DTLongo:

 "Yet even on regular DVD's when you go to the special features there is somethimes dramatically enhanced sharpness and qualty on the latter relative to the main film."  Ergo, the point is not whether HD/BR DVD's are better than cable so-called HDTV.  They undoubteldly are.  But HD/BR DVD's can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.  If the source movie is fuzzed up or degraded for whatever reason, it will be fuzzed up and degraded on HD/BR as well.  My lament is not with the HDTV technology per se.  It is with Hollywood's poor quality source material. 

 35mm film has resolution limits capable of pushing well beyond 4k.   It's not the film that is at fault but rather......it's the tranfer.  Keep in mind, we're comingling the analog world with digital so there is no exact pixel limit to 35mm film because technically speaking.....film doesn't have pixels.  With that said, 35mm film converted to digital has enough detail to contain up to 20 million "quality" pixels in a single top-quality 35mm shot!!!  The image capturing ability of 35mm is many times greater than video. If you think 50gig blu-rays are big files, just imagine how large a movie file would be at that resolution!!! Unfortunately, no home televisions are capable of displaying anywhere near that much detail.  Maybe sometime in the distant future, most of us will be watching TV with  8098p Displays.  Of course, there will be a few lagging behind in denial while proclaiming they cant see any difference between 8098p and 1080p.

The old classics are capable of looking every bit as good as the new releases if only they put the time and effort into the transfer process.  Just look at how great the newly remastered Blade Runner looks if you want to see the true potential of how good an older movie can look in HD!!  While it's true that a some of the old classics don't look quite as crisp as some new blu-ray releases, you're kidding yourself if you think any low-def movie PQ looks anywhere remotely near as good as high definition. Those are words of denial.

 IMO.... several of the posts in this thread read like those who've never owned a HD/BD player of any kind, and they're trying to rationalize to themselves to gain comfort for their decision to lag behind and for continuing to live in the land of low definition.

 my 2 cents....

srobak:

DTLongo:

If the source movie is fuzzed up or degraded for whatever reason, it will be fuzzed up and degraded on HD/BR as well.

 

Unless of course they have been cleaned up. Examples include Blade Runner and of course what Lucas did to the holy trilogy some 10 years back. However - you are right about a lot of the titles being released on both BR and HDDVD... they are simply upscaled versions of what you have already on DVD. If it wasn't shot with hidef cameras, or thoroughly re-processed for HD... you would actually be better off keeping your SD copies, and playing them in an HD/BR deck, using it's upscaler or the one in your display. Of course - this only makes sense if you have the anamorphic widescreen version. Unfortunately about 70% of the BR/HD stuff currently in print will not look any better than popping in your SD copy and letting the scaler do the work, and thereby there is no justification for purchasing a BR/HD copy at this time.

Now - of course newer films and shows actually shot with HD cameras will look loads better than their released SD counterparts.

 

Case in point.....   You couldn't be any further from the truth.  So long as it makes you feel better while you're watching low definition

Garyrc:

 

Most 35mm film images from the late 1970s on, even after several generations (e.g. camera film or negative, internegative, printing master, print etc.) should have higher resolution that any digital format available in the home, unless the film has been abused, or softened for artistic effect. - Even films of the 1950s, if photographed on an especially large negative (e.g., 65mm), and printed in 70mm, would have higher resolution than HDDVD or BluRay,

Very well stated....  and very true.   I wish I had seen your post before making my own reply on this subject, because it would have saved me the effort of making a large post.

 LOL

Buckeye_Nut:

Case in point.....   You couldn't be any further from the truth.  So long as it makes you feel better while you're watching low definition

You do realize you are contradicting your own post with that statement, right? If you read in the portion of my post which you quoted - I specifically identified Blade Runner as one of the re-mastered titles - just like you did several days later. Fact of the matter is - the majority of the old titles (~70%) being released on HD or BR are NOT being re-mastered before being put on the shelf. They are simply up-scaled - even at 29fps - less than half the frame rate of HD, and it does show. The other 30% of old titles (ala Blade Runner, 5th Element, the original Star Trek series, all the Star Trek movies, Halloween) which have been remastered of course look worlds better. But if you are trying to say that ALL released titles look better on a BR/HD disc vs. an SD disc... you are the one who could not be further from the truth, and are actually huying into the studio hype. 

But hey - if you want to blow your coin on purchasing a new copy of Ferris Beuller's Day Off which you already own on a different format and convince yourself it looks better than letting your HiDef deck upscale your SD version... enjoy. All they did was transfer it from the production master for the SD DVD to the HD format, with no re-mastering. Don't believe me if you don't want to... perform the test yourself. Those of us that have already know better than to blow a bunch of money re-investing in the media library, nevermind the fact that only a select handful of titles would actually be worth re-purchasing anyhow, even if they were lost in a fire.

$.02 

 I can tell by your posts that you are a 'non-adopter' who is completely ignorant on the subject.  If you had meaningful first hand experience with the subject, you'd see how really silly and factually incorrect your statements really are......... 

Your post read like the classic example of an "Internet Expert"....... one who spends large amounts of time reading internet blogs so they think they've become the expert without any meaningful first hand experience on the subject.   You'll believe and say anything to rationalize why you continue to cling to watching  the inferior PQ delivered by DVDs. 

 If you prefer vastly inferior technology, then you go right ahead and enjoy...... but stop spreading ignorant falshoods to make excuses for your inferior low-def reality and it's deficiencies.  As someone who has significant first hand experience on the subject, I can easily see error in your statements.

Buckeye_Nut:

 I can tell by your posts that you are a 'non-adopter'

And I can tell by this opening that you haven't read my posts, as I am in fact an adopter, and am posting from a live, experienced standpoint. As such - it negates the remainder of your post. Now try going back and actually reading the entire content of mine.

srobak:

Buckeye_Nut:

Case in point.....   You couldn't be any further from the truth.  So long as it makes you feel better while you're watching low definition

 

You do realize you are contradicting your own post with that statement, right? If you read in the portion of my post which you quoted - I specifically identified Blade Runner as one of the re-mastered titles - just like you did several days later. Fact of the matter is - the majority of the old titles (~70%) being released on HD or BR are NOT being re-mastered before being put on the shelf. They are simply up-scaled - even at 29fps - less than half the frame rate of HD, and it does show. The other 30% of old titles (ala Blade Runner, 5th Element, the original Star Trek series, all the Star Trek movies, Halloween) which have been remastered of course look worlds better. But if you are trying to say that ALL released titles look better on a BR/HD disc vs. an SD disc... you are the one who could not be further from the truth, and are actually huying into the studio hype. 

But hey - if you want to blow your coin on purchasing a new copy of Ferris Beuller's Day Off which you already own on a different format and convince yourself it looks better than letting your HiDef deck upscale your SD version... enjoy. All they did was transfer it from the production master for the SD DVD to the HD format, with no re-mastering. Don't believe me if you don't want to... perform the test yourself. Those of us that have already know better than to blow a bunch of money re-investing in the media library, nevermind the fact that only a select handful of titles would actually be worth re-purchasing anyhow, even if they were lost in a fire.

$.02 

Not sure where you are getting some of your data from.  Warmer does remaster their products, they actually scan them at a much higher resolution than HD and then convert them to 1080p.   None of the Star Trek movies have been released on HD DVD no has Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Filming is done at 24fps not 60.  To get to 60, which is what the refresh rate of quite a few televisions are today, the players have to convert to 24fps movie to 60fps.  

There are bad transfers done all the time by the studios, some are related to the filming, and some are related to the people at the studio simply doing a bad job.  To say that 70% of the old (or library) material is simply upconverted is not true at all. 

 I don't really know, but a quick perusal through the Dell online catalog seems to see it that way,  I can get an external Blu-Ray player for about $330 and an internal burner for about $999 ( 1000 bucks)...Guess they win, I'll wait till the prices drop and buy the internal drive.

Talk about a seismic shift in the next-generation DVD format war.

Warner Brothers--until now the only studio that was continuing to release titles in both Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD formats--has announced it will be moving to Blu-ray Disc exclusively in 2008.

The studio's decision to go Blu-ray means Blu-ray clearly has the advantage with regard to content: With the backing of Warner plus Blu-ray stalwarts Disney, Fox, Lionsgate, MGM, and Sony, Blu-ray Disc holds the content advantage. It's now the better bet of the two warring formats--if for no other reason that the movies you want are more likely to come out on Blu-ray than on HD DVD.

I fully expected that if Warner was going to make an announcement one way or the other, it would be at next week's International Consumer Electronics Show.

The company got a jump on all the CES news by putting its announcement out today, a day before the first official CES events start in Las Vegas.

Now that Warner has made its move, I'm all the more interested in watching the posturing at CES by the two camps. I know that Warner never wanted to be in the position of deciding the format war by picking a side; yet, that may be what they effectively did by coming out decisively on the side of Blu-ray Disc.

In a statement released today, Warner chairman and CEO Barry Meyer says this move "is a strategic decision focused on the long term and the most direct way to give consumers what they want. The window of opportunity for high-definition DVD could be missed if format confusion continues to linger. We believe that exclusively distributing in Blu-ray will further the potential for mass market success and ultimately benefit retailers, producers, and most importantly, consumers."

Just one year ago, Warner was touting its Total High-Def dual-format disc solution to the format war. However, in spite of the company's grandiose plans, the option of creating a disc with both formats (one on each side) was never commercially viable, and the company quietly tabled the idea later in 2007.

Warner says it will continue to release titles in standard DVD and Blu-ray. Thereafter, after a "short window" passes, the studio will continue to release new titles in HD DVD until the end of May 2008. The company's initial statement gives no indication as to why they plan to continue offering new titles in HD DVD.

Back in August 2007, Paramount, the only other studio to release discs in both formats, went HD DVD exclusively.

Warner's move was not entirely unanticipated, based on murmurs I've heard in back rooms and conversation. The studio had stated openly at October's Blu-ray Festival that it was revisiting the practicality of releasing titles in both formats, and would be looking at making a decision on its direction by the beginning of the new year.

Although Blu-ray has ridden a high this year with regard to disc sales, the format has seen HD DVD make some inroads recently--particularly with last November's $100 pre-holiday sell-off of older HD DVD models.

This announcement by Warner certainly gives Blu-ray a much-needed booster shot--and looks to solidify Blu-ray's lead in the format war.

I can say without any question that all Blu-ray movies look better than that of upconverted standard def DVDs.  I can't say that for a fact about HD-DVD, but I bet it is true for that format as well.  There are several movies with poor HD transfers.  The first release of The Fifth Element (a movie that I hate) and Dracula, but both are still better than the DVD.  The vast, vast majority of Blu-rays just blow the DVDs completely out of the water.  The other thing that reviewers tend to neglect is the higher quality of the sound on HD disks and bitrate.  Finally, many newer TVs can have a refresh rate in integrals of 24p, that do mimic the quality of film.  This is only available on HD media, and the TV must be able to accept 1080p signals.  As to the original post, yes, Blu-ray has won.  I am sorry to those that bought into HD-DVD, but there will be one format by the end of 2008.  I tried to tell people about the upcoming Warner switch, but whther you like it or not, Universal and Paramount are getting tons of pressure to release in Blu-ray, and their window for being exclusive to HD-DVD is about to close.  If you have questions about it, pay close attention to their press releases.  At no time do they say that they will not be exclusive to HD-DVD, only that they continue to support it.  For those of you out of the loop, by June of 2008, Warner, MGM, Sony, Disney, Fox, HBO, National Geographic, New Line, and several smaller studios will be Blu-ray exclusive.  BBC currently releases in both formats.  Universal and Paramount/Dreamworks are the only HD-DVD studios.  Winesteins have not committed to either for the most part, and Paramount's contract lasts only through the end of 2008 and some believe they have an out if Warner switches which they did.

I enjoyed reading ButterNut's comments.

I guess it is now more than 10 years ago that a fresh print of Casablanca was shown here in Chicago.  Just wonderful detail.  For example, Sam's white coat was satin and Rick's was linen.

It is difficult to know the quality of all the stuff in the vaults in Hollywood and whether dyes have faded with or without correction. 

It would be interesting to see  three-strip Technicolor which was, of course, recorded on black and white film, through filters, IIRC, converted to the highest digital archiving.

Gil

Just adding my .02c to the conversation, I strongly prefer HD-DVD to Blu-Ray. I own 2 BluRay players, PS3 and the Sony BDP-S500.  I also have the Toshiba A20 for HD-DVD.  First off, the sound quality for HD-DVD in my setup sounds superior.  This is in part due to my inability to get either of my Blu-Ray players to run at anything over 48k. Maybe this is the reason for my bias. 

 Video quality is far superior with my HD-Dvd player.  It has AMAZING upconverting capibilities as well as far superior HD video quality.  Both have good quality, but for me HDDVD stands out way ahead of BluRay.  To top all of this off, I paid 250 bucks for the HD-DVD and 900 for the BluRay - Go figure!

As to the people that don't think HD-DVD or Bluray are superior to DVD, you are smoking rocks.  I am an audio and video nut, and either format is leaps and bounds over regular DVD.  While I will say, the upconverting capibilities of the A-20 are amazing, and the best of any upconverting player I have ever owned (and I have owned many), it is still significantly behind either hd format.

Once again, just my .02.