Why Did They Do It? (1 Viewer)

I suppose this could go elsewhere, but since it is partially concerned with HD, why not here? And it is a software question.

When inventing the DVD, why did they put more info on the discs than could be displayed on an SD tv? It seems to me that having SD DVDs look as good as they do on HD sets, slows the adoption of HD software and gear.

I'm glad they did it, but from a merchant's point of view, it seems to be a mistake.

Please explain. In what way is there "more info" on a DVD than can be displayed on an NTSC set? What additional information do you think is there, and where is it?

I'm assuming he's talking about DVD's anamorphic capabilities, for most people probably didn't take advantage of this until they had an HD set. That does not mean it's an HD feature though.

I had thought that there was more resolution, if you will, than could be displayed on an SD tv. I had thought that SD DVD players were actually down converting a DVD to a standard tv.

Not the case. DVD resolution is 480 x 720, which the vast majority of standard TVs can easily resolve.

How do up converting players manage to come up with such good looking pics on HD tv's? When I put on PJ's King Kong in SD, I'm amazed how good it looks in upconverted HD.

"listen my non enthusiast friend, you don't understand how horrible this non-anamorphic letterbox disc really is. Sure, you may be happy with it now, but someday you will have a much nicer widescreen HDTV, and when you do you will appreciate why I'm being such a militant on the issue of boycotting non 16:9 releases."
fast forward 5 years
"listen my non enthusiast friend, now that you have an HDTV you can't really enjoy it when all you're watching are those 16:9 dvds. You really need Bd now..."semantics aside, I think I understand the point the OP is trying to make, and I think it is valid for the majority of consumers. A good 16:9 dvd is still highly satisfying for me, and I'm seeing more and more Bds where the difference is negligable.
Has anyone given a thorough A/B comparison to Body Heat on their own set-up - I was taken aback by how insignificant the difference was with it.

As it appears, there are ways to display that same information (including partly combining info from more than one image field) that are more pleasing to the eye, and gives an impression of a higher spatial resolution, than classic TV images are and do.

To do that, one needs a higher resolution screen (amongst other things). And because we have those now, we all can potentially enjoy it.


Cees

I don't understand "image field" and there's more than one on a DVD?

It's information theory: higher resolution information is interpolated from the actual DVD image.

Imagine how a 1080p Blu Ray disc will look in a decade when upscaled to 3840 x 2160

But then we'll be wondering when or if people will upgrade their to the new 2160p and UV Ray discs

I really don't get this stuff about upconverted DVD looking really good. Upconverted DVD pictures always just look soft to me. Maybe it's my aged eyes or something. Of course, maybe old CRT HDTVs do not have the resolving power of modern LCDs and Plasmas.

I was using the term loosely.
Each image (frame) on a DVD is made up of two (different) "fields" (odd and even parts), which combined form the total image of the frame. On a next frame there may be some information (because not all movements in a sequence are quick) that could add to understanding what we see. Our eyes (+ brain) can do that (just wave your hand, with fingers spread, before your eyes, while looking at your computer screen: you never think the screen has partially disappeared! Yet big chunks of the image are missing at each given moment).

Now there are logarithms doing some of that "building up" too. Partly from the two (odd and even) "fields" of the image, plus interpolation, partly by combining information of sequential frames. Thus a frame with a higher virtual resolution is computed.
For our clever human eyes, it works.

That's what I was referring to.

The result can never be like a true 1920x1080 image (unless it's a one colour surface ), but certainly looks better than a 480i image.

And if you're sitting relatively far away from your HD screen (say: more than 12' from a 50" screen), then on your retina the difference with true HD images starts to become minimal.


Cees

Not your eyes. Probably your set if you own an older CRT HDTV. Urggghhhh, I had one of those for years. Finally broke down 3 years ago and bought a 56" Toshiba DLP 1080P HDTV and was actually flabbergasted at how good my DVD collection looked when played on my old Zenith upconverting player and viewed on my than new set.
The OP's reaction as to how good the SD King Kong looks on his HDTV set really comes as no surprise.

You are probably right. My set is about seven years old. It will have to do for me for at least another three years. I want to see whether the CE companies are going to agree on a standard for 3D capable sets. I'd also like to see if SONY will develop a large screen OLED set.

Well, those who think DVD looks really good on a HD capable display need to view them on a HD projector....your opinion will change because DVD is so blurry at 100"+ that at times it can give me a headache from the eyestrain and you'll start to laugh at comments people make where they say blu-ray/hd is "not much better than dvd" which only people with smaller sets seem to make. Not only that, you'll also see why people are very picky with artifacts like EE, DNR, etc because they become very apparent on the large screen.

I do agree that dvd can look pretty good on sets 50" or so and sometimes even on 60" given the seating distance.

I should have made my initial comments more specific to myself. Certainly the larger you make in image, the more you will expose it's flaws. For me, on my 46" Samsung lcd, SD DVDs look pretty nice. Not HD of course, but better than on my SD tv.

I don't know. It does seem to vary quite a bit depending on the upconversion used (and probably also the actual display technology). For instance, I've found Sony's upconversion (at least on most of their HDTVs) to be utterly lacking. Maybe it's just the way showroom floor models tend to be set up, but they generally look butt ugly to me w/ tons of macroblocking and such. Some others' upconversion do definitely look better to me, eg. Panny's plasma sets, but they still do not look much like true 1080p HD from a good BD unless you sit too far away.

And I actually think LCD displays tend to exacerbate the upconversion artifacts I see although I saw the problem even w/ Sony's directview CRTs in the past. I get the feeling that RPTVs (and maybe FPs also) tend to hide the artifacts a bit better.

_Man_

I do own a 1080p projector, I do watch content on a 100+" screen, and I can't agree with what you write here. For one thing, the term DVD is used as a gross generalization. Do you not differentiate between a release like Ryan's Daughter and something like the Todd-AO version of Oklahoma? I've watched plenty of sd content in the last few weeks that impressed me more (relative to the mediums capabilities) than some Bds I've seen recently. Here's a suggestion, get some non-enthusiasts together and run a blind test using the Bd of Body Heat and the DVD of Ryan's Daughter and poll them on which one they think is 'HD'. Hell, even Carrie which I'm satisfied with A/V wise, looks almost completely indistinguishable from the DVD if I sit 4 or 5 feet farther back than I normally do. For Your Eyes Only is another 'upgrade' that strikes me as depressingly minor upon a direct A/B'ing. And since the vast majority of consumers out there are what I would call non hyper-critical viewers, any improvments to be seen are simply lily gilding.

I agree. My 16x9 screen is 106" and my 2.35 screen is 105 1/2" wide.
It all depends on the particular DVD. Some look outstanding. The potential is there for excellent viewing.

I also agree. I just bought a 720p projector at an outstanding price and view SD DVD material all the time on my big home made screen. I'm especially impressed with the PQ of recent TV shows such as "West Wing."