I was driven over the edge today by this column:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/12/sabataging-the-sony-playstation-three/

My comments are below, and in hindsight, they sound kind of douche-ey and annoying. But I just can't stand the misinformation out there!

So I am posting this here in the hopes that some of AVS's informed readers will restore my faith in internet humanity...

"Upscaled" DVD does not look "close" to 1080p! It just doesn't! It can't! It looks very nice when done well, but all it looks like is the best 480p you can get!

AAAAAGH!!!!!!

"Upscaled" DVD does not look "close" to 1080p! It just doesn't! It can't! It looks very nice when done well, but all it looks like is the best 480p you can get!

You're forgetting that a large part of the world has 576p instead of 480p.
Yes, there is a whole world outside of the US.

:D

"Upscaled" DVD does not look "close" to 1080p! It just doesn't! It can't! It looks very nice when done well, but all it looks like is the best 480p you can get!

Not a videophile article, but that's typical.

What you say is true. But there are factors that mitigate the superiority of HD over DVD:


Screen size and resolution with viewing distance. Not everyone can or wants to sit at the optimum distance. Farther away means loss of resolution.

The color and greyscale encoding. Blu-ray has more pixels but uses the same color gamut and greyscale depth as DVD. So those of us who were hoping for something more like a film experience are disappointed.

Quality of the source. This varies greatly in Blu-ray just as it does in DVD. It seemed to me that TERMINATOR 2 on Blu-ray had just a bit more actual resolution that the Extreme Edition on DVD, although the reduced edge enhancement of the Blu-ray also contributed to a better image. I didn't have DVD of RIO BRAVO to compare to the Blu-ray, but it is hard to believe that a good DVD version couldn't have matched that image.

Personal preferences. Some people are more demanding, others more accepting. Those who want old catalog titles tend to be accepting of what they can get, as the film sources of those titles can be in bad shape. Others "gotta have it" if there is even slightly more detail visible. To me, such improvements are not always essential. For example, I have FIREFLY on DVD and am renting the Blu-ray. Better? Sure. Essential upgrade? No, not for me, but that is personal choice given my viewing environment.

-Bill

Not a videophile article, but that's typical.

What you say is true. But there are factors that mitigate the superiority of HD over DVD:


Screen size and resolution with viewing distance. Not everyone can or wants to sit at the optimum distance. Farther away means loss of resolution.

The color and greyscale encoding. Blu-ray has more pixels but uses the same color gamut and greyscale depth as DVD. So those of us who were hoping for something more like a film experience are disappointed.

Quality of the source. This varies greatly in Blu-ray just as it does in DVD. It seemed to me that TERMINATOR 2 on Blu-ray had just a bit more actual resolution that the Extreme Edition on DVD, although the reduced edge enhancement of the Blu-ray also contributed to a better image. I didn't have DVD of RIO BRAVO to compare to the Blu-ray, but it is hard to believe that a good DVD version couldn't have matched that image.

Personal preferences. Some people are more demanding, others more accepting. Those who want old catalog titles tend to be accepting of what they can get, as the film sources of those titles can be in bad shape. Others "gotta have it" if there is even slightly more detail visible. To me, such improvements are not always essential. For example, I have FIREFLY on DVD and am renting the Blu-ray. Better? Sure. Essential upgrade? No, not for me, but that is personal choice given my viewing environment.

-Bill

In my comments within the article, I do mention screen size/viewing distance (that one met with particular vitriol) and color/contrast.

In my comments within the article, I do mention screen size/viewing distance (that one met with particular vitriol) and color/contrast.

Ah! I didn't look at the comments there. You seem to have covered it pretty well, although I have a hard time figuring out the comments on that page: who's saying what and in what order.

-Bill

I was driven over the edge today by this column:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/12/sabataging-the-sony-playstation-three/

My comments are below, and in hindsight, they sound kind of douche-ey and annoying. But I just can't stand the misinformation out there!

So I am posting this here in the hopes that some of AVS's informed readers will restore my faith in internet humanity...

"Upscaled" DVD does not look "close" to 1080p! It just doesn't! It can't! It looks very nice when done well, but all it looks like is the best 480p you can get!

AAAAAGH!!!!!!

While I agree with you, 'close' is a relative and subjective term. What is close for someone is night and day for someone else.

Depending on your display size and viewing distance, 1080p v. upconverted 480p may be close enough for many people from a viewing experience. I've had peopl think they were watching a movie in HD when it was SD upconverted. Had this happen many times since once the disc goes in my Blu Ray player they assume it is a Blu Ray they are watching, unless they see me putting in the disk.

Most people downloading MP3 from itunes feel it is close enough to CD quality. As far as I can tell...it drives the vinyl and audio buffs nuts in the same way!

I've got the Panny 50pz800u, panny 55k, and oppo 983. Blu ray is a better presentation IMO. I sit 9 feet away and I can tell a big difference in the movies I've watched.

just to name a few:

Transformers
Batman - TDK
Batman Begins
Blade runner
Wall-E
Hellboy II
Indiana Jones
Casino Royale

Yes, there are many variables to consider when comparing the two formats. Bottom Line, if you can, go Blu. The wait is over. You won't be disappointed. If you are a videophile and demand the best out of your DVD collection a great upscaling player is still justified. However, there is no rational arguement to make in terms of upscaled DVD being equal to Blu Ray in most instances. There are going to be some titles in our DVD movie collections that aren't worth upgrading to Blu (ala T2) but come on. I mean, have you seen Casino Royale or TDK in BLU. WOW!









he 983 still has a ton of value, but

I have two HDTV and two PS3s, and I love blu, but let's face it, unless your taste is new release mainstream movies there's very little to watch.

My initial enthusiasm for blu-ray has faded considerably due to the sluggish release schedule...especially of back catalog titles.

If your listening to an HTIB, MP3 sounds the same as CDs.

Similary, if you're watching a 42-inch screen from 10 feet away, there isn't going to be much of a visible difference between upconverted SD and actual HD.

I agree that "close" is a relative term on picture material. One of the happy wonders of our brains is our ability to put things together, at least as long as we're not face with a huge moire effect.

I imagine that most people don't compare two versions of the same transfer, one 480p and one 1080p (examples: the recent "Close Encounters" release, "The Prestige", the new "2001" remaster). But I have (much to my wife's chagrin), and it's not close. There's no objective or subjective about it. Close is the difference between a nice display calibrated properly displaying all the detail of a 1080p image, and a poor one which doesn't resolve all the detail of a 1080p image. Not close is the difference between 345,600 pixels and 2,073,600 pixels.

"Most people downloading MP3 from itunes feel it is close enough to CD quality. As far as I can tell...it drives the vinyl and audio buffs nuts in the same way!"

I never understood vinyl fans. It's an audio format that does not stay consistent with every play. It warps and if the needle isn't perfect you will get lots of excess noise. CD's are much clearer and if not scartched will sound exactly the same no matter how many times it's used.

Yes, there is no compression with vinyls, but the excess noise can be down right annoying and distracting to the overall audio experience.