Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
[url=http://www.uploadfile.info]

vs
[url=http://www.uploadfile.info]

Which do you prefer? Remember that this scene took place after sunset in the book
I see it with television too. I think ESPN (US sports channel)had a better picture in the mid 90's than they do today. It wasn't in HD but the colors were more vibrant and accurate. Exposure was more seamless without harsh bright spots or shadows. And it didn't have terrible digital compression like now, which on its SD channel looks worse than some videos on Youtube. Bill Hunt of the digital bits said it was the worst digital compression for an HD broadcast he had ever seen. What is the point of 1000 resolution lines if poor compression chops it in half? It appears ESPN auto fixes their contrast and boosts the saturation but that just overdoes it. Here's an representation using photos I took.
bad color, contrast & exposure (the flash was too bright)
[url=http://www.uploadfile.info]

Same picture but "fixed"
[url=http://www.uploadfile.info]

How it should have looked from the start (I partially covered the flash, picture unadjusted)
[url=http://www.uploadfile.info]

I would greatly prefer seeing this image in standard definition than the above two in HD.
I also really hate those new plasma and LCD tv's that have such a terrible contrast ratio (they don't display a "true black"). I couldn't see anything except dark grey watching E. T. on my family's Sony Wega LCD. In my opinion that product should have been rejected by quality control and thrown in a junkyard. Poor standards for these new tv's are a real shame because the biggest reason why movies look so much better on dvd is today's newer anamorphic transfers have a vastly improved contrast ratio. The original and new dvd releases of "Blade Runner" show this.
How Blade Runner might look on most LCD or plasma tv's.
[url=http://www.uploadfile.info]

The actual image. (these two are from a HD screencap posted on this site)
[url=http://www.uploadfile.info]
