MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 Speaking of "TNT Stretch-O-Vision" That reminds me...anybody ever watched Knight Rider or Quantum Leap on Universal HD? They must have actually gone back to the original film prints of those shows and converted them. They're 16:9 and they look fantastic. Thos shows arent stretched. A lot of tv shows pre late 80's were shot on 35 mm film which has a wider picture that was then cut down for 4:3. Universal HD takes that wider than 4:3 shot, trims off the top and bottom a bit and it provides a 16:9 picture with more picture on the sides than the 4:3 version but less on the top and bottom. Thread on Knight Rider in HD over at AVS Keep in mind all those new HD channels will likely be MPEG-4 which will require a new 5LNB Dish and MPEG-4 receivers. I doubt it, at least initially. The MPEG 4 is only being used for HD Local channels right now and probably for some time. It's been kinda touched on a few times already, but shows that are re-runs now, (e.g. Seinfeld on TBS)....what's the HD ruling there? Just need to kinda clean them up like Knight Rider was described above? With regards to Seinfeld, the new HD transfers were the basis for all of the DVD sets released so far from what I heard. Im pretty sure it will be presented 4:3 though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 It's been kinda touched on a few times already, but shows that are re-runs now, (e.g. Seinfeld on TBS)....what's the HD ruling there? Just need to kinda clean them up like Knight Rider was described above? They'll either show them in strech-o-vision or keep them in OAR. But Raymond was filmed at 1.78.1 (16x9) from atleast season 4, so that will be in HD. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jaxxson Mayhem 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 I'll say it again... (And this isn't a comment on which format is superior, simply an observation of how the pubic thinks.) Most people already know what "HD-DVD" is because they're already familiar with both "HD" and "DVD". With blu-ray, you have to explain what it is to them. That's a huge disadvantage. True........ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 Speaking of "TNT Stretch-O-Vision" That reminds me...anybody ever watched Knight Rider or Quantum Leap on Universal HD? They must have actually gone back to the original film prints of those shows and converted them. They're 16:9 and they look fantastic. Thos shows arent stretched. A lot of tv shows pre late 80's were shot on 35 mm film which has a wider picture that was then cut down for 4:3. Universal HD takes that wider than 4:3 shot, trims off the top and bottom a bit and it provides a 16:9 picture with more picture on the sides than the 4:3 version but less on the top and bottom. Not only that, but I even think they went back to the original film stock and converted them to HD video. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 Speaking of "TNT Stretch-O-Vision" That reminds me...anybody ever watched Knight Rider or Quantum Leap on Universal HD? They must have actually gone back to the original film prints of those shows and converted them. They're 16:9 and they look fantastic. Thos shows arent stretched. A lot of tv shows pre late 80's were shot on 35 mm film which has a wider picture that was then cut down for 4:3. Universal HD takes that wider than 4:3 shot, trims off the top and bottom a bit and it provides a 16:9 picture with more picture on the sides than the 4:3 version but less on the top and bottom. Not only that, but I even think they went back to the original film stock and converted them to HD video. No converting necessary. 35 MM film has way more than HD resolution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 Speaking of "TNT Stretch-O-Vision" That reminds me...anybody ever watched Knight Rider or Quantum Leap on Universal HD? They must have actually gone back to the original film prints of those shows and converted them. They're 16:9 and they look fantastic. Thos shows arent stretched. A lot of tv shows pre late 80's were shot on 35 mm film which has a wider picture that was then cut down for 4:3. Universal HD takes that wider than 4:3 shot, trims off the top and bottom a bit and it provides a 16:9 picture with more picture on the sides than the 4:3 version but less on the top and bottom. Not only that, but I even think they went back to the original film stock and converted them to HD video. No converting necessary. 35 MM film has way more than HD resolution. Do you REALLY want to keep correcting me even though all you're doing is saying the exact same thing but using different words? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 SuperJerk is right. They convert 35mm to HD. Marv just wanted to point out that 35mm has better resolution than HD because he is a know it all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 Speaking of "TNT Stretch-O-Vision" That reminds me...anybody ever watched Knight Rider or Quantum Leap on Universal HD? They must have actually gone back to the original film prints of those shows and converted them. They're 16:9 and they look fantastic. Thos shows arent stretched. A lot of tv shows pre late 80's were shot on 35 mm film which has a wider picture that was then cut down for 4:3. Universal HD takes that wider than 4:3 shot, trims off the top and bottom a bit and it provides a 16:9 picture with more picture on the sides than the 4:3 version but less on the top and bottom. Not only that, but I even think they went back to the original film stock and converted them to HD video. No converting necessary. 35 MM film has way more than HD resolution. Do you REALLY want to keep correcting me even though all you're doing is saying the exact same thing but using different words? I suppose it would be down-converting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 Well yes. But to get to one file to another, you have to convert. And to get from film to HD, you have to convert. Film might look better, but I don't have a projecter. So I'll stick with HD. Does anyone else have a HD-DVD Player or a Blu-Ray player? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 I suppose it would be down-converting. No. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 I suppose it would be down-converting. No. Ahh yeah. "To change (something) into another form, substance, state, or product; transform: convert water into ice." 35MM is better quality. So when it is converted into HD, it loses quality. It is being converted, but into less quality. Hence down converting. Unless I am missing something here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 I don't disagree with you, but let me explain why I'm disagreeing with MarvinisaLunatic. The word convert is not dependent on direction. As you pointed out, it is being converted. Thus, for MarvinisaLunatic to continually insist that I have to use the term "down-convert" instead of just saying "convert" in order to be correct is just plain wrong. What MarvinisaLunatic is doing is correcting me for absolutely no reason just so he can sound smart. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 I don't disagree with you, but let me explain why I'm disagreeing with MarvinisaLunatic. The word convert is not dependent on direction. As you pointed out, it is being converted. Thus, for MarvinisaLunatic to continually insist that I have to use the term "down-convert" instead of just saying "convert" in order to be correct is just plain wrong. What MarvinisaLunatic is doing is correcting me for absolutely no reason just so he can sound smart. Uh..whatever. I wasnt insisting anything. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dobbs 3K 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 Is that why VHS beat Betamax (in regards to that link a couple posts ago)? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 Not necessarily. It was mostly because VHS had two hour recording right out of the box while Beta was only at 1 hour and took another year after launch to get to 2 hours. And most movies are how long? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianGuitarist 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 We've danced around this a few times, but is there really an advantage/disadvantage to picking HD-DVD or Blu-Ray at this point? Is it going to come down to which studios pick which disc? That's essentially what I'd been telling customers, other than the more capacity to a Blu-Ray disc thing.... I can't really tell most customers that porn will be in HD-DVD, sadly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 We've danced around this a few times, but is there really an advantage/disadvantage to picking HD-DVD or Blu-Ray at this point? Is it going to come down to which studios pick which disc? That's essentially what I'd been telling customers, other than the more capacity to a Blu-Ray disc thing.... I can't really tell most customers that porn will be in HD-DVD, sadly. Well, I own both. And I like HD-DVD better. It has better picture quality, special features, the player is cheaper, the movies are cheaper and it has TrueHD (which BR doesn't). Blu-Ray has more titles out right now and more studio support. The cheapest BR player is $799, well $599 if you count the PS3. The cheapest HD-DVD player is $599, $199 if you have a 360 and want the add-on. Plus PORN is on to HD-DVD. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 I don't disagree with you, but let me explain why I'm disagreeing with MarvinisaLunatic. The word convert is not dependent on direction. As you pointed out, it is being converted. Thus, for MarvinisaLunatic to continually insist that I have to use the term "down-convert" instead of just saying "convert" in order to be correct is just plain wrong. What MarvinisaLunatic is doing is correcting me for absolutely no reason just so he can sound smart. Uh..whatever. I wasnt insisting anything. Well, then I must've misunderstood. Sorry. Well, I own both. And I like HD-DVD better. It has better picture quality, special features, the player is cheaper, the movies are cheaper and it has TrueHD (which BR doesn't). Blu-Ray has more titles out right now and more studio support. The cheapest BR player is $799, well $599 if you count the PS3. The cheapest HD-DVD player is $599, $199 if you have a 360 and want the add-on. Plus PORN is on to HD-DVD. Yeah, that $200 HD-DVD add-on is starting to sound like a REALLY good deal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 You can score an HD DVD for around $400-499 if you look. I've seen one of the Toshiba's out at that price. BTW, the XBOX add on doesn't have HDMI, which isn't that big of an issue since you can still use DVI. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2007 I'm still rockin' the component cables. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted January 14, 2007 I don't know if I'd consider it "rockin'" but it's good enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted January 14, 2007 You can score an HD DVD for around $400-499 if you look. I've seen one of the Toshiba's out at that price. BTW, the XBOX add on doesn't have HDMI, which isn't that big of an issue since you can still use DVI. Unless I am reading this wrong, you can't use DVI with the 360. You can use VGA, but not DVI. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted January 14, 2007 I don't know if I'd consider it "rockin'" but it's good enough. Just saying the 360 player add-on should be good enough for my TV since it doesn't have HDMI or DVI. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted January 14, 2007 The add-on is great. I had the Toshiba A1 but sold it once the add-on came out. I can't upconvert DVDs on the add-on, but I have an upconverting DVD player so I don't care. You can't get TrueHD on the add-on, but I don't have a receiver that can support TrueHD, so I am not losing anything there. The add-on is "rockin." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted January 14, 2007 I don't know if I'd consider it "rockin'" but it's good enough. Just saying the 360 player add-on should be good enough for my TV since it doesn't have HDMI or DVI. No I meant component is good enough, I just wouldn't say it's rockin'. I don't buy into the hype that Mole/Marvin do about 1080P etc which is only really a noticeable difference based on how far away from the screen you are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted January 14, 2007 I haven't said a damn thing about 1080p. My TV is 1080i native with no 1080p capabilities. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted January 14, 2007 Note the "etc". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted January 14, 2007 Yeah... So you don't buy into the HD hype? Or HD-DVD/BR hype? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted January 14, 2007 Depends on what hype your are talking about. Do I want a high definition player? Sure. Would I buy the add on for my 360? Probably. Am I going to buy anything until Sony for sure shoots themselves in the foot? No. Unless the HD-DVD add on for the 360 drops in price to something I can't resist. I'm more or less sitting back and watching you and Marvin (mostly Marvin) by giving uninformed opinions on things and sometimes confusing others. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted January 14, 2007 Ooook. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
