Good-bye DVD's

[Was Once Ernie]

The basic problem is that none of the various technologies is actually as good as a traditional CRT. LCDs still suffer from poor contrast and smearing; DLPs have the "rainbow effect"; plasmas tend to suffer from contouring; and all the technologies are awful at dealing with noisy signals. Things are slowly improving, though. I've been keeping an eye on screens for the last five years or so, and plasma technology has just about reached the point where I'd consider the pictures to be acceptable.

I'd have to respectfully disagree with you here. My old set was a 35" CRT, because I never liked the CRT projectors (the first generation of "big screen" TV's). I went with a Sony LCD Projector (I ruled out DLP because of the "rainbow effect" and plasma is out of my price range. For those trying to sort this out, an LCD Projector is different than an LCD screen, like a computer monitor. The LCD Projector can't hang on the wall, but it's a very slim cabinet, only 18" deep) and I'm very happy with it. The only drawback is that the picture occasionally gets digital anomalies, where portions of it break up into little boxes. It doesn't happen often enough to be annoying (to me... your mileage may vary). I've put some pretty crummy signals through it and even blowing them up as large as they are, they are still quite watchable.

Which is why I said "shows" :-P And film isn't a given - anything from 35mm up should look great in HD, but 16mm can be pretty variable.

Most network series that weren't video were shot on 35mm, so everything from "I Love Lucy" to the present should look great when remastered for HD. I never liked 16mm for professional use. I could always tell the difference - even before HD.

 

[sugarbritchez]

Unless you buy it at Wal-mart, then it's only good for a year.

WHAT???????

 

[anathema]

I'd have to respectfully disagree with you here. My old set was a 35" CRT, because I never liked the CRT projectors (the first generation of "big screen" TV's). I went with a Sony LCD Projector (I ruled out DLP because of the "rainbow effect" and plasma is out of my price range. For those trying to sort this out, an LCD Projector is different than an LCD screen, like a computer monitor. The LCD Projector can't hang on the wall, but it's a very slim cabinet, only 18" deep) and I'm very happy with it. The only drawback is that the picture occasionally gets digital anomalies, where portions of it break up into little boxes. It doesn't happen often enough to be annoying (to me... your mileage may vary). I've put some pretty crummy signals through it and even blowing them up as large as they are, they are still quite watchable.

I assume you mean a rear-projection set rather than a projector? Yeah, the Sonys are quite nice; I've been considering the new 50" model, but I'm not happy with the quality of the scaler, and like all rear-pro sets the viewing angle is pretty poor. The break-up is weird, though - that sounds like a nasty problem in the set's image processor. Oh, and LCDs have another issue I forgot to mention: the 'screen-door' effect; particularly noticeable with projection systems as the LCD panel is much smaller than the one in a direct-view set, but there's a physical limit to how small the inter-pixel gaps can be made.

Fundamentally, though, all the new technologies have the same issue: none of them are capable of displaying an interlaced signal correctly. Again, things are slowly getting better, but it will always be a compromise (this isn't a limitation of the technology per se, it's just that no manufacturer has bothered to get it right yet). Over here this has even led to atrocities like CRTs with 100Hz scanning.

Most network series that weren't video were shot on 35mm, so everything from "I Love Lucy" to the present should look great when remastered for HD. I never liked 16mm for professional use. I could always tell the difference - even before HD.

Yeah, most US stuff is shot on film for the very simple reason that NTSC video is bloody awful quality ;-P In the civilised world of PAL, this isn't a problem At present, most UK drama is shot on either videotape (increasingly HD) or film, often Super16. Either way, it generally looks superb. Non-drama programmes are almost exclusively videotape. Archive TV is more of a mixed bag: high-profile stuff tended to be shot on film, partly for the "look" and partly to make it easier to sell overseas (film being the universal medium); otherwise it was videotape with 16mm film being used for non-studio and effects work. TMS is a good case in point: the entire series was recorded on tape, with film being used for the Pigs In Space titles (just the starfield and, for the second season only, the Swinetrek model; everything else was video) and the occasional effects insert (eg, the sea in the 'Alabamy Bound' number in the Roger Miller show). I noticed when the first reviews of the US Season 1 boxset appeared that most of the reviewers commented that they'd never seen the show looking so good, which surprised me: what were they expecting? It looked and looks exactly what I'd expected it to be: a professional 1970s PAL video recording. It's always looked this good And then I remembered how poor many of the 1970s NTSC recordings I've seen were...which brings me to another point: the perceptual difference between NTSC and HD is huge; the difference between PAL and (720p) HD is not so great; in fact, the average viewer is unlikely to notice it on anything short of a 40" set (and big-screens are not as common over here as in the US), so I really don't see HD taking off in the UK any time soon.

 

[OverUnderAround]

Here's a recent article if any MC members want to read up on the new format.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/02/technology/dvd_fortune/index.htm

 

[Drtooth]

What I would like to see is a DVD player that plays multiple regions that works well to become a common item sold in every store. I have being a slave to R1 encoding. But I still think that we should see more downloading technology advancements. Think about it, you could download any TV show from all over the world for about $1-$3 an episode. I could finally see Kinnikuman and stuff like that.

 

[anathema]

What I would like to see is a DVD player that plays multiple regions that works well to become a common item sold in every store. I have being a slave to R1 encoding. But I still think that we should see more downloading technology advancements. Think about it, you could download any TV show from all over the world for about $1-$3 an episode. I could finally see Kinnikuman and stuff like that.

It's nothing to do with the technology - all that is possible right now. It's down to distribution rights.

Multi-region DVD players are common outside the US, btw ;-)

 

[sugarbritchez]

What I would like to see is a DVD player that plays multiple regions that works well to become a common item sold in every store. I have being a slave to R1 encoding. But I still think that we should see more downloading technology advancements. Think about it, you could download any TV show from all over the world for about $1-$3 an episode. I could finally see Kinnikuman and stuff like that.

I know what you mean....the Dr. Who DVD's aren't coded to work over in the US, which really stinks when you love watching them!!!!

 

[anathema]

I know what you mean....the Dr. Who DVD's aren't coded to work over in the US, which really stinks when you love watching them!!!!

It's not just region-coding...bear in mind that the UK discs are also PAL, not NTSC. To be honest, given the relative merits of a PAL->NTSC conversion done by your DVD player and one done professionally, you'd be better off getting the US releases anyway.

 

[sugarbritchez]

They won't release them in the US

 

[anathema]

They won't release them in the US

Er...which DVDs are you talking about - the original series or the new one? The new series is due out in the US on Valentine's Day, and the original series releases have been coming out for years.