High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource (https://www.highdefforum.com/index.php)
-   High Definition Media (https://www.highdefforum.com/high-definition-media-55/)
-   -   HD looks pretty bad to me (https://www.highdefforum.com/high-definition-media/32292-hd-looks-pretty-bad-me.html)

1080PsF 11-30-2006 01:32 AM

HD looks pretty bad to me
 
I saw my first blu-ray disc and it looked pretty bad. I have to say it was a demo disc but it had trailers from ďIce age 2Ē and ďWalk the lineĒ. In the trailer for Ice age 2 the compression artifacts in the blue sky were horrible. There were stripes of different color blues instead of a smooth blue it looked really bad. The trailer for Walk the line looked really bad it just had a bunch of compression artifacts. It didnít look anything like the HD-D5 master that I made a little while ago that was used to make the blu-ray disc.

I canít believe that all you people run out and buy this stuff and say how great it looks. Broadcast, HD DVD, and blu-ray all look like crap and you are getting ripped off in the quality that youíre getting. You all should demand to get true HD not this stepped on piece of *&%@ signal that they try to pass off as HD. They compress the signal anywhere from 10:1 all the way up to 100:1 and still call it HD, I say nay, nay. I know this is going to piss off a lot of people (sorry to all of you) but someone needs step up and speak out to get the ball rolling for real HD. A true HD signal is about 1.5Gbps or 188MBps so does that 18MBps blu-ray still sound good to you?:eek:

Steeb 11-30-2006 02:15 AM

It don't matter to Jesus!

InitialDMP5 11-30-2006 02:41 AM

well when people are willing to pay for the gear that "True HD" costs, which will be 30 to 40 years after people finally adopt this fake HD that you speak of, than you will be happy.

If you know so much about HD, then you should also know how taxing compressed HD is to cable companies and satellite companies already. Asking to get uncompressed source is ridiculous.
I am very pleased with the HD I am viewing, and its so much better than Standard Definition. I pay 5 dollars for my HD package. I don't think its a big deal. As long as I am satisfied with what I pay for, thats all that matters.

1080PsF 11-30-2006 03:30 AM

I am very aware how taxing it is for the broadcasters. Instead of having a bunch of useless channels how about having less channels with better quality? For instance OTA broadcast instead of having three channels stuffed in one bandwidth use the whole bandwidth for the HD signal. For cable and satellite companies cut down on the over-all number of channels (I know you all want quantity not quality).

mfabien 11-30-2006 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1080PsF
I saw my first blu-ray disc and it looked pretty bad. I have to say it was a demo disc but it had trailers from ďIce age 2Ē and ďWalk the lineĒ. In the trailer for Ice age 2 the compression artifacts in the blue sky were horrible. There were stripes of different color blues instead of a smooth blue it looked really bad. The trailer for Walk the line looked really bad it just had a bunch of compression artifacts. It didnít look anything like the HD-D5 master that I made a little while ago that was used to make the blu-ray disc.

Obviously the setup you saw had problems. The Samsung BD player, when first introduced, was not doing justice to HD recordings. There has been a software update, I believe. And the 50 GB BD discs give the MPEG 2 encoding a better chance. The new Panasonic player appears to give good PQ quality. I'm an HD DVD player owner but I don't treat BD owners as stupid... which indirectly you are doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1080PsF
I canít believe that all you people run out and buy this stuff and say how great it looks. Broadcast, HD DVD, and blu-ray all look like crap and you are getting ripped off in the quality that youíre getting. You all should demand to get true HD not this stepped on piece of *&%@ signal that they try to pass off as HD. They compress the signal anywhere from 10:1 all the way up to 100:1 and still call it HD, I say nay, nay. I know this is going to piss off a lot of people (sorry to all of you) but someone needs step up and speak out to get the ball rolling for real HD. A true HD signal is about 1.5Gbps or 188MBps so does that 18MBps blu-ray still sound good to you?:eek:

The maximum bitrate of an HD broadcast is less than 20 Mbps (those are bits, not Bytes) and OTA broadcast starts at 19 Mbps but arrives at the TV at about 17 Mbps. My cable provider limits HD channels at a maximum of 2 per QAM and the bitrate averages 17 Mbps. In your case, you either do not have an HDTV or if you do, you provider could be sub par or your signal is poor. People who watch Football on HD enjoy the experience immensely... same for Hockey, Tennis, Basketball or Golf (The Masters, in particular). As for HDTV programs, PQ of CSI Miami, for one, is very good.

HD DVD have been released for movies, for the most part. They are to be compared with movies shown on HD channels (not digital recorded programs such as Discovery Channel). And an HD DVD movie is better than when viewed on an HD channel because there are no interferences and the VC1 encoding provides a better true reproduction of the master recording which is a transfer in 1080p 24 fps. And then there is the immense improvement in lossless sound over Dolby Digital of HDTV.

You are talking about HDD5 tape... movie studios send HD Tape to Networks as a transfer of film to digital and the Networks feed the broadcasters with a signal. What are you proposing, that instead of watching HDTV or HD DVD recordings we each schedule a session at a studio to view the Master digital transfer Tape to get what, real feel of HD from analog film source?

mfabien 11-30-2006 06:54 AM

Deleted duplicate

SLedford 11-30-2006 07:21 AM

We all want more HD programming
 
Just a couple of points:

(1) We all want more HD television programming, and eliminating the massive numbers of useless channels that probably have a very limited audience would free up a lot of bandwidth.

(2) The BD picture you saw probably had a setup problem. I did have a similar experience when BD first came out, but saw the "clock" demo at BB last night and it was a beautiful picture. Even movies now look pretty good on BD.

The picture providers are dragging their feet in adding HD channels, but part of this is that demand is market driven, and the demand for HD television programming is not loud enough to make the providers change. As more HD televisions are sold every year, that demand will get louder and change will happen.

As far as picture quality, that has improved as well. I have both an OTA converter (not hooked up now) and HD cable, and the OTA used to blow the HD cable picture out of the water. The cable company adjusted their compression, and last time I checked, the pictures were very close.

Sports and nature programming are stunning in HD. I keep hearing about 1080p, but really don't know how much better the picture would / could be from what I am getting on the HD channels now. We certainly need to get the current version established with the masses before we move to the next upgrade.

borromini 11-30-2006 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1080PsF
...I canít believe that all you people run out and buy this stuff and say how great it looks...

Universal comments from limited exposure only marginalizes your credibility.

mshulman 11-30-2006 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1080PsF
I canít believe that all you people run out and buy this stuff and say how great it looks. Broadcast, HD DVD, and blu-ray all look like crap and you are getting ripped off in the quality that youíre getting. You all should demand to get true HD not this stepped on piece of *&%@ signal that they try to pass off as HD. They compress the signal anywhere from 10:1 all the way up to 100:1 and still call it HD, I say nay, nay. I know this is going to piss off a lot of people (sorry to all of you) but someone needs step up and speak out to get the ball rolling for real HD. A true HD signal is about 1.5Gbps or 188MBps so does that 18MBps blu-ray still sound good to you?:eek:

So really what you propose is that we all go back to SD since HD sucks so bad, right?

Do you have an HD Set at home? Do you watch HD at home? Have you compare it to SD? How's it compare? It's pretty darn great in comparison, isn't it?

HTdude 11-30-2006 08:47 AM

Wow, good points. I guess I will keep my Beta until True Hi-Def Holograph is available. Would'nt want to have HT enjoyment today when I can wait 15-20 more years.:rolleyes:

1080PsF 11-30-2006 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mshulman
Do you have an HD Set at home? Do you watch HD at home? Have you compare it to SD? How's it compare? It's pretty darn great in comparison, isn't it?

No I donít have HD at home because I wonít buy into the hype. I deal with HD everyday at my job and Iíve been dealing with HD for about 10 years of my 20 years in post-production. I have very fast eyes and I see more than most people including people in my industry so I see a lot more of the problems than most. And on top of that I know what Iím looking for. So for me itís OTA SD. No compression artifacts, field weaving, or temporal averaging. Iím just trying to say that the broadcasters and manufactures need to stop screwing over the general public and give the consumer real HD.

BTW the first time I saw an HD DVD was at NAB in April and I asked the manufacture if the DVD player or monitor was making the picture look so bad (It had huge blocking issues and temporal averaging). They said they didnít know.

Does anyone live in So Cal. and want to see how HD should look?
:hithere:

mshulman 11-30-2006 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1080PsF
No I donít have HD at home because I wonít buy into the hype. I deal with HD everyday at my job and Iíve been dealing with HD for about 10 years of my 20 years in post-production. I have very fast eyes and I see more than most people including people in my industry so I see a lot more of the problems than most. And on top of that I know what Iím looking for. So for me itís OTA SD. No compression artifacts, field weaving, or temporal averaging. Iím just trying to say that the broadcasters and manufactures need to stop screwing over the general public and give the consumer real HD.

I think like most things, it all depends on your point of reference. Obviously you get to see it in its most pristine form. Due to technical limitations, we can't yet. And for me, OTA for anything isn't really an option - I'm too far outside of Boston. Its cable. And on my 92" screen, SD looks like crap. HD looks amazing.

I'd also say you are not the average consumer, which is what all this stuff is ultimately targeted to.

cousin eddie 11-30-2006 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1080PsF
No I donít have HD at home because I wonít buy into the hype.

Well we are buying in to the hype.

Is this your version of a public service message? Thanks for trying to save us from our ignorant uneducated view of the amazing pq we see when we watch a movie on our preferred format.

What makes you think you can come in here and call us all morons? It doesn't matter what camp were in (HD DVD or BD), I think it's pretty safe to say that most of us think were getting our money's worth.

Your entitiled to your opinion, but don't show up and rain on our parade, go back to your dreary little office and stop mumbling about your stapler......"I could set the building on fire"

maicaw 11-30-2006 02:42 PM

"It's only a one-banana job at the most"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 1080PsF
I canít believe that all you people run out and buy this stuff and say how great it looks. Broadcast, HD DVD, and blu-ray all look like crap and you are getting ripped off in the quality that youíre getting. You all should demand to get true HD not this stepped on piece of *&%@ signal that they try to pass off as HD. They compress the signal anywhere from 10:1 all the way up to 100:1 and still call it HD, I say nay, nay. I know this is going to piss off a lot of people (sorry to all of you) but someone needs step up and speak out to get the ball rolling for real HD. A true HD signal is about 1.5Gbps or 188MBps so does that 18MBps blu-ray still sound good to you?...

No I donít have HD at home because I wonít buy into the hype. I deal with HD everyday at my job and Iíve been dealing with HD for about 10 years of my 20 years in post-production. I have very fast eyes and I see more than most people including people in my industry so I see a lot more of the problems than most. And on top of that I know what Iím looking for. So for me itís OTA SD. No compression artifacts, field weaving, or temporal averaging. Iím just trying to say that the broadcasters and manufactures need to stop screwing over the general public and give the consumer real HD.
Quote:

Originally Posted by cousin eddie
Well we are buying in to the hype....Your entitiled to your opinion, but don't show up and rain on our parade, go back to your dreary little office and stop mumbling about your stapler......"I could set the building on fire"

1080PsF probably doesn't even have an office - check his profile here Occupation -

as of this time and date -

High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource > View Profile 1080PsF

Join Date: 01-18-2006
PostsTotal Posts: 204 (0.65 posts per day)
Find all posts by 1080PsF

Date of Birth:
September 10
Location:
Monrovia, CA.
Occupation:
tape op
.

"tape monkey"?:p

Jimmy Smith 11-30-2006 02:45 PM

I can't comment on Walk the Line but Ice Age 2 looks great on my television especially given its low MPEG-2 bit rate. Digital to digital transfers give it such a clean slick image its hard not to like.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:23 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands