Film vs picture quality.
- Thread starter Schizo
- Start date
Not being funny but you might want to actually read the replies in your thread.
IMO, If you don't enjoy a movie in low-def, then you probably wont enjoy the hi-def version either.
Funnily enough I have just been watching some old VHS tapes on my 40" Sony.
And, You know, They were just fine, because I enjoyed the movies!
(Which was interesting, They are clearly lo-def, but low resolution analogue systems (Which, at IIRC 270 lines, VHS is for those that don't remember how TV used to work) seem to tolerate this rather better than lo bit rate digital which actually looks truly dreadful
(Though if the program is good you quickly get to ignore it) )
Funnily enough I have just been watching some old VHS tapes on my 40" Sony.
And, You know, They were just fine, because I enjoyed the movies!
(Which was interesting, They are clearly lo-def, but low resolution analogue systems (Which, at IIRC 270 lines, VHS is for those that don't remember how TV used to work) seem to tolerate this rather better than lo bit rate digital which actually looks truly dreadful
(Though if the program is good you quickly get to ignore it) )
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,478
Yeah I also have Hero, but I prefer HOFD. Hero kind of left me feeling a bit flat to be honest. I agree it is also an aesthetically pleasing film, but I think HOFD is better directed, and as an overall package it is a better experience in my opinion
I take it you haven't read any of the replies then?
If your immersion in/ability to follow the story is constantly ruined due to the poor quality of the medium, then the quality of the story is irrelevant.
Surely you take the film as a whole, soundtrack, visuals, quality of acting and storyline?
If any one of those factors are of a substandard quality, then it doesn't matter how good the others are, the experience of the film will be worsened.
You could have a film with an amazing storyline, but if the acting is terrible it will ruin it and IMO visual/sound quality is no different.
If storyline was the only important factor, then there would be no such thing as movies/TV, and we'd all just be reading books.
Last edited:
If the film was good then I couldn't care about the definition TBH (Most cinemas aren't HD anyway are they?). Obviously if the film sucked then great visuals can soften the blow (mavity, *cough*).
As long as it's not in 3D I'm happy, would rather watch it in a DivX VCD rip than 3D lol.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 May 2012
- Posts
- 719
- Location
- Donegal
Guess it depends on the film/show for me. Modern movies/shows with CGI etc I normally only watch in HD/Blu ray. But for older stuff I prefer SD quality. I grew up watching tons of old westerns etc my dad had on VHS tapes. I bought one of my favourite westerns (Stagecoach) on bluray and didn't enjoy it, the HD quality ruined it and took away the experience and the sense of it being an old movie.
We have a 40" LG HD TV in or mezzanine area at work, I often see films etc on at times during work and with older movies and the HD quality it always seems a little weird to watch.
We have a 40" LG HD TV in or mezzanine area at work, I often see films etc on at times during work and with older movies and the HD quality it always seems a little weird to watch.
I got Terminator collectors edition on DVD (When DVD was "hip") and was shocked to see they had removed the darkness from the Cinema/VHS versions making the movie lighter, which not only ruined the ambience of the film but meant you could see schwarzenegger's penis flopping about when he walks around naked after he first appears lol.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
My main issue with quality is the audio. I like 6 channel audio with DTS or DD. I don't like standard definition unless it has 6 channel audio. I don't watch game of thrones anyway. Ill often watch prerelease of films that are low quality and rarely will i put off watching something until 1080p bluray, unless its very good like interstellar.
If you have no AV receiver that can handle 6 channel audio and you don't have a projector with 120 inch screen then it won't make much difference if you watch it in sd quality anyway.
If you have no AV receiver that can handle 6 channel audio and you don't have a projector with 120 inch screen then it won't make much difference if you watch it in sd quality anyway.
I almost burst out laughing at this!
Most cinemas these days are digital 4K, before that most were 35mm film which a few special cinemas that could handle 70mm
Stick a DVD on and project it at a 50ft wide screen and see how bad that would be, even 1080p would look quite soft (I've seen this done a couple of times and although it wasn't bad it wasn't great either)
I still have a 28" CRT as my living room TV (it gets little use, to be honest), and really notice how awful the picture looks whenever I watch TV at friends' houses with their LCD screens. SD looks particularly bad, but even HD is quite an unpleasant image.
Maybe it's because none of them have high-end screens (?), but I've not been at all sold on going down the LCD route.
But, back to OP, possibly people "have" to watch in HD because modern screens make the images look so terrible if you don't?
Maybe it's because none of them have high-end screens (?), but I've not been at all sold on going down the LCD route.
But, back to OP, possibly people "have" to watch in HD because modern screens make the images look so terrible if you don't?
Most probably they bought the cheapo supermarket £200 screens and also not calibrate it at all. If you have a decent £1k TV and calibrate it properly, you can get some pretty stunning images from Blu-ray from it
That's because 28" is absolutely tiny, anything will look good at that size
For me, it's HD or nothing these days.
My point was that everything looks crap on my mates' big LCD screens - but HD just looks less crap.
You don't get the cinema-style immersion from a 28" screen, it's obviously fair to say, but the jarring picture quality you get on LCD isn't there.
My point was that everything looks crap on my mates' big LCD screens - but HD just looks less crap..
Just because it's big and LCD, doesn't automatically mean it's good. There's quite a big difference between makes, models and price ranges
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 2,201
I think we want to watch in HD these days as good storylines seem to be out the window and it's all about effects.
For good storylines I ain't bothered about HD.
I miss the days of walking down the video Shop and reading the back covers, thinking that sounds good then going to watch it.
These days you know pretty much all about the film before you watch it.
For good storylines I ain't bothered about HD.
I miss the days of walking down the video Shop and reading the back covers, thinking that sounds good then going to watch it.
These days you know pretty much all about the film before you watch it.
Depends on the screen.
I'll watch pretty much anything on the 27" LCD that's in my bedroom. I'll hardly watch anything that's not HD on the 42" plasma in the living room.
My GF thinks I'm weird. The first thing I do when I walk in the room is check she's not watching something in SD that's on HD. She reckons she can't tell the difference.
But then she is odd. She'll watch things in SD and with adverts that we have on BR and available to watch over the network. I wouldn't do that regardless of the quality.
I don't think it's to do with presentation over storyline. It's cinematography. I like to watch it as close to to how the director intended it as possible. If it's just about the storyline, go read a book.
I'll watch pretty much anything on the 27" LCD that's in my bedroom. I'll hardly watch anything that's not HD on the 42" plasma in the living room.
My GF thinks I'm weird. The first thing I do when I walk in the room is check she's not watching something in SD that's on HD. She reckons she can't tell the difference.
But then she is odd. She'll watch things in SD and with adverts that we have on BR and available to watch over the network. I wouldn't do that regardless of the quality.
I don't think it's to do with presentation over storyline. It's cinematography. I like to watch it as close to to how the director intended it as possible. If it's just about the storyline, go read a book.
Yes, that's why I suggested it might be because none of them have "high end" screens. I've not watched TV on anything high end to compare, to be honest.
Go to John Lewis, look at some of the high end Sony and Samsung screens. Get them to stick a Blu-ray on, get your mind blown
Well yes, this is probably part of the problem as well.
Go back ~10 years, and most people didn't have bigger than a 32" TV, so obviously lower picture quality wasn't such an issue.
Now, when most people have at least a 40" HD screen, you can see every single imperfection, meaning what was previously acceptable is now perceived to be full of flaws.
It would be similar to someone with poor eyesight looking at a blurry with no glasses on, and thinking "it looks alright" because they can't see any better anyway.
Then they put their glasses on, and realise how bad it actually looks.
Just go and put an old console (e.g. N64/PSONE) on your 40"+ HD tv, and see how terrible those graphics suddenly look, put that same console on a 20" CRT and it looks OK.