I wasn't aware you'd been to my house Lenny? You should have looked harder for my missus' dirty underwear to sniff, as when you were going through the drawers you would have seen that the boxes on my Bourne Trilogy are red and the discs play in my 360 HD-DVD drive.Originally Posted by Little_Lenny
CRASH.
Not a worst "HD" movie available as far as visual and audio quality goes. The sound sucks... The image quality is BARELY better than SD, if at all.
1/10 audio quality.
0/10 video quality
Horrible, horrible
Last edited by wizisme; 01-08-2009 at 11:56 PM.
Well everyone else stated they have BD. So that's not a fair comparison. You didn't say either way.
Don't have to be a knob about it. Jeez.
Eh? I'm sure that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are the same in picture quality. I mean, all HD is, is increased resolution.
I'm not disputing HD-DVD doesn't offer the same res and quality. You know I can have for example a 1080p divx film and compress it to 512kbps. Tell ya what, it looks like sh!t and a DVD looks better. This is an extreme not real life example but you get my point. The early day DVDs looked like rubbish in comparison to newer ones.
Anyhow my point is void since you guys have it on HD-DVD and say it's fine.
No, all HD is not just increased resolution.
SD- [surrender]
HD-
"HD" looks like crap.
They had movies that were encoded differently between the two formats in both bitrate and compression method used. As you can see above, it matters.
edit:
For movies that suck I believe the quality of Gattaca looks extremely poor and noisy, but I've yet to really watch it.
Last edited by Dibrom; 01-09-2009 at 12:30 AM.
Tha'ts quite a good example Dibrom. But more to do with original image resolution rather than bit rate. I'd be shocked if some films were just cheaply upscaled DVD formats onto a HD-DVD disk.
MMm, I rhink you have your facts muddled up, most post 60's films were infact shot at a higher res than 1920x1080 so infact, they're higher than the highest quality that we have in the home today... any old film can look incredible... I mean, just check Bladerunner... 25+ years old and the final cut is benchmark demo material on HD-DVD and Blu Ray... it's the encode and codec that's used and the quality of the master tape it's taken from that dictates the quality... anything form the past 40 years should be if filmed correctly fantastic... 2001 is another example, watch this and be amazed. VC1 encodes are the standard now, although early Blurays were appalling...
As for Bourne series, I have all three on HD-DVD and they're not the best examples at all... certainly better than DVD BUT not a patch on the best HD examples...
If youw ant some demo material... watch some of these and be astounded... if you don't see the difference between DVD and HD then your'e either blind or your TV isn't calibrated correctly.
Here's some demo material and what format I've got them on:
Bladerunner Final Cut HD-DVD,
King Kong HD-DVD,
Transformers HD-DVD,
WalleE Blu Ray,
Planet Earth Boxset HD-DVD (sensational, probably No.1 for PQ),
Dead Silence HD-DVD,
Pans Labyrinth HD-DVD,
Batman Begins HD-DVD,
Dark Knight Blu Ray,
Hot Fuzz HD-DVD,
Ratatoullie Blu Ray.
Out the 70+ HD films I own, these are probably the ones I'd use to demo my stuff...
Last edited by pugheaven; 01-09-2009 at 01:21 AM.
The original films are much better quality then anything a Blu-ray or HD-DVD could provide. It's all about compression.
(which is one reason why MS Paint has always sucked)
Same source, same basic algorithm, different bit rate.
Last edited by Dibrom; 01-09-2009 at 01:16 AM.
Sounds to me the OP is just used to really good HD quality and this film has let him down.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
