STAR WARS: EP IV 2004 REVISITED ADYWAN *1080p HD VERSION NOW IN PRODUCTION — Page 396

I certainly was not kidding.  I think HD looks artificial, like CGI looked before they figured out they needed to add motion blur to the frames. I also think people are sporting too much bling with these ridiculously large televisions. Half the reason we have to have everything in HD is the enormous screen sizes.  The other half is flatscreens automatically make everything look like shit.  I'll stick to CRT screens, which I am completely satisfied with the quality of, until I can't find them anymore.  Better that than have to replace my entire video collection with one that's twice as big but has no more content

}{eywood: You're making at least four different claims. I'll address each one individually here.

1. HD looks artificial

If this is true, then 35mm film must look artificial to you as well. 35mm film is capable (demonstrably!) of resolving to >4K. And yes, this is true for release prints as well.

Are you perhaps arguing that television technology has something to do with this artificial appearance instead? See #4.

2. Reality doesn't look as sharp as HD

If this is true, then you must need glasses. Please visit an Ophthalmologist ASAP.

I'm not kidding. Your eyes should be able to see much more than 480 or 576 lines. Your blurry vision might pose a significant danger to yourself or the people around you. Living life with SD eyes is uncivil and irresponsible.

3. People aren't modest enough in their choice of television size and technology

Why do you care? I have a 5ft. plasma in my living room (for Blu-rays) and a 2.5ft. CRT in my basement (for LDs), so am I rocking all this bling too or am I an exception to your observation?

4. Modern television sets make everything look like shit

They do? Are you sure you have the EE and DNR (and other BS features) turned off? Are you sure your set has a good black level? Are you sure you're using a good source; e.g., the Lawrence of Arabia blu-ray?

Come back after seeing Lawrence of Arabia on an ISF calibrated Pioneer Kuro set and let me know if you still hold this opinion.

xxtelecine 7xx said:

 Now I understand why some people can be grumpy around here.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you spell it out for me? ELI5

Because big screen tv's didn't exist in the 80's. ;)

And this isn't even the biggest one I ever saw. Mitsubishi had one that was the size of a small car!

brash_stryker said:

Funcha said:

Why are you guys feeding the troll?! :)

That term gets thrown around way too often here. He's not a troll. Just a bit misinformed.

Agreed.

TV's Frink said:

Whenever someone says that, I get hungry for fish.

Whenever I hear it I think of three billy goats crossing a bridge :)

Even if some of the reasoning is kind of unusual, if }{eywood is happy with his 27" crt TV that's just fine. To each his own. I still have an old 32" crt TV too which is in an extra room and for only watching the pre-SE SW on vhs.

Oh, yeah, no doubt about that - he can watch it black and white and pan and scan too for all I care. What I'm doubting is his premise that HD video is sharper than real life is. :-D

Harmy said:

Oh, yeah, no doubt about that - he can watch it black and white and pan and scan too for all I care. What I'm doubting is his premise that HD video is sharper than real life is. :-D

Yeah that's one of the things he says that gets me too lol.

You just made me think of something, and now I'm curious if someone has ever tried it before... an edit of SW to be like those short "silent films" of the 1920's. Black & white, no sound, and intertitles.That could actually be a lot of fun to watch, from a completely new (but old) perspective :)

.Mac. said:

Harmy said:

Oh, yeah, no doubt about that - he can watch it black and white and pan and scan too for all I care. What I'm doubting is his premise that HD video is sharper than real life is. :-D

Yeah that's one of the things he says that gets me too lol.

You just made me think of something, and now I'm curious if someone has ever tried it before... an edit of SW to be like those short "silent films" of the 1920's. Black & white, no sound, and intertitles.That could actually be a lot of fun to watch, from a completely new (but old) perspective :)

 http://youtu.be/2Xk3x_6_-S8

http://youtu.be/HOhRTWzzO58

Bingowings said:

Last time I checked we weren't allowed to make personal attacks on people with different notions. So unless that's changed It might be prudent to dial down the name calling.

 It's not a personal attack to point out the flaws in someone's argument in a humorous fashion. If one is going to express a preference for old video technology, they need to back it up with something more concrete than HD sucks, and that televisions shouldn't be that big anyway.

It's their responses that tell us whether they are sincere in their opinions, or just trolling the board.

I'm not trolling.  Been reading here for years, just don't often see anything worth commenting on. Wait.  That's wrong.  Haven't seen anything that I could saay something that hasn't already been said.  That's better. My personal feeling is there's no need to have a TV that big. I prefer to move my eyes when looking at an image, not my whole head. And my eyes are just fine.  A bit nearsighted, but no distance problems. I can't really explain why TV looks too crisp to me. It just does. Maybe it's the lack of dimensional depth. Faraway things don't look as detailed to my eyes as they do on a screen, but maybe because they're not far away on a screen. Also, maybe data compression algorhythms and how they select what data to change based on movement, etc. has something to do with it. I really wasn't trying to start an argument here.

Cinema came way before television, so screens were big before they were small and the content on them was crisp and detailed before it was low-res and blurry. And we're just getting closer to having the same thing at home. At least that's my personal point of view.