I think it is irrelevant if the movie was shot on film or HD cameras when I purchase one.
Because I know that DVDs and BDs are digital discs of compressed information that is being processed and sent to my tv.
Since I don't have a film projector, I will never see film in my home.
Therefore, it is more important to know the quality of the picture on the disc. I should know if they just upconverted an old movie, or was it a
fresh 1080p scan of clean copy of the film. I don't want a BD of a DVD upconvert, the same as I would never have wanted a VHS quality movie on a DVD
(which those $1 deal at Wal-Mart seem to be).
A smaller screen at the same resolution will always look better than a larger screen if the quality of the pixels are the same. Dot pitch means a lot
to your eyes, especially the closer you sit. I will take my 34" 1080i over a 70" 1080p at 4 ft any day. At 12 ft the bigger one because you are
far enough back that it blends well, and the smaller gets to be too small. A 24" 1080p monitor at 1-2 ft will smoke just about anything at any
distance because the pixels are so small.
I also agree with Cap'n, that HD is loses its flare after a month or so. It may be a big leap, but it is still not as big of one as I wish they
would have made. I think it was a move of planned obselescence ... to sell us 1080 for about 10 years or so, then make a leap in communications and
pixel technology where double or triple the pixel amount will be utilized ... then the picture will really pop, and special effects artists, actors,
and actresses will hate it!
1) if you don't have an HDtv, then keep buying DVDs and keep a standard cable box.
If you don't have an HDtv, then you probably don't have a BD or HD-DVD player, and therefore wouldn't be buying HD movies and shows. Otherwise,
the person is a sadly uneducated consumer and I have rights to the Brooklyn Bridge, land on the Moon, and a piece of Uranus that I can sell them for a
2) It has nothing to do with them being shot in HD. It has to do with Standard Definition of 480i and High Definition of 1080p. A HD movie does not
imply at all the movie was shot on an HD camera. That is not relevant to the format.
The argument would be the same as saying they didn't label VHS as being shot on film ... and VHS misrepresents the product because it is a magnetic
analog tape. That VHS should have been labeled 'shot on film' or 'shot on cassette'.
Like I said above, they should say whether it is a poor conversion of a SD movie, upscaled version, or it was truly re-scanned from the original film
(since most movies are still on film, not shot with HD cameras).
It doesn't matter if it was shot in HD or it was shot on film, it is a digital representation now, and 1080 either way. It is an interesting fact to
include for dorks like me who will be interested in random information, especially as more films convert to digital recordings.
3) $24 for a BD isn't bad at all
, in fact on par with DVD 8 years ago. In 2000 'Men In Black' retailed for $40 ($24 on Amazon) on DVD and the second season of
'X-Files' retailed for $150. That wasn't too long ago. Source
So, not only are you paying what you would have for DVDs less than a decade ago, but you are getting up to 6x the resolution. That is not a
ridiculous price at all considereing Barnes & Nobles is charging $20 for 300 on standard DVD
4) Most movies I have bought, besides animated ones (these are the only true 'cell' movies that you speak of, as long as they were hand drawn
opposed to designed digitally), were shot on film, regardless if they are on VHS, BetaMax, DVD, VCD, SVHS, HD-DVD, BD.
The film was not artistically violated, it was re-scanned at the newer level of visual standard for home viewing. It violates the product no more
than DVD, VHS, or broadcasting it over the air. If anything, it gives more proceeds to the writer, producer, actors, and other staff from further
The only defiling of the product would be to not re-scan the film, and just sell the same version, upscaled version, or some other poor form of making
it fill the screen without increasing the quality of the picture.
Without a tv, you aren't watching much but a wall. Without the player, the disc cannot be played. I have NEVER met anyone with the original film in
their house, or a projection system to play it on.
We are talking about normal consumers, not owners of movie theaters or the very few, very rich that have an actual theater projection system and room
in their house, right?
I will say this, I don't think movies should be shot on 1080 cameras ... television is fine, but movies should be shot at the maximum resolution
possible for either film or digital, unless the grainy-ness is intended for part of the feel of the movie.
A digital scan of a movie, in 1080, is the closest 99% of the world is going to get to having a film projector in their house until the next wave of
higher definition comes along to replace current HD. Even people who could afford a projection system would find it impractical to buy and properly
store and use the film. It just isn't something even most obsessive of videophiles feels like dealing with.
Who is selling computers as films? If you are talking about digital media, then it doesn't matter if that 1080p movie is on a BD, HD-DVD, or a 15 GB
file that you download to your hard drive. Digital media is digital media, regardless of which disk
it is stored on.
Here is how I see it.
Film has been around for a while, but it is reaching its limitations. 70 mm film has been around nearly 80 years. It has its fair share of win and
is still top class.
Digital media is just beginning. Just look at something as unprofessional as phone cameras. The original ones weren't even up to 8 mm film
standards, but within a few years, they now have 10 MP camera phones. 10 MP, five times High Definition resolutions, in a phone.
35 mm is equat to about 12.75 MP, so camera phones are approaching 35 mm quality. I believe 70 mm is close to 51 MP, which is far away in the
consumer market ... but as another poster said, far surpassed by the military.
The advantage of film though, much harder to fake, pull off hoaxes, etc. though not impossible. Digital is much easier, especially for those who know
how to keep the exif data clean.
So I can agree and disagree at the same time