Quoting VibroCount:

Quote:


Not quite in the air yet... almost.

       

Quoting Ascended_Saiyan:

Quote:
OK.  Here is what I found out only using HighDefDigest.com.

First, I only count the 1930 - 1980s movies reviewed on HD DVD so far, since they are usually considered old movies with dated elements.  Titles that have been released on both formats were NOT counted for obvious reasons.

found the following:

1980s HD DVD exclusive reviewed titles - 12    Average PQ - 3.3 (3.29)  SQ - 3 (2.91)
1970s HD DVD exclusive reviewed titles - 4      Average PQ - 3.75          SQ - 2.75
1960s HD DVD exclusive reviewed titles - 2      Average PQ - 4.25          SQ - 4
1950s HD DVD exclusive reviewed titles - 3      Average PQ - 4              SQ - 2.83
1940s HD DVD exclusive reviewed titles - 1                  PQ - 5              SQ - 3.5
1930s HD DVD exclusive reviewed titles - 1                  PQ - 4.5            SQ - 3

Total Exclusive Reviewed Titles: 23    Total Average PQ - 3.67      Total Average SQ - 3

Only a hand full of titles were NOT DD+ 5.1.

This almost makes it same like the older the titles the better the PQ is!  ALL of 1930 - 1970s the titles (except Smokey and the Bandit) are from Warner Bros.  That means they should come to Blu-ray as well.  That will help push the PQ rating even higher.

On the other hand, the SQ for HD DVD from the 1930s - 1970s is a decent amount below their average.  It seems the 1980s SQ hurt HD DVD more than the 1930s - 1970s SQ.  The same seems to hold true for the PQ as well.  Lower PQ and SQ scores seem to be linked more so to Universal than to older titles in general.

A_S, we keep telling you that the extremely small sample size and relative small difference in scores shows that there is essentially NO difference between HD DVD and Blue-ray.  Of course you don't listen. Sooooo, let's look at your actual math, and your math is off. 

For this latest example, you either have to take all 23 titles, add up their individual scores and then take the average of all samples (divide by 23), or .... add up the 6 averaged scores for each year, and take the average of those scores (divide by 6). 

Hence the total averages for the example you just posted should be:  PQ 4.13,  SQ 3.16

Instead, it looks like you are taking each year's titles, averaging the scores for that year and, multiplying the total number of titles in that year by that average score, adding up all six of your subtotals and dividing the grand total again by all 23 titles. This is not the way to arrive at an "average" score of the 23 titles you list!

Quoting VibroCount:

Quote:
Quoting graymadder:

Quote:
The only numbers that matter and that are relative are the ones that the compare the same movie on both formats.  At least that's my thought.

There are at least one of us who stand away from HD formats until the older films are well represented in any format. No film prior to the 1930s, one each from the first two decades listed, and only eight discs in the decade prior to 1960 (who knows how many duplicates there are in the 1950s).

I like older films. I await a reason to enter this format. I bought my first non-3/4" U-matic VCR when the guy offered me a copy of "Citizen Kane" as an incentive.

BTW, is "...Kane" out in either HD format yet? I mean, it's only considered in most polls as the greatest film ever made...

I think you (and I) will be disappointed with HD formats then, for a long time.  I don't see them rushing to put all the great old classics out on HD or BR anytime soon, if at all.  The main claim to fame for the new formats is their wiz-bang picture quality and eye-popping color, both of which depend on digital data streams.  The older classic movies are analogue, black and white, much softer in look, etc.  Even regular DVD versions far exceed the bandwidth used by the old movies.

Take a movie like 'Casablanca' for example.  You can fit that on a single 4.7G side and have room left over for extras.  The smallest HD disc is what, 25G?  That same content would only use 20% of the HD disc.  What do they fill up the other 80% with?  The new formats just aren't cost effective for the older movies, especially when most of them don't have the tons of bonus material that is routinely generated these days when a movie is made.

That is part of why I am not bothered one whit by the idea of waiting till prices on the hardware come down to the level they are now for a DVD player before getting into the HD arena.  In fact, I can even see the possibility of me never going that route.  I'm old enough that by the time it IS really cheap, I will not have the need to change anymore.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting VibroCount:

Quote:
Quoting graymadder:

Quote:
The only numbers that matter and that are relative are the ones that the compare the same movie on both formats.  At least that's my thought.

There are at least one of us who stand away from HD formats until the older films are well represented in any format. No film prior to the 1930s, one each from the first two decades listed, and only eight discs in the decade prior to 1960 (who knows how many duplicates there are in the 1950s).

I like older films. I await a reason to enter this format. I bought my first non-3/4" U-matic VCR when the guy offered me a copy of "Citizen Kane" as an incentive.

BTW, is "...Kane" out in either HD format yet? I mean, it's only considered in most polls as the greatest film ever made...

I think you (and I) will be disappointed with HD formats then, for a long time.  I don't see them rushing to put all the great old classics out on HD or BR anytime soon, if at all.  The main claim to fame for the new formats is their wiz-bang picture quality and eye-popping color, both of which depend on digital data streams.  The older classic movies are analogue, black and white, much softer in look, etc.  Even regular DVD versions far exceed the bandwidth used by the old movies.

Take a movie like 'Casablanca' for example.  You can fit that on a single 4.7G side and have room left over for extras.  The smallest HD disc is what, 25G?  That same content would only use 20% of the HD disc.  What do they fill up the other 80% with?  The new formats just aren't cost effective for the older movies, especially when most of them don't have the tons of bonus material that is routinely generated these days when a movie is made.

That is part of why I am not bothered one whit by the idea of waiting till prices on the hardware come down to the level they are now for a DVD player before getting into the HD arena.  In fact, I can even see the possibility of me never going that route.  I'm old enough that by the time it IS really cheap, I will not have the need to change anymore.

Old black and white movies were shot on 35mm and 70mm film.  The resolution on those organic films are BEYOND 1080P.  I think you and others will be amazed at what older films WILL look like in HD.

BTW, did you know Casablanca got a 5 star rating on HD DVD.  I can't wait 'til Warner Bros. drops this on Blu-ray.  It should be soon.

That's why I find all these arguments about the rival formats so funny - they're supposed to be state of the art and you have these guys arguing that their format is the best thing since sliced bread and yet a 100 year old technology can still p**s on high on them both!

Thank God I get to disagree with Asc again. Unless there is specific reason to give each era a particular weight the math works just fine. How does it change things by doing it collectively? It works the same as when I posted that little chart a couple days ago. If you take 2, 3, 4 and 5 and add them you get 14...The average of those four numbers is 3.5. If you take groupings of 2 and 3 and average them together it's 2.5. 4 and 5 averaged is 4.5. Now take the 2.5 and 4.5 and average them together...what's the answer? 3.5. Yup, just the same as if you averaged everything together to begin with. Unless I'm missing something.

Quoting Ascended_Saiyan:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Ascended_Saiyan:

Quote:
My math is not off.  I will tell you why your math is wrong.  It is wrong, because you don't have enough information to do the math correctly.  I didn't post the individual rating per title.  By doing the math the way you did, you mistakenly gave too much weight to the 30's, 40's, 50's, etc categories.  In other words, you made the 30's category/group (with only 1 title) count as much as the 80's category (with 12 titles).  Now, do you see what you did?

Sorry, but his math is correct.  It seems you don't know the reason behind averaging the scores.  Averages are used to compare groups with varying numbers.  Once you get an average, you can compare groups of 1, 5, 10, 100, etc.  In other words, the average score becomes the score for each individual film in the group.  Come on man, this is basic math here.

This IS basic math and you don't have what you need to perform in correctly.  If you think you do, please list all 23 titles individual PQ and SQ rating.  That SHOULD end this.

the GREAT A_S has spoken! We do not have the information! Only the GREAT A_S has the information!  THE GREAT AND ALMIGHTY A_S HAS DECREED ALL FURTHER DISCUSSION WILL END!

REMEMBER:Only the GREAT A_S is RIGHT.  All others are WRONG. ALWAYS WRONG.

hey A_S  take a memo: You are full of S***

YOU ARE HEREBY CHALLENGED. Post the d a m n information that all of us are too lowly to possess!
Scared?  Going to waffle out and deny again?!  OF COURSE YOU WILL 

Will you ever post the secret information that only YOU possess. Will you ever show your creative math STEP by STEP in this forum, and PROVE to everybody how you are RIGHT, ALWAYS RIGHT ..... and everybody else is WRONG. ALWAYS WRONG.

OH GREAT A_S you truly are the biggest A_S on this forum     

Quoting Ascended_Saiyan:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting VibroCount:

Quote:
Quoting graymadder:

Quote:
The only numbers that matter and that are relative are the ones that the compare the same movie on both formats.  At least that's my thought.

There are at least one of us who stand away from HD formats until the older films are well represented in any format. No film prior to the 1930s, one each from the first two decades listed, and only eight discs in the decade prior to 1960 (who knows how many duplicates there are in the 1950s).

I like older films. I await a reason to enter this format. I bought my first non-3/4" U-matic VCR when the guy offered me a copy of "Citizen Kane" as an incentive.

BTW, is "...Kane" out in either HD format yet? I mean, it's only considered in most polls as the greatest film ever made...

I think you (and I) will be disappointed with HD formats then, for a long time.  I don't see them rushing to put all the great old classics out on HD or BR anytime soon, if at all.  The main claim to fame for the new formats is their wiz-bang picture quality and eye-popping color, both of which depend on digital data streams.  The older classic movies are analogue, black and white, much softer in look, etc.  Even regular DVD versions far exceed the bandwidth used by the old movies.

Take a movie like 'Casablanca' for example.  You can fit that on a single 4.7G side and have room left over for extras.  The smallest HD disc is what, 25G?  That same content would only use 20% of the HD disc.  What do they fill up the other 80% with?  The new formats just aren't cost effective for the older movies, especially when most of them don't have the tons of bonus material that is routinely generated these days when a movie is made.

That is part of why I am not bothered one whit by the idea of waiting till prices on the hardware come down to the level they are now for a DVD player before getting into the HD arena.  In fact, I can even see the possibility of me never going that route.  I'm old enough that by the time it IS really cheap, I will not have the need to change anymore.

Old black and white movies were shot on 35mm and 70mm film.  The resolution on those organic films are BEYOND 1080P.  I think you and others will be amazed at what older films WILL look like in HD.

BTW, did you know Casablanca got a 5 star rating on HD DVD.  I can't wait 'til Warner Bros. drops this on Blu-ray.  It should be soon.

Whoa, I'm agreeing with Asc. Saiyan....

Yes indeedy, 35mm has far more resolution than 1080p.  Casablanca looks marvelous, as does Adventures of Robin Hood and Grand Prix is totally stunning.  If there's a proper master in good condition, old movies can benefit a huge amount from HD.  One surprising point is that although HD gets a lot of press for the vivid color it presents, the area where I've seen the most improvement over SD is in shadow detail and in greyscale differentiation---just the areas that would benefit B&W movies the most. 

Whether studios will wake up to this fact or whether they'll continue to favor recent junk remains to be seen, but if the studios are willing to present classic films on HD media, they can look outstanding.