[zitroneneis]

seems like I'm part of a real minority around here.

For me a the resolution of a DVD (or of a good rip) is more than enough.
Even on my projector screen (which is 2m*1,5m) they look sharp.


So whenever possible I -download / rip / buy- SD Movies or TV-Shows.
And it's just great to see how many of those SD files fit upon a 1tb HDD

(Please don't think I don't care about the quality - last year I sorted out about 500 VCDs and low quality Rips from my early days of collecting movies - and it hurt a lot, but it just was very annoying to watch them)

[Crewone]

I play nothing but HD content, 720p and 1080p. SD content just looks ugly on a 50" plasma.

[Crewone]

If the progression of technology was related to the size of most peoples bank accounts then we wouldn't have progressed like we have. The people that can't afford it now will be able to eventually, and I'm sure they would like it ready when they can. It is silly to hamper progression because the majority can't afford it. Just a few years ago 1TB of storage was over $1,000. Now you can get it for $150.

WTF

1TB samsung spinpoint is about $90 (77 Euros).

For the rest I agree!

[Nazgulled]

Sure the Ferrari is much more luxurious than a Tata Nano and definitely more expensive. However, a Ferrari can hold only 2 people, while the Tata Nano can "hold" 4. This discredits your HD/SD analogy for the following reason, assuming that the potential consumer holds the size variable constant in his quest for a TV:

As everyone knows, it's borderline impossible to fit more than 2 people on top of an HDTV or an SDTV.

Sorry, but I don't get what you mean...

Well, one argument against HD is its size vs ISPs' usage cap (I'm assuming here that most peeps don't rip&convert the content themselves). Here's my true-life example: My Dad likes to watch online videos. Lo-res Youtube stuff (320p FLV). His usage is 1-1.5GB a day, or about 40GB a month. Once I have my Mom hooked up online proper, she'll want to watch as well, so call it 80GB for two non-tech people a month. For lo-res stuff. If the vids were to be HD, they'll easily max the 250GB Comcast limit I have, and that's not including my own considerable use.

So I'm wondering if any of you HD-or-bust advocates have to deal with your ISP's caps (if any), and how many people in your households are or will be watching videos online? What's your usage situation like?

That's the same thing as above... If your ISP caps your connection (speed or bandwidth wise), than you don't have much of a choice.

That's the point here, I guess... If you have money and can afford a decent TV Set or projector, have enough hard drive space, a fast connection with no caps, more money to buy blu-rays, whatever, this list is endless, if you had the choice to watch and appreciate HD in all it's glory, why would you choose SD?

For me a the resolution of a DVD (or of a good rip) is more than enough.
Even on my projector screen (which is 2m*1,5m) they look sharp.

I'm sorry to say but, I can think of 3 good reasons for that:
1) You never truly experienced a Full HD movie (1080p). If you projector has good image quality (I know nothing about projectors) and with that size, trust me, a DVD is nothing compared to 1080p video.
2) Maybe your projector sucks enough to make it impossible (or hard) to tell the difference between a DVD and 1080p video.
3) You have really poor eyesight. I'm not joking, I read a recent study that half of the people in UK buy HD sets and they don't have proper eyesight to take full advantage of such TVs.

[rausch101]

Sorry, but I don't get what you mean...

It was just a joke. I was being sarcastic...it wasn't supposed to actually discredit anything you said. People sitting on top of a TV is ridiculous.


In seriousness, I think it pretty much comes down to how much each individual values a clear picture over a not-as-clear picture. Some people get a glimpse of 1080p on a top-end huge TV and say to themselves that they need it (like me). Plenty of other people will see the same thing and say that, yes it looks great, but that they can't possibly justify spending money just to make a movie look a little crisper. It just depends on how much enjoyment you get from looking at a pretty HD screen. If you don't get much, then it's not worth it.

However, I say everyone should go out get an amazing HD setup and stimulate the economy.

[Nazgulled]

Some people get a glimpse of 1080p on a top-end huge TV and say to themselves that they need it (like me). Plenty of other people will see the same thing and say that, yes it looks great, but that they can't possibly justify spending money just to make a movie look a little crisper. It just depends on how much enjoyment you get from looking at a pretty HD screen. If you don't get much, then it's not worth it.

I see what you mean but I think that there's a difference between actually noticing that the picture quality is much better on a nice HD TV with a 1080p movie playing and not noticing and saying it's the same thing as a DVD. It clearly isn't...

[rausch101]

I see what you mean but I think that there's a difference between actually noticing that the picture quality is much better on a nice HD TV with a 1080p movie playing and not noticing and saying it's the same thing as a DVD. It clearly isn't...

Completely agree.

I think that the people who honestly don't notice a difference between 1080p content on a 50+" 1080 TV and SD content on a 50" TV either have a severe lack of attention to detail or don't actually know what picture quality is. I also think these people have no reason to buy an HDTV setup.

[dan1son]

I definitely "prefer" HD content, but since I actually rip my own stuff (call me old fashioned... or picky), a proper DVD rip I make with full 5.1 DD or DTS is superior to most of the crap HD encodes I've attempted to download. A good DVD rip at full res with full sound looks great and sounds fantastic on my 55" 1080p 120hz set with my decent surround sound setup.

If I had a machine capable of ripping and encoding blu-ray discs I'd probably feel differently. I just haven't had any luck with other encodes and find doing DVDs myself gives better results than what I can find.

Now to compare NTSC 480i 4:3 SD content to 720p or 1080i HD it's not even a comparison... the SD looks like junk, and the sound is even worse. I don't consider a full anamorphic 24fps DVD to be "SD" content in the TV sense.

[midgetspy]

I definitely "prefer" HD content, but since I actually rip my own stuff (call me old fashioned... or picky), a proper DVD rip I make with full 5.1 DD or DTS is superior to most of the crap HD encodes I've attempted to download. A good DVD rip at full res with full sound looks great and sounds fantastic on my 55" 1080p 120hz set with my decent surround sound setup.

If I had a machine capable of ripping and encoding blu-ray discs I'd probably feel differently. I just haven't had any luck with other encodes and find doing DVDs myself gives better results than what I can find.

Now to compare NTSC 480i 4:3 SD content to 720p or 1080i HD it's not even a comparison... the SD looks like junk, and the sound is even worse. I don't consider a full anamorphic 24fps DVD to be "SD" content in the TV sense.

I have played Blurays and 1080P scene rips side by side and not been able to tell a difference in most scenes - I dunno what you downloaded but they should definitely look better than a DVD (rip or disc). Also most HD rips simply contains the unaltered audio from the original so audio shouldn't be an issue at all. Maybe give it another shot :0)

[Nazgulled]

@dan1son
Than you are downloading stuff wrongly labeled as HD content.

This, SD vs HD, is not a matter of opinion or taste, this is not subjective. HD is far superior than SD, that's a fact. If you can't tell them apart, than, there's something wrong with you, your display or your content.

There's no way an image 720px wide (DVD/NTSC/PAL) can be compared to a another with 1920px wide (Blu-Ray/1080p source).

[TomJensen]

@rwparris2

My Dad watches this site http://noiket.com . It's mostly lo-res warez vids that have been dub/subbed into Vietnamese. Asian soaps tend to run for tens of DVDs, so yeah, you can burn a lot of time watching this stuff.

@Nazgulled

>This, SD vs HD, is not a matter of opinion or taste, this is not subjective. HD is far superior than SD, that's a fact. If you can't tell them apart, than, there's something wrong with you, your display or your content.

This is so much bullshit. What's "superior" is purely in the eye of the beholder. For you, it's the technical specs. For others, the emphasis is on the content. Tell me, would oldie classics like Casablanca be any better in 1080p, or colorized? Yes, high action flicks with glorious explosions would look better in hi-res, preferably on a 100" wall-to-wall display and with a 500W sound system. But for many movies, where the appeal is in the pathos and relationships expressed between the characters, hi-res isn't necessary, not unless you want to count their facial pores and blemishes.

[rwparris2]

I thought you meant actual youtube.com ... watching that amount of TV shows isn't so outstanding then.

[anoobie]

collect 1080p mostly even though my tv is only 1366x768. I rather downscaling from 1080p to 1366x768 than upscaling from 720p to 1366x768 even though it's only a minor upscaling. Plus in the future when I get a real HDTV (1080p) I won't have to deal with upgrading the collection.

[Nazgulled]

This is so much bullshit. What's "superior" is purely in the eye of the beholder.

Yes, you're right... I'm sorry, but you have poor eyesight. There's no way around it...

For you, it's the technical specs. For others, the emphasis is on the content.

This has nothing to with technical specs or content, nothing at all...

Tell me, would oldie classics like Casablanca be any better in 1080p, or colorized?

Yes, they actually have much better image quality in 1080p if the "conversion" is done right. Your comment just proves everything me and others have said.

Here's something for you to read and reflect:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technolo...58801.html

But for many movies, where the appeal is in the pathos and relationships expressed between the characters, hi-res isn't necessary, not unless you want to count their facial pores and blemishes.

This just proves another thing I've said, you are one of those persons that don't know how to appreciate good picture quality, PERIOD.

My uncle is photographer and once said to me, "photography now days is to common, people just don't know how to appreciate a good photo anymore". The same thing applies here.

[TomJensen]

@Nazgulled

>I'm sorry, but you have poor eyesight. There's no way around it...

Typical twit response. When you can't answer the argument, sling mud.

Hopefully, one of these days you will grow up to realize that the world extends to more than your basement, and your narrowminded definition of what's good--that a "good" movie depends on more than its pixel count, but more on how it resonates with the viewer. Then again, judging from the your feeble mindset, most likely not.