StarDestroyer.Net BBS

chitoryu12 wrote:

Which size was that?

Around 38''. One was mine and the other was on display.

You'd have to sit pretty close to see a meaningful difference at that screen size.

General Zod wrote:

chitoryu12 wrote:
I will admit that there was a very obvious difference, but I have the movies on DVD, and when I use them in a standard TV, they look exactly like the HD shots he used.

Only because your brain is extrapolating the detail that should be there. Pause the picture and see if it's still that clear.

Which would mean that I would really only need HD if I want to take screencaps, which I have not only have no need for, but also have no idea how.

chitoryu12 wrote:And what games are in that resolution range? Every game I've tried for the Xbox 360, which is going somewhere in the two dozen range, worked perfectly and looked good on my TV. Besides, I don't watch TV that much anyway. I use it for playing games and watching DVDs. The only TV I watch is the Militay Channel, the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, and whatever channel is showing a show with Gordan Ramsay. Maybe I'll catch a random movie or two, though I usually end up buying any movie if I like it enough to watch it on TV.

The games could really look a lot better, even if you think they look fine now, where "fine" is just some level you'd decided is "good enough" and entirely arbitrary.. The "I don't really care about details" thing is a subjective opinion - sure, you might not care between Quake II's graphics and that of Crysis either, but the difference's there.

General Zod wrote:

chitoryu12 wrote:I will admit that there was a very obvious difference, but I have the movies on DVD, and when I use them in a standard TV, they look exactly like the HD shots he used.

Only because your brain is extrapolating the detail that should be there. Pause the picture and see if it's still that clear.

Uhm, I'm going to have to call bullshit on those pictures.

That page wrote:Surprisingly, even at DVD-resolution the HD source features more detail.

Now, what does this tell us? That either his DVDs suck (ie. they display less detail than they are capable of), or his capturing software sucks, or he deliberately blurred the images. Here's a quick comparison between the DVD, and the HD images of Star Wars Uraniun posted in AMP (DVD is on top):

The difference is that the DVD has slightly different brightness and contrast (and also some JPEG compression artefacts, since I didn't bother taking a new picture). Suffice to say that the difference is nowhere near that shown on that page. They look more like a VHS to DVD comparison.

Why do those two pictures have the same resolution? HD has far more resolution than 480p DVD - that's the POINT.

Furthermore, even if Star Wars doesn't benefit, that says nothing about the Lord of the Rings clips. To say that all old movies will turn HD is a straw man - the claim being dealt with is that the HD difference cannot be seen under almost all circumstances.

Dooey Jo wrote: Now, what does this tell us? That either his DVDs suck (ie. they display less detail than they are capable of), or his capturing software sucks, or he deliberately blurred the images. Here's a quick comparison between the DVD, and the HD images of Star Wars Uraniun posted in AMP (DVD is on top):
>snip<[/URL]
The difference is that the DVD has slightly different brightness and contrast (and also some JPEG compression artefacts, since I didn't bother taking a new picture). Suffice to say that the difference is nowhere near that shown on that page. They look more like a VHS to DVD comparison.

Were those resized in Paint? That hardly seems like a good way of making a comparison unless both are captured on the same device at an identical resolution.

Just look at the Rivendell shot, the difference between the two is HUGE. I understand that some people just can't afford a new TV, but the HD shot of Rivendell is pretty amazing. I know it’s totally subjective, but I find it a little hard to believe that you’ve sat through something like an episode of Planet Earth in 1080i or p and weren’t impressed.

Ypoknons wrote:Why do those two pictures have the same resolution? HD has far more resolution than 480p DVD - that's the POINT.

Read first please. That page claimed that downscaled HD looks better than regular DVD. That would require sub-pixel information (which is impossible), or that the DVDs used does not look as good as they could, making the page misleading. He's using a widescreen DVD too, I see, which explains some (DVD resolution is always 720 pixels horizontally, it has to be stretched for widescreen).

Furthermore, even if Star Wars doesn't benefit, that says nothing about the Lord of the Rings clips.

It's not that Star Wars doesn't benefit from HD, it's that LotR apparently doesn't benefit from DVD.

To say that all old movies will turn HD is a straw man - the claim being dealt with is that the HD difference cannot be seen under almost all circumstances.

Comparing images on a computer screen is not very meaningful for that anyway. You don't sit ten feet away from your computer screen.

General Zod wrote:Were those resized in Paint? That hardly seems like a good way of making a comparison unless both are captured on the same device at an identical resolution.

No, Photoshop. What do you mean "same device"?

Dooey Jo wrote:

General Zod wrote:Were those resized in Paint? That hardly seems like a good way of making a comparison unless both are captured on the same device at an identical resolution.

No, Photoshop. What do you mean "same device"?

As in the same source. If one set of images was taken from a massive HD screen and the other from a tiny 30" set, then it's hardly a useful comparison. They should be captured from the same player if you want an accurate level of comparison. Also, photoshopping the images to resize them strikes me as a bad tactic, given it fucks up the native resolution and distorts the quality.

General Zod wrote:

Dooey Jo wrote:No, Photoshop. What do you mean "same device"?

As in the same source. If one set of images was taken from a massive HD screen and the other from a tiny 30" set, then it's hardly a useful comparison. They should be captured from the same player if you want an accurate level of comparison. Also, photoshopping the images to resize them strikes me as a bad tactic, given it fucks up the native resolution and distorts the quality.

What are you talking about? The images were taken on a computer, which does not care about screen size or resolution. That I resized the HD shot was to show that that page's comparison was flawed. HD does not magically add sub-pixel information at DVD resolution.

Dooey Jo wrote: What are you talking about? The images were taken on a computer, which does not care about screen size or resolution. That I resized the HD shot was to show that that page's comparison was flawed. HD does not magically add information at DVD resolution.

Which images were taken on the computer? The HD images or the DVD images? Because on a small screen you just won't notice the difference. The photoshopping strikes me as potentially dishonest since we're not getting an accurate comparison. I'm also not sure how it shows that the page's comparison is flawed by resizing them.

General Zod wrote:

Dooey Jo wrote:What are you talking about? The images were taken on a computer, which does not care about screen size or resolution. That I resized the HD shot was to show that that page's comparison was flawed. HD does not magically add information at DVD resolution.

Which images were taken on the computer? The HD images or the DVD images?

Uh, both? How else are you supposed to take a screencap of something? With a camera?

Because on a small screen you just won't notice the difference. The photoshopping strikes me as potentially dishonest since we're not getting an accurate comparison. I'm also not sure how it shows that the page's comparison is flawed by resizing them.

Because it claims that even at DVD resolution, the HD still looks better, which means that his DVDs are not as good as they could be. It's the exact same technique he used on the page, only I show that at DVD resolution, they look the same.

Ypoknons wrote:

chitoryu12 wrote:And what games are in that resolution range? Every game I've tried for the Xbox 360, which is going somewhere in the two dozen range, worked perfectly and looked good on my TV. Besides, I don't watch TV that much anyway. I use it for playing games and watching DVDs. The only TV I watch is the Militay Channel, the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, and whatever channel is showing a show with Gordan Ramsay. Maybe I'll catch a random movie or two, though I usually end up buying any movie if I like it enough to watch it on TV.

The games could really look a lot better, even if you think they look fine now, where "fine" is just some level you'd decided is "good enough" and entirely arbitrary.. The "I don't really care about details" thing is a subjective opinion - sure, you might not care between Quake II's graphics and that of Crysis either, but the difference's there.

If it's a subjective opinion, why would I need to buy HD if I think my games look good enough already? And the Quake II vs. Crysis is a retarded comparison. Whereas HD vs. standard is hardly that different, Quake II looks loads worse than Crysis.

Uhm, I'm going to have to call bullshit on those pictures.

That was going to be my second guess after a shitty TV.

InnocentBystander wrote:Just look at the Rivendell shot, the difference between the two is HUGE. I understand that some people just can't afford a new TV, but the HD shot of Rivendell is pretty amazing. I know it’s totally subjective, but I find it a little hard to believe that you’ve sat through something like an episode of Planet Earth in 1080i or p and weren’t impressed.

Considering that to my eyes it looks just like my normal TV, I still don't have a reason to buy HD.

InnocentBystander wrote:Just look at the Rivendell shot, the difference between the two is HUGE. I understand that some people just can't afford a new TV, but the HD shot of Rivendell is pretty amazing. I know it’s totally subjective, but I find it a little hard to believe that you’ve sat through something like an episode of Planet Earth in 1080i or p and weren’t impressed.

That's an entirely different issue. When I look at a screen to actually learn about things I don't understand, of course I want as much detail and resolution as possible.

What does that have to do with watching a movie or a fictional/re-enacted television show? I don't think half of the broadcast is going to turn into Planet Earth or a football game.

Dooey Jo wrote:Now, what does this tell us? That either his DVDs suck (ie. they display less detail than they are capable of), or his capturing software sucks, or he deliberately blurred the images.

What the fuck are you blathering about? DVDs have a maximum bit rate of 9.8 Mbit/s. If there's too much motion or detail to capture at that rate, it won't be captured and there's nothing the DVD author can do about it. Given the full 8.5 GB, that's 115 minutes of video. This is more than half the length of tFotR Extended Edition, so that's already compressed at the highest quality that can be managed.

I just checked the first shot against my copy of the DVD, and his DVD shot matches the quality I see.

Here's a quick comparison between the DVD, and the HD images of Star Wars Uraniun posted in AMP (DVD is on top):

http://img223.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... ompef5.jpg

The difference is that the DVD has slightly different brightness and contrast (and also some JPEG compression artefacts, since I didn't bother taking a new picture). Suffice to say that the difference is nowhere near that shown on that page. They look more like a VHS to DVD comparison.

Those screen caps have relatively little motion (including a fixed camera), no fine detail, and are filled with easy-to-compress almost-featureless black. And there's less visible differences than in scenes with (in many cases) full motion and many fine details covering most of the frame? No shit. Of course the DVD is going to look good with a shot like that; there's not enough information to cause real compression loss at DVD rates.