SD vs HD, a link to a great site with picture comparisons. (1 Viewer)

[Vader]

Are you seriously claiming that a 1080p image on a 40ft screen will stay "super-sharp" close up...? That a 1080p image on a 40' screen will equal or exceed that of a 35mm print? :rolleyes

I know it is not the full 4k, but it not reduced to 1k either. So the argument stands. The end.

 

[Mark Lucas]

1080p will look just as fuzzy up close as pristine 35mm. At 2 screen heights away it looks excellent though. Jeez, I said this already.

 

[Vader]

Did I miss something? Nobody is debating that. The only debate is whether the statement "SD-DVD is crap" is simply one of opinion, or fact. Let me assure you that it is the former, and not a majority one at that. So unless you are prepared to claim some wisdom and power of observation beyond that of an experienced DVD reviewer (David), a professional ISF calibrationist (Nils), or the vast majority of dumb AV schmos like me, this debate is going nowhere. I am not going to convince you of my POV (nor am I trying to), and you certainly are not going to convince me of yours. I will continue to enjoy both SD and HD, while you are limiting yourself to HD (at least until the next format comes along, at which time you will turn against HD with the same voracity)...

 

[Mark Lucas]

Derek, SD-DVD even at it's best doesn't hold a candle to HD at it's best. That should be pretty obvious. The opinion comes in when we discuss if SD DVD is as bad as some say. I say it is worst because it gives me headaches and I'm bored with it. I've been spoiled by OTA HD downloads, what can I say?

What were we arguing over?

 

[Vader]

 

[Andrew Bunk]

Derek,

You didn't make your point badly.

Apparently Mark just wants to piss all over SD.

I'm going to get out of the way of the stream.

 

[Paul Miller]

Are there any comparisons for pre-1990s films out there between HD and DVD?


Paul

 

[Brent M]

Very well said, Andrew. It's obvious that Mark is just looking to trash DVD as much as humanly possible so there's no point in even bothering to debate this any longer.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

I don't find SD-DVD, even well-mastered, fully satisfying when compared with HD content. Without seeing HD, most anyone would be impressed with a quality DVD when scaled up to 720p or 1080p or similar.

Side by side, HD may not immediately look dramatically superior, but the added detail is very useful in many shots in drawing the viewer into the content, especially when viewed at more cinematic viewing ratios (i.e. up close).

We must all keep in mind that many people will add in their comments without discussion their video chains, and I fear that a lot of people have lack-luster displays and sources, etc, yet still add in their commentaries as equal weight.

 

[Mattias_ka]

How many here have a set-up that can take advantage of full HD resolution?
I must say that with my Ruby, at x1,3-1,4 from my 100 inch 4:3 1,3 gain screen, DVD are a lot worse that HD. If someone can point out some good programs or something, that can scale or do some magic, so my DVD's look a lot better, I would be glad to hear. I got a HTPC with a GF 7800 GTX card.

And I think with HD-DVD, we will get much better quality, with less filtered image, and the difference will be even bigger. People, 1920x1080 are over 4 times the resolution of a DVD.

But I will not agree with Nils. Sure, one can see more problems and maybe detail with a much brighter image, but what is it we SHOULD see? Theaters have a standard, and that is too have around 12 fL, and I would think most don't even get this far. So if the director and DP are making a movie, they will shot for what you see in the theaters, around 12 fL. If you then take a compressed version of that (MPEG2) and show it a 25-30 or even 60 (plasma) fL, what are you seing then? The true version of the director/DP?

 

[Yumbo]

just had a first play with xBox 360 in HD.

I'd find the same with movies. BIG difference.

Like putting glasses on for those that need them.

I was skeptical about the xBox 360.
Even w/o a hi-def display, the upscaling is noticeable.

recommended!

 

[JediFonger]

derek,

on the same compromise scale, film would be rated 0. it'd be 0 compromises.

re: resolution of "film" for all purposes, it is (in fact) infinity x infinity limited only by grain. if we factor in 35mm grain, then 1080p is (in fact) "IT". 2k and 4k is only marginally better.

re: resolution stopping @1080p. yesh, i honestly believe that massive consumer adoption of a popular HD format will stop at 1080p. it's the height of arrogance to suggest that, consumers will continually purchase new equipment for new formats that aren't backwards compatible. 1080p will be it, before consumers move on towards downloadable/VOD-type distribution of content in the future.

re: 35mm upclose, it's true that film up close (1st row of cinema) isn't "super sharp" compared to "real life" but compared to a digital medium and SD, it is definitely "super sharp". but most of the cinemas aren't properly calibrated anyway.

mattias_ka,
using your HTPC, check out ffdshow w/dscaler plugin. it's night/day. try it out.

nils,
can you link me to a site/resource where i can find out about that lumens stuff you're referring to? how actual ANSI lumens measured isn't the same as spec'd? does it have any real_world applications in quality, visually?

 

[Yumbo]

which is supposed to look better?

720p or 1080i?

 

[ChrisWiggles]

 

[Mark Lucas]

Not needlessly though. Screenshot comparisons like the one featured in this thread do far more damage to dvd than anything I could say.

 

[Yumbo]

anyone?
and why?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

The question is moot. The answer is 1080P.

If you had to choose between 720P and 1080I (which you don't), then the answer would be "it depends".

Something with fast motion like sports might look better in 720P since it's vertical resolution would be cut in half during fast motion with the 1080I cast (resulting in 540 vertical resolution during motion and pans). However with movie which can always be 3-2 reversed for proper frame-reconstruction, 1080I would make more sense as you could "get back" 1080P upon playback.

And since 1080I has 1920 horizontal but 720P has only 1280...in theory 1080I has an advantage there if the cameras have made use of it (they don't always).

but, as I said early, the *real* answer is NEITHER are correct, the only right answer is: 1080P.

 

[Yumbo]

obviously.
the Q was between 720p and 1080i being the options - which one should one choose in terms of picture quality?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Chris,

I added more to my post which addresses that...check it out.

The answer if you *had* to choose is "it depends". If you had a display that could do both formats natively (hardly anyone does) then the only way to know for sure would be to watch it both ways with the same program material and see what happens to look better.

I think the chips would tend to fall in favor of 720P with fast-motion sports and with 1080I with films or documentaries without much fast motion.

Did I mention that the *real* right answer would be 1080P?

 

[Yumbo]

Thanks,

Anyone have opinios on xBox 360 settings? Games = 720p?