Please help me defend against an idiot...or prove me to be one.

Brian, welcome to the forum. 

Well, where to begin?

Are all those people who have been engaged in a past HD DVD vs. Blu-ray fight (or wisely haven't), who have bought (often replacing their previous DVD) and discussed many HD discs now, the ones who have produced them, often after a painful restoration of worn-out elements, and so many people more who are involved in the HD experience and the manufacturing of equipment and software, are all those people simply nuts and idiots?

Let's even skip the discussion of the new (higher sampling bandwidth and/or lossless!) audio formats (codecs) on BD for a moment, they're simply not present on an SDVD, and let's concentrate on the image.

First of all: yes you need new HD TV sets (or monitors) alright. Yet, I can assure you that even on a classic TV set the difference is already obvious very often. Why?
Because the colours are deeper (better defined) on a Blu-ray, and because many old TV sets have a better resolution horizontally (ability to display pixels across the horizontal line) than the necessary minimum for NTSC. So, even on an old TV the image is often visibly better already.
But never enough, of course.

You can start with a 480x720 pixels on DVD image and upgrade it nicely to 1920x1080, and the result may indeed be stunning already if this is done well, but do you (I know I should say: "they") really believe that resolution can be added to a picture? That information that isn't there can be guessed by the circuitry? That the image suddenly contains more spatial information than was recorded? The answer is, of course, simply: no.

It is true that the newest generation of HD TV sets do a wonderful job when pumping picture resolution up to their (the TV's) native resolution. It's also true that perhaps you won't be asking for more if you never saw a real (and good) BD presentation in the first place, or if you're only looking at a 37" (or lower) screen or whatever size you happen to have , but unfortunately from too-much a distance.

Or if all you (they) ever saw were HD broadcast channels (720p at best, and often compressed to an inacceptable level during transfer), yes, that may make you think "no big deal".

Hint 1: it takes a well-done BD (and many are very good!) to judge BD.

Hint 2: one can, and one needs to, sit closer to an HD TV than to a classic NTSC screen. The individual pixels need to reach the individual rods and cones. 

But even when watching it from a slightly bigger distance, the difference between a very good DVD when upgraded on one hand and a very good BD on the other is simply stunning. Yes, the upgraded DVD is VERY acceptable, but the BD sort of make your eyes pop out. It's not just the resolution alone, it's also the colours, and the better compression (much less compression, because of much more available space on the disc, and new better codecs).

A simple case: upconversion cannot invent skin texture (or any surface texture) that wasn't recorded on the disc. You definitely will see the difference!

And then, yes, the audio.... 


Cees

Cees, as always, makes the logical arguments.  The problem is, a person simply can't see something they don't see or don't want to see.  People are also notoriously resistant to changing their minds.  I use the example from right here on HTF where someone came in with the remarkable discovery that the ideal location for a center speaker was at the back of the room.  I'm talking about the front center, dialog speaker.  There was absolutely no arguing the point.  This person had made an astounding discovery and no amount of logic was going to sway him. I single out that one example, but there are new ones here every day.

So I ask, why do you have to convince this person?

I think if you sit and watch the nightly news from close enough on a large enough TV that you can easily see the difference between the old and new.

When the news crew uses an older camera, it is definitely worse than when they use their wonderful new HD camera in the studio.

But, some folkis can't or won't see it.  They are stubborn, and there's no point in arguing.  Get what you want.

 

Point made!


Cees

I remember the center speaker guy. Wasn't he running two speakers, one in front and one in back?

Thanks Cees.

Zack, believe it or not, I think that was a different person, because I seem to remember that as well.  The best I can recall is the person I was referring to had the equipment at the back of the room and didn't want to bother with running a speaker wire to the center in the front.  Presumably there were already two going to the L&R, but I don't recall.  Anyway, the solution was to put the speaker in the back of the room, and he came in telling everyone how great it was and they were missing the boat by having their dialog coming from the direction of the picture, instead of the opposite direction.

Back to the original question of HD versus Upconvert, if you've got an amazing upconverter, then it can be a subtle difference.

Not insignificant, mind, but subtle.

But the difference is in the detail.  Recently, I watched the new issue of Labyrinth.  The details were astounding.  In the wide-shots, with the worm in the peach, you could still tell it was a worm, rather than a dark spot.  Outside of Jarred's castle, more than a white thing that you say, "those look like they might be milk-bottles," in the HD version, it's quite clear: they are milk-bottles.  

Then, overall, there's the edges.  Upconverted edges seem just a little softer -- unless the upconverter is adding horrific 3.579454MHz ringing like some I see at work (particularly the older LCD sets.)  But then on the HD, there's a lot more detail to that edge. 

But, be that as it may, if your relative is happy, wish him well.  His is the cheaper path!  (Does he also like full-screen / Modified Aspect Ratio?)  As for you, get what you like, sit as close as you can stand, and enjoy pocket Imax!  (I sit about 7 feet back from a 84" diagonal projection screen.)

Leo Kerr