Season 1 episodes just released in HD DVD look absolutely pristine and without a mark and others got a less than 100% cleaning--but they've never looked better!!
But the movies should get a massive, major clean-up.
I'd even go for a removal of matte lines and 'see-through' FX shots.
I'd buy for sure........
TMP--with the 2001 FX fixed for 1080
TWOK
TSFS
TFF--only if they upgraded the FX
TUC
FC
Insur.
Nem.
No doubt in 2008 for some of these.
Film has no pixels whatsoever.
HD is a far superior format to DVD. It just is. I've seen both versions of a few movies, and the HD is superior by far. It only work so far you have an HD player and TV, but still, quite remarkable.
Oh, and there have been some rumors of HD editions, but I haven't heard anything since then.
Oh, and there have been some rumors of HD editions, but I haven't heard anything since then.
Well, it is a new generation of DVD basically, the disks won't play on current DVD players. You wouldn't see any improvement (and you couldn't play the actual disks) if you don't have an HD player. HD players come in two types: HD DVD and Blu-Ray. At the moment they are competing formats, and Star Trek movies would only be on HD DVD at the moment (because the studio, Paramount only releases films on HD DVD). However, most other studios support Blu-Ray. It's a big, nasty format war, think of betamax vs. VHS except on a much smaller scale. But, sadly the prices aren't so small. Blu-Ray players would set you back about $400 and up. HD DVD players set you back around $200 and up.
The difference between HD and DVD is the quality of the video and the quality of the audio. The difference in video is pretty amazing. In the picture below the difference in the size of the image is shown, although both are actually much larger, this is just to show the difference. And since you have a plasma, depending on when it was made, you're screen is probably just a bit larger than the DVD, but not quite up to the HD DVD level (you still probably have HD, but there are different sizes of HD, but generally you can't tell the difference unless you sit really close or have a huge screen).
HD players can play regular DVDs, but regular DVD players cannot play HD. And, even though you have an HDTV, you can't actually play HD quality material unless you have an HD source (such as HD packages on cable, satellite, antenna, or one of these new players).
The difference between HD and DVD is the quality of the video and the quality of the audio. The difference in video is pretty amazing. In the picture below the difference in the size of the image is shown, although both are actually much larger, this is just to show the difference. And since you have a plasma, depending on when it was made, you're screen is probably just a bit larger than the DVD, but not quite up to the HD DVD level (you still probably have HD, but there are different sizes of HD, but generally you can't tell the difference unless you sit really close or have a huge screen).
HD players can play regular DVDs, but regular DVD players cannot play HD. And, even though you have an HDTV, you can't actually play HD quality material unless you have an HD source (such as HD packages on cable, satellite, antenna, or one of these new players).
It can but only with a separate player for it (it costs about $180). Which is, unfortunately, just lower than a standalone HD DVD player.
Not on DVD, just on cable. I have seen TMP, TWOK, TVH, TUC, Generations, FC and Nemesis all in HD. As with any movie in HD they were all spectacular. HD is better than regular DVD. Its like watching it at the movie theater again, in some cases the picture is better than in the theater. I don't know how but i will get an HD DVD player soon. If the HD DVDs look as good as HD on cable I am sold. Even regular TV shows on primetime tv are far superior in sound and picture than watching them on "regular" channels. TMP looked the best to me though, the initial shots of Enterprise in dock were great. If you like those shots while watching the movie on DVD or on "regular" cable, you will absolutely love them in HD.
HD DVD and Blu-ray look better than cable, since they have much higher bandwidth and are encoded at 1080p24. (I think cable sticks to the 720p/1080i ATSC standard.) Also, they're original aspect ratio, while some cable channels crop to 1.78:1.
I don't know if Paramount would sell a box set of HD Trek movies for $150, though. Look at the list prices for TOS HD combos and the TNG series set relative to other complete series and HD seasons. They're consistently pricing Trek higher than the competition. One fifty is probably the best we can hope for.
I don't know if Paramount would sell a box set of HD Trek movies for $150, though. Look at the list prices for TOS HD combos and the TNG series set relative to other complete series and HD seasons. They're consistently pricing Trek higher than the competition. One fifty is probably the best we can hope for.
Well the season 1 Box Set had 29 'hours' of shows, while a 10 movie set would have only 20 hours so I think they'd be nuts to charge more than $125. Because unlike TOS season 1, a lot of folks despise some of the movies.
If i can buy my 6 favorites at less of a price than an overpriced box set--I will. So they might as well make them reasonable. It isn't really an option buying your favorite TOS episodes ala' carte.
If i can buy my 6 favorites at less of a price than an overpriced box set--I will. So they might as well make them reasonable. It isn't really an option buying your favorite TOS episodes ala' carte.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
No myth, film has way more dynamic range and rez than any other system. There IS a digital camera that is designed to emulate a 65mm movie camera, and it has supposedly got something like 10K resolution, but I don't know if anybody has shot anything with it yet.
In fact, film may be THE archive manner of the century, even according to the futurology type folks of digital and film. See this (and just cuz it is Kodak don't think it is skewed, they do tons in the digital arena, more than film in fact, so they don't stand to gain by making these pronouncements:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/inCamera/apr2007/nRodriguez.jhtml
a sample from this link:
Film is the ultimate storage medium for moving images. Properly archived films will last for hundreds of years. Digital files are much more volatile. I believe that all of the major Hollywood studios are now making black-and-white protection masters of their films for posterity, and I imagine they will ultimately decide to convert titles originated in digital format to film for archiving. One problem is, what do you do with the outtakes you might want in the future?
Film is currently the only true archival medium that will ensure future dividends as the HD household population expands and evolves. Conversely, the best digital storage media have a short life span even under optimum conditions, and digital formats are constantly changing.
Film is by far the most reliable way to archive images. Black-and- white separations will last for up to 500 years, and color negative and intermediate stocks will last for hundreds of years. Digital video is an improvement over analog video signals, but the storage medium is still either a magnetic tape or disk, which is comparatively volatile. According to the Library of Congress, the best magnetic storage media – the media usually used for digital video and HD images – can be depended on for a decade. Once a digital signal is gone, it's gone forever. More than 75 video formats have been introduced since 1956, and even if the media survived, in many or most cases, there is no equipment for playback."
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I wouldn't call it strange, but I'll grant it feels wrong, seems counterintuitive that older tech sometimes is more useful. What lots of posters seem to dismiss as 'nostalgia' in preferring images generated in an 'old-fashioned' way can in fact be a very high level of appreciation for a technique, regardless of its age or how in favor the methodology.
But for the masses, 2K is enough (unfortunately.) Even Doug Trumbull, who masterminded the greatest high-rez entertainment process I've ever heard of (showscan, 65mm filmed and projected at 60 fps), admitted in a mag (WIRED maybe?) a few years back that 2K is enough for most projects, which is a damned shame IMO.
But for the masses, 2K is enough (unfortunately.) Even Doug Trumbull, who masterminded the greatest high-rez entertainment process I've ever heard of (showscan, 65mm filmed and projected at 60 fps), admitted in a mag (WIRED maybe?) a few years back that 2K is enough for most projects, which is a damned shame IMO.
Similar threads
