Diary of the Dead on DVD

[capncnut]

But is it really all that much of a vast leap? And is it really worth shelling a grand out for a compatible TV? Meknows not.

[UndeadGuyX]

I can't stand to watch regular DVD anymore. I only buy the titles that I just have to have on standard DVD. Otherwise I don't bother with the format. Movies as small as Diary have been released on both Blu-ray and HD DVD on numerous occasions. Not to mention Diary is a new release which makes much more money than catalog releases. It's also worth mentioning that high-def titles can be just as cheap as standard DVD titles (except for maybe Fox releases - but it still affordable). You just need to know where to look. Amazon is a great start for instance.

[bassman]

I can't stand to watch regular DVD anymore. Dude...I'm sorry, but that comment is one of the funniest things i've seen in awhile. Seriously....HD and BR is not THAT large of a step up to where regular DVD is outdated.

[UndeadGuyX]

Dude...I'm sorry, but that comment is one of the funniest things i've seen in awhile. Seriously....HD and BR is not THAT large of a step up to where regular DVD is outdated. I stand by what I say. Going from DVD to High-def is a much bigger leap than going from VHS to DVD. Hell, video is half the experience. The lossless and uncompressed audio tracks that are featured on HD DVD and Blu-ray absolutely blow the lossy tracks DVD feature. I'm also not alone in my opinion of sandard DVD. I'll let the posters of the AVS and High-Def Digest forums be a testament to that fact.

[bassman]

So I guess that means that viewing films in the theater is completely outdated and boring because it's not 110%, "I can see every pore on their face" HD?

[UndeadGuyX]

So I guess that means that viewing films in the theater is completely outdated and boring because it's not 110%, "I can see every pore on their face" HD? You just don't get it do you? High-def movies from both Blu-ray and HD DVD just allow you to see movies the way they were intended. They aren't adding any extra detail than what was already there on the film negatives. DVD just didn't allow you to see those extra fine details because of its low resolution. 1080p resolution isn't even the full resolution of film anyways. Let alone 480i standard definition!

[bassman]

You just don't get it do you? High-def movies from both Blu-ray and HD DVD just allow you to see movies the way they were intended. They aren't adding any extra detail than what was already there on the film negatives. DVD just didn't allow you to see those extra fine details because of its low resolution. 1080p resolution isn't even the full resolution of film anyways! Let alone 480i standard definition! No..I really don't get it. Please tell me how seeing EVERY SINGLE DETAIL is necessary to the overall enjoyment of the film. It's not. If I want to see an actors pimples(which is mostly what HAD/BR is good for), I will go and try to meet them. Otherwise i'm perfectly happy with a good and clear, widescreen DVD.

[UndeadGuyX]

No..I really don't get it. Please tell me how seeing EVERY SINGLE DETAIL is necessary to the overall enjoyment of the film. It's not. If I want to see an actors pimples(which is mostly what HAD/BR is good for), I will go and try to meet them. Otherwise i'm perfectly happy with a good and clear, widescreen DVD. I'm such a huge fan of movies that I want to see them in all their glory. The way the director created them and intended for them to be viewed. If I was content with just seeing a movie in just any old way I might as well stick with VHS or even Laserdisc.

[bassman]

Because I'm sure that Alfred Hitchcock believed that HD was the way to see his films.

[capncnut]

I'm such a huge fan of movies that I want to see them in all their glory. The way the director created them and intended for them to be viewed. I understand this an' all but 'intended' isn't the right word. Sam Raimi shot The Evil Dead on Super 8 and the quality back then was nowhere near the digital standards we have today. At the end of the day, High Def is a luxury. Not a necessity.

[UndeadGuyX]

Because I'm sure that Alfred Hitchcock believed that HD was the way to see his films. High-def transfers just bring us closer to what is already there on the film negative. It isn't adding any extra detail. So yes, its what he intended. He certainly didn't create his films to be viewed in 480i resolution that DVD supports. I understand this an' all but 'intended' isn't the right word. Sam Raimi shot The Evil Dead on Super 8 and the quality back then was nowhere near the digital standards we have today. At the end of the day, High Def is a luxury. Not a necessity. 480i resolution does not resolve all the resolution of even a Super 8 image.

[capncnut]

That's funny, most Super 8's I've seen look terrible.

[DubiousComforts]

Because I'm sure that Alfred Hitchcock believed that HD was the way to see his films. Hi-Def is closer to film resolution than DVD. I understand this an' all but 'intended' isn't the right word. Sam Raimi shot The Evil Dead on Super 8 and the quality back then was nowhere near the digital standards we have today. Where did you hear that Evil Dead was shot on Super-8? It was shot on 16mm, though the short that Raimi used to raise cash was shot on Super-8.

[UndeadGuyX]

That's funny, most Super 8's I've seen look terrible. If anything that would be because of the condition the masters are in. Many of these low budget films were not taken care of properly and are in need of massive restorations.

[capncnut]

Where did you hear that Evil Dead was shot on Super-8? It was shot on 16mm, though the short that Raimi used to raise cash was shot on Super-8. Yup, my mistake.