> HD is nice, but you can't expect it to compete with
> something originally shot on film.

Yet. And yes, I realize film has the equivalent of a much greater resolution than digital so far, but I didn't think that would matter on a home theater. I'm not using an analog projector. I have a digital television. You'd think something shot digitally at the resolution my TV is capable of outputting would make more sense than film resized and converted.


Keep this in mind. Pretty much anything that is done digitally has some sort of compression applied to it. (I am sure that someone will point out the one or two cases where it isn't.) MP3's are a good example. People RAVE about the sound of their MP3 player, yet they are raving about a highly compressed audio sample. CDs are compressed audio too (a lot of people forget that).

Same with video. DVD's are compressed video, thus the artifacts and grainy video you see many times (caused during the transfer process from film to digital and then the compression algorythms). While a 1080p version of video may match up nicely to your TV (if that is the native resolution of it), the original recording is, dare I say, limited to only 1080 lines of resolution. Considerably less than film. So when the transfer happens to HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, it still gets compressed (you know that even the original "file size" of the full movie is WAY more than what would fit on one disc of either format), but it is compressing a 1080 image, not something at a much greater (film) resolution, so you "miss" some of the details that get "compressed out" of the final transfer for viewing at home.

Another way to look at it is that you can only get a final product as good as the starting product times X (X being a compression percentage shown as a decimal). So if you start with a film at (say 6 times 1080, or 6480), mulitply it by (making up a number here) 65% or .65 to represent the amount of compression applied to it to get it to fit on the end media, you end up with 4212 as some "quality/resolution" number. By that, it obviously gets compressed down to 1080 (or lower), but has the slight nuances of the higher resolution source. Kind of like what people say they get with analog audio. You play some analog music through an analog (good ol' vacuum tubes, or whatever), and you will hear reports of a "warmer" sound, or that you can hear "more" of the nuances to the original recording. Those are all lost with compression, and if you start with a compressed input, your further compressed output will always be less than what your analog (audio) or film final output would be.

2-M60s, VP180, 8-M3s, SVS 20-39PCi, DIY Sub, 8-Shakers, JVC RS45, Anthem MRX-1120