HD-DVD players actually in homes, general consensus on picture quality is just OK (1 Viewer)

[Holadem]

I am with Brent: DVD - VHS > HD - DVD. At least so far with my limited experience with OTA HD at various friends houses.

--
H

 

[Sean Bryan]

Just a reasoned guess here on my part.

The numbers tell us one thing, but some people's observation/opinions are saying the other.

Why?

I think the "perceptual difference" is possibly greater from VHS to DVD (in average set-ups) because VHS really wasn't that good at all to start with. Sure, when it was the only thing people watched, we were used to it. But considering what I think most people would categorize as "good" and "bad", it really was/is pretty bad. As far as a "quality category" where the only two categories are "bad" and "good" (yes, I am just completely making this up), you could put it in the "bad" category.

On the other hand, DVD was/is pretty darn good. It goes in the "good" category.

High-Def (HD DVD and soon BD) is excellent. It also goes in the "good" category.

So, the numbers tell us that the increase in resolution, picture detail, etc... is greater between DVD and HD than VHS and DVD. And that is true. But I think some are seeing the VHS to DVD comparison as going from "bad" to "good", and then are seeing the DVD to HD comparison as starting "good" and, of course, remaining in the "good" category.

See what I'm saying? I think the perceptual difference (for many people depending on the set up and display) is greater going from VHS to DVD than DVD to HD because when you start with VHS, going to DVD is basically taking you from "bad" to "good", so a huge perceptual difference is easy to notice even on SD displays.

When going from DVD to HD, we are already starting in the "good" category. Still HD is much better, but how much of a difference any individual will subjectively notice is now probably more dependant on the actual display and how well it can accurately reproduce the full resolution of HD, the size of the display and viewing distance, how the viewer's eyes are presently "trained", etc....

We are really going from "bad" to "good" to "better". So even though there is a greater difference between DVD and HD, it isn't a "quality category" (in which the only two categories are "bad" and "good")change. VHS to DVD takes us from clearly "bad" to clearly "good", so the difference probably jumps out more to some.

 

[Robert Harris]

Totally different format and necessities.

70mm reigns supreme.

In reality, a high definition DVD of MFL will look very close to a 70mm print on your home theater screen.

The differences between 35 and 70 don't really come into play until screen size gets over the forty foot mark, and then gets progressively more impressive from there.

I've never me anyone with a 800 inch screen in their home theater.

I'm sorry that I wasn't able to make Overlooked. I'm told that Marni Nixon was loverly.

RAH

 

[JediFonger]

i wonder how many SF of your home you'd need to dedicate to 70mm projection =). oh man, only the rich can dream about it =(.

 

[Brent M]

That's one crazy ass way of explaining it, but I think I agree with what you're saying.

 

[Ricardo C]

Nah, the rich do it. It's the rest of us that has to dream

Although with quality projectors coming down in price, and the availability of optical HD media, the not-so-rich can get an amazing experience too, no dreaming involved

Now if I could just afford to build that 30x50x15 room...

 

[JediFonger]

well, HD medium+player is still within the realms of the rich (mid-uppermid class). SD-DVD ($20 players+under $10 media) is where it can reach "the rest of us". i think it will be 3-4 years (just like SD-DVD) before HD becomes mainstream if ever.

 

[Ricardo C]

Dude, I'm by no means "rich", or even "upper middle class". To get my HD DVD player, like with every non-essential item I've wanted to own, I saved for a bit, then bought it. A Ruby-class projector is still far off for me, but I'm certainly enjoying the films right now. What's with the gloom and doom? HD DVD debuted at a lower pricepoint than DVD did nine years ago, and displays are cheaper too. No, it's not free, but HT is far more accessible, pricewise, than it's ever been before.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

Same here!

 

[Kyle_D]

Both Marni Nixon and the presentation were loverly. Bravo to that restoration! I only wish I could have been down here 2 years ago for Lawrence...

Of course I know that 70mm has totally different applications and necessities. I just wanted to point out and remind everyone that, as you said, 70mm still reigns supreme

On the other hand, I also want to say that Terry Zwigoff held the world premiere of his director's cut of Bad Santa, and the presentation looked so unusually good that even Ebert commented afterwards that the print looked remarkable. Zwigoff then informed everyone that what we saw wasn't a print at all, but a tape of the HD master. I'm still not sure how this is possible, since I don't think the Virginia has a 2K projector. Maybe Zwigoff meant to say that we saw a print that had been derived from a tape of the HD master, unless he brought the projector with him as well - there was a delay letting people into the theater on Saturday morning that could have been attributed to them setting up a 2k projector, though I thought they were working on the sound (which had been attrocious on just about every movie BUT My Fair Lady. Ironically, the guy from DTS who installed the system was presented with an award on opening night). RAH, I know you weren't there, but did you hear anything about the details of this presentation from James Katz or any of the other VIPs there?

Anyway, on a 50-foot screen, the HD Bad Santa looked better (crisper detail, bolder colors, etc.) than any of the standard 35mm prints, and this festival had two of the most highly respected projectionists in the world overseeing the presentation. For Ebert, who made a rallying cry against digital a couple years back around the time AOTC came out, it seemed to be a sobering moment. If HD-DVD and Blu-Ray can consistantly match the quality of that presentation...wow. I'd consider backing down (WAY down) from my position that there was a greater leap between VHS and DVD than there is from DVD to HD. We could end up having movies that look far and away better at home than they do in the theaters.

 

[JediFonger]

if you're able to not live well beyond your means and make about $40+ you're middle-upper middle class =).

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

While resolution is but one element that determines the over-all quality of an image, 1920x1080 video is certainly a much bigger leap in PQ over DVD than DVD was over VHS, especially when you compare S-VHS and Beta, which were capable of ~400 lines of resolution.



And to put that in perspective, compare 1920x1080 (2K) to that of 4K & UHDV:





The problem is that the mass market really doesn't care. Standard DVD didn't become the mass market darling because of it's superior PQ or AQ. What grabbed the attention of the mass market was the superior convenience features (aka no more rewinding tapes or inconvenience of trying to cue up to a specific point in a tape). Interest continued to grow as more and more titles were made available on DVD, but it did not become a massive hit until the prices of entry level players dropped below that of basic VHS players.

The mass market has always been primarily motivated by the three C's, Cost, Convenience, and Content - and in that order.

In addition, while consumers with all types of displays could immediately see the advantages of DVD over VHS, the same is not necessarily true for hi-def video. Yes there are still some advantages, even for those with old, small analog only TV's, but certainly not enough to convince them to pay any premium over what they currently have available to them via standard DVD.

In this regard, hi-def video (in any format) has a very long road in front of it before it will ever reach the same level of popularity that standard DVD has benefitted from.

 

[JediFonger]

nils, i have a reply to your post, but i made a separate thread:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...94#post2851194

 

[JonZ]

Still no players at the Circuit Citys in my area. Im too lazy to go to Best Buy because its out of the way.

But I noticed HD DVDs on the shelves in front of the SD versions. Goodfellas caught my eye.

 

[Ryan-G]

I saw one setup at BB today. It had Corpse Bride playing on it, which struck me as very odd since I haven't seen that's been released for HD-DVD yet.

Video quality was fairly good, Impressive really in the texturing, but I still wonder if what I was seeing wasn't a broadcast feed of some sort. I can't find any references to an HD-DVD Corpse Bride anywhere.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

Yeah, it was probably a SD DVD upconverted, as CORPSE BRIDE hasn't been announced for HD DVD yet.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Was it the actual movie, or was it the trailer?

The trailer for The Corpse Bride (which looks absolutely amazing) is on the HD DVD demo disc that is playing at many Best Buys.

A release date for The Corpse Bride on HD DVD has not been officially announced, but I believe it is one of the rumored titles coming later this year.

 

[Ryan-G]

It might have been the trailer, to be honest, I was so impressed with the texturing on the character's clothing and on the background walls I really wasn't paying any attention to what exactly it was. Thought about it too late when I got home.

But the whole thing did make me go peek around the LCDTV section to see if there were any 1080p models on their shelves yet. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I know Dell has 1920 x 1200 model monitors which is 1080p capable, so there should be 1080p LCD's right?

Was disappointed though, no 1080p LCD's, and I'm not about to buy a 720p monitor. I'll just wait and see what pops up when I'm ready to buy a High-Def player.

 

[JediFonger]

ryan,

yes, dell's 2407 and 3007 are both 1080p, 8-bit color, full on HD displays capable of displaying 1080p but you will have black bars even in 16:9 because it isn't just 1080p, it's 1200p... hence black bars. in fact, 3007 is 2536x1600, pretty close to 4k. they both have HDCP DVI input (you can buy a HDMI->DVI converter to make it work). 2407 is more HDTV friendly because of the inputs, but 3007 only has DVI, so you'll need an a/v receiver/device to up-res all lesser connections towards DVI/HDMI. 2407 is about $800-1,000 depending coupon levels. 3007 is about $1600-2,200 depending on coupons.

http://www.westinghousedigital.com/c...-monitors.aspx
^also 1080p and true 16:9 aspect ratio. some issues about minor overscanning, but other than that it's great. 37" is about $1,800+, 42" is about $2,700+.

 

[Ryan-G]

Ty Yi,

Not too worried about Black Bars, like most here I'm more worried about getting correct or nearly correct aspect.

The information is much appriciated though, I've been working on this decision for a while, but haven't turned up too much info on 1080p support on monitor panels.