HD DVD Releases

[TheCake]

Ok so 1 of my HD DVD drives came last week and in the box was a copy of King Kong. Ok I thought, not so bad. Got it hooked up at the weekend at a friends house and sat and watched it. Excellent stuff. Lovely picture quality and enjoyed it.

Despite King Kong not setting my world alight I popped into town to check out some other releases... now... forgive me for being wrong but Apollo 13? The Fugitive? Hardly setting the world alight?

Q. Why do they release old but good moves, Apollo 13 is 12 years old this year?!

Q. Can they make HD DVDs from the original film reel? If so how else would they be able to make films, like The Fugitive (1993), in HD? Surely this was never filmed in HD?

Q. Finally after much deliberation I picked Batman Begins and enjoyed it once I got back - however, I thought HD DVDs were double sided so could still be played in a normal DVD player? This seems to be HD one side and a big arse label on the other? Any ideas?

Thanks from someone not quite embracing the HD era just yet but almost.

 

[dk]

Ok so 1 of my HD DVD drives came last week and in the box was a copy of King Kong. Ok I thought, not so bad. Got it hooked up at the weekend at a friends house and sat and watched it. Excellent stuff. Lovely picture quality and enjoyed it.

Despite King Kong not setting my world alight I popped into town to check out some other releases... now... forgive me for being wrong but Apollo 13? The Fugitive? Hardly setting the world alight?

Q. Why do they release old but good moves, Apollo 13 is 12 years old this year?! I guess because they can make money out of something that has already paid for itself so its pure profit now, and they are classics and die hard fans will want to one them in their best quality, incidently though I think Apollo 13 is one of the worst discs.

Q. Can they make HD DVDs from the original film reel? If so how else would they be able to make films, like The Fugitive (1993), in HD? Surely this was never filmed in HD? As I understand it, celluloid film that films are filmed on are of the highest quality, hence why they llok so good on a massive cinema screen, and when transferred to normal DVD, the quality was restricted by what could be fitted on a DVD disc and also the fact that tc's were only that many lines anyway (is is 576 lines?). Now we have LCD's with 1080 lines and discs that can hold 5 times what a dvd can the quality can increase to HD. And as that original film is such high quality it can be transferred well, if done correctly, just some aren't. I don't think they are still up to todays standards though still. But most films are still still produced using celluloid and not HD digital cameras, although some films have started to be created with these, namely Miami Vice I think.

Q. Finally after much deliberation I picked Batman Begins and enjoyed it once I got back - however, I thought HD DVDs were double sided so could still be played in a normal DVD player? This seems to be HD one side and a big arse label on the other? Any ideas? Only combo discs have both HD and SD on them, one either side, they are more common in the US and a lot of people actually complain about those as they say they want the pretty picture on one side, don't want to scrath one of the sides and also don't want to pay the extra for an inferior product they don't need on one side. Some people who haven't gone HD yet are seeing this as a way to future proof their discs though buy buying the combos now and then being able to use the HD side when they upgrade but can still enjoy the film now.

Thanks from someone not quite embracing the HD era just yet but almost.

I was amazed by HD at first but now I honestly can't see much of a difference, I think I am just getting used to it.

I recommend Tokyo drift though as a disc to show off the picture and superman returns to show off the sound as its TruHD. Batman begins is supposed to have a good pic though, i have it but haven't got around to watching it yet, then world trade center is another film i think looks amazing.

for reviews its best to look here

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/

and here

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=705387

 

[TheCake]

Thanks Dave. Much appreciated.

I was looking for something to test the Toshiba if it ever turns up. lol. I presume the standard Xbox 360 interconnects are more than adequate?

 

[dk]

on a 32" screen, yes will be fine, i can't really tell the difference between 720p and 1080i really, i am using component.

 

[TheCake]

Thanks Dave

 

[rich[182]]

Surely it's down to the mastering process too, even on normal DVD the word "remastered" is a word used far too easily imo

The original classic Starwars trilogy was given what in my opinion is a proper going over for the 2004 DVD release with a remastering & restoration by Lowes, other films from the same era look rubbish even though they are supposed to be remastered

Also, surely the only movies to take full advantage of HD are films actually shot 100% digitally such as Starwars Ep2 & Ep3 ?

I've been to some properly organised demos at several exhibitions of HD, one of which showed Black Hawk Down HD v Black Hawk Down DVD v Black Hawk Down upscaled DVD

With all 3 sets of otherwise identical kit setup properly by enthusiasts there was a significant difference over DVD, but hardly any over upscaled DVD

However they then did a typical setup to simulate your average Joe Public out of the box hasn't got a clue setup (which lets face it represents most people) and the difference between DVD & HD was to be frank "hardly anything to write about"

 

[Chris n nic]

I have downloaded some of the hd demos from the microsoft site and they do look better...but in Comet the other day there was a hd demo running on a similar size tv to mine and it looked much better. Seemed like it was running at a better frame rate.Does a proper HD DVD run at a better frame rate than the demo sstreamed from my pc on to my tv through my xbox? (using a cable not wireless link)

Chris

 

[Guy]

My HD dvd player arrived today.. gonna pop down to HMV and see if they have anything in stock to watch.

 

[Gareth]

the choice is very limited indeed, I've only got Jarhead and its a pretty good HD-DVD.

 

[tomdbomb61_djtj]

My HD dvd player arrived today.. gonna pop down to HMV and see if they have anything in stock to watch.

Gamestation sell HD DVD's if you have one locally

 

[Guy]

just rang my bro to find out where gamestation is.. gonna nip into town shortly

thinking of buying superman if they have it?

edit - alltho from them lists they rate swordfish as being better quality?!

 

[dk]

Surely it's down to the mastering process too, even on normal DVD the word "remastered" is a word used far too easily imo

The original classic Starwars trilogy was given what in my opinion is a proper going over for the 2004 DVD release with a remastering & restoration by Lowes, other films from the same era look rubbish even though they are supposed to be remastered

Also, surely the only movies to take full advantage of HD are films actually shot 100% digitally such as Starwars Ep2 & Ep3 ?

I've been to some properly organised demos at several exhibitions of HD, one of which showed Black Hawk Down HD v Black Hawk Down DVD v Black Hawk Down upscaled DVD

With all 3 sets of otherwise identical kit setup properly by enthusiasts there was a significant difference over DVD, but hardly any over upscaled DVD

However they then did a typical setup to simulate your average Joe Public out of the box hasn't got a clue setup (which lets face it represents most people) and the difference between DVD & HD was to be frank "hardly anything to write about"

as i said mate, this is just how I understand it, I am no expert, just someone who takes an interest but i can't see them remastering all those old films as i can imagine it takes a hell of a long time.

anyone else got an opinion, rasclart or McBunny normally have an opinion or answer?

 

[Guy]

just bought batman begins

was either that or swordfish, as batman is a newer film i assuemd it may be slightly better?

 

[Guy]

erm.. why are there black bars above and below the picture??

do i have to put it into one of the 'cinema' screen sizes?

 

[McBunny]

erm most widescreeen films will have black bars its the fact there are 2 main widescreen formats 1.85 and 2.35

 

[Guy]

ah never really noticed them before..

but with the VGA input cant adjust the screen sizing.. so ive gone back to component.

 

[McBunny]

if you look on the back of the dvd box it will tell you the aspect ratio 1.85 will fill the screen 2.35 will have black bars but you can stretch it to fit

 

[Guy]

thats good to know.

its 2.4:1 on this one

think im going to have o keep flicking between vga and component. as the xbox normal dvd drive only upscales via VGA??

but with VGA it has no screen size options, also you noticed the colours arent as good as component?

 

[McBunny]

2.39 is its real name its a 35mm anamorphic filmstock used from 1970 onwards

there are so many different ratios

• 1.19:1: "Movietone" - early 35 mm sound film ratio used in the late 1920s and early 1930s, especially in Europe. The optical soundtrack was placed on the side of the 1.33 frame, thus reducing the width of the frame. The Academy Aperture frame (1.37) fixed this by making the frame lines thicker. The best examples of this ratio are Fritz Lang's first sound films: M and The Testament of Dr. Mabuse. This is roughly the frame size used for anamorphic photography today.
• 1.25:1: Commonly used computer resolution of 1280x1024. Native aspect ratio of many LCDs. Also the aspect ratio of 4x5 film photos. The British 405 line TV system used this aspect ratio from its beginning in the 1930s until 1950 when it changed to the more common 4:3 format.
• 1.33:1: 35 mm original silent film ratio, common in TV and video as 4:3. Also standard ratio for IMAX and MPEG-2 video compression.
• 1.37:1: 35 mm full-screen sound film image, nearly universal in movies between 1932 and 1953. Officially adopted as the Academy ratio in 1932 by AMPAS. Still occasionally used. Also standard 16 mm.
• 1.43:1: IMAX 70 mm horizontal format.
• 1.5:1: The aspect ratio of 35 mm film used for still photography. Wide-aspect computer display (3:2). Used in Apple PowerBook G4 15.2" displays with resolutions of most recently 1440x960.
• 1.504:1: The aspect ratio of some digital SLR cameras, such as the Nikon D70.
• 1.56:1: Widescreen aspect ratio 14:9. Often used in shooting commercials etc. as a compromise format between TV 4:3 (12:9) and Widescreen 16:9, especially when the output will be used in both standard TV and widescreen. When converted to a 16:9 frame, only a small portion of the picture is lost, and when converted to 4:3 there is only slight letterboxing.
• 1.6:1: computer display widescreen (8:5, commonly referred to as 16:10). Used in WSXGAPlus, WUXGA and other display resolutions. This aspect ratio has been chosen for many modern widescreen computer displays because of its ability to display two full pages of text side by side. [1]
• 1.66:1: 35 mm European widescreen standard; Super 16 mm. (5:3, sometimes expressed more accurately as "1.67".)
• 1.75:1: early 35 mm widescreen ratio, since abandoned.
• 1.78:1: video widescreen standard (16:9). Also used in high-definition television One of 3 ratios specified for MPEG-2 video compression.
• 1.85:1: 35 mm US and UK widescreen standard for theatrical film. Uses approximately 3 perforations ("perfs") of image space per 4 perf frame; films can be shot in 3-perf to save cost of film stock. Also known as "flat".
• 2.00:1: Used primarily as a flat format in the 1950s and early 1960s by Universal-International, as well as Paramount for some of their VistaVision titles. Also used as one of the variable anamorphic ratios with SuperScope.
• 2.2:1: 70 mm standard. Originally developed for Todd-AO in the 1950s. 2.21:1 specified for MPEG-2 but not used.
• 2.35:1 : 35 mm anamorphic prior to 1970, used by CinemaScope ("'Scope") and early Panavision. The anamorphic standard has subtly changed so that modern anamorphic productions are actually 2.39[1], but often referred to as 2.35 anyway, due to old convention. (Note that anamorphic refers to the print and not necessarily the negative.)
• 2.39:1: 35 mm anamorphic from 1970 onwards. Sometimes rounded up to 2.40[1]. Sometimes referred to as 'Scope.
• 2.55:1: Original aspect ratio of CinemaScope before optical sound was added to the film. This was also the aspect ratio of CinemaScope 55.
• 2.59:1: Cinerama at full height (three specially captured 35 mm images projected side-by-side into one composite widescreen image).
• 2.76:1: MGM Camera 65 (65 mm with 1.25x anamorphic squeeze). Only used on a handful of films between 1956 and 1964, such as Ben-Hur (1959).
• 4:1: Polyvision, three 35 mm 1.33 images projected side by side. Only used on Abel Gance's Napoléon (1927).

 

[Guy]

lol@ all the different ratios.. whats wrong with just making one standard one the bunch of t***s!

 

[McBunny]

its funny the gf asked me the other day why there were still black bits on it now we had a widescreen tv i thought about trying to explain but i just gave up lol

 

[James.]

lol @ people buying films on the basis of how good the picture is.

 

[Guy]

LOL @ jaybee being a raving homo.


mcb - you still using VGA for your 360? you tried component?? seems to give sharper colours?

 

[McBunny]

lol @ people buying films on the basis of how good the picture is.

its not stupid really
you need a film that you can use as a benchmark and to impress people with you thousands of pounds spent on homecinema stuff lol you have to try and make it look worthwhile

 

[McBunny]

LOL @ jaybee being a raving homo.


mcb - you still using VGA for your 360? you tried component?? seems to give sharper colours?

using component for me gives me an image that has been drawn by a 3 yearold with a box of neon crayons its garish even after been tweaked the colours via vga are much more natural and its a better format

watched indiana jones the other night and it looked very very nice via vga

 

[Guy]

what do you do about the black bars on films via vga? just live with them?

nice being able to lose them on component!

normal dvd's look loads better quality picture with VGA but i think the colours arent as good

tried playing with brightness contrast and backlight settings

 

[McBunny]

i thought the colours are alot more natural and life like it always helps to calibrate the set tho using something like dve

component is more vivid and eye catching but to sit and watch it id get pissed off and headaches


the bars i just live with i mean i hav ebeen watching widescreen films on a 4x3 tv for years im just used to it

 

[dk]

i've noticed a lot of people over on avforums complain abotu the black bars but they have been present ever since dvd was introduced so I can't see why people ar eonly just noticing them now when the majority of dvd's are in 2.35:1?

 

[tomdbomb61_djtj]

surely you just set the aspect on your tele to stretch the picture to fit the screen? Or am I missing something? ?!

 

[dk]

surely you just set the aspect on your tele to stretch the picture to fit the screen? Or am I missing something? ?!

if you do that the you either stretch the picture (no thanks) or lose the edges of the picture (no thanks) so you just watch it with the black bars, its how its supposed to be watched!

 

[Guy]

as said you lose the edges of the picture.

plus you cant do that with VGA anyway..

 

[Chris n nic]

Is it just me that totally forgets about the bars after like 2 mins of viewing?

Chris

 

[dk]

Is it just me that totally forgets about the bars after like 2 mins of viewing?

Chris

what bars......

 

[Gareth]

yep, I don't forget about the bars. Its annoying, normal DVDs I can fill the screen (Sony DVD Player), on the 360 HD-DVD I can't and have to watch it like that.

 

[Graham Gooch]

the bars dont bother me really. I don't have a hd-dvd player so I'm not sure why I wrote that lol.

 

[dk]

yep, I don't forget about the bars. Its annoying, normal DVDs I can fill the screen (Sony DVD Player), on the 360 HD-DVD I can't and have to watch it like that.

sorry but i have never had a problem with the bars, i keep the aspect ratio in the one the director intended me to watch it, 2.35 gives a wider picture, i like chris have never had a problem with the bars.