Are the nw HD dvds really HD??????

hidefman30 · 05-13-2006, 08:15 PM

Ok I am confused. When I watch true HD programming like Discovery HD it's obvious the material is recorded then braodcast in HD. However watching HBO HD or Showtime HD looks good, perhaps even a bit better than standard dvd, but no where near Discovery HD in my opinion! How does the new HD DVD format compare? Doesn't a movie need to be recorded with a true HD camera in order to be made an HD DVD? Arn't most movies recorded in hollywood on non hi def gear? These films certainly arn't high def in the movies. So how can a film like Doom for instance be made to be HD? I ask these questions as there are so many inbetweens not really HD. Like upconversion, and hbo hd. The only true examples are the HD channels I get on satellite minus of course hbo and showtime hd. I am skeptical of new HD DVD as even upconversion 1080i through an HD plasma still can't touch Discovery hd for example. Will HD DVD be truelly watching a dvd in HD or just a hair better like 480i to 480p, or 480p to upconversion?

borromini · 05-13-2006, 09:44 PM

35mm films are at a higher quality than HD so you don't need films made with HD cameras in order to be on HD-DVD discs. When preparing for transfer to HD-DVD, they're mastered in 1080p HD (which is a down-grade) then burned on to HD-DVD discs. They should be better than what you see on Showtime HD or HBO HD because of the higher bitrate you get from an HD-DVD and possibly because of the equipment HBO/Showtime uses to convert films to HD for broadcasting.

**PFC5** · 05-14-2006, 12:58 AM

Don't forget that the original poster has satellite which generally compresses all channels more than OTA & many cable companies. It is quite possible that his sat provider is compressing HBOHD much more than The DiscoveryHD Channel.

borromini, your answer is possibly even more relevant to him because clearly HBOHD with his provider is much more compressed than DiscoveryHD.

I think he would be SHOCKED by the PQ improvement with HD-DVD over his sat provider.

dontknowjack · 05-14-2006, 02:33 AM

Now I don't know for sure but isn't High Definition have to do with video rather than a film? If that is true, isn't comparing the two like comparing apples and oranges? Please set me straight.

**PFC5** · 05-14-2006, 03:56 PM

Film has a higher resolution than any HD format out right now or in the near-midterm future. But film is at 24Fps, and video is at 30Fps. Also film has an inherent "grain" to it that video does not.

borromini · 05-14-2006, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontknowjack

Now I don't know for sure but isn't High Definition have to do with video rather than a film? If that is true, isn't comparing the two like comparing apples and oranges? Please set me straight.

When viewing/comparing images on an HDTV from HD-DVD discs and sat/cable broadcasts...the source of the content can be film or HD video and is ultimately an apples-to-apple discussion. This is because the film has been converted to HD signals for both broadcasting and HD-DVD playback.

Scoob · 05-15-2006, 04:41 PM

After watching HBO HD and then watching something like say Serenity on HD DVD, the HD DVD looks MUCH better in my humble opinion. I guess this could depend on the individual releases on HD DVD. I also think the detail and colors look way better with an HD DVD than standard upconverted DVD's.

IMpoor · 05-15-2006, 05:55 PM

I don't know the tech specs exactly but the HD is all about the resolution. Not how it was filmed. As previously stated regular film is higher resolution than 1080 so it is plenty capable of downgrading for broadcast HD. So why does it not look so good. As you suspected it has to do with the fact that film is not like video. Compare a new movie like star wars 3 to an old movie that was shot in a non-digital format. You will see a difference on the DVD. Well that same difference comes across when you watch a old film in HD. It just isn't as good. Granted it is probably going to be the best version of the film you ever saw but it will never be able to compete with the picture quality of todays action movies. As a side note there is much truth to the quality of broadcast vs Hd-DVD. The broadcast HD is compressed much more for streaming purposes than would be on a HD disc. so you should notice improvement in HD discs over broadcast HD.

maicaw · 05-15-2006, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMpoor

I don't know the tech specs exactly but the HD is all about the resolution. ... The broadcast HD is compressed much more for streaming purposes than would be on a HD disc. so you should notice improvement in HD discs over broadcast HD.

The HD-DVD has 15GB max capacity per layer - A broadcast HDTV TS is about 9.5 GB per hour -
Figuring 120 minutes for the feature on the disk ( + the ?GB SD extras) - it would have to be a dual layer HD-DVD to have less compression than the broadcast TS and even at 30GB the difference is modest.

BobY · 05-15-2006, 07:52 PM

Doesn't the 9.5GB/Hour figure for ATSC broadcast include all of the subchannel streams (regardless of whether they are being used or even if they are SD)?

Does an actual ATSC broadcast really use 9.5GB/Hour, or is that just what is allotted?

maicaw · 05-15-2006, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobY

Doesn't the 9.5GB/Hour figure for ATSC broadcast include all of the subchannel streams (regardless of whether they are being used or even if they are SD)?Does an actual ATSC broadcast really use 9.5GB/Hour, or is that just what is allotted?

The HD-DVD contains a lot of SD material on the ones I've looked at - In general if the SubChannel is just a weather map or other static image - there is no significant use of bandwidth -
The worst case scenario I've seen documented on this forum [for a local PBS station] is allotting 6 Mb/s of bandwidth to subchannels for SD and other "junk" -I don't recall the technical term used-- leaving 13 Mb for the "HDTV"- which in that case is obviously pixelated crap - not really HDTV even though they use a HDTV logo on the screen
Locally the CBS and ABC afilliates do not use the other subchannels - allotting all their entire 19mb/s (9GB/hr) bandwidth to the Network HDTV signal -giving a true HDTV experience or the SD equivalent when no HD is provided - It's only real HDTV IMO when the whole 9GB/hr is used and that's the amount of space those real HDTV broadcasts take up on my HD DVR - 500GB holds 60 hours - The NBC station uses the subChannel for the SD version - and I hardly watch it's HD anymore - the network shows look like clayface cartoons (Leno,Conan e.g.) - actually the NBC cable HD feed looks better than the OTA - since I suppose they feed the Cable head end the full MPEG2 bandwidth (the buildings are a few blocks apart) -
Here's a graphic without any numbers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_stream
you can look up the details at the links shown or on a Broadcast Engineering site

**PFC5** · 05-16-2006, 02:15 AM

I know I see a big difference in SOME HD channels with my cable company, so it depends on what is sent to the cable/sat company, what they send OTA, and most important, what the cable/sat companies do to fit it in their bandwidth.

My municipal owned cable company has very good HD service and it is better than what Voom offered while they are around by about 10-20% better PQ. Voom had much better SQ though which evened it out for me. I appreciate the SQ as much/more than the PQ once you get to a certain PQ level.

Nevada_MO_Guy · 05-16-2006, 04:04 AM

HD-DVD's are at 1080p resolution.

BobY · 05-16-2006, 07:57 AM

HD DVD data is stored as 1080p/24, but the player output (for now, at least) is 1080i/30 just like OTA. With any given codec the bandwidth is essentially the same for the same frame rate whether it's progressive or interlaced (although MPEG2 is somewhat more efficient at compressing progressive frames than interlaced frames).

BUT...I thought the initial HD DVD discs were encoded using VC-1, which is supposedly twice as efficient in terms of data storage as MPEG2 for the same bit rate. Capacity is then determined not simply by bit rate, but compression efficiency. It's really apples and oranges...

05-13-2006, 08:15 PM	#1
hidefman30 High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 735	Are the nw HD dvds really HD?????? Ok I am confused. When I watch true HD programming like Discovery HD it's obvious the material is recorded then braodcast in HD. However watching HBO HD or Showtime HD looks good, perhaps even a bit better than standard dvd, but no where near Discovery HD in my opinion! How does the new HD DVD format compare? Doesn't a movie need to be recorded with a true HD camera in order to be made an HD DVD? Arn't most movies recorded in hollywood on non hi def gear? These films certainly arn't high def in the movies. So how can a film like Doom for instance be made to be HD? I ask these questions as there are so many inbetweens not really HD. Like upconversion, and hbo hd. The only true examples are the HD channels I get on satellite minus of course hbo and showtime hd. I am skeptical of new HD DVD as even upconversion 1080i through an HD plasma still can't touch Discovery hd for example. Will HD DVD be truelly watching a dvd in HD or just a hair better like 480i to 480p, or 480p to upconversion? __________________ 55" Hitachi Plasma Sony Dvd Carousel Sony Reciever JBL Speakers Velodyne Sub Xbox 360 PS3

05-13-2006, 09:44 PM	#2
borromini HT Frontiersman Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Northern California Posts: 9,925	35mm films are at a higher quality than HD so you don't need films made with HD cameras in order to be on HD-DVD discs. When preparing for transfer to HD-DVD, they're mastered in 1080p HD (which is a down-grade) then burned on to HD-DVD discs. They should be better than what you see on Showtime HD or HBO HD because of the higher bitrate you get from an HD-DVD and possibly because of the equipment HBO/Showtime uses to convert films to HD for broadcasting. __________________ "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

05-14-2006, 12:58 AM	#3
PFC5 Super Moderator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 31,342	Don't forget that the original poster has satellite which generally compresses all channels more than OTA & many cable companies. It is quite possible that his sat provider is compressing HBOHD much more than The DiscoveryHD Channel. borromini, your answer is possibly even more relevant to him because clearly HBOHD with his provider is much more compressed than DiscoveryHD. I think he would be SHOCKED by the PQ improvement with HD-DVD over his sat provider. __________________ Denon AVR-887 Klipsch RP-5 Pwred Towers (mains) (525 watts peak each 12"Subs) All Klipsch RC-25(ctr),(2)SS1(surr),(2)SS1(rearSurr) Toshiba (2)HD-A20,PS3,BD35 For SACD/DVD-A Samsung HD-841 Panny 50pz80u plasma SETTINGS RCA HD50LPW162 50"DLP w/HD2+ SA 3250HD 47" LCD+Yamaha5790+HD-A1(bedroom) Harmony 680 + (2) 670s (amazing remote/support) Game room with Onkyo receiver & B&W Speakers The_Cable_Game Take the high ground and be happier PSN: PFC5

05-14-2006, 03:56 PM	#5
PFC5 Super Moderator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 31,342	Film has a higher resolution than any HD format out right now or in the near-midterm future. But film is at 24Fps, and video is at 30Fps. Also film has an inherent "grain" to it that video does not. __________________ Denon AVR-887 Klipsch RP-5 Pwred Towers (mains) (525 watts peak each 12"Subs) All Klipsch RC-25(ctr),(2)SS1(surr),(2)SS1(rearSurr) Toshiba (2)HD-A20,PS3,BD35 For SACD/DVD-A Samsung HD-841 Panny 50pz80u plasma SETTINGS RCA HD50LPW162 50"DLP w/HD2+ SA 3250HD 47" LCD+Yamaha5790+HD-A1(bedroom) Harmony 680 + (2) 670s (amazing remote/support) Game room with Onkyo receiver & B&W Speakers The_Cable_Game Take the high ground and be happier PSN: PFC5

05-15-2006, 04:41 PM	#7
Scoob High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 334	comparing HD DVD and HBO HD After watching HBO HD and then watching something like say Serenity on HD DVD, the HD DVD looks MUCH better in my humble opinion. I guess this could depend on the individual releases on HD DVD. I also think the detail and colors look way better with an HD DVD than standard upconverted DVD's. Last edited by Scoob; 05-15-2006 at 04:43 PM.

05-14-2006, 02:33 AM	#4
dontknowjack High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 949	Now I don't know for sure but isn't High Definition have to do with video rather than a film? If that is true, isn't comparing the two like comparing apples and oranges? Please set me straight.

05-15-2006, 05:55 PM	#8
IMpoor High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 312	I don't know the tech specs exactly but the HD is all about the resolution. Not how it was filmed. As previously stated regular film is higher resolution than 1080 so it is plenty capable of downgrading for broadcast HD. So why does it not look so good. As you suspected it has to do with the fact that film is not like video. Compare a new movie like star wars 3 to an old movie that was shot in a non-digital format. You will see a difference on the DVD. Well that same difference comes across when you watch a old film in HD. It just isn't as good. Granted it is probably going to be the best version of the film you ever saw but it will never be able to compete with the picture quality of todays action movies. As a side note there is much truth to the quality of broadcast vs Hd-DVD. The broadcast HD is compressed much more for streaming purposes than would be on a HD disc. so you should notice improvement in HD discs over broadcast HD.

05-15-2006, 07:52 PM	#10
BobY What's all this, then?... Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,197	Doesn't the 9.5GB/Hour figure for ATSC broadcast include all of the subchannel streams (regardless of whether they are being used or even if they are SD)? Does an actual ATSC broadcast really use 9.5GB/Hour, or is that just what is allotted?

05-16-2006, 02:15 AM	#12
PFC5 Super Moderator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 31,342	I know I see a big difference in SOME HD channels with my cable company, so it depends on what is sent to the cable/sat company, what they send OTA, and most important, what the cable/sat companies do to fit it in their bandwidth. My municipal owned cable company has very good HD service and it is better than what Voom offered while they are around by about 10-20% better PQ. Voom had much better SQ though which evened it out for me. I appreciate the SQ as much/more than the PQ once you get to a certain PQ level. __________________ Denon AVR-887 Klipsch RP-5 Pwred Towers (mains) (525 watts peak each 12"Subs) All Klipsch RC-25(ctr),(2)SS1(surr),(2)SS1(rearSurr) Toshiba (2)HD-A20,PS3,BD35 For SACD/DVD-A Samsung HD-841 Panny 50pz80u plasma SETTINGS RCA HD50LPW162 50"DLP w/HD2+ SA 3250HD 47" LCD+Yamaha5790+HD-A1(bedroom) Harmony 680 + (2) 670s (amazing remote/support) Game room with Onkyo receiver & B&W Speakers The_Cable_Game Take the high ground and be happier PSN: PFC5

05-16-2006, 04:04 AM	#13
Nevada_MO_Guy Missouri_HD_Guy Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Missouri Age: 42 Posts: 975	HD-DVD's are at 1080p resolution.

05-16-2006, 07:57 AM	#14
BobY What's all this, then?... Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,197	HD DVD data is stored as 1080p/24, but the player output (for now, at least) is 1080i/30 just like OTA. With any given codec the bandwidth is essentially the same for the same frame rate whether it's progressive or interlaced (although MPEG2 is somewhat more efficient at compressing progressive frames than interlaced frames). BUT...I thought the initial HD DVD discs were encoded using VC-1, which is supposedly twice as efficient in terms of data storage as MPEG2 for the same bit rate. Capacity is then determined not simply by bit rate, but compression efficiency. It's really apples and oranges...