HD Mainstream? Shocking observation today.

[Cofnchtr]

Hi al,

I probably am over optimistic but a little bit of knowledge, even if it's only to learn terminology, could certainly assist anyone in their choice. I use the magazine to sort the wheat out from the chaff and narrow my choices. I then try and track down these items in store to make the final decision for myself. Although I highly value the reviewers comments, final choice of aesthetics, colours, brand and whether I can justify any price point etc. are down to me as I have to live with my choice (and the wrath of her who should be obeyed).

Cheers,

Cofnchtr.

 

[Alec]

Oh i agree, where i was saying you are perhaps optimistic, is in your faith in other people's (the "man on the street") ability to get to the bottom of things. Anyway, im probably way off topic here, sorry.

 

[Cofnchtr]

Hi,

I don't think you're off topic - we're still hanging in there...

The 'man on the street' probably won't try and do research and they are then at the mercy of the salesman. Ignorance is no excuse but part of the problem has been touched on here - the abundance of terms used to describe the latest features (which most wouldn't know if they need or not) may be leading to some confusion and an unwillingness to find out what terms really mean. Advice on here from the pro's already state not to get too hung up on specs. Most people trust the salesperson.

For all future technological advances, any format war should be settled behind closed doors and a finished product offered to the public at a reasonable price. If the public really cared about which was the more superior product, Betamax would have won years ago. Content will produce a winner and as most major film companies seem to be getting behind Blu-ray it should now be pushed to the fore as the format of the future and Joe Public can then buy with confidence.

Another possible gripe for the man on the street (I know it's one of mine) is the bars at the top and bottom in most films these days. The trend to release films as a 'director's cut' in 21:9 means that our widescreen tv's are the wrong shape to see them 'full screen'. We've already changed from a 4:3 ratio to 16:9, are we to change again to 21:9? What's wrong with giving us a 16:9 transfer for the home to match our equipment and 21:9 for cinema? Is this a cost cutting exercise by the film companies?

I must have gotten out the bed the wrong side this morning!

Cheers,

Cofnchtr.

 

[Andrew Everard]

[quote user="Cofnchtr"]Another possible gripe for the man on the street (I know it's one of mine) is the bars at the top and bottom in most films these days. The trend to release films as a 'director's cut' in 21:9 means that our widescreen tv's are the wrong shape to see them 'full screen'. We've already changed from a 4:3 ratio to 16:9, are we to change again to 21:9? What's wrong with giving us a 16:9 transfer for the home to match our equipment and 21:9 for cinema? Is this a cost cutting exercise by the film companies?[/quote]

No, it's just the film being shown in the format in which it's intended to be seen. The 16:9 transfer would have to crop stuff off either side of the screen - you could lose about a third of the frame if the picture was resized to fill full depth.

Want to lose the black bars? Or see what you'd lose by filling the frame vertically? It's what the zoom button on TV and DVD remotes is there for.

 

[Cofnchtr]

Hi,

The film is intended to be seen in that aspect ratio - but at the cinema. We don't have that aspect ratio in the house. Perhaps some projectors are capable of this aspect ratio? With the extra storage capacity of hd dvd and br dvd it would be feasible to put both versions of film on the one disc. Those that want the director's cut can watch it with bars top and bottom.

Does the zoom not involve a level of processing?

Cheers,

Cofnchtr.

 

[FuzzyinLondon]

I guess I was one of the few people who used to buy the widescreen editions of films on VHS. It used to cost extra but it was important to me to see films in their original form. I've seen far to many hatchet jobs pan and scan versions of film and video to put up with it ever again. I've always loved the way that pan and scan died with DVD (in most cases anyway).

At the moment, until more layers are introduced to HD discs, I don't think it is feasible to put two different versions on the same disc without incurring a higher cost or having transfers that are more compressed. I think the zoom does involve extra processing and you might lose some picture quality but if you're sat at a decent distance you probably won't notice.

 

[Clare Newsome]

[quote user="Cofnchtr"]
Perhaps some projectors are capable of this aspect ratio?

[/quote]

Yep - you can get (very pricey, but rather lovely) anamorphic lenses for projectors that allow you to show full Cinemascope pictures without the black bars. SIM2 has a wonderful example people may have seen at our Show.

I don't use such a lens on my (more modest) projector, but then the black bars don't bother me one bit - for one I know i'm seeing the film as it was meant to be seen, and secondly it's far less of an issue with such a big picture.

 

[Anonymous]

As Joe Average who is aware of HD and the format war the deciding factor for me is simple - price. I'm looking for an upscaler rather than a HD player mainly because I can get three perfectly acceptable DVDs from HMV for the approximate price of a single HD or Blue-ray disc and I won't go for Sky HD because the box is too expensive even before you add the subscription to get a small choice of programming that is already available on "normal" Sky - when whichever HD format starts hitting the bargain bins at a similar price in a reasonable time I'll reconsiderbut until then why bother .....

 

[Alec]

Si_111 - a man after my own heart.

Cofnchtr - i quite agree - many people's opinion is that if the public cared, most of us would use Apple's OSs too. Personally i wouldnt know, ive never used them, but i know its a popular opinion.

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="FuzzyinLondon"]I guess I was one of the few people who used to buy the widescreen editions of films on VHS. It used to cost extra but it was important to me to see films in their original form. I've seen far to many hatchet jobs pan and scan versions of film and video to put up with it ever again. I've always loved the way that pan and scan died with DVD (in most cases anyway).

At the moment, until more layers are introduced to HD discs, I don't think it is feasible to put two different versions on the same disc without incurring a higher cost or having transfers that are more compressed. I think the zoom does involve extra processing and you might lose some picture quality but if you're sat at a decent distance you probably won't notice.[/quote]

I used to look out for the "Widescreen" version too. Usually the front of the box would have "Widescreen" either at the top or bottom to distinguish it from the standard ratio. I remember having a Nicam VHS hooked up to my HiFi, it really was something else in them days!

 

[FuzzyinLondon]

Excellent - A fellow cinephile. I guess it seemed quite weird to other people. I remember having to warn people it was the widescreen version any time that the borrowed a video off me. It made them change their mind or look at me like I was some kind of idiot for wanting 'less' picture. Glad I wasn't the only one.

 

[Andrew Everard]

[quote user="FuzzyinLondon"]look at me like I was some kind of idiot for wanting 'less' picture.[/quote]

"Now look here, I didn't pay good money for all those pixels only to have a third of them not doing anything most of the time"

 

[Alec]

[quote user="Andrew Everard"]
[quote user="FuzzyinLondon"]look at me like I was some kind of idiot for wanting 'less' picture.[/quote]

"Now look here, I didn't pay good money for all those pixels only to have a third of them not doing anything most of the time"

[/quote]

HAHA, im one o' them! 'Spose i've much to learn.

 

[FuzzyinLondon]

Actually, being a somewhat paranoid plasma owner it does worry me slightly but I guess I'm just being silly.