Following on from the old thread.
Would anybody like me to explain exactly why HD is always going to be better than DVD, regardless of the age of the original film? Because I can and will if it won't bore you all terribly.
( Kroney, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 10:52, 4 replies, latest was 15 years ago)

It will bore us all terribly
and I suspect that's why you will
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 10:53, Reply)

Not unless somebody actually wants to hear the explanation.
I'm well aware that technical explanations will bore the shit out of most people.
( Kroney, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 10:54, Reply)

This is one of those rare occasions when I side with 'most people'.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 10:55, Reply)

I must admit to a small degree of intrigue
Although right now I have so many other things to spunk my hard-earned on that your explanation will be like expounding the merits of sex to a nun
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 10:56, Reply)

It's more like expounding the merits of a slightly better type of sex
to someone who is almost constantly balls deep in reasonably good pussy.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:09, Reply)

I like this

(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:15, Reply)

I don't understand how something that wasn't filmed in HD can benefit from playing on an HD telly
Also i find HD makes many things look like cheap soapa operas
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 10:54, Reply)

35mm film has a far, far higher "resolution" equivalency than even HD sources.
I've quoted "resolution", because resolution is meaningless to an analogue source. Simply put, 35mm film was capable of capturing far more detail per inch of screen than most projectors and CRT screens were capable of showing. When you put that into HD, it's better, but still nowhere near the quality that 35mm actually captured.
( Kroney, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 10:56, Reply)

that wasn't so bad...
*kills self*
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 10:57, Reply)

Good 35mm film stock has a rough pixel equivalency of 4320p
compared to the 1080p of modern hi def TVs
( Kroney, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:05, Reply)

And now that digital cameras are becoming popular in film-making
the original filmstock is actually becoming worse. So it's likely that if we have another jump in home TV pixel counts, Transformers 3, for example, will have absolutely no difference in quality as it was filmed in 1080p.

Casablanca, on the other hand, which was filmed on a much higher equivalency thanks to 35mm, will look a damned sight better.
( Kroney, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:09, Reply)

Transformers 3 wasn't filmed in 1080p
though, was it? Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick.

P.S. Excellent explanation - I've lost count of the number of people I've had to explain this to.
(Himjim died a little more inside on, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:15, Reply)

I have no idea, it was just an example.

( Kroney, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:17, Reply)

Fancy a beer, you frightful oik?

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:30, Reply)

Is it something to do with dressing gowns?

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 10:54, Reply)

It's more smoking jacket and cravat, really.

( Kroney, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:06, Reply)

You can explain it all you like
and, whilst you're technically correct with the amount of pixels on a screen and shit like that, DVD was a point where the quality was good enough that any improvement isn't significantly noticeable that it actually becomes a worthwhile investment. Especially when your telly upscales your DVDs (don't bother to whine about how this isn't the same as HD, I don't fucking care).

The only thing where HD telly is really noticeable, is when watching sport.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:09, Reply)

I really don't want to go into why upscaling is fucking shit.
You might not notice a difference, Al. That's fine. It's subjective. I, for example can't watch DVDs anymore on my relatively modest screen because the signal looks like shit.
( Kroney, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:11, Reply)

No, you choose not to watch DVDs on your telly because you're a picky bastard
I bet you tell people you can hear the difference between mp3s ripped at 192Kbps and 360Kbps too.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:12, Reply)

No
But I can tell the difference between a proper audio track on a DVD or bluray, compared to the compressed sound that is broadcast by the TV companies.

There's no point ripping an mp3 at anything over 256kbps
( Kroney, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:15, Reply)

A woman could probably tell the difference between 192kbps and 320kbps, thinking about it.
But it's unlikely you or I could unless we were listening on equipment that was capable of playing up 20KHz. Most computers and car stereos cut off at around 16KHz, which is where a 192kbps rip will start losing quality. 16KHz is also about where the average adult man will also start losing the ability to tell the difference.

Women are capable of hearing at higher frequencies than us, as are some men, so 20KHz is a good cut off and that equates to a 256kbps compression rate, or thereabouts.
( Kroney, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:35, Reply)

Between this and my amateur mechanics
I believe I hold the title of "Most Boring Person on the Internet".
( Kroney, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:48, Reply)

Against some stiff competition, I think you may be right.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:51, Reply)

I'd have thought you'd have had at least a passing interest
being a music-nobber, and all.
( Kroney, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:53, Reply)

It is good for that
I struggle to see the point of it for many other shows though
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:12, Reply)

Documentaries benefit from it too

( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Mon 15 Aug 2011, 11:37, Reply)