Hi I am using FFDSHOW to upscale my DVD`s to 720p. With all filter tricks like liited

jamieuk23

Banned
Hi I am using FFDSHOW to upscale my DVD`s to 720p. With all filter tricks like liitedsharpen and I am very happy with results.

Just wonderd how you think these results would compare to true HD DVD`s.

The reason I ask is >> I am that happy with what I am seing I am not to sure how much better the picture Quality could get, and would find it much cheaper and better just to buy standard DVD`s and upscale them.

At the end of the day these movie companies are only using some kind of fliter tricks them selves arnt they to upscale standard DVD`s to higher resolutions ?

Please if you have no experience using FFDSHOW and havent seen the results it can produce then please dont comment

your thoughts
 

jsgreen89

Novice Member
HD-DVDs aren't simply DVDs upscaled! :lesson:
That's like saying DVDs are simply VHS tapes in digital form.

HD-DVDs are sourced from a High Definition transfer, and are much higher quality. I have some great screenshots taken by somebody in the US who compared upscaled DVDs (with FFDShow), to HD versions from HD movie channels in the US (which are roughly the same quality as HD-DVD). I'll try and post the images in a couple of mins.
 

jamieuk23

Banned
jsgreen89 said:
HD-DVDs aren't simply DVDs upscaled! :lesson:
That's like saying DVDs are simply VHS tapes in digital form.

HD-DVDs are sourced from a High Definition transfer, and are much higher quality. I have some great screenshots taken by somebody in the US who compared upscaled DVDs (with FFDShow), to HD versions from HD movie channels in the US (which are roughly the same quality as HD-DVD). I'll try and post the images in a couple of mins.
ARRRRRR dont it I will be buying a A1 buy the end of the night !

pictures would be cool mate !!! thanks
 

Mr.D

Distinguished Member
its not even close you will never watch a dvd again after seeing a decent ( not even fantastic ) hd-dvd.
 

jsgreen89

Novice Member
Ok here's the comparison for 2001:

Upscaled DVD:



HD:



Buying a more expensive DVD player won't help (much). Don't be fooled by the labeling on the box. You can't magically re-create detail that isn't there. The best upscaling can do is interpolate and "guess" where more information could be. If HD picture quality was 100%, and DVD was 30%, upscaled DVD is about 35%, not 80%!!
 

jamieuk23

Banned
for me looking at the pictures I am not seing a massive diffrence.

I would like to think I can get my picture with FFDSHOW to about 80% of HD Quality.

especialy now I am using limitedsharpen fliter.

at the minute I have 400 standard DVD`s + spent £700 on a top of the range HTPC build for gaming and DVD`s on my projector.. to throw this all a way for the sake of 20% extra Quality I dont think it is worth it.

think the answer for me is a HD DVD writer when you can buy them for around £150-£200

2 much to loose not to much to gain
 
The information just isn't there on a DVD

You can't polish a turd.

jamieuk23 said:
Hi I am using FFDSHOW to upscale my DVD`s to 720p. With all filter tricks like liitedsharpen and I am very happy with results.

Just wonderd how you think these results would compare to true HD DVD`s.

The reason I ask is >> I am that happy with what I am seing I am not to sure how much better the picture Quality could get, and would find it much cheaper and better just to buy standard DVD`s and upscale them.

At the end of the day these movie companies are only using some kind of fliter tricks them selves arnt they to upscale standard DVD`s to higher resolutions ?

Please if you have no experience using FFDSHOW and havent seen the results it can produce then please dont comment

your thoughts
 

jsgreen89

Novice Member
jamieuk23 said:
for me looking at the pictures I am not seing a massive diffrence.

I would like to think I can get my picture with FFDSHOW to about 80% of HD Quality.

especialy now I am using limitedsharpen fliter.

at the minute I have 400 standard DVD`s + spent £700 on a top of the range HTPC build for gaming and DVD`s on my projector.. to throw this all a way for the sake of 20% extra Quality I dont think it is worth it.

think the answer for me is a HD DVD writer when you can buy them for around £150-£200

2 much to loose not to much to gain
When you're standing in front of a decent quality LCD you'll see a BIG difference. The fact is, HD contains around 4x the picture information as a DVD. If an upscaling player could just magic up extra detail, then we might as well chuck HD out the window!

Upscaling just fudges the issue, sharpening and enhancing contrast is a way of tricking the eye into thinking there's more detail than there is.

It's not a 20% increase in quality, it's much much more. I've spent £1000s on DVDs too, but if I can get them in HD i'll quite happily flog them off as soon as possible.


Jordans Norks said:
The information just isn't there on a DVD

You can't polish a turd.
Exactly :D
I'm sure you're very pleased with your latest HTPC JamieUK, heck I was delighted with the performance of FFDShow when I first started using it. But when I saw HD clips, I realised how appalling DVDs really are in comparison.

There's nothing to say that you can't still watch DVDs, but if you really want the best home cinema experience, then HD is the only option..
 

Mr.D

Distinguished Member
I'm sorry but that is the WORST HD/SD comparisson I have ever ever seen . And to bring in LCD displays just completely smashes it into an iceberg with lifeboats for only half the passengers.

God almighty after all the effort people go to to actually show the differences and extoll the virtues of HD-DVD we get this awful pish. We are not interested in you bragging about having a ts of 2001 that you cribbed off the net ..which is probably little better than a decent dvd anyway ( and the pictures prove it).

HD-DVD is much better than this .
jsgreen89 DON'T help sell hd-dvd ...just don't.
 

Welwynnick

Well-known Member
I would calmly and politely like to point out that the pictures only had a 900x508 pixel resolution, which is barely adequate to do justice to SD, let alone HD, for which close-ups are generally required. Yes, upscaling can help a bit, but HD has 4x to 5x the data, and there's no substitute for the real thing.

Best regards, Nick
 

Rasczak

Distinguished Member
I think it's a fair comment to say most of us had DVD upscaling before we got HD DVD. That hasn't stopped us being blown away by HD DVD - it really is a league apart from upscaled DVD sources and even broadcast high def.
 

182

Novice Member
I have an Arcam DV79 going into a VP30 scaler and SD dvd's look fantastic, A vast improvement. But it just doesn't compare to any HD-DVD's.
The detail and colours are just amazing. I doubt a pc would upscale SD dvd's any better than what i'm useing so you will definitely see a big difference with HD-DVD.
 
why did you tell me that HD-DVD is better than HD broadcasts...why.

Going have to buy one now :)

Rasczak said:
I think it's a fair comment to say most of us had DVD upscaling before we got HD DVD. That hasn't stopped us being blown away by HD DVD - it really is a league apart from upscaled DVD sources and even broadcast high def.
 

Uruloke

Active Member
Thought I'd add my comment too. Upscaled DVD quite simply does not compare to HD-DVD. It's a completely different league.
 

Canary_Jules

Well-known Member
My HCPC is tweaked to the max and when you get a good transfer it looks great through my Optoma HD72. But like the guys are saying HD-DVD has got so much more detail inherently on the disc that upscaling cannot miraculously magiv from nowhere. Personally I find every day is dragging as I wait for the Euro HD-DVD release. I browse here and over at AVS every day for new snippets of news on HD-DVD - can't stand all this damned waiting :( ! But it does give me a chance to save up and I have planned to sell much of my DVD collection to finance the deal. My only question as a happy HCPCer is whether it would be better to wait even longer for a PC route or just buy Tosh's machine when it comes out in Nov. Any thoughts?

Jules
 

Mr.D

Distinguished Member
Buy a standalone in the meantime , it will take a little bit of time for the PC route to become robust. Then move to a PC solution and sell the standalone player...this is my plan.

In the meantime you are bolstering support for HD-DVD which is the only thing standing between the consumer and being fobbed off with 25Gb mpeg2 blu-ray discs.
 

shaithis

Novice Member
Those pictures really cannot be used as a comparison :eek:

Take a demo of it somewhere if you can on a screen similar to the one you own if possible and then decide from there.
 

jsgreen89

Novice Member
Mr.D said:
I'm sorry but that is the WORST HD/SD comparisson I have ever ever seen . And to bring in LCD displays just completely smashes it into an iceberg with lifeboats for only half the passengers.

God almighty after all the effort people go to to actually show the differences and extoll the virtues of HD-DVD we get this awful pish. We are not interested in you bragging about having a ts of 2001 that you cribbed off the net ..which is probably little better than a decent dvd anyway ( and the pictures prove it).

HD-DVD is much better than this .
jsgreen89 DON'T help sell hd-dvd ...just don't.
I don't get it. Are you saying that HD-DVD is much better than broadcast HD movies? Are all the movie channels in Europe and the US broadcasting rubbish quality prints? I'm guessing it could be better on HD-DVD, but not much better.

The HD version of 2001 that has been broadcast on HDTV channels is the newly remastered HD print and will (most likely) be included on the upcoming HD-DVD. It's known to be one of the best examples of HD mastering (coming from a 70mm print originally).
 

Nic Rhodes

Well-known Member
I have yet to see any broadcast HD that competes with the pre recorded stuff.
 

dan1979

Well-known Member
jsgreen89 said:
I don't get it. Are you saying that HD-DVD is much better than broadcast HD movies? Are all the movie channels in Europe and the US broadcasting rubbish quality prints? I'm guessing it could be better on HD-DVD, but not much better.

Low bit-rates to save bandwidth, some even use lower resolutions (like 1440x1080i) to cut down on the space required.

Compare the Gladiator BEV release to any 99% of the other HD broadcasts and you'll see there's lots of scope for improvement.
 

Mr.D

Distinguished Member
jsgreen89 said:
The HD version of 2001 that has been broadcast on HDTV channels is the newly remastered HD print and will (most likely) be included on the upcoming HD-DVD. It's known to be one of the best examples of HD mastering (coming from a 70mm print originally).
You don't really know anything about this do you?
 

jsgreen89

Novice Member
Mr.D said:
You don't really know anything about this do you?
Well that's spectacularly useful... how about educating me then on the big reason why HD-DVD is able to achieve drastically better picture quality than current HDTV broadcasts?

If it's simply bitrate and codec related then just say.. :rolleyes:
 

Ian_S

Distinguished Member
jsgreen89 said:
Well that's spectacularly useful... how about educating me then on the big reason why HD-DVD is able to achieve drastically better picture quality than current HDTV broadcasts?

If it's simply bitrate and codec related then just say.. :rolleyes:
Well there are some interesting questions...

Over on AVS there's been a bit of what you might call boasting that they've achieved an average bitrate for Batman Begins of around 13Mbps using VC-1.

Now broadcast HD over here uses MPEG4 AVC, which whilst it is known for being quite good on compression is also regarded as needing more ooomph to decode. However, if a decent VC-1 encode can go as low as 13Mbps average, and the likes of the BBC are experimenting with 18Mbps bandwidth rates for broadcast HD over satellite, it does beg the question, could or even should the differences be much closer than perhaps most people are seeing on Sky Movies HD??
 

jsgreen89

Novice Member
Hmm I had a bit of a look on the AVS Forum, and some guy had measured the average bit rates on the HD channels in the US. And mostly they're in the region of 10-12Mbit/s.

I'm guessing the average HD-DVD bitrate is at least 15Mbit/s :confused:

Or is it even higher?
 

Rasczak

Distinguished Member
However, if a decent VC-1 encode can go as low as 13Mbps average, and the likes of the BBC are experimenting with 18Mbps bandwidth rates for broadcast HD over satellite, it does beg the question, could or even should the differences be much closer than perhaps most people are seeing on Sky Movies HD??
I don't think broadcasts will ever match high def content provided on discs - we all know to well that bandwidth is just too much of an issue and the pressure for more channels (and thus more money) will always out. The BBC are probably the best bet for decent high def broadcasts though. And SkyHD Movies is probably one of the worst.

Furthermore VC1 is widely regarded as superior to H.264 - at least at present - especially with regards to noise. Certainly comparing AVP and VC1 HD DVDs the difference is considerable - obviously there are many factors involved though but the European Broadcasting Union came to similar findings and a Google search finds many other comparisons.
 

Nic Rhodes

Well-known Member
Don't forget a 12mb/s VC1 signal is really the equivalent of something like a 25mb/s MPEG2 signal. It is not just about the size of the numbers. Dtheatre was ahead of the game as it used a high value and fixed bit rate MPEG2 stream. HD DVD is now also ahead of the game as it uses VC 1 very effectively in reducing the bit rate, all are possible for broadcasts if there is the desire to use them. It would be great if we moved on from MPEG2...and other similar performing codecs, to high performing and efficient codecs that have minimal 'artifacts'.
 

Mr.D

Distinguished Member
jsgreen89 said:
Well that's spectacularly useful... how about educating me then on the big reason why HD-DVD is able to achieve drastically better picture quality than current HDTV broadcasts?

If it's simply bitrate and codec related then just say.. :rolleyes:
Apologies it was meant to open up the subject rather than an attack.

VC1 ( what US hd-dvds have been using so far) is 2-4 times more efficient than mpeg2. Compression technique differences aside you can get the same picture quality as mpeg2 with about a 2-3 times reduction in space and bit rate ( the two are somewhat linked) compared with similar quality at mpeg2.

Even then because of the way the compression schemes work its arguable that VC1 will always look better than mpeg2 assuming similar overall quality levels becasue fo the way VC1 compresses compared with mpeg2...this is somewhat debatable especially if you have progressive material rather than interlaced.

Some of the most impresssive hd I've seen recently is the freeview HD test from crystal palace (albeit my PC can only manage about 20 fps on a good day). This test is using primarily AVC which is yet another higher quality codec ( derived from mpeg4 I believe). The tests can at times I suspect better HD-DVD quality although its difficult to appraise when you can't get all the frames. Just had a quick look and the rate for video seems to be about 19-22 Mbps which is very high.

Having seen 1080p varyingly compressed with mpeg2 all the waY from 15-180Mbps I'd say you start to see a subtle flattening of the image about 70Mbps , by the time you get to 35Mpbs you are actually losing noticable fine transient detail . Below this and you start to see blocking and typical mpeg2 artifacts which gets steadily worse.

I'd say HD-DVD looks at least as good as 70Mps mpeg2 and this was from D5 through a realtime mpeg2 encoder , a non-realtime multipass encode used in commercial disc mastering would possibly drop the 70Mbps figure down to somewhere in the 50s but even so VC1 is still very impressive in comparisson.
 

Ian_S

Distinguished Member
Nic Rhodes said:
Don't forget a 12mb/s VC1 signal is really the equivalent of something like a 25mb/s MPEG2 signal. It is not just about the size of the numbers. Dtheatre was ahead of the game as it used a high value and fixed bit rate MPEG2 stream. HD DVD is now also ahead of the game as it uses VC 1 very effectively in reducing the bit rate, all are possible for broadcasts if there is the desire to use them. It would be great if we moved on from MPEG2...and other similar performing codecs, to high performing and efficient codecs that have minimal 'artifacts'.
No disagreement with the above, but I was thinking more of comparing AVC with VC-1. If AVC is capable of similar compression ratios to VC-1, then with say an 18Mbps bitrate available, and some work, could broadcast HD AVC (if it doesn't get bit-rate strangled later) get very close to disc formats if the latter are already managing to get down to sub 18Mbps rates on what is considered a decent transfer?

That's not to say that Sky for example would deliver that quality, they'll just squeeze more channels in, but perhaps there's hope for films on BBC.... doesn't seem too far fetched.
 

Trending threads

Latest News

Netflix UK free trials come to an end
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sony update brings AirPlay 2 and Dolby Atmos support to select TVs
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Cleer FLOW II headphones get Google Assistant
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Denon introduces DHT-S216 All-in-One soundbar
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom