The more you see, the more you want.
Last night we settled down and watched Quantum of Solace in high definition on Filmflex. At £4.99 for a ninety minute film it's not great value, but the picture quality was so outstanding even Mrs Nialli commented upon it. Some of the action sequences are just so fast I think they'd really show the limitations of standard def, so anyone looking at watching the latest Bond on Filmflex is strongly recommended to go HD even at that price.
Of course, the problem is I now want even more...now where did I put that Sky number again??
20 comments:
I bought this on BLU RAY when it first came out...gotta say its great in HD
Was the sound broadcast in DD5.1?
I don't know - I only have a 2.1 system. I understood that all Filmflex HD movies had 5.1 sound
I think all pay-per-view movies are a rip off.
As Matt said above, get a Blu Ray player (and rent the films for about £2.50 instead) the HD quality is far better than anything broadcast by Sky OR Virgin.
Blu Ray is good, but for watching occasional movies you should think about the total cost of ownership over a year or more of investing in the needed hardware (yes you own it until it breaks or becomes obsolete, but a year or more later the available ones to buy will likely be cheaper) and rental subscription schemes (or is there a £2.50 delivered online rental? or petrol on top of the £2.50 if that's at a local store) for the number of movies you'd actually watch...
And compare that with sky movies subs too (on Sky of course because we want HD!)...
And spending £5 a shot on a PPV movie every week or two doesn't seem so bad. Yeah it feels a rip off for what it is but if you don't already have the Blu Ray player and don't watch THAT many movies anyway then it's OK.
Since we're unlikely to get Sky Movies HD any time soon, what I want is Filmflex to start offering subscriptions, or at least discounts if you rent a few. I suppose new releases have to be PPV because the content owners say so, but imagine a decent sized selection of slightly older movies in HD... on demand!
I'm waiting for Blu Ray recorders to hit the market before I venture down that road.
Personally, I don't find Filmflex a rip off and have used it probably on average about once a month. I don't have a local video shop and have in the past found the likes of LoveFilm inefficient with recent releases.
£4.99 is good value compared with the £14 I shelled out today for two tickets to Star Trek, sitting next to a Trekkie who consumed three large cokes and a massive popcorn through the entire two hours.
I'd like a Filmflex subscription option (nice idea). I'd like to be able to watch the same movie as much as I like over the next 72 hours rather than just 24. It's not a perfect service, but it filled a Bond-sized hole last night...and the PQ was great :)
Nialli I have actually just got back from watching Star Trek...£6.50 for my ticket....when with a couple of students who paid £5.50 :-(
The only reason I have a blu ray player is because I bought a PS3. One of the best out there. Originally a lot cheaper than the cheapest blu ray player and its always updatable
I'm amazed that the blogger is waiting until there is a Blu Ray recorder! Why would you want to record from Virgin Media when the only HD available to record would be BBC HD? The rest of the material on demand is copy protected.
Invest in a Blu Ray player now and enjoy HD now!
Yes, I have to say that a Blu Ray recorder is pretty much a non-starter for Virgin subscribers. The suggested "season pass" for Film Flex is unlikely to ever come about while the current PPV rights remain as they are. Basically, the film distributors won't allow PPVs to be purchased as a package by consumers. It's one-off or none of!
Sorry to disappoint you with my lack of Blu-Ray - I will get there, just not a priority at the moment.
you haven't really seen hi-def til you've seen a blu-ray. HD on TV is nice but not as good as the blu-rays.
I know...but I won't really see HD until I get a larger TV than a 32in and that's not where my cash is going this year. I'm not an early adopter, I'm not a home cinema guy...I'm just a Virgin customer who wants some high def. Doesn't make me a bad person...and it does elicit a certain amount of sympathy from those Sky customers who visit ;o)
You realise a 32 inch TV set isn't really big enough to show the full benefit of High Definition? I'm amazed you've been so vociferous in your campaign for more HD when you don't yet have a TV set fully capable of showcasing it!
Sirius read his post again...
and just to point out I have a 32" setup also...It might not show all the benefits, but its still miles better then SD and thats why I am campaigning for more.
I think if I had a 40in TV or bigger I'd have moved to Sky HD by now.
With the 32in I have a compromise partly enforced by the room size (14'x14', viewing distance around 8') and partly to pacify Mrs Nialli.
According to John Lewis, the 32in is the biggest selling size in the UK, so I'm not alone.
I'm vociferous about HD because I can see the difference and like what I see. And, frankly, we've waited long enough.
(oh, and sorry to those who find my new picture so sad - I can assure you that in the 40+ years since it was taken I've cheered up a great deal!)
Just sit nearer, then 32" is big enough to fully benefit from HD. It is a popular TV size - I've been reliably informed that any bigger would be "too big for the room" hmm
Have a look at all those 40 plus inch displays in John Lewis and other electrical outlets. 32" is the most popular AT THE MOMENT because until recently it was the largest screen size that was available with a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) television. The advent of Plasma and the vast recent improvement in LCD TVs means that no such restriction now applies. I agree some of the really massive screens will only ever find a home in a pub or a club, but 32" really is the minimum size suggested for viewing in High Definition.
I sometimes sit very near a 17" 1080p display. Better than my 32" 720p off in the distance!
Post a Comment