HD-DVD coming next year..

Robert Jackson · July 30th, 2004, 07:53 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Jesse Bekas : You know what Anhar, much of the fuss over HD in the US is pretty ridiculous. HD is worthwhile to get worked up about, but it's still so pricey. I don't know about the rest of the wold, but we Americans go crazy for buzzwords and concepts like HiDef (anything that's better than what we have now), but in reality not many people actually have Big-Screen HD sets, and even the small HD sets are still way over priced (and what's the point of a small HD set). -->>>

Well, if I can chime in on this, I have a 34" direct-view Sony set. It's one of the multi-synch models that can run native at 1080i, 720p or SD resolutions. I have High Definition cable coming in at 720p and I have a really hard time switching to SD stations. The High Definition signal looks SO good SO much of the time that it's tough to look at SD. And of course there's the aspect ratio. Once you get used to widescreen it's annoying when the black bars pop up on the sides and you have to watch a pan and scan movie. I'd never known how bad a DVD could look until I got an HD set, too. People would complain about bad transfers and I could see a little difference, but it seemed minor until I got a set that resolves so much detail that differences in transfer quality and compression started jumping out at me.

Personally I can't wait for high definition video, be it blu-ray or HD-DVD. As more people see the difference firsthand I imagine it will develop a lot more support in the marketplace.

Christopher C. Murphy · July 30th, 2004, 08:49 AM

I agree so much with what you said regarding getting used to HDTV and not wanting to look at SD. It has to be something really good for me to watch it. I've found myself watching movies that I'd never watch before on my HDTV because they look so damn good. I remember when I first got HDTV - it was some lame Cameron Diaz chick flick movie. Get this...I watched the whole thing and my girlfriend said she couldn't believe I watched the whole thing. I told her it was a combination of being able to "see everything so clearly", and also being able to see the beautiful girls! It's really life-like when you have all the lights off.

Murph

Jesse Bekas · July 30th, 2004, 10:25 AM

I don't want you guys to think I am bashing HD here. I have seen the mighty magic of HiDef, and it's almost painful to be stuck watching SD programming all the time. It is similar to having to go back to dialup after using broadband. I want HD to be mainstream enough that we ALL have it on our TVs, and shoot it on our camcorders. Hell, I want it to be so mainstream that while the general public enjoys it, us nuts will be dreaming about UD (Ultra-Def). So while I'm not anti-HD by any means, I am just pointing out that it will be some time before...

A) it's affordable for everybody (and don't tell me $1,000 TV is affordable because it isn't for most)

B)Most proramming is HD. This is the one that is really gonna take some time because programmers aren't gonna show all HD shows until the majority of the public has the equipment. It's gonna be very "chicken and the egg" for awhile. Consumers are going to have to be convinced that HD is coming immediately, and that they can't live without it. Then after they get the HD sets, and they see there is a lot more SD content than HD, they'll clamor for it in the streets and we'll all get it.

...On a side note, for Robert, HD sets actually have a hinderence with their high pixel counts, to show SD. It has been said in many articles that HD sets make SD content look worse than it actually is. Some of the pixels don't down convert well, and turn into fuzz, and other "artifacts" that would not be seen on an SD set. So if you watch SD on an HD set, that makes it seem like HD is even that much better. For a true comparison you have to watch the same program on 2 sets next to each other, HD on HD, and SD on SD.

Christopher C. Murphy · July 30th, 2004, 11:11 AM

There will soon be HD sets for a couple hundred bucks just like NTSC ones. It's only a matter of time...and not much at that.

Also, there is more content in the "vaults" of Hollywood in 16x9 than in other formats...ready to go. We'll soon have "Classic" channels up the wazo in HDTV. There have been 16x9 movies for some 50 odd years now. Also, older television was shot on film too...maybe not 16x9, but they'll tweak it for 16x9 televisions. The 80's brought on horrible video cameras which we all use, but Hollywood has general kept their content HD (or film I should say) since way back before any of our time.

My opinion is that Hollywood is going to make a killing for 2nd time on older content first. It's already showing on my HDTV cable system...they have made deals on INHD 1 and 2 for all kinds of old movies. Some I think suck bad, but others aren't to back at all. I can see how they're trying to make money by not spending any right now...and that'll pan out until probably 2006-2007 when all the early adopters are overshadowed by the newbies. The next generation HDTV'ers (3-5 years from now) will most defintely be the ones who spend $$ on HDTV accessories (HD-DVD etc). This one is paying for the Beta testing!

Murph

Robert Jackson · July 30th, 2004, 12:39 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Jesse Bekas : ...On a side note, for Robert, HD sets actually have a hinderence with their high pixel counts, to show SD. It has been said in many articles that HD sets make SD content look worse than it actually is. Some of the pixels don't down convert well, and turn into fuzz, and other "artifacts" that would not be seen on an SD set. So if you watch SD on an HD set, that makes it seem like HD is even that much better. For a true comparison you have to watch the same program on 2 sets next to each other, HD on HD, and SD on SD. -->>>

Well, most sets are doing conversion to their own native display resolution. Especially with plasma sets, I imagine that looks terrible. Like playing a video game at a non-native resolution on your laptop. My set is a CRT set, though, with multisynch. It doesn't upconvert or downconvert, it changes its native display resolution to match incoming content just like a computer monitor.

Harrison Murchison · July 30th, 2004, 12:56 PM

Jesse I don't understand where you're getting this.

A. Best Buy, Walmart and Costco all have Hidef screens from $499 on up. Costco just recently sold through the 30" widescreen Philips model for $599. By claiming that Hidef sets are $1000 and ignoring the models below I think you tell a lie by ommission to prove your thesis.

B. That is why the FCC is mandating Digital Broadcasts. If we left it up to the broadcasters we'd be using NTSC for the next decade. Here in Washington it's easy to get HD programming. Comcast has been rolling it out and even the smaller fringe cable companies have a decent selection. By 2006 if you want HD you'll be able to get it.

I would have to say i'm pretty impressed. The cost of entry to HD has dropped from thousands now to hundreds. I myself will be eyeballing the new Samsung or Toshiba 26" widescreen CRT HDTVs $699 but I know they'll be on sale when I'm ready to buy. There is no reason now to fear the HD rollout. By 2006 a 26" HDTV should be with tuner from multiple major brands for $499 and less for tier 2 brands.

Ignacio Rodriguez · July 30th, 2004, 11:30 PM

> That is why the FCC is mandating Digital Broadcasts.
> If we left it up to the broadcasters we'd be using NTSC for
> the next decade.

The FCC is mandating digital because the hardware manufacterers lobbied theirs heads off to be able to continue to sell TV sets. This didn't happen in Europe, where governments are less influenced by business and more publically-oriented. Even though there are Europe-approved HDTV standards, they are rolling out a backwards-compatible analog high-definition extension to PAL. Because it is compatible with 50 year old analog receivers, it makes sense for the broadcasters to implemente technology that serves their whole audience (not seperate technologies for legacy and new receivers).

More info in this other thread:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&postid=207055

Jesse Bekas · July 31st, 2004, 04:10 PM

I was completely unaware of HD sets over 30" for less than $1,000, so if that's what I was implying I was wrong. I really don't understand getting an HD set smaller than 30", though, unless it's for a PC that you'll be sitting right in front of. Considering you can get an SD set of that size for $250, I don't think $500+ for relatively small HD screens is what the general public are willing to pay, thereby keeping HD on the fringe for awhile longer. My original reason for posting anything on this thread, was just to say that HD wasn't already, nor will it soon be mainstream...in 2 years it will be more widely accepted, but will not be mainstream until the larger sets are as cheap as their current SD counterparts, which I can admit, may be a possibilty...and 2 years is not an eternity, but it isn't as "soon" as many people are implying.

Joe Carney · August 2nd, 2004, 07:40 AM

>>Well, if I can chime in on this, I have a 34" direct-view Sony set. It's one of the multi-synch models that can run native at 1080i, 720p or SD resolutions. I have High Definition cable coming in at 720p <<

I get Comcast at 1080i and for those who don't think the video look has a future, they are wrong. The look was so stunning I was watching one of those crappy travel videos about a place I will never go to (Tacoma Wa) and couldn't turn it off. Now I know more about Tacoma then I ever wanted to.

I'm actually watching baseball on TV for the first time in over 11 years and with Hidef, it's almost as good as being there (will pitchers start having to wear makeup to hide their zits?, hehehe),
and Cameraon Diaz really does have a serious skin problem, ouch!!!

Film sourced entertainment like NYPD blue and others look outstanding too.

btw, for anyone living in the Arlington/DC metro area. The Circuit City at Bailys Crossing is having a fire sale on 'ALL' their HD capable sets,crt and RP based systems are marked down the lowest. They had a 46inch Panasonic RP with stand for 899.00, they had a 26inch 16x9 samsung CRT for under 400. If I had the money I would have bought that one for editing purposes.

Robert Jackson · August 2nd, 2004, 01:13 PM

I get Comcast at 1080i and for those who don't think the video look has a future, they are wrong. The look was so stunning I was watching one of those crappy travel videos about a place I will never go to (Tacoma Wa) and couldn't turn it off. Now I know more about Tacoma then I ever wanted to.-->>>

I hate to chime in just to say, "me too" but this is pretty much exactly my experience. INHD has all these IMAX films that have been transferred to HD and Japanese documentaries shot in HD and HD travel films and stuff. A lot of it is stuff I'd flip off if the images weren't just so amazing. Instead I'll sit there and watch a travelogue down Route 66 or aerial highlights of California or undersea photography of mollusks and I can't change the channel. This is the stuff.

Christopher C. Murphy · August 2nd, 2004, 01:34 PM

This is hilarious...I thought I was the only one out there watching the travel and nature stuff?

It's even more funny when you guys talk about sports. I've not watched sports since I was a kid, but I swear that it's actually fun to watch it now on HDTV. It's possible that Hockey will become way more popular in the near future....you can see the puck!

Also, anyone else find themselves watching movies they'd never watch? I've been watching some of the corniest 80's movies...INHD has them on all the time. They're so bad, but I can't help but watch the widescreen HD content. I'm sure this will wear off someday, but I've had my HDTV for almost 2 years now!

Murph

Harrison Murchison · August 2nd, 2004, 03:56 PM

LOL...even funnier is that I went to Jr High and HS in Tacoma. Trust me there's nothing there that'll make you book a flight.

Christopher C. Murphy · August 2nd, 2004, 04:21 PM

LOL!!!

Nick Hiltgen · August 4th, 2004, 03:08 PM

I'll chime in as well.

First, regarding european government being more for the people then business oriented, I'm not sure but isn't it much more expensive to get a camera with a firewire in and out in PAL land because then it's classified as a VCR so it costs more tax wise, so companies can sell camera's and decks instead of one camera for both...

Second, I think the old movies you were talking about are 1.85 to 1 or 2.35 or 2.40 to 1 so there will still be some cropping I do not believe they were native content. I think the reason these movies are getting blown up is because the rights are so cheap to purchase.

Third, I don't agreee on the 30" models having the better picture, I have a 42" rear projection LCD that was CHEAPER then the 30" I was looking at and has a picture easily just as good if not better. Best BUy is an awful place to view picture quality because often times one model won't have the correct hook ups or will have the picture quality tweaked (or not) so that it will look better then another model that may be slightly cheaper. (take the pana 50" and the Sony 50" for example same picture quality when turned to cine mode but the sony looks loads better straight out the box)

Let's Also not forget that the FCC did set a hard date for the HDTV switch over but then pushed it back so it is entirely possible that it will get pushed again.

I'm In L.A. and unfortunately I can only get adelphia cable which in my area does not do HDTV when they finally do switch over it only the terrestrial channels, which I was able to get with a set top box already. As a result I went with VOOM which has been amazing, though I must say HD does have some disadvantages, On the Porn Channels you can see everything, which isn't usually all that glamourous, (think cameron diaz's skin only well... everywhere.)

Robert Jackson · August 4th, 2004, 03:24 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Nick Hiltgen :
Second, I think the old movies you were talking about are 1.85 to 1 or 2.35 or 2.40 to 1 so there will still be some cropping I do not believe they were native content. I think the reason these movies are getting blown up is because the rights are so cheap to purchase. -->>>

This is something that's been bugging me a lot with HD. The single big drawback, IMO. There are a lot of movies that air on INHD that I know started out as 2.35 and they're full-screen HD (1.85) when they air. I guess it's not nearly as bad as cropping them for 4:3, but now there are multiple versions of some great films out there in 4:3 for SD, 1.85 for HD and 2.35 for DVD.

Maybe it's just my gear, but 1.66 movies show full screen on my HD set, too. I put in the Criterion DVD of 'A Night To Remember' a few nights ago and it played full screen on my set, even though it's definitely in 1.66. I guess the overscan just shaves off a little of the top and bottom.

July 30th, 2004, 08:49 AM	#17
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	I agree so much with what you said regarding getting used to HDTV and not wanting to look at SD. It has to be something really good for me to watch it. I've found myself watching movies that I'd never watch before on my HDTV because they look so damn good. I remember when I first got HDTV - it was some lame Cameron Diaz chick flick movie. Get this...I watched the whole thing and my girlfriend said she couldn't believe I watched the whole thing. I told her it was a combination of being able to "see everything so clearly", and also being able to see the beautiful girls! It's really life-like when you have all the lights off. Murph __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

July 30th, 2004, 11:11 AM	#19
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	There will soon be HD sets for a couple hundred bucks just like NTSC ones. It's only a matter of time...and not much at that. Also, there is more content in the "vaults" of Hollywood in 16x9 than in other formats...ready to go. We'll soon have "Classic" channels up the wazo in HDTV. There have been 16x9 movies for some 50 odd years now. Also, older television was shot on film too...maybe not 16x9, but they'll tweak it for 16x9 televisions. The 80's brought on horrible video cameras which we all use, but Hollywood has general kept their content HD (or film I should say) since way back before any of our time. My opinion is that Hollywood is going to make a killing for 2nd time on older content first. It's already showing on my HDTV cable system...they have made deals on INHD 1 and 2 for all kinds of old movies. Some I think suck bad, but others aren't to back at all. I can see how they're trying to make money by not spending any right now...and that'll pan out until probably 2006-2007 when all the early adopters are overshadowed by the newbies. The next generation HDTV'ers (3-5 years from now) will most defintely be the ones who spend $$ on HDTV accessories (HD-DVD etc). This one is paying for the Beta testing! Murph __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

July 30th, 2004, 11:30 PM	#22
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> That is why the FCC is mandating Digital Broadcasts. > If we left it up to the broadcasters we'd be using NTSC for > the next decade. The FCC is mandating digital because the hardware manufacterers lobbied theirs heads off to be able to continue to sell TV sets. This didn't happen in Europe, where governments are less influenced by business and more publically-oriented. Even though there are Europe-approved HDTV standards, they are rolling out a backwards-compatible analog high-definition extension to PAL. Because it is compatible with 50 year old analog receivers, it makes sense for the broadcasters to implemente technology that serves their whole audience (not seperate technologies for legacy and new receivers). More info in this other thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&postid=207055 __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

August 2nd, 2004, 01:34 PM	#26
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	This is hilarious...I thought I was the only one out there watching the travel and nature stuff? It's even more funny when you guys talk about sports. I've not watched sports since I was a kid, but I swear that it's actually fun to watch it now on HDTV. It's possible that Hockey will become way more popular in the near future....you can see the puck! Also, anyone else find themselves watching movies they'd never watch? I've been watching some of the corniest 80's movies...INHD has them on all the time. They're so bad, but I can't help but watch the widescreen HD content. I'm sure this will wear off someday, but I've had my HDTV for almost 2 years now! Murph __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

August 2nd, 2004, 04:21 PM	#28
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	LOL!!! __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

July 30th, 2004, 07:53 AM	#16
Robert Jackson Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, CA Posts: 390	<<<-- Originally posted by Jesse Bekas : You know what Anhar, much of the fuss over HD in the US is pretty ridiculous. HD is worthwhile to get worked up about, but it's still so pricey. I don't know about the rest of the wold, but we Americans go crazy for buzzwords and concepts like HiDef (anything that's better than what we have now), but in reality not many people actually have Big-Screen HD sets, and even the small HD sets are still way over priced (and what's the point of a small HD set). -->>> Well, if I can chime in on this, I have a 34" direct-view Sony set. It's one of the multi-synch models that can run native at 1080i, 720p or SD resolutions. I have High Definition cable coming in at 720p and I have a really hard time switching to SD stations. The High Definition signal looks SO good SO much of the time that it's tough to look at SD. And of course there's the aspect ratio. Once you get used to widescreen it's annoying when the black bars pop up on the sides and you have to watch a pan and scan movie. I'd never known how bad a DVD could look until I got an HD set, too. People would complain about bad transfers and I could see a little difference, but it seemed minor until I got a set that resolves so much detail that differences in transfer quality and compression started jumping out at me. Personally I can't wait for high definition video, be it blu-ray or HD-DVD. As more people see the difference firsthand I imagine it will develop a lot more support in the marketplace.

July 30th, 2004, 10:25 AM	#18
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	I don't want you guys to think I am bashing HD here. I have seen the mighty magic of HiDef, and it's almost painful to be stuck watching SD programming all the time. It is similar to having to go back to dialup after using broadband. I want HD to be mainstream enough that we ALL have it on our TVs, and shoot it on our camcorders. Hell, I want it to be so mainstream that while the general public enjoys it, us nuts will be dreaming about UD (Ultra-Def). So while I'm not anti-HD by any means, I am just pointing out that it will be some time before... A) it's affordable for everybody (and don't tell me $1,000 TV is affordable because it isn't for most) B)Most proramming is HD. This is the one that is really gonna take some time because programmers aren't gonna show all HD shows until the majority of the public has the equipment. It's gonna be very "chicken and the egg" for awhile. Consumers are going to have to be convinced that HD is coming immediately, and that they can't live without it. Then after they get the HD sets, and they see there is a lot more SD content than HD, they'll clamor for it in the streets and we'll all get it. ...On a side note, for Robert, HD sets actually have a hinderence with their high pixel counts, to show SD. It has been said in many articles that HD sets make SD content look worse than it actually is. Some of the pixels don't down convert well, and turn into fuzz, and other "artifacts" that would not be seen on an SD set. So if you watch SD on an HD set, that makes it seem like HD is even that much better. For a true comparison you have to watch the same program on 2 sets next to each other, HD on HD, and SD on SD.

July 30th, 2004, 12:39 PM	#20
Robert Jackson Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, CA Posts: 390	<<<-- Originally posted by Jesse Bekas : ...On a side note, for Robert, HD sets actually have a hinderence with their high pixel counts, to show SD. It has been said in many articles that HD sets make SD content look worse than it actually is. Some of the pixels don't down convert well, and turn into fuzz, and other "artifacts" that would not be seen on an SD set. So if you watch SD on an HD set, that makes it seem like HD is even that much better. For a true comparison you have to watch the same program on 2 sets next to each other, HD on HD, and SD on SD. -->>> Well, most sets are doing conversion to their own native display resolution. Especially with plasma sets, I imagine that looks terrible. Like playing a video game at a non-native resolution on your laptop. My set is a CRT set, though, with multisynch. It doesn't upconvert or downconvert, it changes its native display resolution to match incoming content just like a computer monitor.

July 30th, 2004, 12:56 PM	#21
Harrison Murchison Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Seattle Posts: 243	Jesse I don't understand where you're getting this. A. Best Buy, Walmart and Costco all have Hidef screens from $499 on up. Costco just recently sold through the 30" widescreen Philips model for $599. By claiming that Hidef sets are $1000 and ignoring the models below I think you tell a lie by ommission to prove your thesis. B. That is why the FCC is mandating Digital Broadcasts. If we left it up to the broadcasters we'd be using NTSC for the next decade. Here in Washington it's easy to get HD programming. Comcast has been rolling it out and even the smaller fringe cable companies have a decent selection. By 2006 if you want HD you'll be able to get it. I would have to say i'm pretty impressed. The cost of entry to HD has dropped from thousands now to hundreds. I myself will be eyeballing the new Samsung or Toshiba 26" widescreen CRT HDTVs $699 but I know they'll be on sale when I'm ready to buy. There is no reason now to fear the HD rollout. By 2006 a 26" HDTV should be with tuner from multiple major brands for $499 and less for tier 2 brands.

July 31st, 2004, 04:10 PM	#23
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	I was completely unaware of HD sets over 30" for less than $1,000, so if that's what I was implying I was wrong. I really don't understand getting an HD set smaller than 30", though, unless it's for a PC that you'll be sitting right in front of. Considering you can get an SD set of that size for $250, I don't think $500+ for relatively small HD screens is what the general public are willing to pay, thereby keeping HD on the fringe for awhile longer. My original reason for posting anything on this thread, was just to say that HD wasn't already, nor will it soon be mainstream...in 2 years it will be more widely accepted, but will not be mainstream until the larger sets are as cheap as their current SD counterparts, which I can admit, may be a possibilty...and 2 years is not an eternity, but it isn't as "soon" as many people are implying.

August 2nd, 2004, 07:40 AM	#24
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	>>Well, if I can chime in on this, I have a 34" direct-view Sony set. It's one of the multi-synch models that can run native at 1080i, 720p or SD resolutions. I have High Definition cable coming in at 720p << I get Comcast at 1080i and for those who don't think the video look has a future, they are wrong. The look was so stunning I was watching one of those crappy travel videos about a place I will never go to (Tacoma Wa) and couldn't turn it off. Now I know more about Tacoma then I ever wanted to. I'm actually watching baseball on TV for the first time in over 11 years and with Hidef, it's almost as good as being there (will pitchers start having to wear makeup to hide their zits?, hehehe), and Cameraon Diaz really does have a serious skin problem, ouch!!! Film sourced entertainment like NYPD blue and others look outstanding too. btw, for anyone living in the Arlington/DC metro area. The Circuit City at Bailys Crossing is having a fire sale on 'ALL' their HD capable sets,crt and RP based systems are marked down the lowest. They had a 46inch Panasonic RP with stand for 899.00, they had a 26inch 16x9 samsung CRT for under 400. If I had the money I would have bought that one for editing purposes.

August 2nd, 2004, 01:13 PM	#25
Robert Jackson Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, CA Posts: 390	I get Comcast at 1080i and for those who don't think the video look has a future, they are wrong. The look was so stunning I was watching one of those crappy travel videos about a place I will never go to (Tacoma Wa) and couldn't turn it off. Now I know more about Tacoma then I ever wanted to.-->>> I hate to chime in just to say, "me too" but this is pretty much exactly my experience. INHD has all these IMAX films that have been transferred to HD and Japanese documentaries shot in HD and HD travel films and stuff. A lot of it is stuff I'd flip off if the images weren't just so amazing. Instead I'll sit there and watch a travelogue down Route 66 or aerial highlights of California or undersea photography of mollusks and I can't change the channel. This is the stuff.

August 2nd, 2004, 03:56 PM	#27
Harrison Murchison Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Seattle Posts: 243	LOL...even funnier is that I went to Jr High and HS in Tacoma. Trust me there's nothing there that'll make you book a flight.

August 4th, 2004, 03:08 PM	#29
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	I'll chime in as well. First, regarding european government being more for the people then business oriented, I'm not sure but isn't it much more expensive to get a camera with a firewire in and out in PAL land because then it's classified as a VCR so it costs more tax wise, so companies can sell camera's and decks instead of one camera for both... Second, I think the old movies you were talking about are 1.85 to 1 or 2.35 or 2.40 to 1 so there will still be some cropping I do not believe they were native content. I think the reason these movies are getting blown up is because the rights are so cheap to purchase. Third, I don't agreee on the 30" models having the better picture, I have a 42" rear projection LCD that was CHEAPER then the 30" I was looking at and has a picture easily just as good if not better. Best BUy is an awful place to view picture quality because often times one model won't have the correct hook ups or will have the picture quality tweaked (or not) so that it will look better then another model that may be slightly cheaper. (take the pana 50" and the Sony 50" for example same picture quality when turned to cine mode but the sony looks loads better straight out the box) Let's Also not forget that the FCC did set a hard date for the HDTV switch over but then pushed it back so it is entirely possible that it will get pushed again. I'm In L.A. and unfortunately I can only get adelphia cable which in my area does not do HDTV when they finally do switch over it only the terrestrial channels, which I was able to get with a set top box already. As a result I went with VOOM which has been amazing, though I must say HD does have some disadvantages, On the Porn Channels you can see everything, which isn't usually all that glamourous, (think cameron diaz's skin only well... everywhere.)

August 4th, 2004, 03:24 PM	#30
Robert Jackson Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, CA Posts: 390	<<<-- Originally posted by Nick Hiltgen : Second, I think the old movies you were talking about are 1.85 to 1 or 2.35 or 2.40 to 1 so there will still be some cropping I do not believe they were native content. I think the reason these movies are getting blown up is because the rights are so cheap to purchase. -->>> This is something that's been bugging me a lot with HD. The single big drawback, IMO. There are a lot of movies that air on INHD that I know started out as 2.35 and they're full-screen HD (1.85) when they air. I guess it's not nearly as bad as cropping them for 4:3, but now there are multiple versions of some great films out there in 4:3 for SD, 1.85 for HD and 2.35 for DVD. Maybe it's just my gear, but 1.66 movies show full screen on my HD set, too. I put in the Criterion DVD of 'A Night To Remember' a few nights ago and it played full screen on my set, even though it's definitely in 1.66. I guess the overscan just shaves off a little of the top and bottom.