logo Sign In

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

Author
Time
 (Edited)

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

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The force shall free me.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

}{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.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.

I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!

—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3

Author
Time

}{eywood said:

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

 I think you need to go see your eye doctor and have your prescription changed or issued. 

I understand your point with CRT's giving batter blacks ect.  But from a technical perspective your post makes no sense.

Author
Time

AntcuFaalb said:

}{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.

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

Author
Time

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

A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.

I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!

—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3

Author
Time

I'm buying a flatscreen as soon as I can afford a forklift to remove my CRT.

Author
Time

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!

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Harmy said:

}{eywood said:

 To watch HD is painful to me because reality doesn't have edges that sharp, why should my TV shows? 

 LOL, are you serious? :-D

I was thinking the same thing. Last I heard, all film was captured from that thing called "real life". 

I guess they applied a sharpening filter to it. 

Perhaps a more important question is how have our eyes evolved to see detail that doesn't exist in the real world, but apparently does in a home video format? Answer me that, Darwin. You hack!

Author
Time

Why are you guys feeding the troll?! :)

Author
Time

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.

Author
Time

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.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.

I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!

—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3

Author
Time

Whenever someone says that, I get hungry for fish.

Author
Time

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.

Wishlist Of Ideas/Suggestions For Improving ROTJ

Author
Time
 (Edited)

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

Author
Time

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

It might be possible, if say, he has crazy high sharpness and contrast in his TV settings. You know, the type that make your eyes bleed. O_O

Author
Time
 (Edited)

rockin 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

It might be possible, if say, he has crazy high sharpness and contrast in his TV settings. You know, the type that make your eyes bleed. O_O

I'm hoping to God that was just carrying on the joke, because to imply his TV could be displaying a higher res than actual REALITY is.......silly. It's about as silly as someone making the claim that their TV can display colours we've never seen before. Or a fourth dimension. It's just not possible.

Back on topic? :-p

Author
Time

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 :)

Wishlist Of Ideas/Suggestions For Improving ROTJ

Author
Time

.Mac. said:

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 :)

 WRONG KIND OF TROLL

Author
Time

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.

I remember first seeing a HD film on my telly and it did look odd.

Not because it wasn't realistic but it looked incongruous in a televisual context to see that degree of resolution. I think the frame rate business with the Hobbit films is the same sort of shock of the new.

Also in the early days I think broadcasters for HDTV manipulated the image to make the HD quality more obvious (like they did with colour television in the sixties with all those primary colours).

I recall seeing an episode of Game of Thrones and thinking the grapes in a bowl of fruit looked more like glass. This is possibly due to production tinkering to get the most out of the technology of the time more than the actual resolution itself but they are probably related.

At the end of the day it makes no difference, Ady has spoken so get over it.

Perhaps this incongruity with help :

Author
Time
 (Edited)

.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

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

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.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

.Mac. said:


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://fanedit.org/ifdb/component/content/article/80-fanedit-listings/fanmix/123-star-wars-30-s-serial-edition-part-2

http://fanedit.org/ifdb/component/content/article/80-fanedit-listings/fanmix/126-star-wars-30-s-silent-edition-part-2-dusty-version

There are PT versions as well, if you're into that sort of thing...

Author
Time
 (Edited)

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.

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The force shall free me.

Author
Time

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.