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

[Kyle_D]

David,

You can also click on the photos to see the native HD resolution and the upscaled DVD pic. They're not just comparisons between the DVD and down-rezed images.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Gotcha.

Didn't realize that the comparison swung both ways...

BTW, since the real question in this thread is whether or not the DVD image is faithfully representing the DVD (or being degraded somehow), why doesn't someone else do their own DVD capture and compare to the same HD image from his site? His HD image is just fine...it's only really a question of "how bad" the DVD really looks.

c'mon somone...do a "right" job of capturing the DVD image, tell us all about it, and then set-up the same sort of comparison.

 

[Mark Lucas]

I agree, David. The real shock isn't how good the HD image is, because we expect HD to look great. It's how bad the dvd is.

 

[Kyle_D]

The thing is that in motion, playing through a decent DVD player and a calibrated 16X9 display, the DVD looks a lot better than those shots would lead you to believe. I've seen all three Lord of the Rings films in HD (compressed through Digital Cable, I'll admit) and while they did look better than the DVDs, the difference didn't feel as night and day as those screen captures make them out. I've gone back to watch my DVDs numerous times and not felt the least bit dissatisfied with the image quality.

Of course, with Blu-Ray and HD-DVD using advanced codecs and proper bitrates, that could all change. I'd also say that I can't watch my original DVD of the Matrix any more after seeing an HD presentation of the film on TNT.

I'm planning on purchasing a 480p projector in the coming weeks, and though it's not full HD, I suspect I'll still be buying into one of the Hi-Def formats (or ideally a universal player) as soon as they're within my price range...

 

[Brent M]

Mark,

As I said before, I don't think the HD screenshots of LOTR look all that great. However, the Starship Troopers comparison is much more telling. In those shots, the HD transfer clearly looks superior. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Dave Mack]

The R1 "Fellowship" DVD is NOT that great a disc! It's soft and the Pal R2 version absolutely blows it away in detail.
Now the Starship Troopers SB is a pretty damn good looking disc.

d

 

[Rob_Walton]

Totally OT, but have you ever heard the song "Return of the Mack" by Mark Morrison? For some strange reason I find myself humming it whenever I see one of your posts on here. Why would I do such a thing? Stupidity certainly can't be ruled out!

Return of the Mack at Amazon

 

[Andrew Bunk]

I watched all 3 LOTR EE's this weekend on my very recently re-calibrated set, and they still look better than 99% of the DVD's I view. Granted FOTR is the lesser of the three, but the last two look great.

Will they look better in full 1080i or 1080p? Of course. But saying the DVD's that not 2 years ago were being hailed as reference are now unacceptable is a bit much.

I'm still enjoying my SD DVD's very much. And I'm happy to wait until 2007 for one format to prevail, whether its Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, or something else.

 

[Vincent_P]

At the very least, THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING was never "hailed as reference". There have been complaints about the overly filtered image on that DVD since day one.

Vincent

 

[Dave Mack]

Check out this site for the lowdown on FOTR...

Bjoern

The R1 Fellowship is hardly reference. I have several catalog titles that look far better.

 

[Andrew Bunk]

Guys,

I should have chosen my words better-I'm aware of the issues with FOTR.

Still, I feel it's necessary to put it in perspective. I can think of DVD's of recent films that look worse than FOTR.

Plus, it looks way better on my set than those screencaps.

I'm not trying to marginalize the improvements possible with HD. I will definitely buy into HD sometime in the future, and LOTR being available will likely be the deciding factor. I guess I don't see why SD must be characterized negatively in order to make HD look better. That's what those screencaps are doing IMO.

The difference between SD & HD is not "bad" and "good". It's more like "great" and "excellent".

 

[Mark Lucas]

According to the screenshots the dvd is just embarrassingly bad and the HD version pretty good. There are better HD transfers out there. The difference though is awesome.

 

[Andrew Bunk]

Thing is Mark, one has to wonder under what kind of conditions those screen captures were made.

It reminds me of how Bill Hunt and some others have noted at HD-DVD demos how on the split screen examples, the SD side is apparently intentionally dumbed down to make the HD look better. Quite a lot can be done to an RPTV to make SD look fantastic. Regular convergence tweaking, re-calibration, warming the set up, etc.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Yes, but that DVD image was pulled directly off the DVD on a PC (ie, not "screen shots" of an image on a screen)...calibration of a display has nothing to do with it.

Also, realize when you calibrate your TV to make a DVD "look better", you're really just lessening the degradation that your TV would usually apply to the image so that the DVD image is simply coming through closer to what it actually looks like.

People...if anyone cares enough who has a DVD drive on their PC...just pull the same grabs off of the DVD on your own and post them here to share. Let's stop this silly debate and answer the question with a simple screen-grab.

I don't have a PC with a DVD drive otherwise I'd do it!

 

[Andrew Bunk]

Dave,

I of course wasn't implying calibration had anything to do with the screenshots.

What I meant was I've seen widely varying results from program to program when used for screen captures directly from DVD. We don't know how those screen captures were taken, what software was used, what compression or filtering was used by the program, what format they were saved in, etc.

Again, I'm not knocking the gains to be had from HD-the simple math of it proves what improvements there will be. Once a format is firmly established as a winner with backing from all studios, I will buy in. My point
is SD is far from looking bad.

Put it this way-if Fellowship looked the way it did in those screenshots when I watched it on my RPTV, I'd be seriously concerned something was wrong with my set, because I know the source material is better than that.

EDIT: Here's a blurb from Ron Epstein's review at the time of Fellowship's release:


I know over 3 years have passed, but honestly, have our standards risen so much that we can't appreciate this release anymore? It's not like we're talking about a 1998 DVD here.

Just food for thought.

 

[Vader]

Post removed.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Gotcha.

but that's why I'm suggesting that someone from HTF do their own screen-capture and describe the exact method they use on their PC to do it...then post the results.

Anyone with a PC and DVD drive can do this...so why do we have a whole thread "wondering" about the legitmacy of the original screen-grabs? Why doesn't someone just do it themselves the "right" way...document the process they used...and post the results?

 

[Mark Lucas]

There were much better transfers 3 years ago. Hell, there are tranfers from '98 that kick FOTR's ass.

I think Ron's review is just reflective of the resolving power of the equipment it was reviewed on.

 

[Andrew Bunk]

Mark,

I not trying to be argumentative at all. Please don't take me that way.

What examples would you cite of transfers from '98?

Also, I'm confused on your statement about resolving power. It seems like you're saying good gear will make a bad DVD look better. But the disc is static. The colors are there or they aren't. The sharpness is there or it's not. If anything, I would think bad or improperly setup gear makes a good DVD look bad.

Example: When I had Eliab Alvarez of Avical come out and do my calibration the first time, we used a scene in Gladiator for some before and after testing. Before the calibration, a scene where Joaquin Phoenix is sitting in the shade, he has material near his neck like a scarf that appeared black or dark gray. After my set had been properly calibrated, it was able to show that the scarf was actually a deep purple.

It's not the DVD's fault that my set wasn't taking advantage of the color represented on the disc. We also used Fifth Element SB for some before and after relating to detail, and there was a significant difference.

If I am barking up the wrong tree please let me know, as I am no expert when it comes to technical details. But I know what looks good to my eyes, and I have good eyesight.

As I mentioned before, I watched all 3 LOTR EE's last weekend, and if Two Towers and ROTK are 9.5/10 for picture, FOTR would be no less than an 8.5 comparitively.


Also, Dave, quite honestly I don't trust that I would be able to do a screenshot the "right" way. Screenshots are a touchy business, because to really preserve the quality, the file would need to be large I would think, which would be problematic for web posting.

I've used PowerDVD in the past for this purpose, and just pasting the screenshot into something like MS Paint without even saving it as a specific format, you could see a significant difference between the pasted screenshot and the video window from PowerDVD.

 

[Dave Mack]

I think FOTR is a very good transfer except in one area, detail IMHO. Dark City is a much better transfer. Training Day is much better. All IMHO of course. Barfly has more detail!
If you wanna see FOTR look better, check out the PAL r2 version. AMAZING amount of improvement.


Just my 2 cents, but what do I know....

Rob, I don't know that tune but my dad's name was James so he heard "Jimmy Mack" all the time!

d