Iron Man comparison *PIX* - Page 2

In regards to SD DVD quality, it really depends on how far you sit back from your display. I sit eight feet back from my 60" which is more optimized for 1080p, and even the best looking SD DVDs only look so-so if that...even using Reon or ABT units.

If I were to sit 13 or 14 feet back like many people do from their 60", the perceived look is much better for SD DVD.

I generally don't make such comments but I agree as well, she looks mighty foxy in Iron Man. Love the red hair and freckles.

Also feel that some dvds have been dumb down from what they can look like. Yes we all know SD can only look so good but I in my opinion some flicks are getting dodgy transfers to make the BR look even better.

Hell the original Evil Dead 2 DVD, THX not the Anchor Bay ver., looks better than the BR. This is of course due to DNR and EE but there is a thread that shows the difference between the THX non-DNR vs the Anchor Bay Waxfest.
So yes I think the quality of some transfers are being mucked down.

Regardless well produced HD media will always look better.

Best Regard
KvE

PS
Iron Man is looking great, now to find it cheaper than 26 bucks.
Keep up the awesome shots Xylon!!

Those comments about making sd dvd look "worse" than BD are the best conspiracy theories yet.

While SD DVD can look nice on a smaller setup at proper viewing distances, Blu Ray on my 106" projection is a must. I can't watch anything but High Def sources now.

I don't think its a question of SD DVD looking worse than BD - It naturally always will although as pointed out the Evil Dead 2 transfer on Blu Ray sucks when compared to the THX DVD edition....The question is are the distributors making DVD look worse than we know it can look....Sony did this when selling Superbit Spiderman 2 against Spiderman 2 standard edition and i know it does happen with some releases.....DVD can look good for the format it is but it can look horrible if they do a lousy job on it.

Sorry to derail this thread, but how do you "know it does happen with some releases". That is a pretty bold statement. You have proof that they "dumb" down SD DVD releases to make Blu Ray look better?

I just find it hard to believe that the studios would do something like make their product look worse, intentionally.

They (the bean-pushers) are certainly not above such tactics. Look at the DVD/HD/BD split screen comparison videos. The difference is significantly exaggerated by degrading the DVD PQ to the point it is nearly unwatchable, then placing it next to pristine HD footage....

Comparing what is done in an advertisement vs what is done to a commercially released product is not a valid comparison.

There is no way they are going to intentionally worsen the product that is going to sell 95% of copies of a title.

Yes i have proof and i just mentioned a title earlier....Harry Potter and the Order Of The Phoenix and as Vader mentioned it happens.

Its called marketing and yes i believe it happens but since i no longer buy SD editions i can't comment on it anymore....The majority of people who buy the SD editions do not notice the quality dip hence they get away with it. People on these forums do notice though.

Well, given the fact that the only ones who would even be aware of it (or care, for that matter) are either on this board or another like it, sure they would (and do). Just ask David Manning about corporate dishonesty to further the profit margin. Blu-ray might be an insignificant part of the pie right now, but the BDA (and Sony in particular) has shown that they are willing to sacrifice short term loss for long term dominance. Consider what the profit margins for the BDA would be if market share of DVD was swapped with Blu Ray (at current BD prices). Then add on top of that the inevitable "rental models" that will exploit the Java platform (welcome back, DIVX)...

I'm not arguing that DVD should look good. I agree that DVD does look bad but the only time I've ever seen it look as bad as these screen shots is when I played a DVD on my TV for the first time before adjusting the settings and the sharpness was maxed out. I have the Iron man DVD and it doesn't look that bad. If I could take screenshots I would. I'm moving this weekend and everything is packed up so I can't. At the end of the month when I'm in my new house I'll post them if I remember but I'm sure we'll get more comparison shots before then.

Then there's the rumors (true or not) that Sony (purposely) shorted Netflix copies of BD so that potential renters would throw up their hands after tiring of waiting for a movie to ship and go out and buy them instead. It is a fact that Netflix did not get enough copies to satisfy their HD customers.

^^^ Iron-man was released by Paramount not Sony.

True, and nobody was saying otherwise. But Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which is clearly shown to have degraded DVD video (whether intentionally or just being sloppy) as FoxyMulder pointed out, is Warner. The point is that the practice of exploiting the general public's ignorance (and/or apathy) in favor of monetary gain is not limited to any one studio.

My comments were directed to this post

It could also be the studios while not intentionally dumbing down SD DVD PQ might just not be as focused or meticulous about making it look as good as they used to. The effort being directed at BD as they figure the true videophiles and people obsessed about PQ are buying BD now anyway.

Agreed. I would think this probably describes the majority of studios out there, but I do believe that at least one studio (which shall go unnamed...) is actively "capping" the PQ of standard def to push their market share agenda...

You do realize that the caps posted in this thread are direct screen grabs from the discs, right?

^^That last comparo pic says it all

I could live with that reasoning.

Now can someone explain how it is cheaper to release a sub par Iron Man SD DVD disc rather than one that looks as good as possible? They all ready have a good master or the Blu Ray wouldn't be that much of an improvement.

These screen caps show a huge difference in quality between the the SD and BR.

Exactly! We sit 12' back from our 56" 1080p HDTV and the PQ difference between HDM and DVD is minimal which may explain why HDM has not made much impact in our household and why DVD is good enough.

At 9 feet from my 67" or 5 feet from my 40" 1080P sets the difference is easy to see for me.
Now use a 720P set or sit farther away and the difference is there but not as pronounced.

Ironman is a title that can get people to buy Blu ray hardware. People who buy Sd DVD will buy it no matter how how good or bad it is. Blu Ray buyers are more discerning. Hence, why Paramount would approach it that way from a prudent business point of view.

My own opinion is that studios have zero incentive now to do good DVD releases for the US. People buying DVD are looking for a cost effective v. high quality solution.

So that will be the case for the rest of the year.

But on your display and player the DVD is upscaled, right? And any display processing (sharpening) could be adding to any sharpness you see. The caps are directly from the source material which, when done correctly, are more representative of what's actually on the disc. Xylon has been doing this for a while so it's generally safe to assume he hasn't made an error.

Anyhow, I think we're straying way off-topic and into generalities. Speaking about specific DVD transfers that are sub-par as proof of conspiring in BDs favor is offset by specific BD transfers that have also been muddled. Talking about corporate greed and dishonesty in general is grasping at straws. It doesn't really prove anything here. If a DVD transfer is mucked up it could be for many reasons, same goes for BD transfers.

Brandon

Then obviously you need to sit closer. I have a 56" and I sit about 7.5' away. I wouldn't even dream of 12'. That's like the seating distance for those old SD CRT rear projection tvs.

so, uh . . . .what is that proof? just saying you have it isn't sufficient. What is it?

the cost of the release goes down if you have the intern down the hall compress it using Cleaner instead of sending the master off to Lowry Digital or whoever.

Any difference between the first issued BR and the latest BR?

BD has clearly better PQ over dvd even despite many variables.And throw in audio quality and then you'd have to wounder why its even being debated