Topic: DVD/HD comparison

[ren]

I saw this posted on shacknews.

http://www.itwonthurt.com/hdvsd/

Just some comparison shots, but really well done.

[Quemaqua]

Holy shit.  When you see it like that, that's dramatic.  Is it really that much of a difference?

[idolminds]

What the hell did they use to upsample the SD DVDs? That first Kong shot looks like shit. I watched it fullscreen on my PC (1280x960...so not HD res but still up there) and I dont remember it looking that bad.

[JacksRag(e)]

What the hell did they use to upsample the SD DVDs? That first Kong shot looks like shit. I watched it fullscreen on my PC (1280x960...so not HD res but still up there) and I dont remember it looking that bad.

Well, it'd still look nicer on the PC than it would on a large widescreen tv.  I guess that might be how standard DVDs look on a HDtv but still, that's a pretty significant difference.  I wonder if the effects were exaggerated.  Like they used a really crappy tv for the SD and a much better tv for the HD.  I notice they don't say anything about the equipment used or any such explanation except, look SD vs HD.

[idolminds]

It almost looks like they used much heavier jpeg compressions on SD than HD.

[ren]

That looks similar to when I upscale dvd to 1080 using VLC.

http://www.cornbread.org/FOTRCompare/index.html

Another one where the DVD images look better. (mouse over for comparison, click to get full 1080)
That one also tells you what programs they use and how it's done ^

[WindAndConfusion]

Keep in mind, the ED images are scaled up significantly; unless you have a 1920x1080 resolution monitor (or better, on both axes), the screenshots are scaled up even more than a DVD in fullscreen.

However, I notice that the colors in the ED shots look washed-out compared to the HD.

[Cobra951]

It doesn't make that much difference in practice.  Most people don't have 60" 1080p screens 6 feet away from them.  Standard widescreen DVDs look extremely good on HDTVs when handled properly.  That means a non-interlaced (progressive) smoothly upscaled image.  (Movie DVDs should never be recorded as interlaced video.)  Not saying there isn't an improvement.  I am saying it's not a good enough one just yet.

[iPPi]

It doesn't make that much difference in practice.  Most people don't have 60" 1080p screens 6 feet away from them.  Standard widescreen DVDs look extremely good on HDTVs when handled properly.  That means a non-interlaced (progressive) smoothly upscaled image.  (Movie DVDs should never be recorded as interlaced video.)  Not saying there isn't an improvement.  I am saying it's not a good enough one just yet.

I was once of this opinion, but having played the 360 for an extended period of time, and watched some HD content on the 360, I gotta say, HD is truly impressive, and there's a pretty big difference between 480i, 480p, (SD and ED) to 720p, 1080i, and 1080p (HD).  I still haven't seen a full length movie in HD though on my TV, but I hope to in the near future and experience HD movies. 

I agree though that on a smaller screen it is probably not very noticeable, but I do happen to have a complete home theater system and setup.

[scottws]

I have an HD setup with my 360 as well, on a large-ish screen (around 50").  No home theater audio though.  Anyway, while I play my 360 at 1080i and find it nice looking, I don't find it so amazing that I am at all interested in Blu-Ray or HD-DVD.  Hell, the only HD channel I've ever seen that truly impresses me is Discovery HD.

[Quemaqua]

Given that I will never have a true HD setup of worth because I can't afford it, it makes no difference to me either.

[Pugnate]

I've seen it in action a few times and it does look fantastic.

[gpw11]

It looks nice, but not replace your tv, get a new more expensive cable box and package, and buy one of these two different types of players nice.  I'd rather live in South America for 6 months.

[Pugnate]

It looks nice, but not replace your tv, get a new more expensive cable box and package, and buy one of these two different types of players nice.  I'd rather live in South America for 6 months.

Excellent point.

[iPPi]

It looks nice, but not replace your tv, get a new more expensive cable box and package, and buy one of these two different types of players nice.  I'd rather live in South America for 6 months.

Haha very true.  I mean, I've got a full home theatre set up, but the fact still remains that SD DVD still looks damn nice on my set up with component cables... Hell, I'm not even on a progressive scan player, but the image quality is still pretty damn good.

That's one reason why I won't get an HD player just yet.  I mean, the difference we have seen in this thread is staggering, but I cannot justify the cost just yet.

[JacksRag(e)]

Sony is releasing a Blu Ray player for around $600 this summer, which you know, is the same price as the PS3 and stuff.  And Toshiba is rumoured to release a cheaper HD-DVD player as well, somewhere in the $200 range.

As prices drop for the players, it might be cool to see where things go from there.