A visual comparison of DVD to HD display quality

[DofD]

If anyone is interested in what the actual visual quality improvement of an HD movie over that of a DVD movie is. Here is an interesting link that I came across.

http://www.cornbread.org/FOTRCompare/index.html

It uses Fellowship of the Ring as it's example.

I thought I would put this thread here since it will apply to Blu-Ray.

[Backlash]

Very interesting. That will be nice for me once the price of the players comes down. And LOTR will definitely be one of the titles I get in HD.

[D3adcell]

Seems like all HD does is add better coloration. Doesn't really warrant a purchase of a 500$ player to me.

If it was an improvement like SD TV channels vs HD TV channels then that would be big, but it doesn't seem as big of a leap. SD TV is usually kind of grainy though anyways.

[Dralor]

Shot 6 shows a lot more deatail on the trees and cliff face but it's sort of hit and miss with the shots.

[Backlash]

It makes things sharper. Lookie how in shot 10 you can see all the... crevices on blue guy's skin. The best part will be the better colors though.

[err_ok]

That is rather cool :-D

[frosty]

there is a significant increase in detail in all of the shots, and you all have to keep in mind that although on your computer monitor the difference may look minor, when displayed on a 60 inch screen the difference is night and day.

[VG Aficionado]

I knew Blu-ray and HDDVD movies would always look better even in standard definition TV sets. This is the proof, and wait until more people have the chance to compare DVD and HD formats on 720p and 1080i/p TV sets.

[Freeman_JI]

Wow that's really nice, the HD stream really brings out fine details like the Leaves on trees, the crevices on mountains ect.

but is it $1000AU better... hell no esp when HD-DVD and BLUE-R movies are going to cost $45AU a piece as well.

[cliffbo]

whats all the fuss, my DVD player looks a far better quality than these scans. in fact i would say better than the suposed HD scans! your being fooled by the comparisons. HD is going to be a lot better than this.

[DofD]

That may be true, but what sort of display processing is your DVD player doing to the original display information. It also depends on what ones TV is capable of. Also, one needs to look at the fine detail which just doesn't exist in DVD versions in comparison to HD.

I've done some visual comparisons between my DVD player (Denon 5900) and the digital HD channels, and the HD channels are still better.

[Fats]

How accurate of a comparison is this?

[DofD]

How accurate is your vision?

[Fats]

Oh. Well, in that case. :beer:

[pac4life]

Yep, good comparison

But not too different from Progressive Scan....with video games HD vs progressive scan is a noticible difference

with Dvd's its not really that big of a difference

But the big thing with the next gen discs is the ammount of data they can hold.

[DofD]

Actually the DVD images could be considered p scan images as they aren't suffering from loss of sharpness inherent to interlace scanning. Progressive scan doesn't increase the level of detail in a raw image only more image data can do that which HD images have, a lot more data. All p scan does is it improve the sharpness of the original picture data.

HD picture resolutions are either 2.7 (720p) times or 6 (1080i/p) times the resolution of DVD.

When comparing DVD video to HD video one has to take into account the source material and what resolution it was originally created in. If you take a SD recorded image, display it in HD and expect it to look as good as a HD recorded image, displayed in HD, you're in for a surprise.

[frosty]

All p scan does is it improve the sharpness of the original picture data.

Although true, progressive scan does a lot more than that. Being as it displays the whole frame rather than only the even or odd fields, it eliminates interlace flicker, artifacts, and reduces jitter.

[Dorbin]

D3ad, look again. Not only is the coloration better, but there is more detail in literally every shot...both in the foreground and background. I'm not a rabid HD lover or Audio/Video geek, but going by those comparison, the difference is clearly there.

[Lucent Beam]

I think it looks significantly better.. but I still wouldn't pay any extra money to see it that clearer.

[frosty]

All you have to do is make the images as large as they would appear on a 50 inch or higher TV and you can see the difference clearly. Also, this isn't a good example. The HD pics are not 1920x1080 resolution. They are, but the image is letterboxed, so there are wasted pixels. A lot of them. I made a side by side comparison to show the difference anyway.

http://www.baysidevideoproductions.com/comparison thumb.jpg (http://www.baysidevideoproductions.com/comparison.jpg)

[shaka]

my tv where i play my games is from the late 80's , i think i will buy a new tv when i buy my ps3 x-mas this year. it will probably be a 30+ inch the old style one,not the slim or lcd, hope prices are down by then.

im not very much into the graphics thing ,i just want to buy PS3 to play all my favorites games. and maybe buy new movies on BLU-RAY and UMD bungles.

[lips]

ok, because both pictures are same resolution, it really tells us absolutely nothing. if you really are impressed, then you might be interested in DVD upscaling technology, but this has nothing to do with hd-dvd or blu ray. I could get the same effect buy playing a dvd, and adjusting the tv's 'sharpness' to max. No ones going to say 'oh, did you get high def?' or maybe I would. I dunno. carry on.

[frosty]

Both pics resolutions are not the same. One is 720x480 upscaled to 1920x1080 (kinda) and the other is (kinda) 1080p. Neither is actually 1080p, since the "1080p" image is letterboxed, and thus resolution is lost.

[lips]

Both pics resolutions are not the same. One is 720x480 upscaled to 1920x1080 (kinda) and the other is (kinda) 1080p. Neither is actually 1080p, since the "1080p" image is letterboxed, and thus resolution is lost.

both pictures are the same size on my monitor. Because computer monitors are digital pixels, any two images that are the same size, are the same resolution.

Also, I wanted to point out you get the same effect if you open a photo in photo shop and use 'sharpen' on the image. This has no change on picture size and resolution; although, these are the same thing on a computer monitor.

[frosty]

You are quite off. And technically there is no such thing as a "digital pixel"... I guess you could call it that if you were using a DVI connection or something, but either way, a pixel is a pixel. And yes, they are both the same size, but, one of them has had it's 345,600 pixels stretched to fill a 2,073,600 pixel image, and the other actually has the full two million pixels making up the image. It's the same thing as taking a tiny thumbnail of an image, and blowing it up full screen. What happens? You can see the individual pixels and it looks like crap. This is also the case with the standard definition image that has been stretched to fill a 1920x1080 image. Look at the comparison image I posted on the last page. The background image is from the DVD copy, and I zoomed in on the face and put the SD and HD copies side by side. You can clearly tell the difference. Any two images that are the same size are NOT the same resolution. The resolution of the souce of the image is what determines it's resolution, regardless of what size you try to stretch it to, a 720x480 image is going to be exactly that. The only difference is that the pixels will be stretched and made bigger, thus being more visible. Take a look at this example. The image on the left contains 6 times the number of pixels as the one on the right, which is the same difference between DVD and HD resolution. Although both are the exact same size on your monitor, which one looks better? Obviously the one that had 6 times the number of pixels from the start, vs. the one who only had 1/6 of the pixels but was resized to make both image sizes equal.

http://www.baysidevideoproductions.com/example.jpg

Now sure, the difference between the DVD and HD copy of LOTR isn't as dramatic, but as I said before, that guys method of capturing the images is flawed. I will post a true DVD to HD comparison shot from some HD footage I shot myself to illustrate the difference. This is taken from one of my wedding videos, I had to make both a high def version and a standard def DVD version for this girl. Here are side by side snapshots from each version. The top is the DVD, the bottom is the 1080p HD version.

http://www.baysidevideoproductions.com/hdvssd1.jpg

[SuperLuigiBros]

When i watch a DVD it doesnt look like a shitty jpeg, like those dvd pics. Thus, I care not for HD. Ill wait till I see it in person, then maybe Ill be more impressed.

[frosty]

Even as "shitty jpegs" the HD images still look miles better. And when you see it in motion HD too looks much better than in stills.

[Rai]

there is still quite a difference...in motion, there probably will be a greater difference

[lips]

You are quite off. And technically there is no such thing as a "digital pixel"... I guess you could call it that if you were using a DVI connection or something, but either way, a pixel is a pixel. And yes, they are both the same size, but, one of them has had it's 345,600 pixels stretched to fill a 2,073,600 pixel image, and the other actually has the full two million pixels making up the image. It's the same thing as taking a tiny thumbnail of an image, and blowing it up full screen. What happens? You can see the individual pixels and it looks like crap. This is also the case with the standard definition image that has been stretched to fill a 1920x1080 image. Look at the comparison image I posted on the last page. The background image is from the DVD copy, and I zoomed in on the face and put the SD and HD copies side by side. You can clearly tell the difference. Any two images that are the same size are NOT the same resolution. The resolution of the souce of the image is what determines it's resolution, regardless of what size you try to stretch it to, a 720x480 image is going to be exactly that. The only difference is that the pixels will be stretched and made bigger, thus being more visible. Take a look at this example. The image on the left contains 6 times the number of pixels as the one on the right, which is the same difference between DVD and HD resolution. Although both are the exact same size on your monitor, which one looks better? Obviously the one that had 6 times the number of pixels from the start, vs. the one who only had 1/6 of the pixels but was resized to make both image sizes equal.

http://www.baysidevideoproductions.com/example.jpg

Now sure, the difference between the DVD and HD copy of LOTR isn't as dramatic, but as I said before, that guys method of capturing the images is flawed. I will post a true DVD to HD comparison shot from some HD footage I shot myself to illustrate the difference. This is taken from one of my wedding videos, I had to make both a high def version and a standard def DVD version for this girl. Here are side by side snapshots from each version. The top is the DVD, the bottom is the 1080p HD version.

http://www.baysidevideoproductions.com/hdvssd1.jpg

huh?

720x480 image is going to be exactly that.

Bingo.

[chrismt]

http://www.baysidevideoproductions.com/example.jpg


Alas we find the source of his power. One ring to....

[frosty]

huh?

Too much tech talk for you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by frosty
720x480 image is going to be exactly that.


Bingo.

I'm not sure of what you are getting at here.... care to elaborate? I was stating that if you start with a DVD quality image, but upscale it to a HD resolution, it does not gain any resolution. It gains more pixels, but only by stretching the origional pixels to fill the new ones, so the image does not gain any more clarity. When you have an image that was captured in HD resolution, it has every single one of the 2 million pixels right there in the source, and as the above image illustrates, provides a clearly visible difference in image quality.

[lips]

Too much tech talk for you?

That must be it.


I'm not sure of what you are getting at here.... care to elaborate? I was stating that if you start with a DVD quality image, but upscale it to a HD resolution, it does not gain any resolution. It gains more pixels, but only by stretching the origional pixels to fill the new ones, so the image does not gain any more clarity. When you have an image that was captured in HD resolution, it has every single one of the 2 million pixels right there in the source, and as the above image illustrates, provides a clearly visible difference in image quality.

Listen man, you and everyone else might be fooled, but I know that if you are trying to prove that pictures with more pixels are better looking by showing two pictures with the same number of pixels, something is wrong. Two pictures with same number of pixels have the same number of pixels. (this is what is used as 'resolution' here.) The article says he may have used the most advance pixel upscaling available, but both pictures have the same pixel count, as I am looking at them. So, I honestly cannot agree either one can show any improvement by having more pixels, or 'resolution' as used here, as both pictures have exactly the same pixel count on my monitor.

[Backlash]

In a browser you can resize an image by saying <img src="whatever.jpg" height="whatever" width="whatever">

In doing this, you aren't changing the resolution of the picture, just the dimensions. When an HD DVD player (Blu Ray, whatever) upscales a normal DVD it's like having a monitor running in 800x600 resolution with an image at 640x480, and running the <img src> thing so that the image is now 800x600. Now, if you blow up an image on a computer, it looks blurry when you look close, but if you look at an image that's in it's native resolution, it looks crisp and clear.

That's all upscaling does. It can't magically add in pixels that aren't there, otherwise we wouldn't have HD DVD players.

[frosty]

You completley missed the point Lips. You're the one who has been fooled here into thinking that you can stretch a 360k pixels to fill a 2 million pixel image and they it will look the same when compared to a true 2 million pixel image. The reason they have both been made the same size is to illustrate how much of a difference there would be if you played both back to back on the same TV. When you watch an HDTV that is getting a SDTV signal (such as a DVD), you aren't seeing the image in HD, it's just stretching the 720x480image to fill the 2 million pixels it displays on the screen.

[bwlove02]

very cool.

[CreativeWriter]

Luddites, all of you ;).

Whether or not the comparison is valid and accurate to what blu-ray will look like I'm entirely convinced that the upgrade will be significant and worth it (I already have an HD set just waiting for some content... don't have digital cable). Maybe 1000 bucks isn't worth it, but you don't have to pay that much. PS3 is coming and will look just fine on your SD set.

[Yo MaMa84]

Listen, HD movies wont cost $45, i've seen a couple at my job, and they are $24.99....the regular price of a normal DVD.
The diference between SD and HD is like night and day, and sitting here comparing pictures of SD and HD shots on your non-HD monitor is silly. Trust me you'll hardly see a difference.

Just go into an electronics store that sells HD sets and look at the demo on their sets. You'll see the difference.

[frosty]

Yes, it is silly to compare HD shots on a non HD monitor, but you can do like i did and take a portion of an HD shot and a portion of a SD show and zoom in on them for an accurate quality comparison.