I prefer to watch any movie in HD format, but there are times when I don't have that ability to do so and watching an older movie on an older TV is fine by me when I get involved in the story.
Sometimes when a picture is too good, you stop and say to yourself "Wow, this picture quality looks really good." This brings you out of the story if only for a moment. Of course, you can say the opposite if you got some old VCR copy of a movie with scan lines and snow and be like "Wow, this picture quality is crap."
I'm a movie buff and HD enthusiast (which is why I visit this site), but I'm just saying I think I know where he's coming from. I think it's like when people compare vinyls to CDs. Some love the analog, while others can't stand it and need the digital remastering.
With all that said, this critic really doesn't deserve that much defense because of his anger towards HD. It's as if he's comparing HD viewing to colorizing b&w movies or dubbing foreign films or Pan & Scan. Like it was already stated in the blog, HD does make films of the past appear more like they were intended. There are many older Hitchcock films that I wish were remastered in HD and I'm sure Hitchcock would love it too. No offense to Bogart, but he wasn't the director.
I think Peter Bradshaw just remembers watching movies on an old round, blurry television and wishes that all were shown like that to bring back his childhood days. I'm sure he doesn't mind these comments, since we are just criticizing a critic and how can he be upset with that?
“An engineer explained to us that hundreds of ear impressions were gathered in the name of research, and while each one obviously boasted its own unique shape and size, one single characteristic remained uniform across the board: the entrance into the ear canal is not a perfect circle, it's an oval.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I prefer to watch any movie in HD format, but there are times when I don't have that ability to do so and watching an older movie on an older TV is fine by me when I get involved in the story.
Sometimes when a picture is too good, you stop and say to yourself "Wow, this picture quality looks really good." This brings you out of the story if only for a moment. Of course, you can say the opposite if you got some old VCR copy of a movie with scan lines and snow and be like "Wow, this picture quality is crap."
I'm a movie buff and HD enthusiast (which is why I visit this site), but I'm just saying I think I know where he's coming from. I think it's like when people compare vinyls to CDs. Some love the analog, while others can't stand it and need the digital remastering.
With all that said, this critic really doesn't deserve that much defense because of his anger towards HD. It's as if he's comparing HD viewing to colorizing b&w movies or dubbing foreign films or Pan & Scan. Like it was already stated in the blog, HD does make films of the past appear more like they were intended. There are many older Hitchcock films that I wish were remastered in HD and I'm sure Hitchcock would love it too. No offense to Bogart, but he wasn't the director.
I think Peter Bradshaw just remembers watching movies on an old round, blurry television and wishes that all were shown like that to bring back his childhood days. I'm sure he doesn't mind these comments, since we are just criticizing a critic and how can he be upset with that?