|  IP: Logged

Have you priced wide screen TVs lately? They don't fall within my budget. I agree that 'scope should be seen in 'scope (remember I was a projectionist when CinemaScope premiered and have seen the industry through all it's transitions) but unless someone is going to gift me with one I'll have to stick to P&S or STAND. Have a great day!

------------------
Find me online
AOL: Dexter Caldwell
yahoo!: dexter_caldwell

"It is the opinion of the entire staff the Dexter is criminally insane."

quote:

---

"I guess I feel that having to wait for an FBI warning doesn't even come remotely close to tipping the scales againt DVD. Like Evan said, it's the best medium ever for home. Random access, not having to rewind the damn thing every time, better picture, clear pauses, clear frame-by-frame, and better sound are just a few reasons why DVD is the best.

Part of me wonders if some of you are against DVD's just because they're digital?"

---

As for DVD--it's definitely the best home format, but it's still substandard in many ways. It seems to have been designed more for low cost and convenience rather than quality. If they had used larger-diameter disks, then they could have used a higher bitrate with fewer of the objectionable lossy compression artifacts which exist on every DVD that I have seen.

quote:

---

As for DVD--it's definitely the best home format, but it's still substandard in many ways. It seems to have been designed more for low cost and convenience rather than quality. If they had used larger-diameter disks, then they could have used a higher bitrate with fewer of the objectionable lossy compression artifacts which exist on every DVD that I have seen.

---

It's interesting to consider what kind of video quality DVDs might be capable of if they were on 12" discs (like LaserDiscs) instead of 5 1/4". But there's NO POSSIBLE WAY a consumer-oriented mass-produced system will EVER use discs any larger than they are now. As for the artifacting, I'm a pretty harsh critic, and I have to say that with a good progressive-scan DVD player with 3:2 pulldown, noticeable artifacting is pretty rare. I HATE artifacting, but it's all but disappeared on my 53" HD-capable set since I got a better DVD player (with component video of course). Transfers & compression techniques have improved too.

quote:

---

The BEST home video format right now is a little something called D-VHS.

---

Tape-based D-VHS is a stop-gap measure meant to facilitate recording and playback of true high-definition today. It's on the market now because DVD technology isn't quite ready yet for high-definition (for whatever reason). But D-VHS is doomed to fail. Unless I suddenly strike it rich, I wouldn't spend 2 cents on any "new" tape-based home video format. Better DVDs are coming and they will make tape-based systems instantly obsolete. I can wait. Consumer Videotape: Just Say No. Besides which, the studios are very nervous about releasing mass quantities of their product in full 1080i. Though some are currently supporting D-VHS, the quantities are miniscule in terms of the overall market. I just can't see D-VHS ever being very big unless the price suddenly drops below $300 for the hardware. I'll be very surprised if we ever see mass-production of hollywood product for the consumer market in real 1080i, whether it's D-VHS or a future true HD-capable version of DVD.

"The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author."

quote:

---

I noticed (according to Amazon.com) that the Neverending Story DVD will be released tomorrow, Sept. 3, and that it's 1.85:1

---

It was released (in Region 1) September 4 of last year!!! The disc includes a 2.35:1 original and 1.33:1 pan-and-scan edition.

As to DVD artifacts...I've seem on some of the best stuff and they still have compression artifacts that I don't like. The whole, only update those pixels that change seems to have a look I don't like.

The DVD player was certianly impressive (in appearance and weight!)...check out the Panasonic DVD-H2000
http://www.prodcat.panasonic.com/shop/NewDesign/ModelTemplate.asp?ModelID=11671

Looked pretty good....for video.

Steve

quote:

---

Actually, what I have noticed is that it is a better buy to get a 4:3 set and deal with the letterbox. The 16:9 sets don't seem any "wider" just less tall.

---

Steve

At any rate, those options make DVD much more convenient and fast than VHS to get to the movie. As others have pointed out, many VHS tape releases have lots and lots of previews and other crap on the front, all of which must be fast forwarded past to get to the show. Thank God for chapter buttons on DVD.

To address the P&S versus letterbox topic, I personally feel it is far better to stomach some thick black bars on a 4:3 TV set than buy a P&S version. I don't have a huge TV either (32" RCA model).

The problem with buying a pan and scan version is it is not "future proof" for a TV you'll likely buy a few years from now. If anyone thinks black bars on the top and bottom of a picture is distracting, try watching a show with black bars on the sides. That's exactly what you'll be doing with any P&S "fullscreen" DVD shown on a widescreen TV.

I watched HBO's HDTV channel this past week at my parents' place in Colorado. That channel sidebars all non-HD 4:3 content. And the effect doesn't look all that good. Any 4:3 P&S DVD will be treated the same way, unless you want to distort the picture by stretching it or doing an even worse thing by zooming into it.

Widescreen TV models (even boasting HDTV tuners) are replacing more and more category levels of monitors. Virtually all NTSC big screen sets have been replaced in electronics stores with HD or HD-ready models. In recent visits to various Best Buy, Soundtrack and Ultimate Electronics stores in Denver, Oklahoma City and Dallas, I found smaller and smaller CRT-based monitors with prices nearing the $1000 level. It won't be but maybe another year or two before we start seeing HDTV CRT monitors dropping well below the under-$1000 price level. The FCC has mandated all new TV sets must come equipped with DTV tuners by 2006. I think it is very likely the marketplace with make that happen before then, like perhaps 2004 or 2005.

What I would prefer to see (I know it won't happen, but...) is a higher-quality 1.33:1 TV format, probably 1050p or 1080p, which would quadruple the effective resolution of NTSC television, would be compatible with all of the television programming ever produced, and would provide sufficiently high resolution that letterbox broadcasts of widescreen movies would be of acceptible quality. The legitimate objection to letterbox broadcasts now is that the gain in providing the original image composition is outweighed by the loss in resolution. For some films, I would agree with this, and there are some acceptible P&S versions on certain titles. With a significant increase in TV resolution, however, this objection becomes less meaningful. Trying to convert everything--from 1.33 TV shows and films to CinemaScope movies--to fit on a 1.77 screen which does not correspond to any aspect ratio ever used before--just seems silly to me.

Besides, I don't personally think that a widescreen format is particularly appropriate for most TV programming. Does "Wheel of Fortune" or a nightly news program gain anything from a wider aspect ratio?

 |  IP: Logged