Anybody else a member of DOP?

[IdolEyes787]

But then, Idol, wouldn't you say that people who enjoy HD content pay the respect due to the art/work put forth by the producer, so as to see it as/is intended? No one can deny that from the first CAM source out, to the final BD source there is a huge quality/audio/experiential difference, and surely enough it's a fair point to say people want to appreciate the movie as the director wanted it to be viewed.

Good art is only good because of the amount of introspection it sparks, the amount of empathy one feels when experience it; because it touches the senses in ways other art/fantasies cannot. However, you still wouldn't buy a Monet if it were made out of cheetos, no matter how much of a perfect replica it is. You aren't paying the due respect to the artistic integrity of the work.

Umm the Cheetos Momet is also art.Maybe not as much as a Cheetos Botticelli but art nonetheless .
The fact that you fail to see that ( or that you used an Impressionist as an example in a debate about realism ) sort of defeats your point.

People, the majority at least , want HD because of the marketing or in the case of tracker id i ots in a futile attempt to fit in with the "cool" crowd. Cool being ironically used here seeing that this is the internet.
No wait you are right people want HD so that they can properly respect the auteur behind G.I. Joe .

[Quarterquack]

Another sad attempt by people who really don't care but only pretend to in an effort to be more excepted by a bunch of wanks that if you met them in real life and if you had any sense at all you would turn and run the other way.

As for your efforts to stay "out of the stone-age" ; newer doesn't always necessarily always equate to better . Sometimes quite the opposite and what you are confusing with "human spirit" is nothing more than what is termed "our consumer society " and if your life decisions what to be based totally on something that an Ad agency somewhere tells you to do and you deludedly then think are your own thoughts then go for it I say.

Of course you probably talk into a cell-phone all day to stay "connected " to people as nothing but people pass you by so .....

I don't understand how pirating movies quite equates to wishing to be accepted. The two are largely unrelated, and the fact is, I probably end up watching the movie by myself, or by at most one friend with me, who wouldn't mind my company while watching a crappy movie, in lieu of my company otherwise. Torrenting/piracy/HD was a fashion statement at one point. There used to be a point in time where moving to HD meant you weren't trying to stay ahead of the curve, more than you were simply following it. I would say you're making a false assumption that just because someone can appreciate quality, they must be fooling themselves and others into believing that that is truly their intent. To put it in a different way: There was to be a reason that the Metropolis re-release had a blu-ray release scheduled, as well as an HD broadcast. It's not because the broadcasters wanted to appeal to sheep.

Arguing that just because you saw a few retarded people defending the opposing case to yours, then by all means every single one of said defense is retarded, is just that.

[IdolEyes787]

There was to be a reason that the Metropolis re-release had a blu-ray release scheduled, as well as an HD broadcast. It's not because the broadcasters wanted to appeal to sheep.

No it's because that it's already been released in every other form and this was deemed, quality aside, the best way to attempt to bleed more money from the stone.

Arguing that just because you saw a few retarded people defending the opposing case to yours, then by all means every single one of said defense is retarded, is just that.

I accept that I'm retarded but to paraphrase the original Rollerball ,even a plant knows when the light is shining on it.

[mjmacky]

You seem to confuse the concepts of not knowing enough to care and not caring enough to know.

I think I must not have elaborated correctly if that's what you took away. I'm solely anti "not caring enough to know". Not knowing enough to care is a stage of development for every person, thus it would be a fruitless exercise to be occupied with that concern. To better capture the spirit of my contempt, the conversation between myself and a former acquaintance will be dramatized by 2 bears, I will be #1.

#1: Oh yeah I have a good copy, I can drop by and transfer it to you
#2: Nevermind that, I can put it on my USB
#1: What size do you have?
#2: I think 1 Gig
#1: It won't fit, I'll just stop by, it's already on my external
#2: It'll fit cause it has nothing on it
#1: Yeah but it's like 4 gigs
#2: Why is it so big?
#1: That's pretty normal for a 720p H.264
#2: What does that mean?
#1: It's a hi-def file, you know, usually MKV
#2: All the movies I get are around 700 megs
#1: You probably download XVIDs
#2: Oh yeah, those, they have the best quality
#1: Dude, let me put my copy on your laptop, and we'll hook it up to your TV, and play both this movie and your XVID, and then I'll let you state which has the best quality
#2: Isn't it still XVID
#1: No it's x264
#2: Oh nevermind I don't want it
#1: I can even set your system up to play them just fine, wouldn't take me more time than it does to transfer the file over USB
#2: I don't care, if it's not XVID, why would I want it
#1: Because I'd assume you like it in the best quality possible
#2: Yeah that's why I'll wait for the XVID
#1: Both versions are already out
#2: Then I'm gonna download the XVID
#1: But I could transfer the file to you in less time than it would take you to download
#2: Yeah but you don't have the XVID
#1: That's what I'm telling you, x264 is way better than XVID at the same bitrate and mine probably has 5 times the bit rate of an XVID
#2: I don't care
#1: And for stuff you play when hooked up to your TV is going to look a hell of a lot better
#2: I don't care
#1: It fucking prints money
#2: I don't care
#1: It can grant up to 3 wishes, even if one of those wishes is the XVID copy
#2: I don't care...

When I first saw that YouTube video, I was reminded of having a conversation, which was so similar in nature, with someone on a video codec subject. I started to describe in more detail about xvid/divx/avi/h.264/x264, and it literally ended with him telling me to shut up because xvid is better than whatever shit I'm talking about because he's seen xvid. It just got really ridiculous, and I never bothered to talk or hang out with him again. Naturally you should assume it wasn't the first time I had an argument with th8is particular individual. So now that I've elaborated, I'll stop with that point.

Does viewing in non-HD detract from the enjoyment of a movie ? No more than watching in B&W does.

Can I just interject to say that personally it does bother me quite a bit, being a videophile, if there is such a thing. I could place on exhibit... cams, but I'd rather stick to material that I've sat through. XVID artifacts that appear mostly because the bit rates are still being impractically restricted, really do irritate me to the point I just start cussing at the screen and beg for one of these fairytale Armageddon scenarios claim the population of life. And at the same time, a bunch of people pop up on and comment, "hey great quality, 10/V 10/A" from when I used to grab stuff in public just flip my switch a whole new level. It shouldn't irritate me as much as it does... but ohhhh it does. It's not their fault, it's the situation of the fsing community out there.

Technology is transient,art on the other hand is timeless.Therefore you are an idiot.

As to your infantile final judgments on things and people...

First of all, either something resonated really poorly with you, or you've majorly erred in judgment. I am in my own way venting, but I haven't taken anything out on anyone else in here, so it's a bit uncalled for, and I can't really pinpoint why you'd have the urge to throw that in. It just doesn't fit with the flow of your post.

Art, among its many services, provides entertainment. Technology is more than a delivery mechanism for art, it enhances it as well. A phonograph may have its charm to some, but wouldn't you prefer to hear Bolero's Revel @ 320 kbits/s on a home theatre system? Let's extend this analogy outside of art to comment on human taste. I know some people who, with deepest conviction, do not care what car they drive as long as it gets them from point A to point B. I am not one of those people, I have preferences tailored to type, color, styling, fuel efficiency, comfort, power. I'm very picky, and I understand that I'm more critical than most people. Ok I'm not actually going to finish my point because this is long-winded and I'm not sure if anyone's even going to read it. If you made it this far, use your imagination, I still have to read the rest of these posts.

I don't understand how pirating movies quite equates to wishing to be accepted. The two are largely unrelated, and the fact is, I probably end up watching the movie by myself, or by at most one friend with me

This made me think. The only time I watch xvids nowadays is when these 2 conditions are met:

1) I absolutely cannot find whatsoever a 1080i mpeg2 cap, DVD source or 720p x264/vc-1/etc
2) I have someone to watch it with...

To me this means I can only ignore the quality potential gap if I have someone there to share the content with.

example...
Avatar: the Last Airbender, a series which I paid no attention to until I heard about it enough times on The Totally Rad Show, which lead to watching the first season on Netflix, and downloading the 2nd and 3rd seasons as xvids. Right now, it's the only thing in my library with xvid. I wouldn't mind so much if most people actually bothered to optimize their encodes, but most of it is scene, which holds onto this archaic system of having the exact same file size to the MB and race to release. I may have just shown how little I know about scene, but that's how I've understood it thus far.

[IdolEyes787]

First I want to say that I had no problem finishing your post however long it might be as I'd rather put in the effort to read something well thought out with clear points made and substantiated ,even if I don't happen to agree with them , than all the short vacuous posts in the world.

That said Art( the capital T kind at least ) I suppose in a very general sense "entertains " as in entertains the senses ( yes that is a strange sentence) but that is hardly it's chief goal.
Art ( the capital T kind) enlightens and elevates .It give voice to truths otherwise often too fundamental or alternately complex for words . It never romanticizes but always dignifies.
That whether you find it in pristine blu-ray, faded old canvas ,scratched vinyl or even a perfect run down a half-pipe that is how it is and how it will always remain.

On the other hand the fact that artifacts bother you is understandable though .The fact that you think it somehow lessens Art is not.

Btw it bothers me as well the stupid numerical comments that people make as if they supposedly mean anything.

Anyway you've made your point and as much as I've said that I don't agree with it I respect it enough not to bother you again about it.

The youtube quote though ..... it's like an impassioned conversation between two accountants.I'm sure that they find it fascinating but no one else does.For my money at least ,not being an account ...I mean technophile Bill Hicks it ain't.
Hey but what the hell do I know? I have never ,ever concerned myself about encodes or bitrates and on the rare occasion that I watch youtube I browse old David Bowie and parkour videos or look for hot women in various states of undress .

Btw sorry about the stupid laughing smiley to open the post.I didn't put it there and as it's somehow strangely showing outside the general text in the edit screen I can't remove it.

[mjmacky]

Yeah in case the reference may have been lost, since I left it out somewhere, I was parodying the iPhone4 vs HTC Evo bears. I don't care about either phone, but the ifanboy mentality is something of a commercialized thought.

[A]

Quality of the print/encode (except cams) has got nothing to do with appreciating the movie,it does when people "see" the movie not for what it is and intended for but when "seen" for how well the encode is done and to get a satisfaction from knowing that you have the best print/encode.When the movie finishes if the first thoughts that come to your mind is "What an awesome encode" instead of "What an awesome movie" then surely you are not a "cinephile" but a "videophile" as you mentioned.

I started to describe in more detail about xvid/divx/avi/h.264/x264, and it literally ended with him telling me to shut up because xvid is better than whatever shit I'm talking about because he's seen xvid.

Tthats because he enjoys the movie instead of enjoying the encode

[mjmacky]

Quality of the print/encode (except cams) has got nothing to do with appreciating the movie,it does when people "see" the movie not for what it is and intended for but when "seen" for how well the encode is done and to get a satisfaction from knowing that you have the best print/encode.When the movie finishes if the first thoughts that come to your mind is "What an awesome encode" instead of "What an awesome movie" then surely you are not a "cinephile" but a "videophile" as you mentioned.

No I'm not a cinephile, I think most of the movies are just utter crap. Is anyone really saying that a poor encode makes a poor movie? Why am I seeing responses formulated this way? It's a bit of misdirection.
I don't like seeing artifacts while watching vids, which become quite obvious and obnoxious even on a big screen. When the encode is done right, you don't think about quality, but if it's done poorly, now you have a reason to think about quality. Let's make it analogous with audio, let's say you have this buzzing sound on an audio track, you can hear everything but that damn sound is just starting to irritate you, well the lower quality encoded videos distract me in the same manner when you say major blocking, weird discolorations, fuzzy edges and general blurriness, among other things.

Tthats because he enjoys the movie instead of enjoying the encode

Your statement doesn't fit, this kid was attempting to assert XVID superiority based on the mere fact that he recognizes the name and has watched them. He was in fact trying to make a statement about encoding, without knowing what a codec was. So when I tried to explain how all this stuff works, the potential increase in information set off a warning in his brain and he panics and denounces all codecs based on name recognition alone, this d-bag to which I refer is an advertiser's wet dream.

[IdolEyes787]

No I'm not a cinephile, I think most of the movies are just utter crap. Is anyone really saying that a poor encode makes a poor movie? Why am I seeing responses formulated this way? It's a bit of misdirection.
I don't like seeing artifacts while watching vids, which become quite obvious and obnoxious even on a big screen. When the encode is done right, you don't think about quality, but if it's done poorly, now you have a reason to think about quality. Let's make it analogous with audio, let's say you have this buzzing sound on an audio track, you can hear everything but that damn sound is just starting to irritate you, well the lower quality encoded videos distract me in the same manner when you say major blocking, weird discolorations, fuzzy edges and general blurriness, among other things.

I would assert that it's more you ( or me) than anything. As example ,nothing is more obtrusive than subtitles and yet if the movie is involving enough after a short while you don't even notice that they are there.Alternately I've had people tell me that they simply won't watch anything subtitled because it "spoils the movie".
Now don't take this the wrong way ( if in fact there is a right way to take it) but maybe the thing lacking is with you and not the movie or the 'cretins" that are happily putting up with it.

As I've said though you are entitled to your own opinion which may be every bit as valid if not more so than mine.
I think the whole point is that while some of us are willing to accept that there are different perspectives ,some of us apparently are not.

[mjmacky]

I would assert that it's more you ( or me) than anything. As example ,nothing is more obtrusive than subtitles and yet if the movie is involving enough after a short while you don't even notice that they are there.Alternately I've had people tell me that they simply won't watch anything subtitled because it "spoils the movie".
Now don't take this the wrong way ( if in fact there is a right way to take it) but maybe the thing lacking is with you and not the movie or the 'cretins" that are happily putting up with it.

As I've said though you are entitled to your own opinion which may be every bit as valid if not more so than mine.
I think the whole point is that while some of us are willing to accept that there are different perspectives ,some of us apparently are not.

I cannot watch something in a dubbed language, for me it has to be in its original language and subtitled if I don't understand the language. The tone, inflection, lip synchronization, etc. doesn't match what you're watching. It almost always feels like the work is a parody, even for animation. Dubbed works just don't utilize the voice talent that is out there for original production. Now that's not to say that I don't find subtitles intrusive, it's that I get an overall better experience for all my senses when the audio is in its original language. I do my best to make the subtitles as clean looking as possible when watching, but I can't say that I just don't notice them after awhile because I'm unfortunately to ADD to get lost in it (I am processing the text and the video separately in my head, but can't quite do it at the same time... i.e. my brain doesn't do multithreading).

I absorb perspectives, they eventually all become part of Master Control