I was in my local best buy today and they had several screens running different high def movies.  Batman...  Transformers, Open Season, and a couple of others.  I noticed something I haven't noticed before... There are times when the scene is "too real" in that it doesn't have the "film look" to it.  I would say the comparison is like watching a movie on-screen and watching a soap opera.  Soap operas have that "amateur camera" look to them that looks more like you are in the room with them than something that is "on film".

Personally, I've grown so accustomed to the "on film" look that the HD realism kind of ruins it.  I guess you get used to it, but I find myself strangely unable to get into the film at all.  Does this pass after you've watched enough movie content? 

The world is turning to realism. Wait till the 5K+ resolution TVs that is true uncompressed video. Yes Blu-ray even needs compressed video, just less compressed then HD-DVD. Lucky Blu-ray goes up to 200GB so it should be able to fit at least 2160p.

@kn:

I think what you're referring to has more to do with the display itself than with the source material. In my experience, I find LCD flat-panel displays often have a level of sharpness that is so harsh that it appears to be unnatural, whereas a good plasma display has a more smooth and natural appearance to it (which also has to do with the level of color reproduction).

ssj21, as of right now the films on BD aren't less compressed than HD, not only that, last I heard they were still having problems with 100GB blurays, and that they also wont run on original hardware, when, and if, they ever come out with them, so talking about 200gb BD is just getting way ahead of yourself, haha. Audio is the only thing so far that on a FEW occasions has been a tiny bit more compressed than BD movies, so lets stop passing along BS as fact.

Oh yeah, and someday 200gb BD discs might be in our future, just like someday 100gb BD discs MIGHT be in our future, but as of right now the 100 aren't ANYWHERE to be seen, and they won't be for quite a while. That is all only IF sony doesn't drop the ball AGAIN, like they did with the PS3. I dont think I have purchased a movie yet on the 50GB discs, or whatever size they are, hmmm, interesting.

We need 200gb blu-ray for what exactly?

Maybe it is a function of the sharpness of LCD because all of the films were on LCD and not plasma. I sure hope I don't regret getting an LCD because of that. I may try cranking the sharpness way down when my TV arrives (hopefully this week!) and see if that lessens the effect...

@ssj12 -- currently all movies are stored as 1080p/24. The content on both formats is stored identically... maybe one day that will change, but for now, they are the same...

Yeah, thanks kn, he must of pulled that info from a SDF Sony Press Release or something, or made it up, and just decided to state it as fact, despite reality being contrary.

Oh yeah kn, I know exactly what you are talking about when it comes to film, and the look of soap operas, and some lower budget movies. Do you by chance have any idea what makes it look different like that? Camera used? Film process? I've always wondered that since I was a kid when my mom watched B&B and Y&R, it looked so different from movies, along with a handful of films that looked that way, but I never knew why. Anyone know for that matter? Do they go over movie film by chance and make it look grittier (maybe not the best term to describe the look) in post-production?

Actually, that's not entirely true... Originally, Sony was using mpeg-2 for some of their Blu-rays... a noticable step down - and leads to much larger files - than h.264.

In turn, there are a few early Blu-ray movies that look considerably worse than their HD-DVD counterparts. If you're looking into Blu-ray movies, I highly suggest ignoring some of these movies. I believe Casino Royale was one of them though I'm not positive and don't feel like looking it up.