Re: Then you either need a new TV or new glasses... - Edit 2
Before modification by DomA at 07/04/2010 12:49:42 AM
I mean regular picture quality is good. I've never in my life complained about it. Then, something is introduced as "must have" that is hardly noticeable unless they're side by side...
I sort of agree with you but... actually, SD TV is absolute crap and has been since the day of the colour signal (awful substandard method the SMPTE imposed in the US so people who didn't want to pay for a colour TV could still decode the new signal in B&W. NTSC sucks big time.), especially in North America - and broadcast HD isn't all that much better (and we nearly got another compromise system). Blue Ray is still extremely compressed, yet another transitional format (and IMO too, one we could probably have done without, except they of course need to get money for the R&D of Blue Ray before they sell us the next gen stuff being fine tuned now).
There's a bigger gap in picture quality between the raw movie files as we see them in production on very pricey monitors than there is between SD and HD at home, and there's even less a difference between DVD (especially plugged in with HDMI or component cables) and Blue-Ray. For a while whem the format was new we used to get BR discs for reference material, but most studios have stopped doing that and reverted to using HD QT files or other non-domestic file formats for that.