What made you go High-def?

[old-boo-radley]

I wanted a bigger TV.

[Beastus]

I made the jump as soon as the first Toshiba HD DVD player became available in April or May 2006. No title in particular, just wanted hi-def on disc.

Originally Posted by Matt89

Well, grain is natural to film. It's not like grain is print damage. It's just there. DNR-ing movies makes them look funny. There's this weird softness it adds to a movie. I don't know how to explain it, but DNR just makes everything look weird. Too "digital", maybe.

~Matt

I know what yopur saying but I just think if they are gonna go all the way then they might as well make it look as best as they can. That scene in Transformers just stood out too much for me, it looked like it was an edit that they put back in the film. Am I tho only guy that noticed this?

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by geeare

I know what yopur saying but I just think if they are gonna go all the way then they might as well make it look as best as they can. That scene in Transformers just stood out too much for me, it looked like it was an edit that they put back in the film. Am I tho only guy that noticed this?

LOL but DNR doesn't look better, it makes the movie look WORSE. If they're gonna go all the way, I don't understand why they'd put effort into making the movie look worse.

~Matt

Originally Posted by Matt89

LOL but DNR doesn't look better, it makes the movie look WORSE. If they're gonna go all the way, I don't understand why they'd put effort into making the movie look worse.

~Matt

whether it looks better or worse is up to the person viewing not up to you for me or me for you.

[KamuiX]

I got into HD when I got my 360...I refused to buy one until I had the money to get an HDTV. I wasn't so into getting into HD-DVD/Blu-Ray then, as I only had a 720p TV. A year later, I upgraded to a 1080p TV and got a PS3, and that's of course when I jumped into the Blu-Ray game.

As for the grain removal controversy, for me it doesn't much matter, it just needs to be consistent in the film I'm watching. If you're going to do it, get rid of it in EVERY SCENE. For instance, the Deliverance Blu-Ray to me is a mixed bag as at points, there's no grain at all, making the film look like it was made recently, and then it'll go to a scene that's grainy as hell. That to me is far more distracting than if the film is grainy or not throughout.

Originally Posted by KamuiX

I got into HD when I got my 360...I refused to buy one until I had the money to get an HDTV. I wasn't so into getting into HD-DVD/Blu-Ray then, as I only had a 720p TV. A year later, I upgraded to a 1080p TV and got a PS3, and that's of course when I jumped into the Blu-Ray game.

As for the grain removal controversy, for me it doesn't much matter, it just needs to be consistent in the film I'm watching. If you're going to do it, get rid of it in EVERY SCENE. For instance, the Deliverance Blu-Ray to me is a mixed bag as at points, there's no grain at all, making the film look like it was made recently, and then it'll go to a scene that's grainy as hell. That to me is far more distracting than if the film is grainy or not throughout.

ya that's kinda my point. as long as their is consistancey. and I realize there are different cameras used with different lenses and different film for diffenet scenes. I also want to point out that I don't want them to blend the background to make it fuzzy either, so if sharpness = grain and they cannot make it look sharp without the fuzz then leave the grain.

[Shannafey]

I haven't yet and didn't think I cared, but I recently upgraded my cable service with a DVR and more HD stations. After watching some movies in HD, I can see enough of a difference where now I really want a Blu Ray player. I'm still going to wait until around Christmas time if not later, because the money isn't there!

[Mok]

I've got an HDTV but no HD/Blu-Ray player. The reason I went HD was for Video games and WWE HD broadcasts.

[X-human]

Originally Posted by geeare

whether it looks better or worse is up to the person viewing not up to you for me or me for you.

It's up to the director, and Michael Bay officially stated that the Blu-ray is his preferred version. Grainy shot and all.

[The Chaostar]

Originally Posted by geeare

whether it looks better or worse is up to the person viewing not up to you for me or me for you.

The thing is that, being a movie fan and all, you have to accept grain as an aesthetic choice too. It's not always a problem or a fault of the film. It is a choice.

It is like saying that you'd prefer the blood in Deep Red more... bloody that, you know, fake. It looks very much like stage blood. But then, the film is so theatrical in it's structure, that you accept it as an aesthetic choice - and it is very much that.

Likewise, when you know the kind of budget Bay has, you know that when you see grain it's because Bay wants you too. If you like it or not, it's up to you, but the correct way to see a film - any film - is as the director intended.

Grain in films shot in 16mm will have to look grainy in order not to look like shit because it is not dirt. It is not a result of bad photography. It is IT.

Now, dirt which results in grain is a whole other issue...

[Mok]

Whether the director wanted the film to look like a camcorder filmed or not, I have personal preference as a viewer to what I think looks better. We're at a point now where "clearer" isn't always better.

Originally Posted by X-human

It's up to the director, and Michael Bay officially stated that the Blu-ray is his preferred version. Grainy shot and all.

no, i could care less what the director thinks. what I like is what I like and he can't change that....all I'm sayin, lol. if his grain looks bad to me there is nothing he can do to make me like it. so i go back to my original statement but alter it a bit . . .

"whether it looks better or worse is up to the person viewing not up to the director for me or me for the director."

he is making the film the way he thinks look best. what if that director thought the movie would look best if it was shot a little out of focus. I would think it would look much better if it was in focus. Point I am making goes back to the old saying of opinions being like . . . . well you know.

[X-human]

Well if we're talking opinions then the whole film is a bloated piece of shit so who cares if there's a grainy shot in it? Not like making that shot less grainy would make Transformers much better than your mom's used tampon.

I pretty much just take a "it is what it is" approach. I'm not going to keep a puke bucket next to my chair because "if I see edge enhancement one more time I'm going to puke." There are countless fuck ups in any movie, grain is hardly a deal breaker.

[Grim]

Originally Posted by geeare

no, i could care less what the director thinks. what I like is what I like and he can't change that....all I'm sayin, lol. if his grain looks bad to me there is nothing he can do to make me like it. so i go back to my original statement but alter it a bit . . .

"whether it looks better or worse is up to the person viewing not up to the director for me or me for the director."

he is making the film the way he thinks look best. what if that director thought the movie would look best if it was shot a little out of focus. I would think it would look much better if it was in focus. Point I am making goes back to the old saying of opinions being like . . . . well you know.

So with your logic, the director's intention for the visuals is irrelevant. The mass public should be able to chose how they want the film to look?