High Def Forum
Thank you for visiting. This is our website archive. Please visit our main website by clicking the logo above.

interesting little HD vs DVD comparison

firsTraveler
12-21-2006, 12:11 PM
http://blog.scifi.com:80/tech/archives/2006/12/18/solid_proof_hd.html

stchman
12-21-2006, 12:17 PM
http://blog.scifi.com:80/tech/archives/2006/12/18/solid_proof_hd.html

Nobody is disputing that HD-DVD has better PQ than DVD. It is not shockingly better than DVD.

When DVD first appeared it was so much better looking than VHS is was not even worth talking about. The improvment between DVD and Hd disc formats are not as huge.

360kid
12-21-2006, 12:23 PM
I don't think that comparison is the best. It certainly doesn't advocate the awesomness of HD by any means. In that specific comparison the difference is slight at best. This is only my opinion of course, others may see this comparison differently. But to me, this specific comparison does not show a significant difference. Certainly not a $500 difference.

pjc
12-21-2006, 12:29 PM
I liked the top picture better and that's supposed to be the non-HD image.

HDDVDSupport
12-21-2006, 01:04 PM
Nobody is disputing that HD-DVD has better PQ than DVD. It is not shockingly better than DVD.

That's purely your opinion. In my opinion, the difference in PQ AND AQ is drastic over SD DVD.

stchman
12-21-2006, 01:27 PM
That's purely your opinion. In my opinion, the difference in PQ AND AQ is drastic over SD DVD.

To get the DDHD and DTSHD do you just plug the optical cable into your receiver?

pfilippone
12-21-2006, 03:58 PM
You can't see a very big difference between DVD and HD in that link.
The movie captures are reduced in size.

Try that same comparison on a 65" HDTV and you'll be able to notice a bigger difference between the two.

Of course for non-video-philes, the difference may not be worth the price.

mshulman
12-21-2006, 04:12 PM
I don't think that comparison is the best. It certainly doesn't advocate the awesomness of HD by any means. In that specific comparison the difference is slight at best. This is only my opinion of course, others may see this comparison differently. But to me, this specific comparison does not show a significant difference. Certainly not a $500 difference.

Did you look at the whole array of pictures or just the 1 example. Out of all of them, I think that one example is the worst one. The others show clearly how much better HD is.

Lord of the Rings was really the one example that got my wife to declare HD really worth it. We watched it on TNT HD a while ago when it was first shown and I popped in the DVD as a comparison. It was night and day.

HDDVDSupport
12-21-2006, 04:13 PM
To get the DDHD and DTSHD do you just plug the optical cable into your receiver?
No. To take advantage of the advanced audio codecs, you have to use either 5.1 analog inputs or HDMI. I use HDMI. The player decodes Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, and the lossy core of DTS-HD MA (which is only used on imports, as of now.)

If you use optical, the player will downmix the track to a 1.5mbps DTS track, which should still sound as good or better as anything on DVD (I personally don't have any experience using the optical out.)

stchman
12-21-2006, 04:31 PM
No. To take advantage of the advanced audio codecs, you have to use either 5.1 analog inputs or HDMI. I use HDMI. The player decodes Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, and the lossy core of DTS-HD MA (which is only used on imports, as of now.)

If you use optical, the player will downmix the track to a 1.5mbps DTS track, which should still sound as good or better as anything on DVD (I personally don't have any experience using the optical out.)

I am going to have to hear a movie coded in Dolby TrueHD. I have the LotR trilogy each 4 disc versions and the DTS sounds phenomanal. My own Pioneer receiver and speakers are somewhat limited, but it does sound really good watching action movies. Independence Day or Gladiator are probably the two best movies I have for sound. Starship Troopers is exceptional as well.

paulc
12-22-2006, 10:21 AM
FWIW, after 8 months of being HD, I've come to the following conclusions:

DVD: BIG difference on a HD set... not the resolution (DVD is SD) but going from a 4:3 set to a 16:9 set makes a HUGE difference for DVDs.

Sports: HUGE difference between SD and HD. Add in things like DiscHD, or anything that is shot on video. This is the stuff that will really grab you. If I had a retail store, I'd run DiscHD on all sets.

Movies: A kinda of mixed bag. Widescreen SD seems to be used more frequently now (this only happens on HD channels and only when they show it that way); this is exactly like DVDs, you really get a major benefit from the 16:9 screen IF that SD movie is shown that way. HD for movies does make them better, but given that a filmmaker can "fool around" so much with the look, it can at times be almost hard to tell. HD makes a lot of movies "better" but in far subtler ways that video.

As for audio, 5+ years ago I noticed that the premiums more times than not used DD 5.1. With an HD set, I DO see more of it on more regular HD channels, but I've been using DD 5.1 for movies since long before I got a HD set.

Snejenka
01-01-2007, 03:47 PM
FWIW, after 8 months of being HD, I've come to the following conclusions:

DVD: BIG difference on a HD set... not the resolution (DVD is SD) but going from a 4:3 set to a 16:9 set makes a HUGE difference for DVDs.

Sports: HUGE difference between SD and HD. Add in things like DiscHD, or anything that is shot on video. This is the stuff that will really grab you. If I had a retail store, I'd run DiscHD on all sets.

Movies: A kinda of mixed bag. Widescreen SD seems to be used more frequently now (this only happens on HD channels and only when they show it that way); this is exactly like DVDs, you really get a major benefit from the 16:9 screen IF that SD movie is shown that way. HD for movies does make them better, but given that a filmmaker can "fool around" so much with the look, it can at times be almost hard to tell. HD makes a lot of movies "better" but in far subtler ways that video.

As for audio, 5+ years ago I noticed that the premiums more times than not used DD 5.1. With an HD set, I DO see more of it on more regular HD channels, but I've been using DD 5.1 for movies since long before I got a HD set.

What's DiscHD?

paulc
01-02-2007, 09:03 AM
Only the single biggest reasons for buying HD sets!

Seriously, it's Discovery HD. Subjactr matter that few watch... until they get a HD set! It's been 8 months since I got HD equipped and I still am amazed AND do watch DiscHD!

Snejenka
01-02-2007, 09:57 PM
Only the single biggest reasons for buying HD sets!

Seriously, it's Discovery HD. Subjactr matter that few watch... until they get a HD set! It's been 8 months since I got HD equipped and I still am amazed AND do watch DiscHD!


OHHHH Discovery HD. Yeah I love it. When I first got my tv I came in, saw how bad SD tv looked on it, but reminded myself I knew it would, then checked some DVDs with the incorrect settings and got very upset at how poorly those looked. It was Discovery HD, HBO HD (for the shows), and then my XBox that made the self-doubt cease. Now with HD DVD.

It's ruined SD viewing for me. I almost never touch my DVD collection or watch non-HD channels anymore. I wish I could pay for cable ala carte.

SLedford
01-03-2007, 07:50 AM
I agree with what paulc has written in comparing standard analog or SD digital television to high def TV. My favorite channel is also the Discovery HD channel.

Snejenka,
You may want to look try a different DVD player. My DVDs look stunning, although it took some work on my part to find a DVD player that did the job.

Getting back to the difference between SD-DVD and high def DVD (or high def television), a while back TNT-HD broadcasted Gladiator in HD. I put in my SD disk and selected a scene in the DVD player near where the movie was on TNT, then paused the DVD player. When TNT came to that spot, I pushed play. It wasn't lined up perfectly, but very close. By using my display selection on my television remote, I was able to toggle back and forth.

The results: The TNT picture was better, but not by much. Not enought for me to jump into the format war on either side.

The difference (to me - this is a personal opinion) between VHS and DVD was huge, the perceived difference between SD and high def DVD is marginal.

borromini
01-03-2007, 10:23 AM
...The improvment between DVD and Hd disc formats are not as huge. C'mon guys...qualify these statements! With a front projector that displays a 100" image or larger...the improvements are enormous! If you're talking about a 37" display and you're sitting 12' back then yes, your statement holds true.

SLedford
01-03-2007, 10:28 AM
borromini,
I would also add how far your seating is from the television. In my case, the seating is close to 20' from the television set, so the difference between SD & HD is not as noticeable as if I was sitting 5' from the television.

From a mile away, both pictures are identical.

borromini
01-03-2007, 10:31 AM
I did make reference to seating distance with my 2nd example. No question that's very important. However with front projectors, seating distance becomes less of an issue because the image is so large that most living room sizes benefit from HD regardless of how far you sit.

lrodptl
01-03-2007, 11:38 AM
OHHHH Discovery HD. Yeah I love it. When I first got my tv I came in, saw how bad SD tv looked on it, but reminded myself I knew it would, then checked some DVDs with the incorrect settings and got very upset at how poorly those looked. It was Discovery HD, HBO HD (for the shows), and then my XBox that made the self-doubt cease. Now with HD DVD.

It's ruined SD viewing for me. I almost never touch my DVD collection or watch non-HD channels anymore. I wish I could pay for cable ala carte.
How about HDNet? Specifically the program 'Get Out'.

chrpai
01-03-2007, 11:53 AM
I look at it this way....

1) People will spend hundreds of dollars for snake-oil upconverting DVD players and argue about how much better the picture is to justify the money that they spend.

2) I was once flamed for saying that progressive anamorphic DVD was a great improvement over letterboxed interlaced DVD and that I didn't see a huge difference between HD and anamorphic DVD.

3) Now here is a $200 device for my Xbox 360 that clearly provides a truely improved picture quality over DVD.

Now people are arguing that it isn't good enough. I agree at $500 or $1000 it isn't good enough, but at $200 I'm perfectly happy.

I think the reality is that as people expect bigger and bigger viewing areas the technology is just keeping up with PQ relatively speaking.

stchman
01-03-2007, 12:30 PM
I look at it this way....

1) People will spend hundreds of dollars for snake-oil upconverting DVD players and argue about how much better the picture is to justify the money that they spend.

2) I was once flamed for saying that progressive anamorphic DVD was a great improvement over letterboxed interlaced DVD and that I didn't see a huge difference between HD and anamorphic DVD.

3) Now here is a $200 device for my Xbox 360 that clearly provides a truely improved picture quality over DVD.

Now people are arguing that it isn't good enough. I agree at $500 or $1000 it isn't good enough, but at $200 I'm perfectly happy.

I think the reality is that as people expect bigger and bigger viewing areas the technology is just keeping up with PQ relatively speaking.

Yes, the same people spend hundreds of dollars on Monster Cables and claim the PQ improved dramatically as well.

As far as HD-DVD/Blu Ray over SD DVD. Yes HD-DVD and Blu Ray have better PQ, I am not going to argue that. I just don't see as dramatic of an improvment as with DVD over VHS. As one poster said before HD with movies is a mixed bag. A high bitrate anamorphic DVD looks really good on an HDTV. Now sports are a completely different animal. CBS and FOX have awesome looking HD for football, baseball, etc.


When the format war is won by one side and the prices of the players come down to the $200 price range I will dive head first into the HD disc format. One caveot is that it MUST be backward compatible with SD DVD (which they are right now).

meh130
01-08-2007, 06:04 PM
Yes HD-DVD and Blu Ray have better PQ, I am not going to argue that. I just don't see as dramatic of an improvment as with DVD over VHS. As one poster said before HD with movies is a mixed bag.

The content of the movie will dictate if it is worth HD-DVD/Blu-ray Disc. If you were watching something like "When Harry Met Sally", or "Glengarry Glenn Ross" (two people talking movies), HD-DVD or Blu-ray won't help much. There is not enough detail in the scenes.

But if you watched something with lots of detail, like outdoor scenes with mountains, etc., the additional detail will be noticeable in HD.

I saw a Blu-ray Disc of "The Fifth Element" on a Sony 1080p LCD in Sears yesterday. I could not really tell it was a Blu-ray Disc. A few months ago I was in a Sony Style store where I saw a BD of "Into the Blue" featuring daytime scenes of a boats, water, and snorkelers. The detail of the water scenes blew me away.

dontknowjack
01-08-2007, 11:03 PM
That comparison that started this thread is not a fair one. I am not 100% sure but my computer screen is not High Def and if I am not wrong most computer screens are not.

rbinck
01-09-2007, 01:18 PM
While many computer users will have their resolution set at 800x600 which is definately not HD, their computer monitors are capable of more resolution that would be HD. If your 4:3 monitor will do 1024 lines of video or more of video or if your widescreen monitor will do at least 720 lines of video, it is HD capable.

borromini
01-09-2007, 02:22 PM
...If you were watching something like "When Harry Met Sally", or "Glengarry Glenn Ross" (two people talking movies), HD-DVD or Blu-ray won't help much. There is not enough detail in the scenes... Sorry, but that makes no sense. Seems like details in this context means something other than the definition of details. :confused:

Any major motion picture has details in its cinematography that can definitely be appreciated in an HD version regardless of genre. Dramas that are shot entirely in a single setting (My Dinner w/ Andre) versus a sprawling epic like LOTR enjoy the same benefits with HD. Whether a viewer appreciates both in HD is another matter. :)