smcd
Active member
Both use AACS to "protect" content as far as I know.
DVD a Next-Gen rival?
- Thread starter Doomulation
- Start date
Both use AACS to "protect" content as far as I know.
General Plot
Britchie Crazy
If you don't have first hand experience (actually used one), which I have, then you can't give an honest impression. The only thing you're able to do is use rumors and draw your own conclusions to bash a technology that you have no real knowledge of.Doomulation said:
HD-DVD is slow, very slow (loading a movie on my PC takes about 2 minutes to actually start). Blu Ray is much closer to the speed of loading a standard DVD.I don't really consider it a need, but then, the same could be said for other technologies. Getting right down to it, we don't need DVD, there's still video tape, but DVD is better. We don't need CD-R's, we still have cassettes. The reason for using HD-DVD/Blu Ray is that it is an improvement over DVD (just as DVD is an improvement over video tape). We don't need it, but it is nice.WhiteX said:
OP
Doomulation
?????????????????????????
- Thread Starter
- #23
I'm also concerned over the overall speed of the player, the time it takes to access menus, change settings, and so on... As we would have it, some electronics are really slow.If you don't have first hand experience (actually used one), which I have, then you can't give an honest impression. The only thing you're able to do is use rumors and draw your own conclusions to bash a technology that you have no real knowledge of.
They say you need a TV of 40 inch or more to realize the benefit of HDTV. Maybe more. I don't have an HD TV nor a TV of that size so I can't say...
But DVD had more advantages over VHS, as well (like no degradation of quality over time?)... But let's not get into a debate...
General Plot
Britchie Crazy
That's the nice thing about both formats: you can access the menus while the movie is playing without having to stop it. This lets you change settings, etc.. without the need to go back to a menu screen.Doomulation said:
Well, I'm not sure where you heard that. Even on my 15 inch monitor I can clearly see the difference.Doomulation said:
Niggy G
HTAFC will rise again!!!
Yes if you’re up close looking at the monitor for the differences, but if you’re sitting in the lounge watching a normal say 28" TV then you wouldn't be able to see the differences unless your eyesight was excellent (unrealistically excellent). You’d be able to see the differences when you start using a larger TV. Maybe 40"+.
You especially wouldn't notice the differences between 720p and 1080i/p untill you were using a larger TV.
OP
Doomulation
?????????????????????????
- Thread Starter
- #26
Well, I suppose that it depends on the distance to your TV and your perception of quality. There are several sites that says you need a big TV for HD to pay off.
General Plot
Britchie Crazy
Niggy G said:
You don't need a big monitor/TV to see that fine details (leaves on trees, blades of grass, strands of hair, etc...) tend to get muddied up with DVD. I think that's a common misconception that alot of people have that believe that HD is only beneficial on large screens. I don't have killer eyesight, I don't sit 3 inches in front of my monitor, I just watch films as I always have, and the difference is astonishing. I'll try to make some comparison shots later on for you so you can see what I'm talking about.Doomulation said:
OP
Doomulation
?????????????????????????
- Thread Starter
- #28
Some people just don't give notice to such details. As stated, you need to be one who really craves quality to notice such things. Maybe it's obvious to YOU, but it isn't necessarily to others.
But sure, go ahead and give some shots and let's see if difference is noticable on smaller screens.
But sure, go ahead and give some shots and let's see if difference is noticable on smaller screens.
OP
Doomulation
?????????????????????????
- Thread Starter
- #30
Well, HD material must be in HD after all. Downsizing them will lose image detail. But comparing these images as fitting to your monitor should be all needed to compare.
OP
Doomulation
?????????????????????????
- Thread Starter
- #31
What's this I sniffed up?
Are they drunk or are they right?
http://tech.uk.msn.com/features/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4370234&wa=wsignin1.0
Are they drunk or are they right?
http://tech.uk.msn.com/features/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4370234&wa=wsignin1.0
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=811102&page=1&pp=30
the 2nd page shows better comparison shots. The difference in quality is quite noticeable.
OP
Doomulation
?????????????????????????
- Thread Starter
- #34
From what I see, in the stretched DVD pictures, the details seem washed out, while the HD images aren't. This, I would expect. But then again, this isn't quite a fair test. Why not? Let me explain:
First factor is the screen size. The bigger the screen, the bigger the picture and the more washed out the picture will be. So if you have a small TV, you wouldn't notice as much.
The second issue is that those images aren't stretched to the resolution of the monitor. Considering I've got a big one with HD resolution (1920 x 1200), the results are quite clear. But for those that have less than that - say 1024 x 768, the comparison is unfair. This is because the point above. You wouldn't see HALF the image on your TV. It would be downsized to fit.
We're not discussing if HD is better quality or not, but if the quality is noticeable on smaller TVs (or monitors).
And lastly, the distance to the TV matters. If you're far away, then those details will matter less.
I know it's hard to do a real comparison, but if one takes these factors into mind... then maybe it's a little easier.
A fair test might be to take two samples of a clip. One SD and one HD. Output one first, then the other and compare the results. 'Course, it can also be difficult since to do a real comparison, an HDTV should be had. Otherwise the HD resolution is thrown to waste. And a smaller TV too, would be required.
Or maybe I'm just rambling. Maybe a monitor will do. With images, both HD and SD, scaled to fit the screen size. Though it should have HD resolutions, which isn't quite so available on smaller monitors.
General Plot
Britchie Crazy
I know I'm VERY late with this, I had hardware stability issues with my last motherboard which kept me from being able to do anything very demanding on my system (piece of advice: avoid AsRock at all costs.). I finally replaced the motherboard and got a more reliable video card. So, better late than never, here's some shots I took from a Blu Ray movie (SWAT). Keep in mind these are in very high quality PNG format and are not recommended for you dial-uppers. Size it to your monitor's size and see if you really think that a DVD played back on your PC could deliver this kind of quality (be sure to be honest with yourself).
). I finally replaced the motherboard and got a more reliable video card. So, better late than never, here's some shots I took from a Blu Ray movie (SWAT). Keep in mind these are in very high quality PNG format and are not recommended for you dial-uppers. Size it to your monitor's size and see if you really think that a DVD played back on your PC could deliver this kind of quality (be sure to be honest with yourself).
OP
Doomulation
?????????????????????????
- Thread Starter
- #36
But the thing is, all I see is high-def images. If you'd provide the same images on a DVD sample, I could do a better comparison.
But besides that, HD on regular DVD is possible due to the new layer technology. So therefore, HD-DVD or Blu-ray is kinda moot.
Although, an HD-DVD drive for your PC is kind of cheap right now. Affordable. If you have a PC (and a high-def monitor or TV), then you could invest in one if you need HD right now. Otherwise it's still worth waiting.
But besides that, HD on regular DVD is possible due to the new layer technology. So therefore, HD-DVD or Blu-ray is kinda moot.
Although, an HD-DVD drive for your PC is kind of cheap right now. Affordable. If you have a PC (and a high-def monitor or TV), then you could invest in one if you need HD right now. Otherwise it's still worth waiting.
General Plot
Britchie Crazy
As you said earlier in this thread, all you would need to do is resize the images to your monitor, remember? In case you forgot, check screenshot. As for DVD samples, I don't have this on DVD, but anyone who's watched a DVD on their PC will know it doesn't look nearly as good as this. Would seem to me that would be a fair comparison, since you wouldn't be looking at them in full size, but rather the size it takes to fill your monitor.Doomulation said:
You still can't get anywhere near as high a bitrate (which really is important with HD) on a standard DVD, no matter what compression techniques are used. It will never look as good as HD-DVD/Blu Ray can.Doomulation said:
For me (and many others), getting the ability to play these back in a PS3 is the way to go now (which is sorta like when many gamers didn't have DVD players, they could rely on their PS2). Add the price of an HD-DVD drive to the price of an X360, and it will match the P3's price. Look for a Blu Ray player at the stores these days, and they will cost the same or more than a PS3 (just like DVD player prices were the same as a PS2 when the PS2 came out).Doomulation said:
Last edited:
OP
Doomulation
?????????????????????????
- Thread Starter
- #38
You're right. I see them fill the screen. But I don't really have anything to compare against. Maybe you could just take any DVD, take a screenshot and put them up for comparison? It's not perfect, but if your point is right, we should see the extra detail on the HD images, should our monitors be able to handle such high resolution.As you said earlier in this thread, all you would need to do is resize the images to your monitor, remember? In case you forgot, check screenshot. As for DVD samples, I don't have this on DVD, but anyone who's watched a DVD on their PC will know it doesn't look nearly as good as this. Would seem to me that would be a fair comparison, since you wouldn't be looking at them in full size, but rather the size it takes to fill your monitor.
Really? I can do some math for you. When encoding a movie with H264, you will want about 0.2 bits/pixel. That means resolution x FPS x bits/pixel / 1000 = 1080 x 1920 x 30 x 0.2 / 1000 = 12441,6 kbps. That means that about 12500 kbps is enough to encode an HD movie. How much space is that? Let's do some more math. Bitrate / 8 x (length of movie, in seconds) = 12500 / 8 xYou still can't get anywhere near as high a bitrate (which really is important with HD) on a standard DVD, no matter what compression techniques are used. It will never look as good as HD-DVD/Blu Ray can.
10800 (three hours worth of seconds) = 16 875 000 bytes = 16,09325408935546875 GB.
So yes, a good-looking movie will take about 16 GB of space. A 5.1 DTS track takes about 750 MB for a 2h25m movie. Plenty of space? Yes.
And when they can increase that space even more, I think it will be plenty. And we don't need uncompressed audio or lossless video.
Unfortunately, yes... The 360 is way overpriced and so is the HD-DVD drive. Heck, any Microsoft accessory to that box is overpriced. $100 for a 20 GB drive, or $180 for 120 GB (I think)?
We much ask why Blu-ray outsells HD-DVD. Is it because Blu-ray sells more players? No. Last I checked, HD-DVD players outsold Blu-ray players. Why then? Because of the PS3. Usually, many would get the PS3 for anything but the Blu-ray (or so I believe), but they get a BD for free... and if you have an HDTV, hey, why not use your player?
But you must also remember that the players haven't matured yet. Managed Copy has just been finished or is being finalized. And the BD spec isn't finished yet either. It makes me wonder if there are movies that won't play on the PS3 one day.
DVD, on the other hand, is a proven format. You buy a multi-layer one and you'll gauranteed it will work. It's my take on the whole anyway.
And one day, the PS3's price will drop. Oh and remember how buggy (or poor video) many complained the PS2's DVD had? Of course I cannot say the same for the PS3 as I don't know, but I do believe that once players on the market mature, they'll be far better than the PS3's player.
But we'll see...
General Plot
Britchie Crazy
All anyone would need to do is play back a movie (any of their choosing for that matter) and take a screenshot. Almost all DVD playback applications provide a screenshot utility. Then they (including you) could compare it to any movie they like.Doomulation said:
Right there your logic is flawed. The whole point of HD is a lossless quality in both picture and audio. Anyone real videophile would know that.Doomulation said:
That's what firmware updates are for.Doomulation said:
For now, that is just pure speculation. But you'll note that on newer versions of the PS2, DVD video playback is not an issue at all.Doomulation said:
Toasty
Sony battery
Not quite. None of the current HD discs (Blu-ray included) could ever hope to store a full-length HD movie losslessly. (Using lossless compression, a 50GB disc could only store 20-30 minutes of HD video at best.) The point of high-definition is just that - higher definition, characterized by a higher resolution picture.Right there your logic is flawed. The whole point of HD is a lossless quality in both picture and audio. Anyone real videophile would know that.