PQ of DVDs good enough for you?

[jtvang125]

I would say about 90% of the material I watch now are in HD. Being so use to HD now watching a regular dvd annoys me now. Through out the movie I find myself thinking to myself how poor dvd is now compared to hd.

Anybody else feel this way or are you contempt with the picture quality of dvds?

 

[ZetaEpyon]

It may not be as noticeable for live-action stuff, but I watch a lot of animation (see sig), and the difference between real HD material and upscaled DVD material is quite dramatic. So, for me, DVD doesn't cut it anymore for that stuff.

 

[Slick5150]

Frankly, i find the difference between the HD stuff I have and the DVDs I have isn't that big. If you have a good upscaling player, properly mastered DVDs can have a very sharp picture quality. Yes, HD-DVD (or Blu-Ray I assume, but I haven't seen one of those personally) are a bit better, but not enough for me to justify their cost right now.

 

[montypythizzle]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Frankly, i find the difference between the HD stuff I have and the DVDs I have isn't that big. If you have a good upscaling player, properly mastered DVDs can have a very sharp picture quality. Yes, HD-DVD (or Blu-Ray I assume, but I haven't seen one of those personally) are a bit better, but not enough for me to justify their cost right now.

Your nuts then.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

To be honest, the difference between HD formats and "regular" DVDs is NOT as dramatic as the one between VHS and DVD.

I was just talking to a friend of mine about this, and we both agreed - the fact that the DVD brought so many innovations to the average consumer (widescreen, DD, DTS, loads of extras) made it a very desirable medium... the new formats don't offer that much of a leap, even if if the consumers have bought the new LCD or plasma TV sets, but the average screen size is still under 42 inch...

Honestly, if you play DVD through a good upconverting machine (such as an Oppo player, or a HTPC) you will not be seeing much of a difference between that and HD formats.

Along the same lines, remember when people said dixv and xvid look just as good as the original DVDs? I used to laugh at these statements, but I have to admit that I've seen some pretty impressive .avi's and .mkv's lately, as the encoding algorithms just got better and better.

There's still life left in DVDs, and the fact that the format is mature, stable and so much versatile than its successors (especially since copy protection and region coding have become irrelevant) will ensure its longevity.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: montypythizzle

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Frankly, i find the difference between the HD stuff I have and the DVDs I have isn't that big. If you have a good upscaling player, properly mastered DVDs can have a very sharp picture quality. Yes, HD-DVD (or Blu-Ray I assume, but I haven't seen one of those personally) are a bit better, but not enough for me to justify their cost right now.

Your nuts then.

No, I'm just not deluding myself into thinking that either HD-DVD or BluRay is a groundbreaking improvement over DVD, like DVD was to VHS.

It offers better picture quality, yes, but my upscaled DVDs look damn good on my LCD set, and the improvements that either HD format would offer don't justify the cost of rebuilding my entire collection in HD.

If a new format comes along to replace DVD at some point (which I don't think either HD-DVD or BluRay will) as THE standard format, then sure, I'll upgrade, but neither pass the "bang for the buck" test at this point.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: montypythizzle

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Frankly, i find the difference between the HD stuff I have and the DVDs I have isn't that big. If you have a good upscaling player, properly mastered DVDs can have a very sharp picture quality. Yes, HD-DVD (or Blu-Ray I assume, but I haven't seen one of those personally) are a bit better, but not enough for me to justify their cost right now.

Your nuts then.

No, I'm just not deluding myself into thinking that either HD-DVD or BluRay is a groundbreaking improvement over DVD, like DVD was to VHS.

It offers better picture quality, yes, but my upscaled DVDs look damn good on my LCD set, and the improvements that either HD format would offer don't justify the cost of rebuilding my entire collection in HD.

If a new format comes along to replace DVD at some point (which I don't think either HD-DVD or BluRay will) as THE standard format, then sure, I'll upgrade, but neither pass the "bang for the buck" test at this point.

You're still nuts then. The difference is mindblowingly HUGE. It's the color that is so apparant in addition to resolution.

I find that DVDs don't quite cut it anymore as almost all of my viewing is in HD.

 

[kalrith]

Your viewing angle (viewing distance relative to screen size) will make a big difference in how you perceive HD content compared to SD DVDs. If you go to this link, you'll get a general idea of what resolution can be resolved with a certain screen size and certain viewing distance. For example, if you sit 12 feet from a 42" screen or 15 feet from a 50", you probably won't be able to tell a lick of difference between an SD DVD and a 1080p Blu-Ray disc, even if your TV is 1080p. If you sit 6 feet from a 50" TV, you'll likely see a BIG difference between SD DVD and Blu-Ray/HD-DVD/HD.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I just went hi-def back last month and I've been extremely satisfied. I use a PS3 to watch upconverted DVDs and blu-ray, and in my mind, there's no comparison. I have a 42" 1080p tv in a very small room, so that makes a difference; I generally sit close enough that the lower resolution of DVDs is immediately apparent. I watched my old copy of Hunt for Red October the other day and the pixelation on the screen was extremely distracting, easily noticeable from 10 feet away (which is about as far away as I can get from my TV). I couldn't help but think how much better it would look in hi-definition, not to mention the benefit of uncompressed sound (Hunt for Red October has an amazing soundtrack that suffers from some noticeable distortion as a result of compression on DVD).

Ultimately blu-ray and hd-dvd aren't worth it for most consumers. For audio/video philes, early adoption is almost always a given, as new technology will give better picture and sound, and ultimately a more rewarding experience to those who enjoy those kinds of things. My girlfriend hates my new TV; she thinks it's too big, she can't appreciate the clarity of blu ray at that size, and she hates how old DVDs look when blown up that large. It's completely subjective.

 

[jtvang125]

Originally posted by: kalrith
Your viewing angle (viewing distance relative to screen size) will make a big difference in how you perceive HD content compared to SD DVDs. If you go to this link, you'll get a general idea of what resolution can be resolved with a certain screen size and certain viewing distance. For example, if you sit 12 feet from a 42" screen or 15 feet from a 50", you probably won't be able to tell a lick of difference between an SD DVD and a 1080p Blu-Ray disc, even if your TV is 1080p. If you sit 6 feet from a 50" TV, you'll likely see a BIG difference between SD DVD and Blu-Ray/HD-DVD/HD.

Resolution is only half the picture. There's still the color aspect of it. The increase color saturation and depth of HD is quite apparent no matter how far or close you sit from the screen.

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Frankly, i find the difference between the HD stuff I have and the DVDs I have isn't that big. If you have a good upscaling player, properly mastered DVDs can have a very sharp picture quality. Yes, HD-DVD (or Blu-Ray I assume, but I haven't seen one of those personally) are a bit better, but not enough for me to justify their cost right now.

Check out Heroes on HD DVD, then compare it with the broadcast HD. Even my average joe roommates can tell the difference, and that's just comparing 2 HD sources. HD DVD is much better than DVD.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: montypythizzle

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Frankly, i find the difference between the HD stuff I have and the DVDs I have isn't that big. If you have a good upscaling player, properly mastered DVDs can have a very sharp picture quality. Yes, HD-DVD (or Blu-Ray I assume, but I haven't seen one of those personally) are a bit better, but not enough for me to justify their cost right now.

Your nuts then.

No, I'm just not deluding myself into thinking that either HD-DVD or BluRay is a groundbreaking improvement over DVD, like DVD was to VHS.

It offers better picture quality, yes, but my upscaled DVDs look damn good on my LCD set, and the improvements that either HD format would offer don't justify the cost of rebuilding my entire collection in HD.

If a new format comes along to replace DVD at some point (which I don't think either HD-DVD or BluRay will) as THE standard format, then sure, I'll upgrade, but neither pass the "bang for the buck" test at this point.

:thumbsup:

The Fifth Element Superbit DVD looks 90 to 95% as good as the HD I saw on cable. The same cannot be said for every DVD, but my entire library looks great on my 720p set. That, and I'm still stinging from DVD-A/SACD. I won't go with HD discs for years.
Quality disc + quality equipment = quality picture.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: Shawn

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Frankly, i find the difference between the HD stuff I have and the DVDs I have isn't that big. If you have a good upscaling player, properly mastered DVDs can have a very sharp picture quality. Yes, HD-DVD (or Blu-Ray I assume, but I haven't seen one of those personally) are a bit better, but not enough for me to justify their cost right now.

Check out Heroes on HD DVD, then compare it with the broadcast HD. Even my average joe roommates can tell the difference, and that's just comparing 2 HD sources. HD DVD is much better than DVD.

Compressed broadcast HD is often worse quality than an upscaled DVD.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: montypythizzle

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Frankly, i find the difference between the HD stuff I have and the DVDs I have isn't that big. If you have a good upscaling player, properly mastered DVDs can have a very sharp picture quality. Yes, HD-DVD (or Blu-Ray I assume, but I haven't seen one of those personally) are a bit better, but not enough for me to justify their cost right now.

Your nuts then.

No, I'm just not deluding myself into thinking that either HD-DVD or BluRay is a groundbreaking improvement over DVD, like DVD was to VHS.

It offers better picture quality, yes, but my upscaled DVDs look damn good on my LCD set, and the improvements that either HD format would offer don't justify the cost of rebuilding my entire collection in HD.

If a new format comes along to replace DVD at some point (which I don't think either HD-DVD or BluRay will) as THE standard format, then sure, I'll upgrade, but neither pass the "bang for the buck" test at this point.

:thumbsup:

The Fifth Element Superbit DVD looks 90 to 95% as good as the HD I saw on cable. The same cannot be said for every DVD, but my entire library looks great on my 720p set. That, and I'm still stinging from DVD-A/SACD. I won't go with HD discs for years.
Quality disc + quality equipment = quality picture.

You are smoking crack.

There isn't even a comparison. Plus you have a non true HD (1080p) set so you're not getting all the resolution and scalling both DVDs and HD.

If you can't tell from the color alone then something is wrong.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

no crack here, my friend. i'm afraid the term true HD (1080p) is more marketing in nature, as 720p and 1080i sets are capable of producing an excellent picture. sure, the best pic i've seen was a 1080p plasma (pioneer i think, maybe JVC) fed with a JVC BR demo disc. if i were starting from scratch, of course i would get a 1080p set, but there is no compelling reason for me to do so now. and which format? best case scenario is a dual format player by christmas at the earliest.

 

[Slick5150]

You're still missing the point. Yes, I have a 1080p set, and yes, I notice a difference between HD content and my upscaled DVD, but it is not THAT dramatic. Here's a good comparison:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2...th_element_blu-ray.htm

Its comparing the Superbit DVD vs the original Blu-Ray release (which was horrible) vs the remastered Blu-Ray. The remastered Blu-Ray image is better, but not THAT noticeably. I'm not disagreeing that HD-DVD or Blu-Ray can offer a better picture, I'm answering the OP's original question of "PQ of DVDs good enough for you?" Yes, because the alternative isn't enough of an improvement to justify the cost at this point.

Edit: The thing I do agree with you about is that, on the HD-DVDs I have seen, they definitely can have a much richer color depth vs a standard DVD. But a well mastered DVD can come pretty close.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Bravo, Slick5150!

That's an excellent rebuttal.

I will add the following:

Draconian copy protection + expensive discs (remember how studios were practically giving DVDs away in 1998-99?) + expensive equipment + a long format war, which leaves serious question marks hanging over the fate of one of the two big rivals = raw deal.

I'll wait AT LEAST until the format war is over - but I honestly hope that a maverick third-party format will emerge in the meanwhile, and render both HD DVD and BR obsolete, thereby totally justifying a complete generation leap.

In AT terms, DVD is the equivalent of the GF3 and GF4. BR and HD DVD are the equivalent of GF5. Not enough.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
You're still missing the point. Yes, I have a 1080p set, and yes, I notice a difference between HD content and my upscaled DVD, but it is not THAT dramatic. Here's a good comparison:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2...th_element_blu-ray.htm

Its comparing the Superbit DVD vs the original Blu-Ray release (which was horrible) vs the remastered Blu-Ray. The remastered Blu-Ray image is better, but not THAT noticeably. I'm not disagreeing that HD-DVD or Blu-Ray can offer a better picture, I'm answering the OP's original question of "PQ of DVDs good enough for you?" Yes, because the alternative isn't enough of an improvement to justify the cost at this point.

Edit: The thing I do agree with you about is that, on the HD-DVDs I have seen, they definitely can have a much richer color depth vs a standard DVD. But a well mastered DVD can come pretty close.

Well we're going to just have to agree to disagree because for me DVDs don't cut it anymore once you are used to HD and HD movies.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Slick5150
You're still missing the point. Yes, I have a 1080p set, and yes, I notice a difference between HD content and my upscaled DVD, but it is not THAT dramatic. Here's a good comparison:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2...th_element_blu-ray.htm

Its comparing the Superbit DVD vs the original Blu-Ray release (which was horrible) vs the remastered Blu-Ray. The remastered Blu-Ray image is better, but not THAT noticeably. I'm not disagreeing that HD-DVD or Blu-Ray can offer a better picture, I'm answering the OP's original question of "PQ of DVDs good enough for you?" Yes, because the alternative isn't enough of an improvement to justify the cost at this point.

Edit: The thing I do agree with you about is that, on the HD-DVDs I have seen, they definitely can have a much richer color depth vs a standard DVD. But a well mastered DVD can come pretty close.

Well we're going to just have to agree to disagree because for me DVDs don't cut it anymore once you are used to HD and HD movies.

Unless I'm missing something, that comparison is awful. you can't look at downsized pictures to make a judgement call. The best thing would be to blow up the superbit to 1080p and compare it to the 1080p blueray. Otherwise, it's pointless and not reflective of how you would view the picture in a proper environment.

 

[Auric]

I watch a lot o' EU DVB (AVC ~20 Mbps) and that is noticeably better than North America broadcast and in some cases even BD/HD-DVD -especially crappy MPEG-2 ones but even some VC-1. One example is BBC Planet Earth: the commercial VC-1 discs suffer colour banding that the AVC broadcast did not.

Ye olde DVD just cannot compare to even typical HD down-sampled (720p) recodes. Compared to 1080p AVC ~40 Mbps, DVD looks like bad XviD (of course MPEG-4 ASP is superior to MPEG-2 but is usually used to reduce size at the expense of quality rather than maintain both). Upsampling is simply not a substiture for low resolution nor low bitrate (especially being so inefficient) but rather just a way to make size scaling bearable.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Slick5150
You're still missing the point. Yes, I have a 1080p set, and yes, I notice a difference between HD content and my upscaled DVD, but it is not THAT dramatic. Here's a good comparison:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2...th_element_blu-ray.htm

Its comparing the Superbit DVD vs the original Blu-Ray release (which was horrible) vs the remastered Blu-Ray. The remastered Blu-Ray image is better, but not THAT noticeably. I'm not disagreeing that HD-DVD or Blu-Ray can offer a better picture, I'm answering the OP's original question of "PQ of DVDs good enough for you?" Yes, because the alternative isn't enough of an improvement to justify the cost at this point.

Edit: The thing I do agree with you about is that, on the HD-DVDs I have seen, they definitely can have a much richer color depth vs a standard DVD. But a well mastered DVD can come pretty close.

Well we're going to just have to agree to disagree because for me DVDs don't cut it anymore once you are used to HD and HD movies.

Unless I'm missing something, that comparison is awful. you can't look at downsized pictures to make a judgement call. The best thing would be to blow up the superbit to 1080p and compare it to the 1080p blueray. Otherwise, it's pointless and not reflective of how you would view the picture in a proper environment.

Yeah, that has got to be the stupidest comparison I've seen in a while. Blu-ray runs at 1920x1080; DVD runs at 720x480. The images in that comparison have been reduced to 559x239. At that resolution, the images should look virtually identical, since you are compressing both images to a fraction of their original size. A true comparison with images that are at least the same resolution as a DVD, and preferably 1920x1080 will show you the true difference in picture quality.

 

[Auric]

example

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Auric
example

I've seen that before. That is a good comparison for all the reason that were stated above. I think we can agree that the difference is substantial provided that you have the proper equipment and are within the recommended seating distance for your screen size.

 

[Slick5150]

Actually, I find the first comparison to be far more of a "real world" comparison. You're never sitting 3 inches away from the screen like you are looking at the photo on your computer to compare them. Of course its going to look better there at those resolutions. The 5th element photos are not screen captures downsampled, they are photos taken by a digital camera from a distance you'd be looking at the screen from.

"In case you're wondering, these screen shots were taken with a Canon 1D MkII off a 7 foot wide Syntra board painted with Video Goo. The camera settings were identical for every shot and only the most conservative contrast adjustment in Photoshop was applied in the same way for all shots. The crops were done in the camera, and all shots started off as 8MB and reduced to the same proportions in Photoshop by the same method."

So yes, of course staring at a zoomed in full resolution photo is going to make the HD content look far better, the point is, when you're watching in 15 feet away from your screen, you are going to notice those differences nearly as much.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Actually, I find the first comparison to be far more of a "real world" comparison. You're never sitting 3 inches away from the screen like you are looking at the photo on your computer to compare them. Of course its going to look better there at those resolutions. The 5th element photos are not screen captures downsampled, they are photos taken by a digital camera from a distance you'd be looking at the screen from.

"In case you're wondering, these screen shots were taken with a Canon 1D MkII off a 7 foot wide Syntra board painted with Video Goo. The camera settings were identical for every shot and only the most conservative contrast adjustment in Photoshop was applied in the same way for all shots. The crops were done in the camera, and all shots started off as 8MB and reduced to the same proportions in Photoshop by the same method."

So yes, of course staring at a zoomed in full resolution photo is going to make the HD content look far better, the point is, when you're watching in 15 feet away from your screen, you are going to notice those differences nearly as much.

the difference is substantial provided that you have the proper equipment and are within the recommended seating distance for your screen size.

Read the above sentence again. Distance and screen sized are related. Sure, the differences diminish as you move further away provided screen size stays constant but no one is disputing that.

Your comparison was terrible. What good is a 12,20 or 200mp camera if I am resizing to an image size of .13mp? If that 1D shot was resized to 1080p, assuming a sharp lens, you would see the tremendous difference that is apparent in the other comparison and which can also be seen by a person sitting at the proper recommended distance.