11 replies to this topic

[:)]

First concert I've checked on HD-DVD.

This is U2's Rattle & Hum
bit of info and an alternate view ?(havent read that review)
http://hddvd.highdef...ttleandhum.html

OK firstly you wont be buyign this one for the video quality. Obviously for artistic reasons its shot on what looks like video 8. Very grainy and the bulk in black and white !

I had the tosh HD-AX1 hooked up via hdmi to my hitachi 42" plasma and 5.1 analog outs to my HK avr.

What is a standout and why you would buy this is the sound and ofcourse the music particualrly if you are a U2 fan. I cant fault the sound. That was listenign via the analog outs to my avr and using its bass management and EX to get rear signal. Very good clean crisp sound and quite enveloping with audience and instruments, sound effects and reverb etc. Of particualr note was bono's vocals, really have a very nice richness to it. Just out of interest I switched to dig coax input on the avr which pics up the signal as dTS and I add neo6 for the rears and really the soudn jsut fell back to the screen and sounded a bit duller to my ears.

Some of the interviews/discussion mixed in with songs are quite interesting but have not checked any of the separate extra material out.

Love the menu system. While viewing you jsut hit either menu or the up button on the remote that brings up a little menu at the bottom of the screen with which you can pan through the songs with little thumb nails and song names before selecting to jump to any particualr song - very nice !

Now just to summarise I cant recommend this on PQ, but certainly for its sound and if yoru a U2 fan well worth getting.

now I'd better go read that highdefdigest review to see what it says ! hehehe

[laurie]

Hey Al how do you tell if the original was done in HD!! what's stopping them upscaling it to 1080i and call it HD!

cheers laurie

[Spearmint]

laurie, on Nov 11 2006, 12:45 AM, said:

Hey Al how do you tell if the original was done in HD!! what's stopping them upscaling it to 1080i and call it HD!

cheers laurie

I have no doubt that some of the current HD offerings are just that Laurie, there was some talk in one of the threads that some of the titles are no longer available in HD format, which makes me think some of these disc’s may have been tweaked to get some software on the streets to assist with hardware sales.

Alebonau, I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on the differences in the audio on the disc with some of these early titles, since this could also be some form of marketing ploy.

[mello yello]

This is what I was afraid of.....upscaled movies sold as HD

I really hope this isnt going to be another Rock n Roll Swindle....(hmmm good title for a movie that...wonder if it comes in HD? )  

[Bolden]

mello yello, on Nov 11 2006, 08:52 AM, said:

This is what I was afraid of.....upscaled movies sold as HD

I really hope this isnt going to be another Rock n Roll Swindle....(hmmm good title for a movie that...wonder if it comes in HD? )  

I'm very much a newb on this, but my understanding is that if they shot it on actual film, there is more than enough lines (something like 13,000) able to be used to make the 1080p.

(I heard this on the htguys podcast - but I may have misinterpreted).

[:)]

laurie, on Nov 11 2006, 12:45 AM, said:

Hey Al how do you tell if the original was done in HD!! what's stopping them upscaling it to 1080i and call it HD!

cheers laurie

with jsut the viewing I have done of it laurie certainly I'd say the original was not done in HD infact as I mentioned probably quite likely in video 8 instead ! hehe

[laurie]

Well at least with cd's they do tell you by code

AAA
ADD
DDD

cheers laurie

[Neon Kitten]

alebonau, on Nov 11 2006, 11:22 AM, said:

with jsut the viewing I have done of it laurie certainly I'd say the original was not done in HD infact as I mentioned probably quite likely in video 8 instead ! hehe

If I recall correctly, it was shot on Super 16mm.

[HomerJ]

Spearmint, on Nov 11 2006, 06:41 AM, said:

I have no doubt that some of the current HD offerings are just that Laurie, there was some talk in one of the threads that some of the titles are no longer available in HD format, which makes me think some of these disc’s may have been tweaked to get some software on the streets to assist with hardware sales.

I have no doubt you think 1. Man never landed on the moon  2. The Grand final result was altered in the studio...

If you check the many reviews on the web you will see that HD DVD (Bluray) is the real deal, showing significant improvement over standard DVD - and yes, quality of transfer varies from disc to disc (just like standard DVD).

Also, for your information:  When a movie is converted to HD each film frame (normally 35mm) is scanned at approx 4000 x 2000 to make a digital master which is later downconverted to 1920 x 1080p for HD media.  Even a film shot in 1930 can be 'turned' into HD by scanning at HD res.  Film has a potential resolution of over 4000 x 4000. Up until fairly recently film was scanned a lower res since standard DVD is only 720 x 576 (PAL).

However if the original source is in video format then it cannot be made into HD without some sort of upconversion and of course data can't be recreated from nothing.

Rattle & Hum was shot on 16mm film in low lighting.  They used 'fast' film to capture the low light performance. Fast film has lower res than 'normal' film.  The standard DVD is also below average as far a video quality goes.

[Spearmint]

HomerJ, on Nov 12 2006, 08:39 PM, said:

I have no doubt you think 1. Man never landed on the moon  2. The Grand final result was altered in the studio...

If you check the many reviews on the web you will see that HD DVD (Bluray) is the real deal, showing significant improvement over standard DVD - and yes, quality of transfer varies from disc to disc (just like standard DVD).

Also, for your information:  When a movie is converted to HD each film frame (normally 35mm) is scanned at approx 4000 x 2000 to make a digital master which is later downconverted to 1920 x 1080p for HD media.  Even a film shot in 1930 can be 'turned' into HD by scanning at HD res.  Film has a potential resolution of over 4000 x 4000. Up until fairly recently film was scanned a lower res since standard DVD is only 720 x 576 (PAL).

However if the original source is in video format then it cannot be made into HD without some sort of upconversion and of course data can't be recreated from nothing.

Rattle & Hum was shot on 16mm film in low lighting.  They used 'fast' film to capture the low light performance. Fast film has lower res than 'normal' film.  The standard DVD is also below average as far a video quality goes.

Well whoopee…so then what I said was right some of the titles are going to be Crap! So why did you waffle on about what I believe in or not? I also believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause...

BTW Mr Smarty pants it’s not what they can do is the issue, it’s what they actually do.

[mello yello]

HomerJ, on Nov 12 2006, 08:39 PM, said:

I have no doubt you think 1. Man never landed on the moon  2. The Grand final result was altered in the studio...

1 Man didnt land on the Moon...show me the proof...wheres the Coke cans in the footage

and

2 the Dragons were robbed in 99 by the video ref (in the studio)  

3 There is always Whingepool if you dont like what you read here  

HomerJ, on Nov 12 2006, 08:39 PM, said:

However if the original source is in video format then it cannot be made into HD without some sort of upconversion and of course data can't be recreated from nothing.

Sounds like a Rock n Roll Swindle to me  

oh...and basically what Spearmint was saying


...so why the attitood dood?

  

[:)]

Neon Kitten, on Nov 12 2006, 05:26 PM, said:

If I recall correctly, it was shot on Super 16mm.

hehe twice as good then ! hehe

seriously guys wouldnt get this one for the video. but for the audio I honestly do think its worth it as with the music and other aspects especially if your a U2 fan.

As with DVD I'm sure there will be good and bad as with any format.