High vs standard definition , idealised comparisson

[tryingtimes]

I think the idealised comparison shows it all anyway, but here is a realworld animation swapping between HD-DVD and DVD of Serenity.
Just look at that awful ringing on the DVD - uughh!
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post7518224
(post number 27)

[Pecker]

I think what I mean is this.

Before DVD came along we all knew VHS was poor. If you'd have shown anyone (non-AV buff) a VHS picture blown up on a big screen they'd have immediately told you how it lost resolution because of the size of the picture, how the colours were awful, etc. They might not have used those exact terms, but they'd have both spotted and commented on it.

In short, VHS detracted from the viewing experience.

If you'd have told anyone that they'd be watching all their stuff on a 40"+ screen, they'd have said that a better quality than VHS was necessary.

When I show people a DVD on my projector they comment on how good it looks, and how blowing the image up doesn't appear to have reduced the image quality at all.

DVD doesn't detract from the viewing experience.

No-one looks at my projecter image and insists that a better quality than DVD is needed before they would buy one. HD is certainly better but it's just not necessary.

I think that's what the reviewers are trying to say.

Steve W

[DanDT]

Originally Posted by Pecker

I think what I mean is this.

Before DVD came along we all knew VHS was poor. If you'd have shown anyone (non-AV buff) a VHS picture blown up on a big screen they'd have immediately told you how it lost resolution because of the size of the picture, how the colours were awful, etc. They might not have used those exact terms, but they'd have both spotted and commented on it.

In short, VHS detracted from the viewing experience.

If you'd have told anyone that they'd be watching all their stuff on a 40"+ screen, they'd have said that a better quality than VHS was necessary.

When I show people a DVD on my projector they comment on how good it looks, and how blowing the image up doesn't appear to have reduced the image quality at all.

DVD doesn't detract from the viewing experience.

No-one looks at my projecter image and insists that a better quality than DVD is needed before they would buy one. HD is certainly better but it's just not necessary.

I think that's what the reviewers are trying to say.

Steve W

I think it's undeniable that HD today is very much a "luxury" item, anything related to HD being something expensive that is not "needed", but just looks/sounds better.
As such, obviously you won't have people coming to your house telling you you "need" a better quality feed than DVD (unless they're geeks like us). However, the instant they see HD videos on that projector, they'll be the first to notice how much better it looks.

HD is not "needed". Then again, a TV is not really "needed". Neither DVD's or all other entertainment-related things we keep spending our hard-earned money on.

Is HD "wanted"? Hell yeah! I'm beating myself every night cause i'm absolutely broke, and my HDTV is gagging to be used properly, but i just can't afford SkyHD as it is.

If you have a TV or a projector that is capable of HD, then why wouldn't you want to feed it that best possible feed you can, if you can afford it? Why buy HD-capable equipment if you're only gonna run DVDs or Freeview on it?

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by DanDT

I think it's undeniable that HD today is very much a "luxury" item, anything related to HD being something expensive that is not "needed", but just looks/sounds better.

As such, obviously you won't have people coming to your house telling you you "need" a better quality feed than DVD (unless they're geeks like us). However, the instant they see HD videos on that projector, they'll be the first to notice how much better it looks.

Well, that's not what those reviews say from people in the US who've actually reviewed the discs. One of them said that his friend only correctly guessed which was the HD picture 75% of the time - hardly an earth shattering leap forward.

Originally Posted by DanDT

If you have a TV or a projector that is capable of HD, then why wouldn't you want to feed it that best possible feed you can, if you can afford it? Why buy HD-capable equipment if you're only gonna run DVDs or Freeview on it?

My projector is capable of HD, and I'll be buying a HD Sky box when I move in August. But I'll not be opting for a HD disc player until the format wars are over, or I can buy a multi-format machine, or the prices are so low I can buy both.

I'm not saying HD isn't better.

I'm saying it isn't that much better as to warrent the hyperbole.

I've seen claims like "4 times better picture" and "a bigger jump than from VHS to DVD", and it's all a bit silly and laughable, because those claims are awfully overstated: a fact which can only do the future take up of HD a lot of harm.

Steve W

[tryingtimes]

But is sounds like you haven't seen it in your own setup!
There are some of us who have been viewing HD for 4+ years - we can't wait to start getting our hands on a wider range of material.
It depends on what you're looking for but I'm not too sure the VHS-to-DVD comparison is that far out when you see it on the appropriately sized screen.
I watched a HD film the other night and then it took me a fair old time for me to get used to the SD film the following night - it was like my glasses weren't on

[Pecker]

I've seen a Hi Def demo on a v.large screen, projected by the Sim 3 chip DLP projector (far better than my H56).

It was very good.

It didn't look like I was "viewing through a window". Or "3-D". Or "jaw droppingly good". Just very good.

This should come as no surprise. The truth is that HD isn't as high definition as film, and we've been watching film for years without wanting to throw out TV sets away.

You don't need to see a Hi Def demo. Just think about the cinema, and remember it's not as good as that.

Steve W

[Mr.D]

I don't think the claims as to the quality of HD are overstated however the only significant improvement you get with high definition is resolution . Your perception of resolution is dependant on a few things most significantly in this case ...screen size and or viewing distance.

I'm very confident that high definition will give huge improvements on larger screens , what it won't do is give an eart shattering improvement on average screens at average viewing distances. However this is so facile as to almost be insulting.

What I don't agree with is either viewpoint that says its not worth it or is not a significant difference or treats it as the best thing ever.

It is what it is...more pixels. Sometimes you'll be grateful for them sometimes you won't care.

[Mr.D]

Originally Posted by Pecker

This should come as no surprise. The truth is that HD isn't as high definition as film, and we've been watching film for years without wanting to throw out TV sets away.

You don't need to see a Hi Def demo. Just think about the cinema, and remember it's not as good as that.

Steve W

Let's not open that can of worms. There is more to film than resolution and all high defintion video has to offer is greater resolution ( unfortunately if you ask me , upping the intensity range and colour gammut would actually have got us a format that looked more like film and looked perceptually better on smaller screens without going all the way to 1920x1080)