Diary of the Dead on DVD [Archive]

UndeadGuyX

19-Feb-2008, 07:14 PM

With it being a small independent film, it may not have Blu Ray at all. Which is fine with me. It's too much money for a slightly better product than DVD - Which is still clear enough.

But either way we don't have the release date of it on Blu Ray or DVD. The original poster apparently changed his mind.:rockbrow:

You really have no idea...

For one thing, George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead have both been released on Blu-ray. There is a good chance Diary of the Dead will be released on Blu-ray should Weinstein start supporting the format (which will happen eventually).

Btw, the point of both high-def movie formats was to allow you to watch your favorite films just that much closer to the way they were intended. I personally have a hard time going back and watching movies on standard DVD. Oh sure its easy to say DVD is good enough if you haven't actually witnessed a Blu-ray or HD DVD movie on a properly calibrated display. There were a lot of people that said that about VHS when DVD was starting to gain popularity.

bassman

19-Feb-2008, 08:23 PM

You really have no idea...

For one thing, George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead have both been released on Blu-ray. There is a good chance Diary of the Dead will be released on Blu-ray should Weinstein start supporting the format (which will happen eventually).

Btw, the point of both high-def movie formats was to allow you to watch your favorite films just that much closer to the way they were intended. I personally have a hard time going back and watching movies on standard DVD. Oh sure its easy to say DVD is good enough if you haven't actually witnessed a Blu-ray or HD DVD movie on a properly calibrated display. There were a lot of people that said that about VHS when DVD was starting to gain popularity.

I have no idea of my own opinion? :rockbrow: That's interesting...

I'm sure Diary will eventually be on BR, I was just saying that there's a posibility it won't. And I HAVE seen both BR and HDDVD and it does look better. I didn't deny that. It's just not worth the insanely high price that they're listed as at the moment. I'm just cool with my regular DVDs until everything smoothes out and the price drops.

And if anyone said that VHS looked as good as DVD....they needed help.:p

MinionZombie

19-Feb-2008, 08:28 PM

So I guess DVD is like 20/20 vision and Blu-Ray is 20/12 vision (which oddly enough is better than 20/20, despite what the numbers say...learned that from Long Way Round :cool:).

I haven't seen HD or BR, not fussed about it to be honest...will get around to it sometime. I just hope I don't 'do a hellsing' and get a migraine from watching whatever movie it was he was watching on HD.

As for Dawn and Day on HD, those movies have been around for at least over 20 years, over which time they've gained a wide and lucrative fan base and been cemented as genre classics.

Diary is a new kid on the block, so the playing field is tougher. Although it's good to hear it's already in the black since when it was sold, so that's awesome.

Roll on March 7th, dagnammit!

bassman

19-Feb-2008, 08:41 PM

I haven't seen HD or BR, not fussed about it to be honest...will get around to it sometime. I just hope I don't 'do a hellsing' and get a migraine from watching whatever movie it was he was watching on HD.

Damn....this whole time you were supporting regular DVD and still hadn't seen the new formats? You'll see a difference. They're a bit more crisp and clear, but as I've argued before.....what does it matter? DVD is already damn clear. Do I need to see the fly that lands on the fence post 50 feet in the background?

capncnut

19-Feb-2008, 09:00 PM

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

19-Feb-2008, 09:57 PM

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

19-Feb-2008, 10:07 PM

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

19-Feb-2008, 10:10 PM

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

19-Feb-2008, 10:13 PM

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?:confused::lol:

UndeadGuyX

19-Feb-2008, 10:16 PM

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?:confused::lol:

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

19-Feb-2008, 10:19 PM

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

19-Feb-2008, 10:23 PM

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

19-Feb-2008, 10:26 PM

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

capncnut

19-Feb-2008, 10:26 PM

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

19-Feb-2008, 10:30 PM

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

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

19-Feb-2008, 10:37 PM

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

DubiousComforts

19-Feb-2008, 10:54 PM

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

19-Feb-2008, 10:55 PM

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

19-Feb-2008, 11:23 PM

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. :D

mcurio

20-Feb-2008, 12:37 AM

HDDVD looks like a dead duck as of today's announcement by Toshiba. Looks like Blu-ray from here on in for Hi-Def viewers. Don't expect Diary to be released on HDDVD....

UndeadGuyX

20-Feb-2008, 12:53 AM

HDDVD looks like a dead duck as of today's announcement by Toshiba. Looks like Blu-ray from here on in for Hi-Def viewers. Don't expect Diary to be released on HDDVD....

I wouldn't have really expected it even if HD DVD didn't die. Weinstein hasn't released on HD DVD since June of 2007.

clanglee

20-Feb-2008, 01:46 AM

Here's the Thing. . . Who cares? I'm not about to go and buy a blue ray player, and replace all my dvd collection AND buy a high Def TV just to see a movie in magical clarity. Might be nice if I win the lottery, until then, I'm waiting until the price comes down. Until it does, I'll be sittting here watching my regular DVDs in a non-snobbish way.:moon:

Oh, and McCurio. . . like your avatar ;)

bassman

20-Feb-2008, 02:55 AM

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.

So I guess in the past Hitchcock had a time machine and was able to obtain an HD tv and player?:confused:

DubiousComforts

20-Feb-2008, 03:25 AM

So I guess in the past Hitchcock had a time machine and was able to obtain an HD tv and player?:confused:
Not likely, though Hitchcock had lived through the silent film era, the introduction of color/sound/scope motion pictures and television, and he would have anticipated that the method of delivering his works to viewers would become increasingly more sophisticated and offer more choice, as did George Romero. Just read his preface to Russo's novelization of NIGHT published in 1974.

mcurio

20-Feb-2008, 04:37 AM

I too will not go out and buy a Blu-ray player yet. I like my 'clarity' on regular dvd just fine.

Oh, Clanglee, I'm dying to see the Watchmen movie although I think it will never do Alan Moore's work justice. We shall see....

clanglee

20-Feb-2008, 09:55 AM

finger's crossed

UndeadGuyX

20-Feb-2008, 08:44 PM

So I guess in the past Hitchcock had a time machine and was able to obtain an HD tv and player?:confused:

Film, actual film, has a resolution/clarity higher than even 1080p high-definition. Film is what movies are shot with. With high-def we are getting just that much closer to seeing the detail which was already there to begin with. DVD resolution was just a downgraded image of the film master. This is why all movies can benefit from a high-def transfer and not just newer movies.

bassman

20-Feb-2008, 08:48 PM

So what's the point if they've never been seen that way or were never intended to be seen that way?

Anyways....this could go on forever, so i'm done with it. I never denied that it looks better. My point is that it's just a waste of money for the time being. And Alot of people agree....

UndeadGuyX

20-Feb-2008, 09:18 PM

So what's the point if they've never been seen that way or were never intended to be seen that way?

They were intended to be seen that way. In theaters. ;)

Now we can get that in our homes. You don't honestly think that DVD resolution is what is shown in theaters do you?

Anyways....this could go on forever, so i'm done with it. I never denied that it looks better. My point is that it's just a waste of money for the time being. And Alot of people agree....

No, a lot of people are just misinformed or won't give high-def the time of day.

MinionZombie

20-Feb-2008, 10:13 PM

Every film I've seen in the cinema has never looked as crisp as they do on DVD.

I got the DVD of Transformers and f*ck me it was crisp. It's awesome to see a movie in cinemas, but the quality isn't as high - or at least it certainly doesn't appear to be - when you see it. At the very least, it doesn't appear to be better than normal DVD when shown ... but I kinda dig it.

Cinemas with DVD projectors would be pretty ghey, it's just watching a DVD but on a massive screen. I think part of the lure of the cinema is that you're seeing a film on reels and there's somebody up there changing them, fiddling with lenses and ratios and a bunch of technical hoo-hah.

I hope they aren't training somebody when I see Diary though, somebody was either lazy or being trained when I saw Land on opening night. The opening credits were projected in the wrong ratio, so it was stretched, but it was switched over as soon as the credits were done.

Kinda drifted from the new topic of this thread, but meh...

Although the increase from DVD to Blu-Ray being larger than that of VHS to DVD? :shifty::confused::rockbrow:

Err...skepticism overload. :p

jsz0

20-Feb-2008, 10:17 PM

My point is that it's just a waste of money for the time being. And Alot of people agree....

That is a choice everyone needs to make for themselves. I disagree on it being a waste of money though. If someone makes a large investment in buying an HDTV they would be foolish to not take advantage of HD content. In that circumstance the waste of money would be the HDTV display in the first place.

bassman

20-Feb-2008, 10:27 PM

They were intended to be seen that way. In theaters. ;)

Now we can get that in our homes. You don't honestly think that DVD resolution is what is shown in theaters do you?

No, a lot of people are just misinformed or won't give high-def the time of day.

ugh...you just don't accept that people have their own opinion, do you?

No, dvd is not what's shown in theaters. OBVIOUSLY.

And you're saying that all the people waiting for the price of hd/blu ray to go down are misinformed? What kind logic is that? Some people have other, more important things to spend their money on so they choose to wait until the price of HD/BR drops. Simple as....

Mike70

20-Feb-2008, 10:46 PM

Here's the Thing. . . Who cares? I'm not about to go and buy a blue ray player, and replace all my dvd collection AND buy a high Def TV just to see a movie in magical clarity.

indeed who cares? i am not about to go out and buy one either. i tend to prefer downloading things anyway and whether or not i can see the angels dancing on the pin at 1080 is of absolutely no concern to me.

right along with you i am not about to go and replace the massive amount of DVDs just because of geeky techno babble. the ones i have are just fine...

MinionZombie

21-Feb-2008, 10:01 AM

indeed who cares? i am not about to go out and buy one either. i tend to prefer downloading things anyway and whether or not i can see the angels dancing on the pin at 1080 is of absolutely no concern to me.

right along with you i am not about to go and replace the massive amount of DVDs just because of geeky techno babble. the ones i have are just fine...
Exactly, it took me several years to convert over to DVD from VHS, which I finally stopped buying around about 2003 or 2004 (cheap-ass videos of films on my film course you see, then I could watch them in bed, rather than on the hard-ass seats in the screening rooms at uni :D)

Next-Gen DVD has only just come out, besides I neither have the TV to play the discs on, nor the player, and am far from flush with cash - certainly not cash I can be throwing around on the latest DVD upgrade.

I'm not at the beckoned call of the tech makers, they can damn well wait for my cash. :p

Bellevue13

23-Feb-2008, 08:40 PM

Myspace is holding a contest the ends on Feb 29th. The aim of the Contest is to produce a horror short video,
of no more than three (3) minutes, that compliments, counterpoints, emulates, or parodies the Movie.
The top 10 video with the most votes will be seen by Romero. Romero will then hand pick 5 to be on the DVD
of "Diary of the Dead" The winners will be announced on the 14th of March. . . So a release date of the 20th
is a little tight. More info & short's here;

www.myspace.com/diaryofthedead (http://www.myspace.com/diaryofthedead)

Check them out some good. . . some not so good!

Thanks,

bassman

23-Feb-2008, 10:14 PM

I see that you're new....but we all know about the competition by now.

If we didn't, we wouldn't be fans.:)

Yojimbo

23-Feb-2008, 11:46 PM

I had originally written a post which, after the fact I thought better of so I deleted it.

Griff

24-Feb-2008, 01:12 PM

I have a video projector which I use to watch movies 12 feet wide because it replicates the cinema going experience. At that size, image quality counts. Full 1080p hi-def is 6 times more detailed than DVD and the difference is often astounding.

Now, it might not seem like much on your 40" plasma, especially if its only capable of displaying 720p (something like 2 and a half times the resolution of DVD) but it makes a huge difference to me. Sure, you can make out what's happening on a regular DVD just fine - especially on medium shots to close ups - but long shots or shots that feature alot of background detail can result in a horrbile murky mess. And its not just resolution, either. Compression can rob an image of alot of its intended detail.

And I'm not talking about the fine moustache on some woman's lip, or some dog turd on the ground 200 feet from camera. That's an ignorant perception. Like the other guy said, if that's all this technology was good for than we may as well have stuck with VHS and Laserdisc. No, its about recreating 'reality'. Just like how widescreen emulates our peripheral vision and how surround sound caters to our directional hearing. Its simply unnatural to have an object appear blurred when its supposed to be in focus. That's why people wear spectacles.

As for hi-def being a waste of money... if you buy your movies for the same reason as I do: because its the closest to owning a perfect print of your favourite film, then it is money well spent. Regular DVD, on the other hand, is now just a compromise, as VHS once was. Acceptable, maybe, but still a compromise.

If you have any plans on future-proofing your collection, you'd do well to only start puchasing hi-def if available from now on because someday you might upgrade your display device and realize that your previous penny-pinching is only gonna cost you more in the long run.

P.S. If you need convincing of hi-def's superiority to standard definition DVD, try comparing the first two screenshots in this link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=885362).

capncnut

24-Feb-2008, 04:18 PM

If you need convincing of hi-def's superiority to standard definition DVD, try comparing the first two screenshots in this link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=885362).
I understand what you mean Griff but is reading a few shop signs worth the extra two grand?

Yojimbo

24-Feb-2008, 05:00 PM

P.S. If you need convincing of hi-def's superiority to standard definition DVD, try comparing the first two screenshots in this link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=885362).

I visited your link and see the obvious difference in picture quality between the two formats. Certainly hi-def provides a superior quality picture, and if I was rolling in bucks I would run out and pick this up, along with a lot of other toys that I have my eyes on. The main thing that prevents me from doing this is the cost of the item, which for me is prohibitive at this time.

I recall when CDs first came out that the price of both the CD disks and the players were way, way high. A handful of years later the costs began to reduce and now at this time is completely affordable to practially everyone, even poor folks like me. Yeah, I was pretty envious of my friends who had a CD player back in 1986, but really saved myself quite a bit of money waiting until the mid 90's to pick one up.

So my intended tactic will likely be the same for Hi-Def. Certainly, disks that I pick up for DVD in the interim will be useless later, but such are the spoils of war when operating within realm of the possible. When the unit price becomes more affordable and I purchase one, I will have to begin the long process of building a new Hi-Def collection. Quite frankly, there are a lot of DVD titles in my collection that likely will not repurchase in the new format, and -- lower picture quality notwithstanding -- I don't mind watching in the old format.

Griff

24-Feb-2008, 05:32 PM

I understand what you mean Griff but is reading a few shop signs worth the extra two grand?

You must've fallen asleep during my third paragraph where I called that kinda thinking ignorant. Take a look out your window and tell me: does your quality of vision correlate more with the first (SD) pic or the second (HD) one?

Its all about immersion and if you don't get it, that's fine - I'm just glad you're not the ones making the decisions for us more discerning viewers.

P.S. What's an 'extra two grand'? The money you'll save by adopting hi-def now, rather than after another 10 years of standard def purchasing?

krakenslayer

25-Feb-2008, 02:22 PM

High Def is great, but you can only tell the difference in quality if you have a huge TV set. Buying an HD TV under about 40 inch is kind of pointless, as you won't be able to pick out much of a difference unless you have your nose up to the screen, and I refuse to have a TV so big that it demands to be the centre of attention in the room. It's kind of Orwellian. I think I'll continue buying DVDs until they discontinue them.

What's more - VHS was popular for 20 years before it was overtaken by DVD. DVD has only been a major format for about a decade and it's already being overtaken. The cynic in me thinks that if we all roll-over and get Blu-Ray players right off the bat, the techcos will be switching to new formats every five years and screwing us for everything we've got.

capncnut

25-Feb-2008, 02:49 PM

You must've fallen asleep during my third paragraph where I called that kinda thinking ignorant. Take a look out your window and tell me: does your quality of vision correlate more with the first (SD) pic or the second (HD) one?

Its all about immersion and if you don't get it, that's fine - I'm just glad you're not the ones making the decisions for us more discerning viewers.

P.S. What's an 'extra two grand'? The money you'll save by adopting hi-def now, rather than after another 10 years of standard def purchasing?
Look Ralphus, I was only replying to your PS and not the whole post, hence my quotation of it and not the rest. I'm not trying to stop anyone from buying Hi-Def, I'm just saying that it's not for me right now and I'll only invest in the format when it's not so obscenely priced. Believe it or not there are a lot of people who are happy with their standard widescreen TV's and regular DVD's. I personally don't think it's worth the money, that's all.

Jeez, has anyone noticed the attitude with these Hi-Def owners? :rolleyes:

bassman

25-Feb-2008, 03:03 PM

Jeez, has anyone noticed the attitude with these Hi-Def owners? :rolleyes:

You know that I have. Apparently if someone doesn't 100% share their opinion of HD, they throw out remarks like "ignorant" and act like Stadard DVD users are friggin neanderthals.:rolleyes:

ProfessorChaos

25-Feb-2008, 03:18 PM

so, any news on a dvd release date? even better yet, are there any chances of a wider release anytime soon?

MinionZombie

25-Feb-2008, 05:48 PM

I'm gonna go look at my Hot Fuzz DVD, no way does it look like that. :rockbrow:

capncnut

25-Feb-2008, 06:34 PM

You know that I have. Apparently if someone doesn't 100% share their opinion of HD, they throw out remarks like "ignorant" and act like Stadard DVD users are friggin neanderthals.:rolleyes:
It's a TV war!

"I got a better TV than you and you're just a pauper, ner-ner..." :lol:

I'm gonna go look at my Hot Fuzz DVD, no way does it look like that. :rockbrow:
My first instinct was 'what fanboy applied the Photoshop blur'? :D

MinionZombie

25-Feb-2008, 06:58 PM

My first instinct was 'what fanboy applied the Photoshop blur'?

Ditto. I mean heck, Transformers on SD looks superb. I was astounded by how sharp the picture looked, but that's not to say I look at SD DVD and go "pfft, lame" like some f*ckin' tech fanboy hopping between technology beds like a normal blokey-bloke would do with beds and women. :lol:

Griff

26-Feb-2008, 03:34 AM

An SD source on an SD device looks fine. SD on an HD device? Not so good, especially if its a particularly large HD device.

And nobody said there shouldn't be a DVD release of this movie, its just when somebody pined for a HD release, a buncha people poo-poo'd the idea like it was a waste of money and started perpetuating the ignorant perception that all HD was good for was seeing 'flies on fenceposts'. Its the widescreen vs fullscreen debate from 10 years ago all over again: those who fear change vs those who embrace it.

If you ask me, they're just scared that the DVD collections that they've spent thousands on may not be the be-all-and-end-all that they thought they were ...so they feel compelled to belittle HD supporters (who, it should go without saying, also have massive SD collections) by implying that they're somehow snobs and trivializing the virtues of their superior format. We were just trying to bring people around but they, in turn, could only try to bring us down.

It might make them feel better about the longevity of their DVD collection but it also makes them bad sports. And now they're practically high-fiving each other, seemingly aware that their only real strength is in numbers.

Nice one fellas. You're officially a mob.

AcesandEights

26-Feb-2008, 03:50 AM

Jeez, has anyone noticed the attitude with these Hi-Def owners? :rolleyes:

Yes, I've been following the thread since it started and it's all seeming increasingly reminiscent of a debate with Scientologists :D

Griff

26-Feb-2008, 03:58 AM

Yes, I've been following the thread since it started and it's all seeming increasingly reminiscent of a debate with Scientologists :D

Why? Because I acknowledge and enjoy the superiority of a high-definition image it means I somehow subscribe to a fantasy version of reality? Couldn't the opposite be true? That perhaps you're the ones who's unwavering faith has been challenged and your response is to cry blasphemy and bury your head in the sand?

Burn the witch, indeed.

clanglee

26-Feb-2008, 06:10 AM

It might make them feel better about the longevity of their DVD collection but it also makes them bad sports. And now they're practically high-fiving each other, seemingly aware that their only real strength is in numbers.

Nice one fellas. You're officially a mob.

Nope, most of our strength comes from our collective poverty. But please rub your superior set-up in our faces a litle bit more. :rolleyes: (ummm. . that sounds a bit gay upon a re-read.:lol:)

Griff

26-Feb-2008, 06:58 AM

But please rub your superior set-up in our faces a litle bit more. :rolleyes:

Don't be so childish. The purposes of me mentioning my set-up were completely illustrative. Another nice attempt to twist the innocuous into something evil (ie. snobbery, again) in order to further your own agenda (which is what exactly? people with HD set-ups, unlike you, should be destroyed or something?). I feel like that poor bastard trying to protect his kid from the cowardly homicidal religious zealots in THE MIST.

So, who's the next 'hero' gonna be to supress reason with hysteria?

BURN THE WITCH! BURN THE WITCH!

This thread is fast becoming an interesting social experiment.

clanglee

26-Feb-2008, 07:36 AM

Really, that's my one and only point. That the people with the awesome HD sets and Blue-Ray players are just so snobbish about it. I don't think anyone here would turn down a free HD TV and what-have-you. But you have to realize that we all make our purchase decisions on value. "Is it worth it?" To most of us, the outlandish price of a brand new set and system, not to mention the replacement of our libraries, does not yet equal the worth of a few extra pixels worth of clarity. If you can afford it, great. . wonderful. Keep up the good work. I however have a family to take care of first before I blow my wad on a new toy.

MinionZombie

26-Feb-2008, 10:17 AM

I duno about anyone else, but I don't consider any format at any stage to be the "be all and end all", because I know there's plenty of formats to come in the decades and centuries in the future.

However, it just seems a bit daft, DVD really only kicked off big style around about 2002, even though it had already been out since 1997. But it was around about 2002 when sales really picked up and after that they were screaming up the charts. In fact, people were buying many more DVDs faster than they had with VHS tapes at the same stage in the format's life...obviously there are differences between social standings from the 80's to the 00's, but still...

Anyway, reasons why I'm not hopping on the HD bandwagon yet:

1) What's wrong with DVD? The leap from VHS to DVD makes sense, the leap from DVD to HD just isn't the same.
2) I've not got the cash to be ditching on a whole new batch of technology.
3) I've not got a massive screen, and if you don't have a massive screen, HD is almost completely pointless.

Eventually I'll get into HD, but that's a long way off, and I think it's only going to be the techno geeks and "must have new things" types who will adopt it straight away. It's gonna be a fair while until it becomes industry standard.

I also looked at my copy of Hot Fuzz and as I thought, no way was that long shot so sh*t looking. I had to take the image and blow it up twice to make it look like that (by scrolling up on Image Viewer on windows with the screen shot).

All the other shots just showed a bit more clarity, but nothing I'd be pissing my pants over like some school boy, certainly not worth paying thousands and thousands of pounds for a whole new player and a f*cking huge television to actually make it worthwhile getting the HD versions.

And I'm not berating HD, I just don't think it's this massive "oh my f*cking godz0rz, my eyes are falling out with shock!" development that the bandwagon jumping folks out there in internet land (not saying anyone here, so shut the f*ck up with trying to manipulate my words anybody, I've only just woken up and I can't be arsed with giving my words Blu-Ray clairty :rolleyes::p)...

Where was I?

Oh yeah, I'm speaking from a practical point of view. With the economy taking a down turn and people having to tighten their belts, and people like myself not having the cash to throw around anyway, this sort of tech - which requires a massive TV to be worthwhile - isn't going to catch on until it's:

A) Cheap.
B) People are needing to replace what they have at the moment.

It's like with widescreen televisions. They took ages to catch on, it was a slow process but now almost every single TV on sale is a 16x9. As people had working TV's in 4:3, when theirs broke - and if they could afford it - they got a 16x9 - otherwise they kept getting 4:3's until 16x9's were cheap enough to buy.

They were cheap enough to buy as there were more of them on the shop floor to sell, so the prices come down, and that's when demand kicks in.

It'll be the same with this whole 'next gen dvd' malarky.

Griff

26-Feb-2008, 02:45 PM

I understand your reasons for not going HD at the present time, but are you guys trying to convince me or convince yourselves?

There's always gonna be a million reasons why you can't do something but ultimately you just either do it or you don't.

And if you don't, I see no reason why those that do should be belittled or made to feel like they've been foolishly hoodwinked into jumping onto some sorta bandwagon when its clearly unnecessary.

I don't think HD supporters are snobbish. Infact, the insinuation is absurdly xenophobic. We do, however, resent those that view our willingness to cross over to that greener pasture as being reckless and feel compelled to lecture to everyone else about how foolish we are and how great they've already got it where they are.

SD isn't going anywhere anytime soon so just enjoy it and allow us to enjoy HD, and should you finally decide you want to join us, hopefully our early support would've helped establish a good enough range of product to make the transition viable, just like those early adopters of DVD did.

Because if you didn't get a DVD player until 2001 or later, you WERE the ones jumping on the bandwagon - one that others had already blazed the trail for.

DubiousComforts

26-Feb-2008, 03:04 PM

1) What's wrong with DVD? The leap from VHS to DVD makes sense, the leap from DVD to HD just isn't the same.
This is where you are mistaken. I can understand that psychologically the advance from VHS to DVD seems greater; after all, it's a clunky analog cassette vs. a sleek digital disc. The technical specifications don't lie, however. This is not about being able to see the stubble on an actor's face more clearly. It makes a lot of sense that as the storage capacity of digital media increased, the resolution at which video is delivered would significantly increase, as well. HD is not a trendy "gadget" like an iPod which is simply designed for convenience and fashion.

I've yet to own anything that is even remotely considered "Hi-Def," and nobody is putting a gun to my head about dumping my DVD collection either. But I can understand the frustration of HD users when confronted by the blatant silliness as demonstrated in this thread.

Mike70

26-Feb-2008, 03:14 PM

again i'll reiterate it makes no difference to me as far as picture quality. i am not a techno geek and simply don't care if i can get sharper this or clearer that. a regular DVD player on a decent TV works just fine for me.

i don't think there is such a thing as a bandwagon for things like this. new tech comes out it either lives or it dies and sometimes it supplants what went before it. one of the best examples of this is the switch from vinyl to CDs in the 80s. there was no bandwagon. after a certain point you either got a CD player or you abandoned the hope of hearing new music because the industry itself abandoned vinyl.

the same thing has happened with VHS to DVD. you either get a DVD player or your give up the idea of seeiing new movies.

in addition a lot of folks wisely wait for the inevitable drop in price (plummet usually in tech like this) that happens. how much did DVD players cost when they came out? hundreds upon hundreds of dollars right? the same DVD player that someone jumped on for $700 when they first came out to look cool, another, more patient person got for $150 just a few years later. who is the sucker in that scenario?

Griff

26-Feb-2008, 03:14 PM

But I can understand the frustration of HD users when confronted by the blatant silliness as demonstrated in this thread.

Thanks man. Live and let live, that's all we want.

how much did DVD players cost when they came out? hundreds upon hundreds of dollars right? the same DVD player that someone jumped on for $700 when they first came out to look cool, another, more patient person got for $150 just a few years later. who is the sucker in that scenario?

The same sucker that created the initial demand and gave the new technology a chance in the market in the first place, perhaps?

D'ya think if when DVD came out and absolutely nobody had bought the thing, we'd all be sitting so pretty right now?

DVD could've just as easily gone the way of the mini-disc only it was the right technology at the right time and some people put their money where their mouth was instead hiding under the bed waiting for the storm to pass.

You might think early adopters of new technology do so just to 'look cool' but when it comes to an unestablished format like DVD was, it takes balls - something you won't find on the type of person who only bets on a sure-thing.

Mike70

26-Feb-2008, 03:19 PM

But I can understand the frustration of HD users when confronted by the blatant silliness as demonstrated in this thread.

why should HD users be frustrated? some folks don't want to shell out the cash to switch over and that is pretty much what it amounts too.

like acesandeights said this is like talking with a scientologist.

also i would like to add are a couple of you such sorry ass people that you need to wax poetic about your home theater systems to feel good about yourselves? what is next? bragging about how hung you are?

Griff

26-Feb-2008, 03:47 PM

why should HD users be frustrated? some folks don't want to shell out the cash to switch over and that is pretty much what it amounts too.

Because some people just can't let others shell out the cash to switch over without feeling the need to put in their two cents about how foolish and snobbish they are for doing so and how pre-occupied with looking cool they must be?

like acesandeights said this is like talking with a scientologist.

You're damn straight. You hit 'em with reason and a 'hey, I'm fine, you're fine, choice is good so what's the hassle?' and they come back at you with hysterics and twisted logic. For example:

also i would like to add are a couple of you such sorry ass people that you need to wax poetic about your home theater systems to feel good about yourselves? what is next? bragging about how hung you are?

And we're back where we started again...

BURN THE WITCH! BURN THE WITCH!

What's got you guys so on the offensive that you have to continually resort to aiming low on what's supposed to be a friendly forum?

Is it the the strength of my convictions? ...Or the fragility of yours?

bassman

26-Feb-2008, 03:59 PM

kidgloves

26-Feb-2008, 04:10 PM

Im with Griff on this one. When you've got a properly calibrated screen running through the correct cables the picture is truly oustanding. Pop out the HD disc and pop in a SD one and you notice the difference straightaway and it is very difficult to go back to SD. There are bad HD transfers which don't show of the format in all its glory and put these up against the SD version and you won't see much of a difference. They may look very similar just the HD will look sharper. Now get a good HD transfer and it is like looking out the window. The depth of the picture is stunning.
Now, im a member of an AV forum because it has become a hobby of mine. Virtually every member of this forum has the setup as their sig and it works because it encourages discussion about the different types of equipment and opinions. Does this make us snobs and "scientologists"? No. Geeks maybe. Whats the difference between having a sig on this site and on an AV site. Whats the difference between having a passion for audio video and having a passion for Romero movies.

Mike70

26-Feb-2008, 04:11 PM

Griff

26-Feb-2008, 04:20 PM

Dude.....seriously Griff.

From the looks of it, nobody is denying that HD has a better resolution than standard DVD. The only argument everyone is making is that why pay so much for the product NOW, when it will obviously be drastically cheaper within a few years?

Just like DVDs and DVD players. When they were first released, sure they looked alot better ,but they were expensive as fook. Now look at how cheap DVDs and DVD players are. MUCH more of a reasonable price. That's what most of these people are saying. They'll just wait until the price drops.

Dude....seriously, you started it!

Some guy came on here saying how much he liked HD and you, you troublemaker, you went straight into the 'who wants to see such and such, HD is essentially a pointless, indulgeant wankfest and of no real benefit to anybody'-routine. I swear! Re-read the posts.

Man, the guy loves HD - who the hell is anyone to tell him otherwise?

exactly. thank you. i've never said (nor to my knowledge has anyone else in this thread) it wasn't better just that i don't care at this point. a few years down the road that will most likely be different.

someone needs to untwist their panties though they appear to be chaffing.

"Hey, I was just being cool and, y'know, saying that..."

Bullsh*t on that. Man, you guys got all sh*tty and started with the snide remarks, insults and mockery and stuff. Don't make me go back and quote you on every snarky comment you said because its getting late and I should really be in bed. And I'd like to let it go at this point, if I may.

MinionZombie

26-Feb-2008, 04:28 PM

Can we all shut the f*ck up on this issue now? Christ, you kids are giving me a headache...I'll have to go and get my "adults only medicine" that you kids aren't allowed to touch and go sit in front of the TV for a few hours. :p

Also, convincing? I wasn't doing squat, I was stating my reasons for not hopping on the bandwagon.

Converting to a new medium when it's industry standard, when you've wisely waited for the prices to come down to reasonable levels, is not bandwagon jumping. It's normal consumer movement.

To be honest, such fast and free will to ditch a format so readily does not bode well with me...heck, I made a little short film about such things. It's all part of this perverse throw-away society.

Fact is, next gen DVD is going to take years before it's industry standard. That's just how it is, now everybody shut the f*ck up, it's like a bunch of brick walls yelling at each other and you kids are driving me crazy...

*grabs bottle of double-percentaged adult medicine*

...damn kids on my lawn, yellin'...raaazzafurr...*belch*...:D

Mike70

26-Feb-2008, 04:38 PM

awww MZ we're just having a good friendly row here. besides it ups the post count:shifty:.

sorry about your bushes though. and that flaming bag of pooh left on your doorstep.

Griff

26-Feb-2008, 04:38 PM

Fact is, next gen DVD is going to take years before it's industry standard.

Well, I agree with that. I can't see any format achieving the popularity of DVD. It'll probably be digital downloads, streaming hi-def on-demand by the time the entire world is ready to make a change and that won't be for some time...

But for those who want it now, there's an interim solution: Blu-Ray.

And I guarantee that DVD will lose its popularity as TVs get bigger and cheaper and people start getting used to those beautiful HD digital broadcasts that cable/satellite and even free-to-air TV are all gradually switching over to.

bassman

26-Feb-2008, 04:53 PM

Dude....seriously, you started it!

Some guy came on here saying how much he liked HD and you, you troublemaker, you went straight into the 'who wants to see such and such, HD is essentially a pointless, indulgeant wankfest and of no real benefit to anybody'-routine. I swear! Re-read the posts.

:lol::lol:

okay sonny boy....calm down. Take your meds.

I don't think HD is THAT much of an increase and that's my opinion. It is an increase, but not worth the price that it's at at the moment.

Breathe....you'll make it through this.:p

Yojimbo

26-Feb-2008, 07:22 PM

And I guarantee that DVD will lose its popularity as TVs get bigger and cheaper and people start getting used to those beautiful HD digital broadcasts that cable/satellite and even free-to-air TV are all gradually switching over to.

Dude, that is what I am saying.

I'm married and living on a budget. Hell, I have to ask for permission to buy deodorant for freaking sake! As much as I would love to live the HiDef life, I can't afford it right and - great picture quality notwithstanding - can't justify shelling out cash that I reall don't have.

If you or anyone else want to donate to the "Let's Buy Yojimbo a Hi-Def System Campaign" the send me an e-mail and I will send you an address where you can send your cash, checks or money orders. But unless that happens, I am going to have to wait until the prices come way way down.

I acknowledge that there are folks like you and others who are paving the way, and that poor folk like me owe you pioneers a debt of gratitude when the prices eventually come down.

MinionZombie

26-Feb-2008, 08:04 PM

Mind you, the price of huge TVs can only come down so far, and it can't come down too far otherwise you end up with cheap bits of tat that don't work and aren't economically viable.

Also, not everybody - heck most people probably - won't have the space to have a massive screen.

So those two factors can only go so far, which in effect limits the speed of the ascension of next gen DVD.

C5NOTLD

26-Feb-2008, 09:29 PM

I'm just saying that it's not for me right now and I'll only invest in the format when it's not so obscenely priced. Believe it or not there are a lot of people who are happy with their standard widescreen TV's and regular DVD's. I personally don't think it's worth the money, that's all.

That was my opinion until a friend got one and I saw it in person. Was very impressed and now I own a 50" HD Toshiba Widescreen and couldn't be happier. If you are really into movies the extra cost is worth it.

Regular Dvds even look great on it. But the HD and blu ray are really a sight to see. I don't plan on replacing my dvd library but I do buy films I don't have on HD and Blu Ray. The one exception to replacing my dvds was picking up The Shining on HD. That film is gorgeous in HD.

Here's hoping Diary of the Dead will also come out on Blu Ray....

UndeadGuyX

26-Feb-2008, 10:04 PM

I'd just like to state that it is a misconception to think that HD media is considerably more expensive than standard DVD. Amazon is the perfect example. Most movies on both Blu-ray and HDVD can be purchased for around $20. This includes new releases.

It is also worth mentioning that Amazon is well known for their BOGO (buy one, get one) deals for both high-def movie formats.

Its just a matter of shopping smart and knowing where to look.

Other than that, its ok to think what you will. Although you can't agrue with facts.

capncnut

26-Feb-2008, 10:27 PM

That was my opinion until a friend got one and I saw it in person.
I've watched many a Blu-Ray movie on an LCD television - it's nice and shiny and all that, I'm the kind of guy who upgrades when something is broken or in dire need of replacing. Hell, I even took out a trial rental on a Hi-Def set to check for myself and it went back within a week.

Of course, I would like to have one but I can't see it happening until a top of the range one is made cheap. Also, I want to take a holiday this year so that will consume any money plans I might've squandered on Hi-Def.

AcesandEights

26-Feb-2008, 10:32 PM

Why? Because I acknowledge and enjoy the superiority of a high-definition image it means I somehow subscribe to a fantasy version of reality? Couldn't the opposite be true? That perhaps you're the ones who's unwavering faith has been challenged and your response is to cry blasphemy and bury your head in the sand?

Burn the witch, indeed.

Okay, now you sound like you're trying to be Jesus Christ--quite the martyr complex you've worked up over a discussion about entertainment technology.

Get it through your head. Some people are not yet ready to make the leap for various reasons. End of story. No need to proselytize or pick a continuous fight over something so utterly insignificant.

clanglee

26-Feb-2008, 11:23 PM

Amen!! :D

DubiousComforts

27-Feb-2008, 01:11 AM

I'd just like to state that it is a misconception to think that HD media is considerably more expensive than standard DVD. Amazon is the perfect example. Most movies on both Blu-ray and HDVD can be purchased for around $20. This includes new releases.

Other than that, its ok to think what you will. Although you can't agrue with facts.
This man speaks the truth! The price of HD is not nearly as expensive as when DVD or even VHS were first introduced. As noted, brand-spanking new HD releases are readily sold at retail for $20. A single movie on VHS cassette cost $80 before sell-through prices were introduced.

Millions of people have had no problem dumping $400 on a PS3 console even though the previous model was released just six years earlier. At least it plays Blu-Ray discs.

Griff

27-Feb-2008, 03:28 AM

Okay, now you sound like you're trying to be Jesus Christ--quite the martyr complex you've worked up over a discussion about entertainment technology.

Matyr? I feel more like the sacrificial lamb.

Get it through your head. Some people are not yet ready to make the leap for various reasons. End of story. No need to proselytize or pick a continuous fight over something so utterly insignificant.

If you go through the posts, you'll see that I haven't questioned anybody as to why they haven't gone HD yet. Its all a fabrication on the part of the gutless lynch mob trying to cover up their tracks. They obviously did a good job because I'm STILL defending myself from stuff nobody, including myself, ever said. Let me make it clear for everyone:

NOBODY HAS CRITICIZED ANYONE FOR NOT GOING HD. GETTIT?!!

Sadly, the opposite is NOT true and that's how this whole thing f*cking well started.

And there's no need to clarify the situation for my benefit - I've been clear on that from the get go. Its been mob rule and hysteria since some poor guy (who's since run to the hills) said he preferred HD to SD. All I ever did was stand up for myself and others against some completely inappropriate animosity that came out of absolutely nowhere.

So, please, re-read the entire thread if you have to, but please, CHECK YOUR FACTS before you attack me again.

P.S. I'm pretty sure I'm cool with everyone else, now that they've put away the spears. Peace.

clanglee

27-Feb-2008, 07:23 AM

*sigh*

My problem isn't with the price of the DVDs themselves. It's the price of the system, and most especially the very expensive TV upgrade involved. You didn't have to buy a new TV from the upgrade to VHS to DVD. And the main bonus for me upon that previous upgrade wasn't the quality but the convenience. We went from having to fastfoward and rewind a tape to just selecting a desired scene. Not to mention the special features available on DVD that you can't pack onto a tape.

But let me say once again. It's the price. . . of the equipment. . that is keeping me, and many others here I'm sure, from upgrading right away. I'm sure that you understand that. At least I hope you understand that.

Griff

27-Feb-2008, 08:46 AM

Skippy911sc

27-Feb-2008, 03:26 PM

I had not heard of this...I did see that some tvs will only display in 1080p through the use of HDMI port. I have an HDMI port on my tv but don't currently use it. It is the only place I can get 1080p picture through. My component inputs can disply 1080i so that is good enough for me...they upscale to 1080p any way.

MinionZombie

27-Feb-2008, 03:30 PM

I knew alot of people back in the day that had to buy a new TV because their's didn't have RCA inputs and any attempt to piggy back a DVD player through their VCR only resulted in copy protection being activated. It was very frustrating at the time for a lot of people, as I recall, and many were forced to buy new TVs so they could play DVDs. Sad, but true. There's a similar thing going on with HDMI now whereby players will not output a hi-def or upscaled picture without a HDMI input on your TV, purely for 'anti-piracy' measures. It sucks.
And you know what all that means to me? It means "too complicated". By the time it's industry standard, it'll be far simpler, because by that time any idiot will be able to buy one, so it has to be idiot proof...but right now, it's too complex ... or at least it's too boring right now, I can't be arsed with all the techno-jabber, as well as all the cash that would have to be ditched.

DubiousComforts

27-Feb-2008, 04:52 PM

And you know what all that means to me? It means "too complicated". By the time it's industry standard, it'll be far simpler, because by that time any idiot will be able to buy one, so it has to be idiot proof...but right now, it's too complex ... or at least it's too boring right now, I can't be arsed with all the techno-jabber, as well as all the cash that would have to be ditched.
Heh heh, "too complicated." If you have a personal computer or a laptop, then you're already dealing with all the "techno-jabber," you just don't realize it. :D Many consumers never learned how to program the timer on their VCRs, either, even though timer taping was a major convenience being purported by the new technology. This is why there are installation techs.

MinionZombie

27-Feb-2008, 05:43 PM

If you have a personal computer or a laptop, then you're already dealing with all the "techno-jabber,"

Exactly, but a computer is far more necessary than running off like a desperate man to grab a brand new next-gen DVD set up when the tech is young.

Also, another point, cos of computers and so on, I've got enough techno-jibber-jabber to be dealing with, so I don't need any more complexities! :)

Mike70

27-Feb-2008, 05:56 PM

jesus this the thread that will not die and has gone so far off the topic is it almost on another continent.

somebody put this thing out of its misery - please.

Yojimbo

27-Feb-2008, 09:46 PM

jesus this the thread that will not die and has gone so far off the topic is it almost on another continent.

somebody put this thing out of its misery - please.

Back to the issue at hand:

I for one will be buying this DVD as soon as it comes out. Hoping for special features galore, though I could care less about that MySpace contest that was happening. Most of the videos I have seen posted there are pretty lame, though still they are all better than Contagium by a longshot!!

Mike70

27-Feb-2008, 09:59 PM

Back to the issue at hand:

I for one will be buying this DVD as soon as it comes out. Hoping for special features galore, though I could care less about that MySpace contest that was happening. Most of the videos I have seen posted there are pretty lame, though still they are all better than Contagium by a longshot!!

finally! yes i too cannot wait to get my grimy paws on a copy of this movie. hopefully it will have tons of extras on it and maybe even one of our HPOTD brethren will get their short onto it.

dude cats hoarking up fur balls on film could give contagium a run. and the cat vids wouldn't cost $9 million to make either.

Yojimbo

27-Feb-2008, 10:10 PM

dude cats hoarking up fur balls on film could give contagium a run. and the cat vids wouldn't cost $9 million to make either.

:lol: Scipio speaks the truth!

UndeadGuyX

28-Feb-2008, 05:47 AM

There's a similar thing going on with HDMI now whereby players will not output a hi-def or upscaled picture without a HDMI input on your TV, purely for 'anti-piracy' measures. It sucks.

You are referring to the Image Constraint Token (ICT) which has not been enabled on any movies except for a few German releases on HD DVD by Constantin Film.

Component video output works just fine for high-def up to 1080i. Although you are correct when it comes to upscaling standard DVD which requires HDMI.

It's also worth mentioning that component video is indeed capable of 1080p output. Its just not in the spec. Although that could change.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/08/14/offical-1080p-transport-proposed-for-component-video/

MinionZombie

28-Feb-2008, 10:03 AM

Heck yes, Diary is a deffo DVD purchase for me, and GAR-willing, I'll be seeing it in t'cinema. :cool:

As I've said before, I'm hoping it'll be a proper DVD set - two discs please - packed with extra features, and proper ones, not like the half-assed stuff on the Land DVD...that was a shame it didn't get a proper DVD treatment, or at least longer featurettes with none of that annoying nu-metal-rawk-type music or shots with stupid weird 'aging' effects on it - "can I just see the f*cking severed head in a close up with no crap layered on top please?!" :p

Anyway, give us a full-on Diary DVD first time out please! None of that double-dip sh*t either.

blind2d

28-Feb-2008, 12:34 PM

i don't care about features, but to own Diary would be righteous!

Moon Knight

28-Feb-2008, 05:52 PM