Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Is DVD "good enough" for you, or do you want something better?

View Poll Results: Is DVD good enough for you?
Poll Options:
Yes, DVD is good enough for me, especially since I only have an SDTV anyway. 53 votes (40.15%)
Yes, DVD is good enough for me, even on my HDTV. 30 votes (22.73%)
No, I already own a Blu-ray or HD DVD player. DVD is not even close to being good enough. 8 votes (6.06%)
No, and I hope to buy a Blu-ray or HD DVD player within the next few years. 41 votes (31.06%)
Voters: 132. You may not vote on this poll
Is DVD "good enough" for you, or do you want something better? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
ink
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2006, 09:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker View Post
? Not sure I understand the problem.

Component

DVI (A & D)

Fiber

Mini-DVI

HDMI

VGA

Although I really think that HDMI will take over.
So what? It still looks damn awesome.
Oh, no doubt -- but it'll look even better when the screens can actually display 1080 pixes on the short side.
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2006, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Goldfinger View Post
For me DVD is good enough at the moment. I'm switching to HD when all panels are 1080p and when there are more HD broadcasts. Right now we have like one channel, and a bad one at that.
Wow, that sucks. I've got about a dozen HD channels or so.


And you need a special decoder that costs a fortune.
Untill then I don't really care for HD. And like ink said, it would mean a new receiver as well.
It doesn't require a new receiver. I'm keeping my old receiver for quite some time. I won't get a new receiver until 2008 or later.


Originally Posted by ink View Post

Component
Well, pretty much all consumer HDTVs have this.


DVI (A & D)
Compatible with HDMI.


Fiber
I've never seen this on a consumer TV.


Mini-DVI
Compatible with HDMI.


HDMI
It IS HDMI.


VGA
Not really a TV format. Just an added bonus that some TVs support.

Although I really think that HDMI will take over.
Yeah, so basically we have component and HDMI + brethren. Thus, I've always considered it really just two main types of interfaces, plus VGA for HTPC, etc.

P.S. While we're talking about HD, it's only recently that DVD has finally overtaken VHS.
     
ink
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2006, 12:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker View Post
While we're talking about HD, it's only recently that DVD has finally overtaken VHS.
That's probably due to Tivo and DVR devices. Recording to DVD hasn't ever been very convenient.
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2006, 12:44 PM
 
I have a regular 27" TV I bought in high school that I'm still using with a DVD player. I always thought the pictures was pretty good (with S-video!!) until last month when my friend's mom picked up a ~30" LCD on sale at BB. It's absolutely amazing, and I don't like watching plain cable on my TV anymore, but since I'm poor, I don't have a choice.
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2006, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by ink View Post
That's probably due to Tivo and DVR devices. Recording to DVD hasn't ever been very convenient.
Yeah, I have both a PVR and a DVD recorder. I haven't had my VCR connected for years.

Well, not quite true. About once a year a friend gives me an old VHS tape of some family outing or something, so I connect up my VCR so I can convert it to DVD on my DVD recorder.
     
macgeek2005
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2006, 04:16 PM
 
Does my ACD automatically upscale DVD's???
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2006, 05:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by macgeek2005 View Post
Does my ACD automatically upscale DVD's???
No, the ACD just displays whatever it gets.

Any scaling is done by the source (or a scaler between the source and the ACD), whether it be a computer, a disk player, etc.
     
jokell82
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2006, 06:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by macgeek2005 View Post
Does my ACD automatically upscale DVD's???
DVD Player.app upscales it for you.

All glory to the hypnotoad.
     
centerchannel68
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2006, 08:25 PM
 
It does? Or are you joking hence the wink smiley?
     
macgeek2005
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2006, 10:09 PM
 
I would definetaly believe that it does. Any movie playing at 720x480 that I play in QuickTime Full Screen looks ALOT worse than a DVD playing full screen in DVD player.

Does it really upscale it? To what resolution?
     
jokell82
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2006, 10:25 PM
 
It upscales it to your current screen resolution. If it didn't you'd see a flicker when you'd enter fullscreen mode, as the resolution on your monitor would have to change.

And quicktime upscales the videos too.
( Last edited by jokell82; Dec 22, 2006 at 10:27 PM. Reason: adding the quicktime comment)

All glory to the hypnotoad.
     
macgeek2005
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2006, 10:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by jokell82 View Post
It upscales it to your current screen resolution. If it didn't you'd see a flicker when you'd enter fullscreen mode, as the resolution on your monitor would have to change.

And quicktime upscales the videos too.
Well then we're back to not making sense.

In either case, the screen does not change resolution, but in the case of quicktime the video looks like an "enlarged" SD video (i.e. there is some pixelation, and the quality is obviously compromised), and in the case of DVD, it looks almost HD. No pixelation, no compromised quality. I can barely tell a difference between a full screen DVD and a HD trailer from apple.com.

That's why I have no care for HD-DVD or Blu-ray right now.
     
jokell82
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2006, 10:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by macgeek2005 View Post
Well then we're back to not making sense.

In either case, the screen does not change resolution, but in the case of quicktime the video looks like an "enlarged" SD video (i.e. there is some pixelation, and the quality is obviously compromised), and in the case of DVD, it looks almost HD. No pixelation, no compromised quality. I can barely tell a difference between a full screen DVD and a HD trailer from apple.com.

That's why I have no care for HD-DVD or Blu-ray right now.
That's because the bitrate is probably a lot higher for the DVD than for the quicktime movies you're watching. HD Trailers on apple's site have low bitrates to keep the file sizes down.

All glory to the hypnotoad.
     
macgeek2005
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2006, 11:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by jokell82 View Post
That's because the bitrate is probably a lot higher for the DVD than for the quicktime movies you're watching. HD Trailers on apple's site have low bitrates to keep the file sizes down.
Hmm.. what kind of bitrates are we looking at here?

edit: my 300 teaser trailer from apple.com has a bitrate of 10mbps. That's very high. What's the bitrate of the DVD's I watch? Wikipedia says 5mbps is DVD bitrate.

By the way, it's not the HD trailers that have pixelation and bad quality, and normal SD quicktime files. Quicktime files that are ripped from DVD. 720x480 quicktime files. Just standard DV files. You'd think they'd look the same as DVD when played full screen...
( Last edited by macgeek2005; Dec 22, 2006 at 11:36 PM. )
     
ink
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2006, 11:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by macgeek2005 View Post
Hmm.. what kind of bitrates are we looking at here? And exactly what is a bitrate?
It's all ambiguous. It depends on how a work is encoded. The bitrate is a measure of how much bandwidth a piece of media uses -- but not necessarily how good it looks. If you encode at a high bitrate with MPEG-4/2 (xvid/divx), and at the same bitrate with MPEG-2 or MPEG4/10 (H.264) they will all look different. They will look different using hundreds of different configuration options and quality settings... It's quite confusing.

MPEG-4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
High-definition television - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
awaspaas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2006, 01:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by macgeek2005 View Post
By the way, it's not the HD trailers that have pixelation and bad quality, and normal SD quicktime files. Quicktime files that are ripped from DVD. 720x480 quicktime files. Just standard DV files. You'd think they'd look the same as DVD when played full screen...
Ding ding ding! Any time one clip is re-encoded it loses quality. Both QT and DVD player upscale very nicely, but the quality of your Quicktime file is worse than your DVD. The quality difference is probably not visible at 100% but shows up nicely when they're scaled.

And, in case you need to see what upscaling means, try playing a DVD fullscreen with one of the crap-o windows DVD players like PowerDVD or whatever. Jaggy city.
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2006, 01:11 AM
 
HD DVDs peak at well over 20 Mbps,with an average of say around 15 Mbps, and that's with a codec that's twice as efficient as MPEG2.

ie. It's sort of like having a MPEG2 stream at 30 Mbps, peaking at 40 Mbps. DVDs use MPEG2, averaging around 5 Mbps, and peaking around 9 Mbps. (The comparison isn't truly accurate, but you get the idea.)
     
centerchannel68
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2006, 02:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by jokell82 View Post
It upscales it to your current screen resolution. If it didn't you'd see a flicker when you'd enter fullscreen mode, as the resolution on your monitor would have to change.

And quicktime upscales the videos too.
Neat. Yet another reason I don't need an HD TV. I'm getting a 24" imac and it'll upscale it and have a super great connection. Optical output + 24" lcd+ huge stereo= win!
     
macgeek2005
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2006, 02:32 AM
 
Yeah, DVD's definetaly don't look different than HD on my 23" screen. I'll continue to use DVD until I get a new computer in a few years.

However, when I play a DVD ripped with MacTheRipper via. DVD Player (File/Open DVD Media), it looks exactly the same as if the DVD were inserted in the computer.
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2006, 09:15 AM
 
I have a 24" iMac.

DVDs look like utter crap to me resolution-wise on that screen compared to good quality HD clips. Not even in the same league. YMMV.
     
awaspaas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2006, 12:49 PM
 
Here's a nice link for those of you that can't tell DVD from HD.

Fellowship of the Ring - HD vs DVD

Mouseover the screenshots to see what it looks like in HD.
     
macgeek2005
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2006, 02:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by awaspaas View Post
Here's a nice link for those of you that can't tell DVD from HD.

Fellowship of the Ring - HD vs DVD

Mouseover the screenshots to see what it looks like in HD.
Big deal. You can't tell that difference when the video is moving. I'm telling you, when I watch a DVD, when someones face is close up it looks like those HD images. And if there is a slight difference between the two, it is not noticeable.
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2006, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by macgeek2005 View Post
Big deal. You can't tell that difference when the video is moving.
Of course you can. It's quite obvious actually, at least for me, and my TV is only 34".

It's even more obvious on a 50" TV.
     
macgeek2005
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2006, 03:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker View Post
Of course you can. It's quite obvious actually, at least for me, and my TV is only 34".

It's even more obvious on a 50" TV.
Well i'm on a 23" display. So maybe that's why I can't tell.
     
awaspaas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2006, 04:33 PM
 
Click the pictures to zoom in to full size. Then click the zoomed picture to get the HD version.

If you can't see the difference on there, you need your eyes checked, seriously.
     
awaspaas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2006, 04:37 PM
 



Here we go. Yeah, you're right - they're pretty much identical!!
     
Kenneth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bellevue, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2006, 06:30 PM
 
DVD is good enough is for me.
     
macgeek2005
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2006, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by awaspaas View Post



Here we go. Yeah, you're right - they're pretty much identical!!
I Hate when people make comparisons like this. They are not fair for several reasons.

Firstly, they're zoomed in greatly on one little section of the picture so that we are looking at it more close up than we'd ever see it when watching the movie.

Secondly, a comparison like that once again doesn't show the video moving. When the picture moves it makes a huge difference.

Thirdly, theres the fact that this comparsion was designed with the intention of showing how much better HD is. There is NO way in hell that ANY movie I EVER watch on my screen looks as bad as that "DVD" image.

Theres only one way to fairly compair the two. Get a screen, a HD-DVD player, and a DVD player. Play one movie on DVD and then on HD-DVD. Decide for yourself whether you care about the quality difference.

The End.
     
awaspaas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2006, 01:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by macgeek2005 View Post
I Hate when people make comparisons like this. They are not fair for several reasons.

Firstly, they're zoomed in greatly on one little section of the picture so that we are looking at it more close up than we'd ever see it when watching the movie.

Secondly, a comparison like that once again doesn't show the video moving. When the picture moves it makes a huge difference.

Thirdly, theres the fact that this comparsion was designed with the intention of showing how much better HD is. There is NO way in hell that ANY movie I EVER watch on my screen looks as bad as that "DVD" image.

Theres only one way to fairly compair the two. Get a screen, a HD-DVD player, and a DVD player. Play one movie on DVD and then on HD-DVD. Decide for yourself whether you care about the quality difference.

The End.
Okay, I really should have expected as much. I link to a perfectly valid example that shows the difference and you say you can't see the difference. Then I clearly show you an obvious difference and you say the comparison's not valid. I quit.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2006, 10:03 PM
 
After seeing the picture quality of 1080p DVDs are no longer good enough for me, for the big screens anyway. I have always thought big screen pictures look grainy and bad.
     
SafariX
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2006, 01:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by awaspaas View Post
Okay, I really should have expected as much. I link to a perfectly valid example that shows the difference and you say you can't see the difference. Then I clearly show you an obvious difference and you say the comparison's not valid. I quit.
LOL, what is he, 15? I have a 50 inch HD Panasonic plasma with a high end marantz dvd player attached via $200 transparent component cables and the xbox 360 hd-dvd player (cheaper investment while the platform battle ensues). The side-by-side is astounding. I have even done the same side-by-side on my 50 inch Samsung 1080p DLP set in my living room. You are wrong macgeek. The difference is simple: look at awaspaas pictures.
     
macgeek2005
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2006, 02:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by SafariX View Post
LOL, what is he, 15? I have a 50 inch HD Panasonic plasma with a high end marantz dvd player attached via $200 transparent component cables and the xbox 360 hd-dvd player (cheaper investment while the platform battle ensues). The side-by-side is astounding. I have even done the same side-by-side on my 50 inch Samsung 1080p DLP set in my living room. You are wrong macgeek. The difference is simple: look at awaspaas pictures.
Okay. On a 50 inch screen, the difference is astounding.

Let me give you a metaphor to help understand this.

If you have a cup, and you're trying to figure out what amount of water is best to fill the cup with, you'll always only be able to fill up the cup until it's full, then the water will run over, and it won't hold anymore.

If you have a cup that holds 1 liter of water and a pitcher that has one liter of water in it, it's perfect. You can take full advantage of both things.

If you have a cup that holds 6 liters of water and a pitcher that has one liter of water in it, you'll have a cup that's only one sixth full.

If you have a cup that holds 6 liters of water and a pitcher that has 6 liters of water in it, you'll have a great big cup with a great big amount of water.

If you have a cup that hold 1 liter of water and a pitcher that has 6 liters of water in it, you'll have an overrunning cup that doesn't have any more water than if you had a 1 liter pitcher.


In this analogy, the first example was a standard screen (like mine for instance, 23"), and a standard DVD playing in it. It looks great. 1 liter cup, 1 liter pitcher.

The second example was a big screen (50" or bigger) playing a DVD.

The third example was a big screen playing a HD-DVD.

The fourth example was a 23" screen playing a HD-DVD.

See? It doesn't matter to me. My screen is only 23 inches. DVD's look phenominal.
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2006, 02:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by macgeek2005 View Post
Okay. On a 50 inch screen, the difference is astounding.

Let me give you a metaphor to help understand this.

If you have a cup, and you're trying to figure out what amount of water is best to fill the cup with, you'll always only be able to fill up the cup until it's full, then the water will run over, and it won't hold anymore.

If you have a cup that holds 1 liter of water and a pitcher that has one liter of water in it, it's perfect. You can take full advantage of both things.

If you have a cup that holds 6 liters of water and a pitcher that has one liter of water in it, you'll have a cup that's only one sixth full.

If you have a cup that holds 6 liters of water and a pitcher that has 6 liters of water in it, you'll have a great big cup with a great big amount of water.

If you have a cup that hold 1 liter of water and a pitcher that has 6 liters of water in it, you'll have an overrunning cup that doesn't have any more water than if you had a 1 liter pitcher.


In this analogy, the first example was a standard screen (like mine for instance, 23"), and a standard DVD playing in it. It looks great. 1 liter cup, 1 liter pitcher.

The second example was a big screen (50" or bigger) playing a DVD.

The third example was a big screen playing a HD-DVD.

The fourth example was a 23" screen playing a HD-DVD.

See? It doesn't matter to me. My screen is only 23 inches. DVD's look phenominal.
Analogies are supposed to make things easier to understand. Yours did not.
I will vouch that the 1080p Transformer's trailer looked better on my 20" iMac than any DVD has so far.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2006, 08:57 AM
 
I dont watch a lot of TV/DVD or play enought console video games to justify paying the prices for current HD displays.

Couple that with the current format war, the diffferent standards (codecs, cables, etc).... and you are going to have a lot of consumers steering away from the HD era, like myself.

Im sure HD will eventually become the dominant standard. i just dont think the market is ready, and suppliers arent ready either....even though their products are on the shelves..... market share is the first thing on their minds...obviously....but that has led to way too many conflicting formats, cables, codecs, etc....

Ill probably stick to DVDs and SDTVs for the next 24 months.
( Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Dec 25, 2006 at 09:38 AM. )
     
PowerPc = Pwnage
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2006, 09:17 AM
 
I'm not about to spend a grand on a device to see the pimples on someone's face clearer. I know theres a "huge" difference in picture quality, but for me, I dont' have the time nor cash to upgrade plus I don't think that HD Dvd or Blu-Ray are gonna last, it's all gonna be computerized within a few years.

"Oh! You smell good, what is that? Macintosh."-http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/03/03
     
Tuoder
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2006, 11:00 AM
 
Between watching most of my DVDs on my 13" MB while wearing headphones, and the fact that the primary TV is a 480p 3x" CRT, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are both useless to me until the price justifies getting a burner. Even then, I will probably stay with DVD for a while just for compatibility's sake.
     
MaxPower2k3
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2006, 11:44 AM
 
macgeek, how far away from the screen do you sit when you watch DVDs? I have the 24" Dell screen (same resolution as your 23" ACD) and from 6-7 feet away I can immediately tell the difference between DVD and HD. Of course, the bigger the screen, the more magnified the differences are, but on a full 1080p display, the difference should be clear.

It seems to me that there are some people who look at what they're watching, as well as the medium they're watching it on, and see things in the medium itself, whereas other people watch something and look completely past the medium, and just sort of see the picture for what's in it rather than how it's presented. To those people, while watching something, DVD and HD both "represent" the same thing so they're equal in those peoples' eyes. Other people who look at the medium see those differences.

I just woke up about 10 minutes ago, so if that makes no sense, my apologies.

"I start fires!"
     
macgeek2005
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2006, 02:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by MaxPower2k3 View Post
macgeek, how far away from the screen do you sit when you watch DVDs? I have the 24" Dell screen (same resolution as your 23" ACD) and from 6-7 feet away I can immediately tell the difference between DVD and HD. Of course, the bigger the screen, the more magnified the differences are, but on a full 1080p display, the difference should be clear.

It seems to me that there are some people who look at what they're watching, as well as the medium they're watching it on, and see things in the medium itself, whereas other people watch something and look completely past the medium, and just sort of see the picture for what's in it rather than how it's presented. To those people, while watching something, DVD and HD both "represent" the same thing so they're equal in those peoples' eyes. Other people who look at the medium see those differences.

I just woke up about 10 minutes ago, so if that makes no sense, my apologies.
I usually sit about 3 feet from my screen. Same distance as when i'm working at the computer.

I used to have The Fellowship of the Ring in 1080p HD on my computer, so I made direct comparisons between it and DVD. Yes, there was a difference, but only when compared to each other. If I put on the DVD, I wouldn't be able to tell whether it was DVD or HD, and same for HD. When compared to each other, only then can I see a difference.

When you watch DVD's on your 24" screen, do you watch them in DVD player?
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2006, 04:24 PM
 
The difference between 480p and 1080p is instantly obvious on my 24" iMac, from 3 feet away.

If you can't see the very obvious difference even in motion video, at least with some material, then something is wrong. awaspaas' pictures are pretty good indication of the differences, depending on the source material.

However, it's a completely different question whether or not you desire that extra resolution.
     
ambush
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2006, 04:28 PM
 
1.5G x264 from DVD source is OK for me.

I can have 3 of them on a DVD :-)
     
macgeek2005
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2006, 08:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
The difference between 480p and 1080p is instantly obvious on my 24" iMac, from 3 feet away.

If you can't see the very obvious difference even in motion video, at least with some material, then something is wrong. awaspaas' pictures are pretty good indication of the differences, depending on the source material.

However, it's a completely different question whether or not you desire that extra resolution.
When you compare 480p to 1080p are you playing both videos in Quicktime fullscreen? Because yes, I can see the HUGE difference there too.

Once again, I say, I DO NOT KNOW WHY, but when playing a D.V.D. in D.V.D. P.L.A.Y.E.R., It is incredible quality, much better than playing even a 720p quicktime file fullscreen.
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2006, 10:39 PM
 
I have a 106" screen in my home theater. Even my 8 year old can see the difference between standard DVD and Blu-Ray. The movies she likes (Ice Age, The Corpse Bride, etc), look unbelievably amazing on Blu-Ray. No comparison. Its one thing on a 27" screen; its another when its 7.6 feet wide (8.8' diag).
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2006, 10:57 PM
 
It seems the local champion of the "HD is unnecessary" philosophy is the same chap who's asking for touchy-feely movies in another thread. It's not hard to believe that warm fuzzy soft-light-diffusion movies don't look as much better in HD than 100% CGI movies do. Then there's the issue of one's eye resolution; 8yo's have much sharper vision than baby boomers.
     
macgeek2005
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2006, 10:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
It seems the local champion of the "HD is unnecessary" philosophy is the same chap who's asking for touchy-feely movies in another thread. It's not hard to believe that warm fuzzy soft-light-diffusion movies don't look as much better in HD than 100% CGI movies do. Then there's the issue of one's eye resolution; 8yo's have much sharper vision than baby boomers.
1. Your last sentence didnt make sense to me.

2. I LOVE war movies.

3. HD is definetaly necessary for screens larger than 30".
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2006, 11:14 PM
 
If your eyeball can't discern more than a million pixels, the only way you're going to benefit from HD is by either moving your head back and forth, or zooming in on little parts of the picture. Older people often have deteriorating vision, and they would never do the above two things.

And just because someone's 8yo can tell the difference (especially on CGI movies) doesn't mean a 40-50-something can. And on movies where every pixel isn't deliberately added for content (read: live action movies), HD doesn't necessarily add anything useful. The ideal "film," shot for content, or message, not eye candy, is resolution independent.

Not that it matters...if you want to buy "the best" TV, you're going to buy it. I have an 11' diagonal in my living room, but once I get into the story (or the funny), I'm not thinking about whether it looks fuzzy or not (on SD channels for instance), I'm thinking about the content.
     
villalobos
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2006, 11:24 PM
 
Speaking of Blue ray DVD, I was at the Samsung store on Columbus Circle today, watching Mission Impossible and Pearl Harbor. I noticed some 'graininess' in the picture, for lack of better words. Is tha common, or was it just due to the DVD/player/TV? (it was 1080p)

Also the special effects were very obvious to see due to the perfection of the rendered picture in contrast to the real picture which did not look as, well, 'perfect'. It was a little bit unsettling.
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2006, 11:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by villalobos View Post
Speaking of Blue ray DVD, I was at the Samsung store on Columbus Circle today, watching Mission Impossible and Pearl Harbor. I noticed some 'graininess' in the picture, for lack of better words. Is tha common, or was it just due to the DVD/player/TV? (it was 1080p)

Also the special effects were very obvious to see due to the perfection of the rendered picture in contrast to the real picture which did not look as, well, 'perfect'. It was a little bit unsettling.
Graininess may be part of the original source. ie. Film grain.

I can't say I analyzed that movie much though, cuz I hated that movie. I have no desire to watch it again in HD.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
If your eyeball can't discern more than a million pixels, the only way you're going to benefit from HD is by either moving your head back and forth, or zooming in on little parts of the picture. Older people often have deteriorating vision, and they would never do the above two things.

And just because someone's 8yo can tell the difference (especially on CGI movies) doesn't mean a 40-50-something can. And on movies where every pixel isn't deliberately added for content (read: live action movies), HD doesn't necessarily add anything useful. The ideal "film," shot for content, or message, not eye candy, is resolution independent.

Not that it matters...if you want to buy "the best" TV, you're going to buy it. I have an 11' diagonal in my living room, but once I get into the story (or the funny), I'm not thinking about whether it looks fuzzy or not (on SD channels for instance), I'm thinking about the content.
Just about anyone I've showed SD vs HD to, at any age, has immediately noticed the difference. Remember, 720x480 isn't even 350000 pixels.

BTW, Casablanca looks awesome in HD. The argument isn't content VS. image quality. The point is to have content AND image quality. However, DVD has enough image quality to be "good enough" for many people on some hardware. OTOH, if some content were truly resolution independent, many more would not hate VHS so much.
( Last edited by Eug Wanker; Dec 26, 2006 at 11:43 PM. )
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2006, 01:30 AM
 
Except that VHS is also noisy and you have to rewind it. And the tapes break, although DVDs get scratched too.
     
ink
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Except that VHS is also noisy and you have to rewind it. And the tapes break, although DVDs get scratched too.
I think that's the bottom line: DVDs offered many advantages over VHS:
  • Random Access
  • Better quality video
  • More than 2-channel audio
  • DVD Extras
  • JPEG/Picture Disc
  • MP3 CD Music
  • SMPEG/VCD (mostly for digital piracy*)
  • More compact library storage
  • Entire TV seasons in a small box (ever seen a Trekkie's VHS collection?)

HD/BR only offer
  • Better quality video
  • Better quality audio

Many of the functions of the early DVD player are being incorporated into DVR-like technology (Airport Express, TiVO, Hauppaug, etc.). I think it's a race to see if HD/BR can actually have a market before the DVR technologies deliver movies directly from the content providers.

*And don't underestimate the power of piracy to propel a platform.
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2006, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by villalobos View Post
Speaking of Blue ray DVD
Just a nit-pick. There is no such thing as "Blue ray DVD". It's called "Blu-ray", without the "DVD".


Originally Posted by ink View Post
HD/BR only offer
  • Better quality video
  • Better quality audio
HD DVD and Blu-ray also offer better extras and interactivity features (especially on HD DVD at the moment).

For example, I was watching the picture-in-picture commentary on the HD DVD for Mission Impossible: III. The commentaries are in small window in the corner of the video, with the full video playing in the background. It got to a point where commentators wanted to discuss something else outside the scenes playing... so they stopped the movie. Yes, my player stopped playing back the movie and went to another video. After that video was over, it went back to the movie where it had stopped to continue with the rest of the commentary.

Here is an example with another HD DVD.


Random Access
Better quality video
More than 2-channel audio
DVD Extras
JPEG/Picture Disc
MP3 CD Music
SMPEG/VCD (mostly for digital piracy*)
More compact library storage
Entire TV seasons in a small box (ever seen a Trekkie's VHS collection?)
I agree with some of this, but note that MP3 and JPEG support aren't part of the DVD spec, and most DVD players don't play MP3 or JPEG CDs. VCD is also not part of the spec, and only some North American players support it. Also, VHS includes Dolby Surround. While Dolby Surround nowhere near as good as DD 5.1 for surround, it's more than plain 2-channel. Also, VHS was sometimes considered superior for stereo, compared to Dolby 2.0 on DVD. In fact, I used to use my VHS player for compilation tapes for parties, because the quality was better than cassette, and there were no recording options on DVD.
( Last edited by Eug Wanker; Dec 30, 2006 at 03:46 PM. )
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:54 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,