http://www.consumermachine.com/images/Subjective_Quality_Chart.png

The chart above shows subjective picture quality. It is anchored between the quality of an average VHS copy of footage and the original master of that same footage. In between I list the subjective quality of various content distribution methods. These represent my own subjective estimates. Obviously the relative position of these points is up for debate but there's no real answer so let's not take it too seriously (subjective estimates = arguing over a few percentage points of placement is pointless). I would love to hear if you *very strongly* disagree with the placement of anything above, but please keep in mind we are just sharing two differing opinions: there is no right or wrong when things are at this level of estimation. The chart is not meant to be correct so much as raise issues:

- What is the subjective difference between all these distribution methods? Is the jump to HD the last great jump and everything else will be relatively minor variation?

- Are the returns between "average" equipment and "high-end" equipment increasingly diminishing? How much money is that extra 1-4% quality increase actually worth to you?

- Is there a certain level on this graph where convenience starts becoming much more important than quality? (Convenience = downloads, decreased load time, etc.).

- Relative to the master (and the limits of human perception), how much quality improvement is really left? Are we soon going to hit the limits of 2D?

Here is the controversial statement I'll make in light of this global look at picture quality: At the high end of this scale, it's not really worth paying to have "the best" unless the monetary difference is truly trivial to you. Is it really worth $1000+ for a fraction of a percentage point in PQ? At my current income level, I think the answer is "no", and quite frankly I'd rather see a convenience increase (like drastically reduced load times) than an infinitessimal PQ increase for the money.

(Chart detail: I have only viewed DVHS once for 5 minutes so I pretty much guessed, and I have absolutely no experience with OTA HD so I did not include it)

The only thing I would change from first glance would be to push everything from D-VHS on ward closer to the master. In my estimation, the average BD, HD DVD, and D VHS is very close to the master for most people and in most systems. The details we complain about are pretty nit-picky, and even an average D-VHS is probably about 95% as good as the master. For most people, the average HD DVD and BD title is indistinguishable from the master I would bet, meaning non-golden eyes would have to actively look for mistakes, and/or switch back and forth between sources to find any, and there would be very few mistakes attributed to the medium.

The only thing I would change from first glance would be to push everything from D-VHS on ward closer to the master. In my estimation, the average BD, HD DVD, and D VHS is very close to the master for most people and in most systems. The details we complain about are pretty nit-picky, and even an average D-VHS is probably about 95% as good as the master. For most people, the average HD DVD and BD title is indistinguishable from the master I would bet, meaning non-golden eyes would have to actively look for mistakes, and/or switch back and forth between sources to find any, and there would be very few mistakes attributed to the medium.

Yeah, I think that's the most ambiguous area on the graph as 99.9% of us just don't have enough experience with the masters to know how much room for improvement is left. One thing to consider is that although what I've shown is an essentially linear relation, in reality it's most assuredly non-linear (meaning that last gap between between format and master is the least noticable increase), which would agree with what you're saying perfectly.

Upconverted dvds should be much lower than that, especially the average. The 4k? is confusing. Should keep it in the realm of HD masters.

I you have a front projector and are watching your movies on a 100" diagonal screen, it's worth getting the best you can afford.

I find cinema to first and foremost be a visual medium, and I never understood getting a killer surround-sound system it your image is just coming out of a box off in a corner.

Never having seen a 2k or 4k master but taking the word that some 2k transfers are "transparent" to insiders, I would think the best HDM would be around 95% and 4k near 99%

Picture quality is the WHOLE reason I am buying HD discs over anything else.

HD discs, whether BD or HD DVD, should be the absolute finest version of a movie that you can buy.

That's why I am sticking with HD DVD, since it have, on the whole, delivered the best PQ of any format available to consumers.

And, from my experience, BD has regularly (TOO regularly, in my opinion) delivered movies that are actually inferior to the broadcast versions of the same movies.

So, YES, Picture Quality matters, it matters a LOT, in my view. And I think many folks here ARE here because it matters to them also.

Amen... :)

There's one entry missing: theatrical 35mm.

In my opinion, the average multiplex is slightly worse than HD DVD or Blu-ray. Projectors are badly adjusted, bulbs are worn, and prints are processed sloppily, often generations away from the negative. Optical hidef media give you a (compressed) rendition of the digital intermediate.

And, from my experience, BD has regularly (TOO regularly, in my opinion) delivered movies that are actually inferior to the broadcast versions of the same movies.)

That's absurd. Broadcast HD is filled with all sorts of artifacts - especially during heavy action. But by all means, let the shilling continue with impunity.

Picture quality is the WHOLE reason I am buying HD discs over anything else.

HD discs, whether BD or HD DVD, should be the absolute finest version of a movie that you can buy.

That's why I am sticking with HD DVD, since it have, on the whole, delivered the best PQ of any format available to consumers.

And, from my experience, BD has regularly (TOO regularly, in my opinion) delivered movies that are actually inferior to the broadcast versions of the same movies.

So, YES, Picture Quality matters, it matters a LOT, in my view. And I think many folks here ARE here because it matters to them also.

Amen... :)

There's been zero difference between Blu-ray and HD DVD when the same encodes, transfers, etc. have been used. It seems every studio has released some subpar releases. It's not a format issue per se, but a studio one.

Seems that the display(s) used for evaluation play a key role, although this 'global' view, averaging everything together--for example, DirecTV's so-called HDLite--is possible, too.

Many view 1080i/p material on on 720p displays, not seeing 1080i/p's boosted effective resolution (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5667245&&#post5667245) resulting from its doubled spatial resolution. Also, there are significant variations in video processing for fixed-pixel displays between brands/models, with many using resolution-robbing 540p bobbing, as Gary Merson's test outlined in three sublinks (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8649545#post8649545) shows.

The European union recently conducted tests (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10339268&&#post10339268) comparing several HD formats using a prototype 50" 1080p plasma display. They concluded 1080/50p or 60p would be suitable for home viewing as well as TV production.

That's an interesting evaluation chart above, although only formats are provided. For each format, a greatly boosted effective resolution (resolvable detail) is possible if oversampling and downconversion is used. For example, 1080/24p master tapes of telecined movies seem to typically provide only 800--1000 lines per HD picture width of equivalent effective resolution (see quotes/sublinks (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9314235&&#post9314235)), not 1920 equivalent lines that might be achieved with 4k downconversion and adequate bit rates. Whether use of 2k/4k digital-intermediate production recordings for HD discs, rather than reduced-resolution prints, makes a major difference in effective resolution hasn't been measured and published AFAIK. -- John

FWIW, I've seen some OTA HD broadcasts (live News broadcasts) that were better than any Cable broadcasts I've ever seen.
J

PQ matters to me up to a point but if you've seen Planet Earth on HD-DVD or Blu Ray then you've seen some of the limitations on getting quality HD footage in remote locations. The shots from helicoptors frequently have some sort of pulsing static.

But the footage on the screen is impressive enough to ignore all that.

I've seen some nice HD versions of older film movies and it comes to a point where all HD does for you is expose flaws in the actual film.

There's been zero difference between Blu-ray and HD DVD when the same encodes, transfers, etc. have been used. It seems every studio has released some subpar releases. It's not a format issue per se, but a studio one.

It is definitely a studio issue, that's for sure.

Picture quality is why I am on these forums. Good to see the HD formats compare closely to the original. I would also 'mark down' even the best upconverted DVDs, on a big enough display the difference is very noticeable.

I would also 'mark down' even the best upconverted DVDs, on a big enough display the difference is very noticeable.
Agreed.

You can directly compare DVD image quality against USA broadcast and HD-DVD in this thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=841459

Picture quality is the WHOLE reason I am buying HD discs over anything else.

HD discs, whether BD or HD DVD, should be the absolute finest version of a movie that you can buy.

That's why I am sticking with HD DVD, since it have, on the whole, delivered the best PQ of any format available to consumers.

And, from my experience, BD has regularly (TOO regularly, in my opinion) delivered movies that are actually inferior to the broadcast versions of the same movies.

So, YES, Picture Quality matters, it matters a LOT, in my view. And I think many folks here ARE here because it matters to them also.

Amen... :)

I'll repeat what an earlier poster has suggested; Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD support the same video codecs so every else being equal (same codec, same video bit rate, same TLC into the recording), the PQ will be the same for both formats.

I've actually had the pleasure of watching Blu-ray and HD-DVD on 126" 1080p display. Motion artifacts were more prevalent on VC-1 HD-DVDs than any of the Blu-Rays we were watching.. I checked the video bit rates for the movies we watched, and the HD-DVDs we watched consisently had lower video bitrates. It could have been an accident of the selected movies or the lower video bitrates due to the allegedly more efficient VC-1 compression algorithms results in compromises in PQ, even compared with MPEG-2 source material.

One of these days, I'll repeat the exercise with King Kong. Recently I got the movie as a demo HD-DVD discs but it's one of many in a recent HD movie buying binge.

I'm too busy at the moment tearing off the wrappers on hD movies so I can watch them; no time recently for serious PQ comparisons. Unfortunately, I'm now "less satisfied" with my "lowly" 720p DLP display after watching the newer display.

Upconverted dvds should be much lower than that, especially the average. The 4k? is confusing. Should keep it in the realm of HD masters.


I agree that up-converted DVDs should be much lower and arguably match progressive DVD Players. This is using the stated assumption that the display is perfect. In my experience, up-converted DVD players look better only when the display has inferior scaling abilities, or does a worse job than player. This is even more true in digital displays, where the signal is always shown in it's native resolution.

I would also push D-VHS and above closer to the master if this chart relates to equipment relegated to Home Theaters.

Quality at this point in time for increased resolution I believe is at diminishing returns ... then again ask me in a few year :) As far as getting that extra 1-5% in picture quality, I think that is what drives this hobby for me.

We spend the time, effort and money (for an ISF calibration) just to get the best our of our equipment. We spend the time to position our speakers, calibrate levels, put in dedicated circuits, etc, just to get that extra little bit.

As much as digital downloads appeals to me, I see this replacing the rental model, but not so much replacing ownership of a pristine copy of a movie. With a rental, I will watch movies I would not normally buy, and I might accept certain deficiencies in the picture and audio quality. This will not replace my desire to own a pristine movie with both audio and video that faithfully represents the master.

I would hate to see this ares of the market move the way of MP3s, where high compression is not only desired, but preferred over CDs and DVD Audio and SACD. Picture quality can decrease as bad encoding (or over-compressed) could introduce artifacts into the picture.

Now your question about average quality and high-end and it's worth. I think it really depends on what you consider average and high end. For some people, my equipment is not high end, but others it is (I consider it mid-level). My general rule is if you can see/hear the difference and you can afford it, get the higher end gear. If you cannot see/hear the difference then it's money saved. It's sad to say, but depending on the piece of equipment (especially displays) $1000 extra is not that much.

Picture quality is the WHOLE reason I am buying HD discs over anything else.

HD discs, whether BD or HD DVD, should be the absolute finest version of a movie that you can buy.

That's why I am sticking with HD DVD, since it have, on the whole, delivered the best PQ of any format available to consumers.

And, from my experience, BD has regularly (TOO regularly, in my opinion) delivered movies that are actually inferior to the broadcast versions of the same movies.

So, YES, Picture Quality matters, it matters a LOT, in my view. And I think many folks here ARE here because it matters to them also.

Amen... :)

Ah rdjam... always looking to start a format fight. The two formats have essentially the same PQ. If you look at small subset of titles, you can make one format look superior to the other, of course. Saying HD DVD looks better doesn't make sense: at best, you'd have to make a claim that Universal puts out better encoes than the BD exclusive studios. Discounting the initial batch of Sony titles, this simply isn't true (Alpha Dog, cough cough) and even more recently it's scientifically not true (Deja Vu VC-1 encode cannot possibly do anything but get worse if moved to HD DVD due to bandwidth. At best, it would look the same).

As for the PQ thing, of course PQ matters, but the point is how much does it matter... what is the percentage difference we're talking these days. For example, since you think HD DVD is "superior", on this scale how many percentage points would you put it above Blu-ray? (This will prove a good test of just how biased you are ;))

I've seen some nice HD versions of older film movies and it comes to a point where all HD does for you is expose flaws in the actual film.

Good point, and I think this is one of the points I'm getting at. We're definitely running into source material limitations at this point for certain films. How long before there is no improvement left to gain?

I would also 'mark down' even the best upconverted DVDs, on a big enough display the difference is very noticeable.

Some people on this forum would have you believe that their upconversion is nearly as good as a true HD source. Hyperbole? I'd be inclined to lower it as well, the more I think about it.


Quality at this point in time for increased resolution I believe is at diminishing returns ... then again ask me in a few year :) As far as getting that extra 1-5% in picture quality, I think that is what drives this hobby for me.

The extra 1-5% is definitely the spirit of AVS, but what I'm asking is if the extra 1-5% we used to work so hard to get has really become 0.5 - 1.5% without anybody really noticing. We still pay just as much and bicker just as much as when we were talking about a larger gain in quality. Are people willing to pay just as much for a 0.5% increase as they are a 5% increase?

Seems that the display(s) used for evaluation play a key role, although this 'global' view, averaging everything together--for example, DirecTV's so-called HDLite--is possible, too.

Yeah, the only way to do any comparison of this sort is to remove the display from the equation, that's why a theoretically "perfect" display is assumed. One could do a similar chart for dispaly indpendent of format, which would also be interesting (how much does 720p - 1080i matter? How much does native 24fps matter? etc.)

Whether use of 2k/4k digital-intermediate production recordings for HD discs, rather than reduced-resolution prints, makes a major difference in effective resolution hasn't been measured and published AFAIK. -- John

Yeah, I think the quality gains that remain are still an open question, so I'm not so ready to put HD/Blu-ray at 99% quite yet. We are approaching the limits of the source material, and that recording equipment is approaching the limits of human perception. I was always curuios if one of the CG movies were rendered at some insane resolution (theoretically at the highest a human can actually discern) how much PQ loss would actually be seen when encoded for HD. AFAIK, this is the only feasable test of the difference between "perfection" and "encode" that can be done.

Nice discussion, all.

And, from my experience, BD has regularly (TOO regularly, in my opinion) delivered movies that are actually inferior to the broadcast versions of the same movies.


Oh ...you mean like these latest gems from Universal?

Alpha Dog - 3.0 PQ
The Game - 2.0 PQ
The Jerk - 2.5 PQ

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/reviews.html

I think rdjam was referring to the BRD of Fantastic 4 which does fall below it's h.264 broadcast.