25 replies to this topic

[HomerJ]

Anyone interested in seeing photos of same scenes, same 720p device showing DVD vs HD-DVD:

From AVS Forum:

Of course the difference between DVD and HD-DVD on a 1080p device would be even more substantial.

[big_marcelo]

HomerJ, on Nov 8 2006, 01:55 PM, said:

Anyone interested in seeing photos of same scenes, same 720p device showing DVD vs HD-DVD:

From AVS Forum:

Of course the difference between DVD and HD-DVD on a 1080p device would be even more substantial.

good to see the difference -

I saw a post previously with Pirates of the caribean and LOR... huge difference from 480i to 1080p ..... cant wait to get my HD DVD in dec/Jan ....

[chaos]

big_marcelo, on Nov 8 2006, 02:46 PM, said:

good to see the difference -

Ditto

[momaw]

big_marcelo, on Nov 8 2006, 02:46 PM, said:

good to see the difference -

I saw a post previously with Pirates of the caribean and LOR... huge difference from 480i to 1080p ..... cant wait to get my HD DVD in dec/Jan ....

Those films aren't out in HD.........?

Good to see, but not enough dif to get people to double purchase huge (if some of your collections are to go by ) library's.

Sure buy the HD version where avail, but other than favourites.........

[AndrewW]

momaw, on Nov 8 2006, 02:22 PM, said:

Those films aren't out in HD.........?

But they have been broadcast in HD on cable in the US.

We have absolutely pitiful viewing options in this country, I cry when I think of being able to get HBO in HD.

Andrew.

[Alfred Smee]

After seeing those pictures I'm even less convinced that HD-DVD is viable. 3 metres from a 42" screen you won't even be able to discern any visible difference. Unlike DVDs, there will be no great acceptance of HD DVD or Blu Ray amongst the the major population. I would like to see a comparison between a decent  upscaling DVD player (preferably Oppo) at 720p versus a HD-DVD on the same 720p display. The difference would be even less. Remember S-VHS? A much better picture than VHS but hardly anyone bought it.

[MartinX]

Alfred Smith, on Nov 8 2006, 02:35 PM, said:

Remember S-VHS? A much better picture than VHS but hardly no-one bought it.

And that, my friends, is the best comparison yet.

We'll see if the marketing departments can convince people otherwise.

[mrplou]

The Toshiba HD-DVD demo disc is a great example of the differences between SD and HD. It is a 1080i splitscreen clip that amoungst other things, shows a cruise ship travelling across the screen. It moves from simulated SD to HD. The change in detail is simply amazing. I saw in running in the shop where I bought my unit.

[Jace]

Alfred Smith, on Nov 8 2006, 03:35 PM, said:

After seeing those pictures I'm even less convinced that HD-DVD is viable. 3 metres from a 42" screen you won't even be able to discern any visible difference. Unlike DVDs, there will be no great acceptance of HD DVD or Blu Ray amongst the the major population. I would like to see a comparison between a decent  upscaling DVD player (preferably Oppo) at 720p versus a HD-DVD on the same 720p display. The difference would be even less. Remember S-VHS? A much better picture than VHS but hardly no-one bought it.

The difference is real and noticeable, even on a smaller screen.  However, I doubt 90% of people really care.  Indifference is what will keep the HD DVD formats a niche, not unlike Laserdisc (which produced better picture quality than S-VHS).

[dJOS]

Alfred Smith, on Nov 8 2006, 03:35 PM, said:

After seeing those pictures I'm even less convinced that HD-DVD is viable. 3 metres from a 42" screen you won't even be able to discern any visible difference. Unlike DVDs, there will be no great acceptance of HD DVD or Blu Ray amongst the the major population. I would like to see a comparison between a decent  upscaling DVD player (preferably Oppo) at 720p versus a HD-DVD on the same 720p display. The difference would be even less. Remember S-VHS? A much better picture than VHS but hardly no-one bought it.

Well Alfred I agree that HD on a 42" screen is not really work the effort, however on an 80"+ screen the difference is night and day.

[HomerJ]

djos, on Nov 8 2006, 04:22 PM, said:

Well Alfred I agree that HD on a 42" screen is not really work the effort, however on an 80"+ screen the difference is night and day.

Which is exactly the reason why SVHS never flew off the shelves since back then the average joe had a 20" TV.  Doubling res made no difference from 12 feet. As screen size has increased the demand for higer res has increased.

The best example in those pics is the 3rd set. Compare Tom Cruise's face (bottom right of picture).  On HD you can clearly recognise him.  On std DVD his face is a blur.

Remember this is a 1280x720p DLP. On a 1920x1080 screen there's twice as much detail as shown here!

[momaw]

mrplou, on Nov 8 2006, 03:47 PM, said:

The Toshiba HD-DVD demo disc is a great example of the differences between SD and HD. It is a 1080i splitscreen clip that amoungst other things, shows a cruise ship travelling across the screen. It moves from simulated SD to HD. The change in detail is simply amazing. I saw in running in the shop where I bought my unit.

I don't trust those sorts of demo discs.  They have a point to make and a product to sell.  Far better to use the SD and HD versions of commercially released films.

WalrusLike, on Nov 8 2006, 06:17 PM, said:

What about the fact that sopmeone there was saying that the screen shots in pause mode are 'filed' mode shots not 'frame' mode... and so have half the detail?  I dont understand the technicalities but it kinda sounds like we are saying wow to something that is only half what it should be??

Just asking if anyone noticed that info in the thread and is it correct?

Yes, maybe.  Depends how he did it.  Go pause a DVD and you will notice the paused picture does not look as clear, or worse yet is blured and jagged.

djos, on Nov 8 2006, 04:22 PM, said:

Well Alfred I agree that HD on a 42" screen is not really work the effort, however on an 80"+ screen the difference is night and day.

And once again we have a winner.  A device which only has a benefit to those with 80" screens is not something that is going to sell in very large numbers.

HomerJ, on Nov 8 2006, 06:02 PM, said:

The best example in those pics is the 3rd set. Compare Tom Cruise's face (bottom right of picture).  On HD you can clearly recognise him.  On std DVD his face is a blur.

Not being able to see Tom Cruises face is a bad thing?  

[momaw]

WalrusLike, on Nov 8 2006, 06:33 PM, said:

Um, er, I hate admitting I am a blind dork.... but I dont notice any quality loss on pause.  In fact the rock solid pause after years of crap vhs is beautiful.  But now that I am told there is a difference I will go and look for it.  In a way, the more I learn about all this,  the less chance I will enjoy it...  kind of ironic.

he he.

Usually not a lot of difference but if we are closely scrutinising and makeing decisions based on that image..........

It does also depend on you player, it's quality and the pause settings - not to mention when you pause it. Also depends how the disc was mastered.

[Alfred Smee]

djos, on Nov 8 2006, 04:22 PM, said:

Well Alfred I agree that HD on a 42" screen is not really work the effort, however on an 80"+ screen the difference is night and day.

That is a no-brainer. However, how many households have an 80+" screen? How many of these households use that screen for more than a few hours a week? For the majority of the population with screens well under 80", DVD looks fantastic and there is no need to spend more hard earned $pundoula on new players and discs. I for one, am not replacing the hundreds of DVDs that I've bought to replace the hundreds of VHS tapes I had. Despite my willingness to take up all forms of new technology in the past, I've had enough.

When I see HD-DVD or Blu Ray in my local Video Ezy store I will "eat my words", but I'm confident that it will never happen. A new technology may take off years down the track but it certainly won't be these interim optical players. Purchasing one of these players now is akin to throwing money in the garbage bin.

[SDL]

I never really wanted to see up Tom's nose any clearer

[Widescream]

Alfred Smith, on Nov 8 2006, 03:35 PM, said:

Remember S-VHS? A much better picture than VHS but hardly anyone bought it.

I did Also, Japan was the only market one could buy prerecorded SVHS tapes.

Whatever improvements HD-DVD/Bluray have over DVD, I don't think it will take off in a huge way, unless massivehuge flat screens become so cheap that everyone but the homeless has one.

From what I have seen so far the improvement is no where near as dramatic as the improvement from standard VHS to DVD was. It may be premature but I think we can call these hi-res DVD the video equivalent of SACD..... :ph34r:

[dJOS]

Widescream, on Nov 9 2006, 10:59 PM, said:

I did Also, Japan was the only market one could buy prerecorded SVHS tapes.

Whatever improvements HD-DVD/Bluray have over DVD, I don't think it will take off in a huge way, unless massivehuge flat screens become so cheap that everyone but the homeless has one.

I disagree, there is a rapidly growing market for Home Cinema in Australia and those indulging in this hobby are generally after the best Home movie experience they can get for their hard earned $$. This means that when these folk hear about HD-DVD or BluRay they are very likely imo to upgrade or add to their HT once they experience it for themselves.

I dont believe that JB & HN are going to be the driving force either as they are unable to even show SD properly; It will be the specialist AV stores like Big Picture People, Tazman AV, Carlton HiFi etc etc that are going to reap the benefits and pave the way for mass market HD movie adoption.

Widescream, on Nov 9 2006, 10:59 PM, said:

From what I have seen so far the improvement is no where near as dramatic as the improvement from standard VHS to DVD was. It may be premature but I think we can call these hi-res DVD the video equivalent of SACD..... :ph34r:

That is because you haven't yet seen/heard HD in a real HT setting, imo it is as bigger leap forward as DVD was from VHS.

[IanD]

Alfred Smith, on Nov 9 2006, 04:27 AM, said:

That is a no-brainer. However, how many households have an 80+" screen? How many of these households use that screen for more than a few hours a week? For the majority of the population with screens well under 80", DVD looks fantastic and there is no need to spend more hard earned $pundoula on new players and discs. I for one, am not replacing the hundreds of DVDs that I've bought to replace the hundreds of VHS tapes I had. Despite my willingness to take up all forms of new technology in the past, I've had enough.

When I see HD-DVD or Blu Ray in my local Video Ezy store I will "eat my words", but I'm confident that it will never happen. A new technology may take off years down the track but it certainly won't be these interim optical players. Purchasing one of these players now is akin to throwing money in the garbage bin.

My local Blockbuster no longer has any VHS titles for rent, it's all DVD.

I wouldn't be surprised if a few enterprising video libraries start including a small section of HD titles.  They don't seem that much more expensive than the equivalent DVDs and they wouldn't need many copies to begin with.  They might also realise that the early adopters who can afford to get into the new format possibly respect the equipment more than average and might be kinder to the discs (at least at the beginning).

Wasn't this how DVD got started as a new niche product?

As the title releases are relatively current with DVD, I wouldn't mind renting HD instead of DVD.

It's also probably relatively inexpensive to get into full HD resolution, as long as one doesn't mind a small LCD monitor (eg Dell 2407), so that might assist the beginnings of takeup:  not everyone needs or can afford a humungous screen (although it would be preferable). ;-)

In any case, the resolution of LCD TVs is increasing and price falling, so it will soon be within reach of the average household.

I recall a percentage of DVD takeup was from those who used a PC and modest monitor to enjoy the higher quality.

[dyates69]

Jace, on Nov 8 2006, 02:52 PM, said:

The difference is real and noticeable, even on a smaller screen.  However, I doubt 90% of people really care.  Indifference is what will keep the HD DVD formats a niche, not unlike Laserdisc (which produced better picture quality than S-VHS).

Actually I think S-VHS had the better picture overall. Resolution was similar (400+ lines for NTSC based) but LD was a composite format so colour definition wasn't as good. S-VHS produced some really great results, it was a lot more recent though.

If you're thinking of the 440 line claim for LD, I think that may have been more to do with player marketing than anything. I saw claims between 350 and 450 lines for LD, but I think it rarely measured better than 370 lines from memory.

PAL S-VHS was supposedly around the 440 mark.

[HomerJ]

dyates69, on Nov 10 2006, 02:17 AM, said:

Actually I think S-VHS had the better picture overall. Resolution was similar (400+ lines for NTSC based) but LD was a composite format so colour definition wasn't as good. S-VHS produced some really great results, it was a lot more recent though.

If you're thinking of the 440 line claim for LD, I think that may have been more to do with player marketing than anything. I saw claims between 350 and 450 lines for LD, but I think it rarely measured better than 370 lines from memory.

PAL S-VHS was supposedly around the 440 mark.

I've still got both (over 150 Laserdiscs & player & 25+ S-VHS tapes & player) and I cam assure you LD is superior (just).

[Alfred Smee]

dyates69, on Nov 10 2006, 02:17 AM, said:

Actually I think S-VHS had the better picture overall. Resolution was similar (400+ lines for NTSC based) but LD was a composite format so colour definition wasn't as good. S-VHS produced some really great results, it was a lot more recent though.

If you're thinking of the 440 line claim for LD, I think that may have been more to do with player marketing than anything. I saw claims between 350 and 450 lines for LD, but I think it rarely measured better than 370 lines from memory.

PAL S-VHS was supposedly around the 440 mark.

I would have to disagree. S-VHS had major improvements in the Luminance part of the signal (B&W) compared to VHS and had far better definition, but the Chrominance (colour info) was unchanged from VHS. Colour resolution was very poor in both these formats. Probably much less than 100 lines horizontally. LD was better in this respect.

[Alfred Smee]

IanD, on Nov 10 2006, 12:37 AM, said:

My local Blockbuster no longer has any VHS titles for rent, it's all DVD.

I wouldn't be surprised if a few enterprising video libraries start including a small section of HD titles.  They don't seem that much more expensive than the equivalent DVDs and they wouldn't need many copies to begin with.  They might also realise that the early adopters who can afford to get into the new format possibly respect the equipment more than average and might be kinder to the discs (at least at the beginning).

Considering the number of customers that will utilise HD that is not even remotely economically feasible for a DVD library. How many local suburban Video stores had Laserdiscs available for rental despite the thousands of LD players in use? I would suggest nearly none.

Quote

Wasn't this how DVD got started as a new niche product?

DVD is not and never was a niche product. Everybody I know wanted a DVD player and now everyone has a DVD player. Everybody! Only one person I know is interested in HD DVD and he has said that he will wait. He is not interested in paying $1500 for another Beta machine and neither am I.

Quote

As the title releases are relatively current with DVD, I wouldn't mind renting HD instead of DVD.

I don't think Blockbuster is interested in spending $millions to make you and a few thousand HD DVD player owners happy.

Quote

It's also probably relatively inexpensive to get into full HD resolution, as long as one doesn't mind a small LCD monitor (eg Dell 2407), so that might assist the beginnings of takeup:  not everyone needs or can afford a humungous screen (although it would be preferable). ;-)

In any case, the resolution of LCD TVs is increasing and price falling, so it will soon be within reach of the average household.

This is a valid point but more important is how may people will be able to take advantage of this higher resolution. You have to sit awful close to a 42" plasma to appreciate HD.

Quote

I recall a percentage of DVD takeup was from those who used a PC and modest monitor to enjoy the higher quality.

I have a hi-res widescreen monitor and watching DVDs from a couple of feet away from a 22"screen is not comparable to watching a couple of metres from a 132cm screen. 1080i TV on my "little" PC monitor is nowhere near as good or as much fun as watching upscaled 720p on my "big" screen.I know which one I'd rather watch.

[SDL]

IanD, on Nov 10 2006, 12:37 AM, said:

My local Blockbuster no longer has any VHS titles for rent, it's all DVD.

I wouldn't be surprised if a few enterprising video libraries start including a small section of HD titles.  They don't seem that much more expensive than the equivalent DVDs and they wouldn't need many copies to begin with.  They might also realise that the early adopters who can afford to get into the new format possibly respect the equipment more than average and might be kinder to the discs (at least at the beginning).

The problem is people will borrow them and not have a HD player, then wonder why they don't work. I haven't been in a video rental library for about 10 years, but as I recall the staff weren't really the sharpest tools and wouldn't likely warn people.