Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

173 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

slashdot users == goat felchers (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17334866)


 

I know this'll burn karma... (4, Interesting)

DarkHelmet (120004) | more than 7 years ago | (#17334876)

But what would be even nicer than having a list of nice HD movies, how about a nice guide of HD sets that accept 1080p via composite input or VGA input?

After all, what good is having a 360 HD drive when you're only going to be watching the stuff at 720p or 1080i anyhow?

Anyone?

Re:I know this'll burn karma... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17335008)

1080p transmission is a farce when you're dealing with movies. There is basically no difference between transmitting in 1080i vs 1080p when viewing content at or below 30 frames/second.

When talking about high def tv's, you're mostly talking about progressive displays (plasma, lcd, dlp, lcos, etc...) and in the US those displays are running at 60hz or 60 frames per second. Movies on the other hand are shot and encoded at 24fps. Now both an hd-dvd player and a blu-ray player, whether by component, dvi or hdmi are transmitting data to your tv at 60 fps. 1080i sends half the image on cycle 1 and half the image on cycle 2, your tv deinterlaces the image fields and shows you a progressive image for 2 frames. 1080p on the other hand sends the whole image on cycle 1, and nothing on cycle 2, and shows the progressive image for 2 frames as well. When you put down $1000 for a 1080p player, you've just paid $500 extra for a marketing term and the belief that movies will ever be shot at 60fps in the forseeable future.

Alot of people will probably chime in and start screaming about interlace artifacts right now. The only way you get interlace artifacts on a progressive tv, is if the source material was shot as interlaced, for example http://thewebfairy.com/911/presentation/artifact.h tm [thewebfairy.com] , but both hd-dvd and blu-ray, and presumably network tv are all shot in a progressive format, so your deinterlacer is reassembling the same image you'd see over 1080p.

Re:I know this'll burn karma... (3, Informative)

DrXym (126579) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335062)

When talking about high def tv's, you're mostly talking about progressive displays (plasma, lcd, dlp, lcos, etc...) and in the US those displays are running at 60hz or 60 frames per second. Movies on the other hand are shot and encoded at 24fps.

Except that some TVs can output in 1080p/24. So they can show the movie at the same frame rate as it appeared in the cinema. Getting a player to output in that is another matter. The PS3 can't (at the moment), but allegedly a firmware patch will add that support (see here [beyond3d.com] for details).

Re:I know this'll burn karma... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17335210)

Except that some TVs can output in 1080p/24.
True, but regardless of the actual rate at which the display refreshes the picture, the tv is still operating at and receiving transmitted data over hdmi and component at 60hz. Its up to your hd-dvd/blu-ray/media center as to whether to send data each cycle or not.

Re:I know this'll burn karma... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17335708)

The only way you get interlace artifacts on a progressive tv, is if the source material was shot as interlaced, for example http://thewebfairy.com/911/presentation/artifact.h tm [thewebfairy.com] , but both hd-dvd and blu-ray, and presumably network tv are all shot in a progressive format, so your deinterlacer is reassembling the same image you'd see over 1080p.
No, the deinterlacer is trying to reassemble the separate fields of an interlaced image to a frame. To do this, is has to guess where the 2:3 cadence falls, and detect whenever there are glitches (bad edits). While modern deinterlacers are actually quite good at guessing, none are perfect. Additionally, this makes it unneccesary hard to smoothly play movies at 24Hz, 48Hz or 72Hz to avoid the judder inherent in 60Hz playback.

The interlacing part isn't as simple as you make it out to be. For film it's actually showing the odd lines of the first movie frame, the even lines of the same frame, then repeates the odd lines, shows the even lines of the second frame, then the odd lines of the second frame. Note that inbetween there's a video frame that is made up of odd lines of the first movie frame and the even lines of the second, so the deinterlacer has to start assembling some frames with odd fields and some with even ones. More on this in Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] or secrets of home theater and hifi [hometheaterhifi.com] .

Re:I know this'll burn karma... (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335922)

Shouldn't scenes with motion appear smoother at 1080i @ 60 FPS than 1080p @ 30 FPS?

Re:I know this'll burn karma... (5, Informative)

matt328 (916281) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336588)

It all depends what FPS the content was created at. If you're talking video games, its 'content' is created procedurally by a GPU at as many FPS as it can crank out. If you've got a movie that was shot at 30 FPS, viewing it at 60 FPS will cause each source frame to be displayed on the tv for 2 frames (or cycles, or whatever you want to call it). Even though the FPS on a tv is higher, it depends on the FPS of the content you're displaying.

An example would be if in one frame of a 30 FPS source, my hand is on the left side of your screen. My hand moves so quickly to the right so that in the next frame it appears on the right side of the screen. So one frame has my hand at the left, then the very next has my hand at the right. Even if you view it at 100000 FPS (impossible, I know, but stay with me) there would be 50000 frames showing my hand at the left, followed by 50000 frames with my hand at the right. Even though you raise the FPS, there are still no frames that exist with my hand anywhere in between left and right. Unless 60 FPS TVs are able to interpolate between the two, there's just nothing available to show during the 'extra' frame so it stays the same.

When it comes down to it, a movie is still a finite amount of pictures shown in rapid succession (mainly 30 of them per second). Even though a TV can be capable of displaying twice that many in a second, it's not capable of 'making stuff up' to show you every other frame. So I guess I'm trying to say its the content, not the TV that determines the 'smoothness'.

Re:I know this'll burn karma... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17336686)

No, since the original was shot in only 24fps.

Re:I know this'll burn karma... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336008)

First off, the one that's dead wrong. Network TV is not filmed in progressive, or if they did it's not sent as telecine. Plenty interlacing artifacts there.

Secondly, when you make 24p to 60i you get as follows (1/12th of a second):
1A 2A
1B 2B
to
1A 1A 2A 2A 2A
1B 1B 1B 2B 2B

You actually send half of these in 60i, but that's the result. See the interlaced frame? Each frame gets 5 half-frames, but you can't split that evenly. You could give one frame 4 half-frames and the other 6, but that'd lead to stuttering. However, all the information is preserved so you can via 3:2 pulldown show the original 24p, but not on a 60p screen (unless it does 24, 48 or 72Hz as an option).

So 1080p24 playback does help, if your TV can play it back frame-accurate. If it needs to run at 60Hz, doesn't matter. Of course, I still hope we'll get p60 and that interlacing can die very soon. Ever notice that interlacing died in PC monitors sometime in the 1990s?

Re:I know this'll burn karma... (1)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336238)

well, the other argument is video games. both the Xbox 360 and PS3 can play games at 1080p and some already at 60FPS, Not to mention the Xbox 360 has an internal scaler to upscale 720p games to 1080i/p if so desired, you'd be halving your frame rate if you used this feature and neglected to

you're absolutely right about showing low frame rate films... but I wouldn't be so sure about films NOT going to 60FPS in the future. Movie frame rates are low because back on the old film reels the lower the framerate the smaller the reel it was easier and cheaper to handle and ship. I wouldn't be surprised of 60FPS films and TV shows started popping up now that the technology is in place. if you shoot a film in digital it doesn't really change much to shoot it at 24fps or 60fps. Maybe a little more work in editing but in terms of equipment and cost... storage is cheap.

Re:I know this'll burn karma... (1)

Harlockjds (463986) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336470)

>both the Xbox 360 and PS3 can play games at 1080p and some already at 60FPS,

Really? Can you name a game doing so? i was under the impression that ps3 developers were shooting for 720p because of the FPS hit they took at 1080P.

Re:I know this'll burn karma... (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336728)

On the PS3, some games are 720p (most of the big hitters like Resistance and Motorstorm, for instance), but others (Ridge 7 for a start) are 1080p.

Right now, I think the only 1080p-native title on the 360 is that vertical shmup that was on Live Arcade last week, because it's such a new feature, but everything else can be internally scaled from 720p because Microsoft had the foresight to put a hardware scaler in there, unlike Sony.

Re:I know this'll burn karma... (4, Informative)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336532)

I have no mod points, so I can only respond and say you're right. The source material of HD DVDs and Blu-Ray discs is 1080P. If there's an exception, you'd note it on the back of the case. From what I understand, if the source material is 1080P but your TV is 1080i, you most likely won't see any difference unless you have a very poor deinterlacer.

Even if your TV is 720P, you'll still see a difference between regular broadcast / DVD and HD discs. Some people (myself included) claim to see a difference between HD discs and HD broadcast; for me, this is mostly due to HD DVDs having none of the compression artifacts and color banding you find occasionally on your HD broadcast.

PAL TV System handles film much better (0)

readerr0 (1042754) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336550)

The PAL TV System actually does a much better job at handling interlaced and progressive content than NTSC. This is because PAL is 25FPS. So when 24FPS films, HD Shows and such are transferred to PAL, the film is sped up by 3% to 25FPS. While it may sound like a bad thing, it means the full progressive image is preserved when transmitted over ANY PAL system, interlaced or progressive. This means that basicly all non-live footage seen on HD PAL 1080i Channels is actually 1080p. The same goes for 576i (which is much better than NTSC's 480i, but thats another story). So the push for 1080p is even more useless in PAL countries.

Re:I know this'll burn karma... (0)

Fizzl (209397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335044)

There is no such thing.
HDMI is the only way. Protected video path and all that DRM shit.

I think you can't watch even 1080i without HDMI.

--
"I know this'll burn my karma..." What the fuck? Fuck off wanker! I hate you assholes who add a mention of karma in nonsensical posts just to get it modded somewhere. Is this post solely for karma whoring? No-one can't be as stupid as think you can get HD through composite. Atleast no-one who actually owns a HD set. So we have two options: 1) Clueless wanker who has too much money to burn. 2) Clueless wanker who is living in his mothers basement, doesn't know anything about HDTV and posts random shit to every fucking slashdot thread.
Ah... Damn it feels good to flame someone into oblivion when having a terrible terrible hangover.
HAND!

Re:I know this'll burn karma... (2, Informative)

iainl (136759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335074)

1) No, 1080i and 1080p work just fine on the 360. Image Constraint Token has not been implemented on a single public disc yet, and is highly unlikely any time in the near future, given the speed at which these add-on drives are flying off the shelf. By the time it does become an issue, you'll have almost certainly got your $199 worth of fun out of the drive, and the standalone players that you'll need will have come down by that much.

2) The grandparent is strictly off-topic. Burning karma to get his question answered is, I'd suggest, a real issue.

Re:I know this'll burn karma... (1)

henryhbk (645948) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336554)

I happily watch 1080i over DVI and over component all the time. No reason you can't do this without HDMI. HDMI does offer additional advantages, but 1080i is not one of them.

Re:I know this'll burn karma... (1)

robbiedo (553308) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336190)

The Xbox 360 with HD-DVD player outputs 1080p over component. No difference in 1080/p or 10802 because movies are 24 frames/sec.

Re:I know this'll burn karma... (2, Informative)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336774)

After all, what good is having a 360 HD drive when you're only going to be watching the stuff at 720p or 1080i anyhow?

Anyone?


Um, because it will still look an order of magnitude better than 480i?

If that's the best, they're in trouble. (2, Insightful)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 7 years ago | (#17334888)

Let's see;
  • BATMAN BEGINS (forgive the caps, I'm copy 'n pasting). I own it on DVD and I still haven't been able to sit through it.
  • THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, which made a good friend of mine motion sick.
  • HULK, which I thought was roundly considered awful.
  • MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III, starring the recently disowned by his old studio Tom Cruise.
Meanwhile, it looks like some good movies were completely screwed up, such as Army of Darkness.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17334930)

Batman Begins [imdb.com] is #88 on the IMDB Top 250 and is rated a solid 8.3. Do you really expect us to take you seriously when you're trashing what is arguably the best superhero movie (let alone Batman movie) in the past decade?

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (1)

Scudsucker (17617) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335318)

Blade 2 is the best, imo.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (3, Funny)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335870)

Not just trashing it, trashing it on a geek site!

Batman Begins is back to the darkness, not quite Burton style, but very far from
Batman & Robin. I'm sure the original poster just got Batman titles confused..
Give him a notice for the record, and pull his geek license next time it happens.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (1)

robbiedo (553308) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336210)

I bought the Xbox 360 and HD-DVD player. The first movie I watched was on a 106" screen and an native 720p projector. Just a wonderful movie and great resolution when blown up this large compared to standard dvd.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336256)

Being the best superhero movie is like being the tallest dwarf at the circus, and imdb is infested with raving fanboys who think the film industry started in 1990.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (2, Insightful)

jgoemat (565882) | more than 7 years ago | (#17334972)

  1. BATMAN BEGINS, the best Batman movie in my opinion
  2. THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, another excellent movie, although I didn't like the jerky camera action either, but I understand why it was necessary to hide the poor fight-work
  3. HULK, guess you missed Ebert and Roper giving it two thumbs up
  4. MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III, I haven't seen this one. If someone I know owns it I may borrow it, but I'm not going to give Tom Cruise one more dollar to give to Scientology.
What good movies (other than Army of Darkness) were the losers? Oh, I see at the bottom that "Field of Dreams", "Crash" and "A Christmas Story" are dishonorable mentions...

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17335180)

The last few years, Ebert and Roeper don't seem to grade what they think about the movie so much but how much the intended audience will enjoy it. At least, this is what Ebert does, don't know Roeper enough to really say.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (1)

Cheetahfeathers (93473) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335184)

The Bourne Supremacy fights were disappointing after watching Bourne Identity. BI had amazingly good fights that used Krav Maga and Escrima/Kali fighting styles to great effect.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (2, Funny)

PingSpike (947548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336222)

In the BS fight scenes, as near as I could tell, Matt Damon rolled around on the floor with a RealDoll while the director shook the camera hard enough to give old Star Trek space ship combat scenes are run for their money.

If Matt Damon was doing something else, I apologize...because I COULDN'T SEE A GOD DAMN THING.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336310)

I don't know if Ebert's opinion counts for anything, he seems to be going senile. Gives pretty much every film four stars no matter how average it is. I don't know anyone who thought Hulk was anything other than awful.

And it's funny to see Ebert slam a film in the 70s/80s, then come back twenty years later and hail it as a 'Great Movie' when he realises everyone else liked it. The man's a fraud.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17336514)

OK, Batman Begins is admittedly the best batman movie to date and all-in-all a decent movie...(thanks mr patrick bateman)
The Bourne Supremacy isn't as good as the first one but still a decent movie too...

But the two other are pure bull crap, and no cinema geek with an ounce of self respect could admit to stand through those...believe me i got most of the early hd release but would rather watch a telesync-level transfer of a good '40 movie than those horrible flicks in pristine studio like quality.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17335072)

"Army of Darkness" may be a cult classic, but that does not make it a good movie.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (3, Funny)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336344)

Tell that to the boom stick.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335076)

Batman Begins is a great movie, as is the Bourne Supremacy. Can't say I think much of the other two although MI:III was supposed to be a fairly good popcorn flick even if it did contain a diminuitive AC:DC weirdo in its lead role.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335102)

I flat-out adored three of your list, and even Hulk was passable.

But this isn't about quality of film, it's quality of transfer, and of the HD discs I've seen of either format, Hulk was probably the best overall; the picture is just jaw-droppingly good, with luminous colour and natural texture.

Second best I'd place Casablanca, and if you're going to call that shit, you can step outside.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (5, Insightful)

Mark Maughan (763986) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335108)

Batman Begins was arguably the best superhero movie ever.

Hulk was a Shakespearian, father-son conflict, tragedy shot comic book panel style. The only reason people thought it was awful was because they came wanting to see some piece of shit like Fantastic 4 and instead got a more thoughtful, artistic masterpiece. It was a highbrow movie about lowbrow subject matter.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335198)

Sorry you got modded by some idiot as a Troll. Because you're not.

Personally, I was fairly disappointed by Hulk, because in trying to have its artistic cake and also trying to eat big CG-heavy action sequences, it fell between two stools. I thought most of the second hour could do with a serious trim, people who just wanted to see HULK SMASH!!! would want most of the first hour gone, and ultimately everyone lost. Oh well, at least he tried.

Mind you, I'm sure that some people would say the same about Batman Begins, and I loved that.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (1)

Scudsucker (17617) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335306)

I think one reason there wasn't more action was because the CGI was ungodly expensive. IIRC Ang Lee said the dogfight scene alone cost $20-$30 mil.

I also liked how they actually took the time to set up charachters, as opposed to X-Men and Spider-Man which felt edited to the bone. Not one extra second in any scene in those two movies.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335370)

That's true. It also possibly explains why so many of the big scenes (the dogs and the climax in particular) took place at night, where you can hide the rough bits in the shadows.

Which is what really annoyed me about the film, I think - bits of it were just so dark I couldn't actually see what was going on any more.

But yes, having some time for characters really worked with Hulk. Unlike most of the Batman sequels, where they throw so many villains at it that no-one (least of all Bruce Wayne) gets enough character time to give them some depth.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (1, Funny)

joshetc (955226) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336430)

IMO he deserves to be modded a troll. Unless I am blind he slammed Fantastic Four, which has Jessica Alba in it, which automatically makes it one of the best movies of all time.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17336552)

Is she the new Natalie Portman?

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (1)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335950)

Batman Begins was arguably the best superhero movie ever.
If you like tired cliches, unnecessarily brutal violence and a movie that doesn't really get started until half way through maybe. Oh well, at least if it's as popular as you say it should be easy to eBay.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336618)

I um guess you missed that whole "Batman" portion of the title there. Who DOESNT go to a batman movie and not expect to see brutal violence.... unless your into that whole 60's batman thing.

That being said, Begins was a lot LESS violent then say the original Burton films where the death count for villans was like a rolling counter in the upper right hand corner.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (4, Funny)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335978)

Hulk was a Shakespearian, father-son conflict
I tried to get Hulk via P2P to see if it was as bad as everyone said but it turned out to be a renamed porn movie file with some seriously hot action. I was happy.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (2, Funny)

JFMulder (59706) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336528)

This reminds me of an old Penny-Arcade strip [penny-arcade.com] .

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17335146)

Ugh. You and your friends obviously have no taste at all.

Go back to watching fucking Borat again, fellate your personal Will Ferrell doll, and leave actual movies to those with a modicum of intelligence and taste.

(Except for MI:3. That freakin' scientologist won't get a dime from me).

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (1)

schnooka_boy (1023007) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335564)

It's not the Blu-Ray's fault most movies in the last year have been miserable.

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (1)

maximthemagnificent (847709) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335760)

Call me crazy, but aren't a lot of these movies terrible because they were high on effects,
and low on plot/story? Isn't that the kind of movie that benefits most from HD?

Maxim

Re:If that's the best, they're in trouble. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17336116)

gonna have to agree here, DEVIL WEARS PRADA best movie, FIFTH ELEMENT the worse??? Ok maybe if you are gay.

Missing the point (1)

denebian devil (944045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336472)

All nonsensical rantings and ravings about Batman Begins aside, you seem to have missed the point. If you read the descriptions in TFA, you would note that very rarely did the article talk about whether the movie itself was good (with the possible exception of his reference to Army of Darkness as a cult flick). The article was specifically rating the DVDs on the HD advantages they provided: better sound and video quality, extras that utilize HD-only features, etc. Things like storyline, plot, dialog, etc. were never an issue for the reviewer. So it was entirely possible for a "bad" movie to be a "good" HD movie, or vice versa, based on the reviewer's rubric.

And I really hope you were confusing Batman Begins with one of the other movies, because if not, that just kills any slashdot-based geek cred you may have.

Open Source Strike (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17334982)

What? You expect us to run for free for the imaginary "venture capitalist"?

Code remains closed and in closed-doors development, and we are out of competition until they decide to put money.
Time is money for those who ought to pay. For us, no-funds - no-worries.

Take that google freaks!

Never overestimate the loser potential of Anoracks (2, Interesting)

BristolCream (102658) | more than 7 years ago | (#17334984)

This list seems to miss one crucial point: people watch movies for entertaiment. For the vast majority it's all about being told a good story, not studying the quality of the latest movig image to be projected onto a wall/into a box/whatever.

Imagine having a collection that included films like hulk, mission: impossible iii and superman returns (I refuse to capitalise the titles - they're that bad). i'd rather spend the time beatig myself about the head with a dead salmon.

The majority of films in this list are appalling.

Which I suppose at least tells us the sort of people that are driving this insane rush to upgrade formats that simply don't need upgrading. If anyone for Sony is reading this, there's a lesson hidden in my title.

Re:Never overestimate the loser potential of Anora (2, Interesting)

Duds (100634) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335070)

Oh I think they know, but it's not hard to find reviews of these movies on an entertainment basis. It's surprisingly difficult to find reviews of "Let's assume you like this movie, here's how pretty this version is".

Re:Never overestimate the loser potential of Anora (1)

xav_jones (612754) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335628)

A good, comprehensive review site, that includes "how pretty this version is", is http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/ [michaeldvd.com.au] -- at least for Region 4 DVDs.

Re:Never overestimate the loser potential of Anora (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335596)

The reason the list is decidedly anorak-ish is because those are who the early adopters are. They are technophiles who absolutely must absolutely new gadgets even if it costs 3 times as much to buy 1st gen bugged hardware. While these people have very questionable judgement skills, the likes of Sony, Toshiba etc. still want to attract them to their platform in the hopes that Blu-Ray or HD-DVD will win more converts. Hence the reason for all of the crappy discs released so far.

Normal people wait for the prices to drop to reasonable levels. I expect players will cost half as much in 6 months. Once HD players enter the mainstream you might even see a broader selection of titles come out.

Classics like Cassablanca, Searchers, Robin Hood? (1)

Fezmid (774255) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336632)

I see people bashing the title selections, but there are a lot of very good movies available that havn't been made in the last ten years (none on Blu-Ray yet, only HD-DVD). I'm not sure everyone actually knows about these.

Searchers (Wayne):
http://www.amazon.com/The-Searchers-HD-DVD/dp/B000 HEVZ8K/sr=11-1/qid=1166798118/ref=sr_11_1/102-7175 168-2871323 [amazon.com]

Casablanca:
http://www.amazon.com/Casablanca-HD-DVD/dp/B000I0R R7Q/sr=11-1/qid=1166798133/ref=sr_11_1/102-7175168 -2871323 [amazon.com]

Robin Hood (classic):
http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Robin-Hood-HD-DVD /dp/B000I0RR76/sr=1-1/qid=1166798143/ref=pd_bbs_sr _1/102-7175168-2871323?ie=UTF8&s=dvd [amazon.com]

And to a lesser extent, the original Willy Wonka:
http://www.amazon.com/Willy-Wonka-Chocolate-Factor y-HD-DVD/dp/B000IXZ7M0/sr=11-1/qid=1166798273/ref= sr_11_1/102-7175168-2871323 [amazon.com]

So let's not jump to conclusions that the only movies available on the new formats suck. There are plenty of great movies available for HD-DVD.

You may not believe in this but (0, Offtopic)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335016)

superheroe movies/comics are just an expression about crisis times. SH comics and movies went extremely popular during the Great Depression and post WWII times. It's not a surprise that today they are more popular than ever. 9/11 made Americans (and not only americans, may I add) feel like victims . Super hero movies, allow the viewer to identify with a powerful white male defending the status quo from evil-doers. They spend the whole movie trying to prevent a war from happening. And no, that's not comunistic bullshit I'm talking about even if you may think so.

Re:You may not believe in this but (-1, Offtopic)

Sinryc (834433) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335080)

No, it may not be communistic, but it is off topic! Now, someone mod the both of us down!

Re:You may not believe in this but (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17335368)

You may not be a total faggot but you do have aids and genital warts!

They all look the same... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17335038)

They all look the same...when you can't watch them at all.

Seriously, please don't buy into HD, unless the DRM madness ends. A few extra pixels are not worth our rights, nor the damage to the open source community.

Re:They all look the same... (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335114)

Erk, but DVDs have DRM so what other video format are you talking about? VHS? Good luck trying to sell that to people.

Besides, I fully expect that you'll see a flood of DVD players capable of playing high definition DIVX / AVC content from a burnt DVD before long, with tools and rippers to extract them from the source material.

Re:They all look the same... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17335174)

The DRM used on HD discs is on a completely different level. If enough people willingly accept it, we may be stuck with it forever, and that will mean running Windows or OSX if you want to watch movies.

I would also advocate not buying DVDs, but in reality it is not as bad. Since the DRM has been cracked, you can still exercise your rights, wether this is watching them in Linux or backing them up.

Re:They all look the same... (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335362)

Of course the DRM is on a completely different level. Does that mean it's uncrackable though? The problem faced by all DRM is that the key used for decryption has to be stored somewhere locally and the player still has to output video and audio so people can see / hear it. Which means that no DRM will ever prevent content from being stolen. Somebody will either find a weakly protected key, or produce an HDMI dongle that sits between the player and TV and rips the content on its way through. My understanding is that HDCP has already been cracked so that last option is already feasible if you want to back them up (or pirate them).

Anyway, as you mention Linux, remember that very few commercial DVD players exist on Linux and it took years for DVD support to arrive. But it's here, in spite of any official support. Who's to say that sooner or later the same won't happen with HD movie content?

Re:They all look the same... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17336502)

It may or may not be crackable, but I am not one to gamble with our rights. In any case, the current DRM implementation will be considerably more difficult to crack. The keys are kept in hardware, and never leave the chip; this requires a hardware based attack, and few people have the resources to do it. Someone isn't going to simply happen upon the keys like in the past with DVDs. As for HDCP, even if it is cracked, that does not help if you want to watch legally purchased HD movies on Linux. You still need a standalone player, and the resources to deal with an uncompressed HD stream; aside from requiring extra hardware, this is completely unmanageable for most everyone. Why the hell should I care about commercial DVD players on Linux anyways? Aside from the fact that it defeats the purpose of free software, such software will never exist for HD playback. That would require a DRM capable Linux distribution which is fully locked down, and that simply won't happen.

Re:They all look the same... (4, Insightful)

iainl (136759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335176)

VHS only doesn't have DRM because the D stands for Digital, anyway. The Analogue Rights Management of Macrovision is (if anything) worse, because it's actually affecting picture quality, unlike on a DVD or HD-DVD where it's invisible on a working machine.

Re:They all look the same... (1)

nih (411096) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336790)

A few extra pixels are not worth our rights
Won't somebody think of the children?

No matter how high the resolution (3, Funny)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335042)

The Hulk was utterly mediocre. Wouldn't buy it for $4.99, let alone whatever it is high def movies fetch.

Where are the real classics that I would actually want to see in hi-def?

Re:No matter how high the resolution (1)

Sinryc (834433) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335098)

Waiting to be put out so that the winner is what format they will go on.

Re:No matter how high the resolution (3, Informative)

iainl (136759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335138)

I'd suggest you start with Casablanca, which is even better than that blurb makes it sound - the amount of texture detail and those deep shadows are just stunning. I can't believe this film looks better than I've seen far more recent movies look when projected from actual 35mm film, when watching on an 8ft screen.

Next up, and almost as good (the larger grain of the original print being pretty much about it) is The Searchers. Finish off an initial purchase run with Forbidden Planet, and you'll be very happy.

Blu-Ray has suffered quite a bit, if you ask me, from a studio perception that it's going to be almost entirely for people with PS3s, rather than standalone players. So the movies are being picked to appeal to that sector of the market, and pretty much only that.

"High-Def Digest" (0)

Doug Neal (195160) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335090)

Say it 20 times quickly... bet you can't.

They might be good HD (4, Insightful)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335202)

But most of these aren't good films.

Sorry, but I'd rather watch a good film with a good plot and good acting on VHS any day over a whizz-bang technical film with crappy pretty-boy/barbie-girl actors and a script written by a committee...

I'll pass on this one

Re:They might be good HD (2, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335902)

Sorry, but I'd rather watch a good film with a good plot and good acting on VHS any day over a whizz-bang technical film with crappy pretty-boy/barbie-girl actors and a script written by a committee...

Spoken like someone without an HDTV.

When most people first get an HDTV set, they will watch anything in HD, no matter how inane, just for the visual quality. The wow-factor tends to wear off after 6-9 months, but just about everyone with an HDTV set still remembers those first few months where the only thing that mattered was picture quality.

Guilty! (1)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336326)

Dude, when I got my first HD set, I started watching PBS because they had these incredible wildlife and wilderness images on their HD channel. PB-fucking-S! I hate those wankers, but I could not get over the picture quality. If not for DirecTV-HD (who is just now shipping their HD-DVR) I would still be watching cheetahs drag racing antelope over desert tundra.

Perhaps others have different taste (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17336018)

I am so fucking sick of this elitist attitude on /. when it comes to music and movies.

FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!!!!

obviously some people liked these movies as they made huge fucking profits in the theatre and DVD sales.

Just because you didn't like it means it sucks. I am sure the other 500 guys who fucked your girlfriend in the ass before you met her thought it sucked but you seem content with it.

Man I wish you would just go home and kill you fucking self.

God I hate you. You embody everything wrong with the world today.

YOU SUCK.
MERRY FUCKING CHRISTMAS ASSHAT!!!!
GO DIE!!!

Re:They might be good HD (3, Funny)

the_womble (580291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336242)

You are clearly an eccentric.

What has good plot and good acting got to do with making a good film?

The measure of a good film is how much money is spent on making it: especilly how much is spent on marketing.

Re:They might be good HD (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336608)

It seems to me that any product will mold itself to the technological capabilities of the time, and a skilled producer will maximize the value of the technology, even if the use is gratuitous.

That said, many of these films, even though they are trite and in 5 years will seem dated, do appear to make every use of the technological innovation. Since the innovations are largely visual, the improvements are largely visual as well, which leads to the issue that money is spent on fx rather than writing dialog. This is probably similir to when entertainemnt went from radio to film and the dialog was depreciated, see for instance Metropolis. OTOH, it is completely different from when we went to talkies and dialog was the big thing, see Casablanca.

And these innovations also effect the necessary features of actors. What type of face and body will be needed to fill the screen? Will there be lots of closeup? It delivery important, or will the movie be carried by the body motion? Can we use the lighting excuse to cast most light complexioned people, or do we have the ability to film darker people? Do we need large or small features?

What is interesting, and what was started by Lucas, is that every movie is essentially becoming a computer generated animated feature. This makes sense because the new formats are perfectly designed for computer generated content, in which the fuzzy featured of real life, automatically averaged out on film, do not appear in animation, but the level of modeling is good enough to deliver significant fidelity. This is different from the similar Spielberg that were, in some sense, much more practical. As LOTR has shown, a combination of the practical and the animated can be very effective, and the digital, though in some ways inferior, provides significant benefits. Another good example of this is the completely practical film, 'Once Upon a Time in Mexico'.

So, while I agree that many of the films are not interesting to me, i appreciate that they are a product of the times. We can't just sit in 1950 and pretend that everything is perfect.

How could they screw up 'Fifth Element'? (2, Interesting)

MisterSquiddy (905066) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335302)

It is utterly bewildering that 'Fifth Element' could end up looking so poor. I have the Superbits version on DVD and through an average CRT telly and Toshiba DVD player this looks absolutely fantastic. But then this happened with a lot of early DVDs. The early transfer of 'Blade Runner' is truly shocking, looking little better than those bootleg made by people in cinemas with camcorders. I can't wait for the remastered version, even at SD.

Re:How could they screw up 'Fifth Element'? (1)

PoconoPCDoctor (912001) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335992)

I'm awaiting delivery of my new techie toy - a 50" Vizio HD Plasma tv. I was looking forward to finding some great sci-fi flicks to check it out - I'm off the next week. The Fifth Element is one of my favorite movies - the DVD I played on my old tv set looked pretty good. So the HD version isn't any good?

Dang it!

I don't have an HD DVD player anyway, so am limited to watching it on a regular DVD player anyway. I hope the best format wins.

Re:How could they screw up 'Fifth Element'? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336204)

Don't worry. A good transfer on DVD on such a "small" screen as 50" will be nearly indistinguishable from HD unless you have a controlled environment, good eyes, and an A-B setup to test. I have a good CRT set which is calibrated (professional alignment, enthusiast calibrated) and the difference between HD broadcasts and DVD is minimal to the point that the recently aired ROTK did not look noticably better in 1080i than in 480p off my DVD. I will admit that the HDMI input has not been calibrated with an HD source, but if you're really expecting a wow with the resolution, you'll need a TV at least half again as big, or be sitting abnormally close to your TV.

FWIW, I have had a 119" HD front projector, and it does make a difference at that level, but well transferred DVDs still look spectacular to 80-90% of the population.

Re:How could they screw up 'Fifth Element'? (2, Insightful)

lotsotech (848683) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336638)

What CRT are you projecting onto a 119" screen? Maybe they look the same because the picture is so incredibly dim. On a Sony Qualia 004 (which only takes a 1080i input) the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD was very noticable to the people in the room. Standard DVDs look great, but nobody was saying that they looked close.

Why High-Def anyway? (0, Flamebait)

Mogster (459037) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335310)

I for one have to admit I fail to see the point in HD.

As a kid I saw movies every chance I could get if they appealed to me. There's nothing like seeing a great movie on the big screen (and in those days they were big, not the piddly little things they have at multiplexes these days).

Today with the cost of going to the cinema I keep an eye on the up-coming trailers. On the rare occasion I see a movie that appears to have a good story line + good SFX I'll spring for the ticket. If it has good story line but SFX are not major part of the film I'll wait for the DVD.

Even on the largest wide-screen TV SFX can't match that of the cinema screen. I'd personally prefer a decent audio system giving cinematic quality reproduction. Audio atmospherics enhance the experience to a far greater degree than visual.

Just my $0.02

What happened to movies? (4, Insightful)

hsa (598343) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335316)

What happened to movies themselves. I honestly couldn't care less if I get video commentary with my HD movie or not. I watch movies for movies sake. Extras are something I watch if I liked the movie and have extra time to see how it was made. They are worth nothing if the movie sucks.

The worst movies in list are lacking in extra HD content. So what? Couldn't care less. The winning movies have all sorts of cool extra content, but it still doesn't make the movie good. I will never buy World Trade Centre, even if had best extras and good transfer.

Video quality and soundtrack are the only things I care about. Please remove the extras and put these in with higher quality.

whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17335478)

Yeah, So Im posting AC, I cant get the account I want so I don't care.. also, this is targeted not to the people who are discussing films on merit, but rather those that are judging them on quality.

I ask you this - Have you really sat down, and watched anything in HD (that is - on a superior screen, from the current superior format ?) - If not, then shut the fuck up, I'm a video professional, I watch HD video all day long .. And thus, when I sit down to one of the hundreds of DVD's I own, I cringe because SD video just doesn't cut it anymore.

HD - 2 Formats, 2 codecs - only one is really worth it.

Look with your eyes, not your "I am /. I hate M$" preconceptions

Re:whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17335606)

If you really were a 'video professional' you'd know that there's NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE AT ALL between BD and HD-DVD in terms of "quality" as they use the same CODECs. The only potential difference is that of BD's larger capacity, which MAY mean higher average bit rates are possible. One thing's for damn sure - 18Mbps MPEG2 is not where BD should be aiming - >20Mbps VC-1 or, especially, H.264 is the way forward.

And yes, fuck MS, and use H.264 (encoders are better already).

looking for a few good movies (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335584)

Is Cannibal Holocaust [imdb.com] or The Dreamers [imdb.com] on high-def discs yet? I'd prefer the latter but either might be worth upgrading the television equipment for.

No Adam Sandler? (2, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335614)

But I heard fart jokes are so much better in HD!

Re:No Adam Sandler? (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335994)

But I heard fart jokes are so much better in HD!
Sounds like (smells like?) you want Smellyvision.

HD DVD Advert (4, Informative)

dimer0 (461593) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335754)

Man, that page sure makes it seem that Blu-Ray sucks ass. I'm not sure what they based their selections off of...

If you want some better lists to work form, the guys over at avsforum are a much better information source, if you ask me:

HD DVD Picture Quality Tiers List [avsforum.com]

Blu-Ray Picture Quality Tiers List [avsforum.com]

Re:HD DVD Advert (1)

Danga (307709) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336264)

Man, that page sure makes it seem that Blu-Ray sucks ass.

Blu-ray does suck ass and will die. It is more restrictive, has more DRM, requires java virtual machines to be implemented on all players (ugggh), requires the current DVD manufacturing plants to do serious upgrades because the surface layer is much thinner and also requires a special hard coating to be applied, and in turn is more expensive. Sure, it can theoretically hold more data but I think that will really only make a big difference for people who want to use blank discs to store data on them. Also, Sony doesn't have a very good record as far as having the public pick their formats.

Read more here:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1982533,00.as p [pcmag.com]
and
http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/19/blu-ray-vs-hd-d vd-state-of-the-s-union-s-division/ [engadget.com]

Bah- people will buy because of the JVM (1)

acomj (20611) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336332)

Bewjewled on your 50 inch plasma!..

Heh it might help get the spose on board for Blu-Ray

I'm still not buying anything till I can rip to my notebook.

-A

Too many knockers on here. (1)

EL Malloc (1042718) | more than 7 years ago | (#17335848)

I have the Toshiba HD-DVD A1 (from day 1), and I have it in a "properly setup" environment. Dolby True HD (lossless audio) and Dolby DD+ (slightly lossy audio) are as big a jump in audio as 480p to 1080i is for video. It's too bad there's a format war right now, but with HDMI video and Dolby True HD - it's definitely worth the money. Now I can see som earguing the price of the HD-DVDs, I am with you there, it does hurt to pay $30 for a movie. I've seen them bundle both the DVD and HD-DVD versions for a whopping $43...why? Just saying most of the posts here seem to be knocking HD-DVD, but with the audio/video quality it provides - and there are a handful of good HD-DVDs out, I'm with it.

Re:Too many knockers on here. (1)

danpsmith (922127) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336474)

Just saying most of the posts here seem to be knocking HD-DVD, but with the audio/video quality it provides - and there are a handful of good HD-DVDs out, I'm with it.

There's a lot of knockers on here because hollywood and its respective industries spend too much time developing better visual and audio reproduction technologies when they make no more movies worth reproducing. You show me the most crystal clear version of some comic book knockoff/video game knockoff/remake and I'll show you one guy that isn't interested, whether I can see clearly enough into Vinn Diesel's nose that I can see the boogers hanging in his nostrils or not.

The original King Kong was filmed in black and white with claymation and such. Don't you think if the writers of that original script had the technology we have today, they would be able to do something better than it than make explosions and effects take over acting and a decent script? This generation of script writers needs to be beaten over the head with a blu-ray player until they can figure out something worth writing.

Waiting for winner. (1)

s31523 (926314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336122)

" Not a bad cheat sheet for those of us with a Blu-ray capable PS3 or an XBox 360 HD DVD"

Or those who might have burning hardware in their PCs... In my search of DVD burning/authoring software I found software by RocketDivision called Grab & Burn [rocketdivision.com] which claims it can, "Duplicate CD/DVD/Blu-Ray/HD-DVD media in 1:1 mode", and, "supports all types of optical storage media (including CD-R/RW, DVD-R/RW, DVD+R/RW, BD-R/RE, HD-DVD-R/RW and DVD-RAM) as well as a wide variety of burning hardware", and best of all, "Grab&Burn is compatible with 32-bit and 64-bit Microsoft Windows 2000/XP/2003/Vista/Longhorn and various Linux distributions ."

Now, I have no idea how the DRM business would impact any plans of copying a LEGAL copy to my hard disc, but this software looks worth a look.

What I want santa to bring me (2)

edittard (805475) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336148)

Can we have a section just for these lists? Because ... er, I totally like them so much I want to be able to find them among all the boring real news.

What? No Serenity? WTF? (1)

RiffRafff (234408) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336390)

Not even a mention of Universal's very first HD offering, "Serenity?" What's up with that?

The Network Stars know this already (1)

speedlaw (878924) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336434)

What is the surprise ? HD shows all, flaws and benefits. The rush to plastic surgeons by the news media should have been a clue to the studios that putting the film in a player, running the transfer camera and going to lunch would no longer cut it. Since the new screens don't allow the blur and color shift we are all used to, and which hides a lot of errors, the studios will have to spend some money on transfers. Now, since they can't take that from an artist's "cut", they will try to cheap out, but they can't. The worst DVD I ever saw was a 1st gen transfer of 2010-even on SD they got a lot better. Give it time...this is still all in beta rollout. And, no Mr. Content Provider, I'm not buying either system till there is a "winner".

HD had better be more than just Cinerama. (2, Informative)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 7 years ago | (#17336594)

For you youngsters here: Cinerama was to 35mm movies as HD is to NTSC. It used three synchronized projectors on a deeply-curved screen subtending a 146-degree arc. Everyone who has ever seen it was bowled over by it. It is still shown on rare occasions when fans arrange it. It is universally acknowledged to be better than the later wide-screen processes such as CinemaScope, VistaVision, etc. all of which were pretty much acknowledged to be ways to get something sorta-kinda-not-quite-almost like Cinerama, but on the cheap. Many who have had an opportunity to compare it with present-day IMAX have judged it to be superior, too, although that's trickier. IMAX suffers by having too much height and not enough width; when presented on a flat screen, it's flat, and when presented on a dome screen, it's hopeless washed out by cross-reflection (unlike Cinerama, which was always pitch-black in the shadows). Of course CInerama had those awful panel joints... but I digress. Here's the point:

Cinerama was never more than a footnote, because it was only suited to spectacle, not to storytelling. Only two Cinerama features were made with a conventional storyline: "How the West was Won," and "The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm." The rest were pastiches of spectacle: travelogues, ride-film-like experiences, and so forth.

It bodes very ill for high-definition that most of the "best" films are special-effects sci-fi extravaganzas.

I'm glad to see they have Casablanca on their list, but it's not clear that they're saying the actual experience of watching the movie is any better than on DVD. They seems to like the many extras bundled in. Is Rick more world-weary in high-definition? Is Ilsa lovelier? Do the heartrending scenes rend your heart any more? I haven't seen it... but I doubt it.

I like seeing superheros hurtle through space and things blow up as much as the next guy, but these are not enough to carry an expensive video format.

How, exactly, is high-definition going to help directors evoke emotion and tell a story?

Re:HD had better be more than just Cinerama. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17336738)

Is Rick more world-weary in high-definition? Is Ilsa lovelier? Do the heartrending scenes rend your heart any more? I haven't seen it... but I doubt it.

I doubt it too. After all, HD will never be more 'high-def' than the original film footage.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>