Is HD TOO real?

[Rett Mikhal]

I recently had the opportunity to watch The Dark Knight (which I love, unlike it's dorky younger brother Begins) on a super high quality HDTV.

I must say it left me feeling sick to my stomach that so many people are investing heavily in this. In my opinion, it makes everything look horrible. Gone is the polish, the subtle colors, the light shading. Instead, everything looks like... well... real life. I suppose that's the point they were trying to reach and they nailed it. Just two problems.

1. Real life is terrible. It's boring and I look at it all day long. I don't want to look at it when I watch movies. I don't want to see Batman gliding towards a building in footage that looks so real it could be news footage? Want to know why? Because it's freaking scary. That's why. It's just so surreal watching a man in a bat suit beat up criminals on footage that (especially with shake-o-vision not quite dead yet) could easily be mistaken for news footage.

2. Every scene when people are talking looks like a soap opera. Seriously. The HD makes it look like there was NO editing crew on board. There's no polish and people seem to move too quickly. Again, it's amazingly lifelike but I don't WANT lifelike. I was perfectly happy with the nice, unrealistic, pretty/gritty film style of yesterday.

The thing that annoys me is people seem to be flocking to it even if they've never tried it or know they don't like it, simply because it's the new thing. It's the new thing. That's all they need to know. I've seen this first hand, because I know one of THOSE guys that believes every new piece of technology made commercially available IS, in fact, the Lord in disguise come to carry us to salvation and if you don't buy it, you're a heathen and you deserve neither tolerance nor air in your lungs for even a second. Religious jokes aside, I'm being completely serious that when I try to explain I don't like a technology (like on-demand) or just am not excited about it (like PS3) he just flips out saying something is clearly wrong with me. I usually respond something is clearly wrong with his bank account.

Annnnyyywaaaay. I know eventually HD will completely take over and people like me will be pushed into the corner along with people who still collect Laser Discs, desperately searching for bootlegged copies of movies that people decided to illegally make pretty instead of the ugly HD standard until we're all found and fed pills to make us conform better to this transition.

[thewhiteknight]

The day you say something positive about anything is the day I know the apocalypse is coming.

High Def looks amazing, and The Dark Knight did an excellent job on displaying it's capabilities. They even shot like 4 or 5 scenes in 70mm, compared to the normal 35mm.

[dex]

Jan 17, 2009 16:01:23 GMT -5 Rett Mikhal said:

I've seen this first hand, because I know one of THOSE guys

Jan 17, 2009 18:16:54 GMT -5 thewhiteknight said:

The day you say something positive about anything is the day I know the apocalypse is coming.

Say, y'all wouldn't happen to know each other in real life, would ya? Call it a hunch.

[Rett Mikhal]

Jan 17, 2009 18:16:54 GMT -5 thewhiteknight said:

The day you say something positive about anything is the day I know the apocalypse is coming.

What if I say something positive ABOUT the Apocalypse?

[TheLuckyOne]

Like, "Hey, that pale horse is looking pretty sharp."?

-D

[PoolMan]

The evolution of HD is, to me, as natural as the progression of black and white to colour (hey Sue, what was that like?). And the further evolution of TV into whatever comes next will be just as natural. I've seen interesting technical demos of extremely effective (if simple) holograms. Could they be made useful enough to provide a path for future filmmakers?

But what really cracks me up (and in a sense, aligns the movie stars with Rett, a move I'm sure he'll resent) is that apparently actors are all up in arms about the level of detail available from HD. Previously worshiped actresses now have --GASP-- pores! Wrinkles are visible! The extremely mild "vaseline on the lens" effect that prior resolutions had are disappearing, and apparently the beautiful people aren't too happy about it.

[penguinslovedw]

Jan 18, 2009 21:09:51 GMT -5 PoolMan said:

Previously worshiped actresses now have --GASP-- pores! Wrinkles are visible! The extremely mild "vaseline on the lens" effect that prior resolutions had are disappearing, and apparently the beautiful people aren't too happy about it.

The only person I know with an HD TV is a coworker of my Mom's. She said they watched the Golden Globes Red Carpet Pre-show thingy and she could see not only wrinkles, but plastic surgery scars. One would imagine that Joan Rivers would look like broken vase that's been improperly glued together again.
That's a bit mean, but we know it's true.
If it's any comfort to you Rett, we put a Blu-Ray section in the DVD department at Farms & Rubble, and absoutely no one has bought any of them yet. And this was like before Christmas that we put it in, so you're not the only one wary of this.

[helioseclipsed]

Actually, I have thought this as well. I acknowledge that I may just not have seen a set up yet that is arranged to properly demonstrate HD and Blu-Ray, but I've looked at all the store kiosks, and what I've seen doesn't look like anything I like. The Best Buy I usually go to has something like 8 different setups that are singled out as big HD featured spots, and they all just look... wrong.

I think it makes everything look cartoony. And not just in special effects shots (though those definitely come out goofy looking if there's any CGI involved). There was a disc playing a cycle of demos from different movies, and at one point it settled on Field of Dreams, with Costner out in the crops hearing the voice. It looked okay at first, with him just standing there. Certainly the details were impressive, though I'm not convinced that isn't simply what happens when one is standing 3 feet away from a 65" widescreen plasma TV. But then Costner started walking around the crops. His edges started to look odd. Kind of blurred, or maybe just too thickly drawn agains the background. And it almost seemed like he moved too quickly.

I wish I knew more about the tech so that I could really identify what's going on. I think it may have something to do with the progressive scan feature, which, IF I understand it right (and that's a point for legitimate debate) attempts to anticipate movement onscreen. The way it looked to me, it's like it separates different elements of the screen. In this case, Costner was separated from the crops, so that it looked like he was being shot in green screen and the background was added in at some other point. I think it's simply the effect of over-digitizing the footage. When I saw this, I thought it must have been a settings problem, but that has held consistent for every time I check these setups out. The only things that look "right" are when I see something like Wall-E or something completely computer animated. Of course, they are 100% digital, so it makes sense that the format fits them like a glove.

I don't know if I'm missing something or if the store employees don't use the right imaging cables or what. I have never seen an HD home setup (no one I know has a one), so maybe it can look great. But from what I can see, it seems like it's a process that takes the image and sort of hyper-realizes it. I think there's some kind of disconnect between the filming of the image and then how it ends up there.

Or maybe I'm just shaking my cane at the new-fangled whatsit contraption that looks different and new. Darn kids.

[rabidmonkeys]

I honestly don't care for HD. The reason I upgraded (and was quite excited to upgrade) from VHS to DVD was because of things like special features, scene selection, etc. Picture quality is a take it or leave it.. i'd be happy watching movies on VHS.

[DTH]

I'm not sure what HD programming people have been watching but I can safely say it isn't cartoony or anything like that.

I've got an HD set top box and an HD TV (its interlace, not progressive though, not that this should make much difference at this point) and I've not had any problems. The picture quality is great and REALLY impressive when you watch HD documentaries.

I'll say this though: even if I eventually get a blu-ray player, I will not be upgrading my DVD collection. There's nothing wrong with my DVDs and investment in blu-ray seems like a waste of cash at this point.

Maybe one day.

The jump from video to DVD is as big a jump from cassette to CD: a really huge and worthwhile transition. DVD to Blu-ray? To be honest? Not as big a deal.

I'll wait for the digital programming revolution, whereby we'll have Pay-on-Demand HD content.

Companies (including Microsoft and Sony via Xbox Live and the PS3) are already doing this, it won't be long until they all are.

[archivesofthedead]

Great post and points. Personally, I'm not a fan because I'm to broke to buy the format, lol.

[DarthShady]

Definitely too poor to start buying HD, but I have seen some of TDK in HD, & I wasn't that thrilled with it. I didn't notice too much of a difference most of the time (so why would I spend the extra bucks if I can't even tell the difference?) Anytime I did notice anything, it was because the movements didn't really look right. Instead of seeming more real, it just seemed unnatural.

I guess if everyone eventually switches over, I'll probably end up doing it too, but only when it's super cheap.

[BlackCatWhiteCat]

I'm going to agree with Rett on this one. Now, for CGI/animated movies I think it's the best. BUT I was walking through Sears the other day and saw Spiderman 3 HD playing on a screen the size of a small country (along with the 80 screens around it) and I was really disappointed.

It was like watching a soap opera and the thing really DID look like it could have been a newscast or something. I personally am not at all impressed and will probably never own the technology until it's completely forced upon us.