or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › D*HD-Lite vs E* HD screenshot thread *WARNING - LARGE PICTURE FILES TO LOAD*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

D*HD-Lite vs E* HD screenshot thread *WARNING - LARGE PICTURE FILES TO LOAD* - Page 4  

post #91 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Googer View Post

... but the main difference is that almost all of the fine detail and texture that's visible in the E* picture has been smoothed over in the D* one.

I have a feeling that as real-time MPEG4 (re)encoding usage increases, so will this type of PQ degradation - especially in the background of the image. Is visible film grain a thing of the past?
post #92 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

The steps are obvious, but if you must look at the pretty flame, check out the top of the flame just above the 3rd step (looks like a wave cresting towards the victim). The E* screenshot shows a distinct "v" notch that is almost completely smoothed out in the D* screenshot.

Another clear difference is the shooters left arm - looking at the jacket's wrinkles in the fabric from inside the elbow all the way down to the end of the sleeve.

If those aren't apparent, increase the resolution of your monitor.

I didn't want to point anything like that out because I'm not 100% convinced that the two shots are from the exact same frame, and in fact, the more I study the differences in the flames in the two shots, the more I'm convinced that they are probably 1 frame off from each other sequentially. This likely doesn't matter much for purposes of this comparison for most of that frame though since most of it should be relatively static...
post #93 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Googer View Post

I didn't want to point anything like that out because I'm not 100% convinced that the two shots are from the exact same frame, and in fact, the more I study the differences in the flames in the two shots, the more I'm convinced that they are probably 1 frame off from each other sequentially. This likely doesn't matter much for purposes of this comparison for most of that frame though since most of it should be relatively static...

I think you're right, the small spots of flame to the left of that wave aren't consistent with them being from the same frame.

However, looking at the sleeve, it shows the degradation typical of bandwidth/resolution reduced HD. Even if the comparison isn't 100% accurate between D* vs. E*, it does provide a good example of HD vs. HD-Lite.
post #94 of 346
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason View Post

What areas, exactly, should I be comparing for macroblocking and absent details? Not seeing this on my Dell 20" LCD set to 800X600. Sure appreciate all the effort needed for image comparisons, but just not seeing differences. Not saying D* doesn't screw up PQ (from all the complaints), but just can't see it here. -- John

Set your 20" Dell to 1280x1024. Then report back.
post #95 of 346
Thread Starter 
D* AVB 8.30 Mbps

E* AVB 12.50 Mbps


D*

E*


D*

E*
post #96 of 346
Thread Starter 
D*

E*


D*

E*


You guys still need a hint what to look for?
post #97 of 346
no, the differences there are pretty apparent. holy crap though that little girl looks creepy...
post #98 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post


You guys still need a hint what to look for?

So what you're saying is if I smash my face up on the screen then I'll see the difference or at super zoomed screen caps. Ok, I'll give you that. But at *normal* viewing distance of 10 feet or more then I doubt most will see the diff.
post #99 of 346
In all honesty, neither one of them is perfect as there is macroblocking in both, but the E* captures definitely suffer from significantly less.

The most obvious differences are in the explosion scene and the close up on Dakota Fanning. Look at the fur on her collar and under her right eye (on the left as viewed here).
post #100 of 346
bonscott, you're kidding right? I mean, just look at War of the Worlds comparison shot #3. In the D* one, it's blocking so badly in areas that the effective resolution in those spots would be down to probably around 240x135 if the entire screen looked like that. I don't care how far back you sit, you will notice that. Granted, these latest shots are abusive enough that the E* shots are far from perfect themselves, but the blocking in them is far less noticable...
post #101 of 346
Wow, those are pretty bad, imagine what they would look like on say a 10' screen.
post #102 of 346
Like I posted earlier, in the screenshots on the first couple pages I just see no difference. On the zoomed in ones just above, yea sure, I see a difference. Which was part of my (failed obviously) point. If I sit 2 feet from the screen sure I see macroblocking. I even see that on OTA HD. But sitting back 10 feet I just don't see the "hd-lite" on D* that others see. But then perhaps it's my bad eyes and my "tiny" 43" screen. I also don't have E* and have never seen E* HD in action (I don't know anybody with E*) and that's why I never claim D* is better then E* or the other way around, I don't have a way to compare with my own eyes.

All I'm saying is that sure, a lot of the guys here on this forum are videophiles where 60" screens a tiny. Thus they are picky and we all know the bigger the screen the easier you'll see any artifacts and blocking. But Joe Sixpack doesn't have those 100" projectors and just sits back and enjoys the movie or American Idol. Unless the artifacts are really, really noticeable on a less then 60" screen they just aren't going to notice. Anyway, these arguements are always doomed to "yes it is! no it's not!" so perhaps it's time to lurk on the thread once again...
post #103 of 346
bonscott, those shots aren't zoomed in any shape, way, or form - they're 1920x1080, the original resolution. So if you happen to have a 1080p display, WYSIWYG in this case. Even with a lesser-resolution display, though, those artifacts are obvious. I dare say they'd even be visible on many SD sets through an HD box's down-converted S-Video or composite output...
post #104 of 346
Title edited to add warning.
post #105 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonscott87 View Post

So what you're saying is if I smash my face up on the screen then I'll see the difference or at super zoomed screen caps. Ok, I'll give you that. But at *normal* viewing distance of 10 feet or more then I doubt most will see the diff.

Wow thats ignorant.
post #106 of 346
Some screen shots of the Kingdom of Heaven would be a good comparison that 2.5 hour movie comes in under 9.5 GB on D*
post #107 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

Set your 20" Dell to 1280x1024. Then report back.

SIR, reporting as ordered. ;-)

The macroblocks on Fanning's fur collar and under her eye were visible even at 800X600, but going back to the AvP flame/steps shots with the bump up to 1280X1024 didn't help; still can't see significant differences. Thanks again for all the comparison efforts. Maybe it's not possible, for some reason, to compare E*/D* images of HDNet's Tuesday 6 am ET resolution wedges , run in such a way to contrast the 'blur' points on the largest center vertical wedges (horizontal resolution, X100 for rez/PH, then X1.78 for rez/16X9 PW). -- John
post #108 of 346
The e are consistently bettr than the d in my monitor.
post #109 of 346
I'd like to suggest an appointment at your local optometrist for those who see little or no difference. Now we know who buys those crappy TVs and why.
post #110 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

The e are consistently bettr than the d in my monitor.

Did D* make your keyboard?
post #111 of 346
I recently switched from D* to E* and seemed to notice a big step up in quality, especially on HBO and HDNETMovies. I was starting to think I was imagining it all after looking at yesterday's screen shots, but come on guys, look at the one of Dakota Fanning's face (the second shot, not the first washed out one)! Each one of those blocks would be about 1/2 in x1in wide on my screen. I sit about ten feet back, but I can sure as hell resolve 1/2 in x 1in. Hell, a few feet closer and I can start to see individual pixels, which are microscopic in comparison. Case closed. Well done Xylon!
post #112 of 346
The DirecTV shot of Fanning is reminiscent of what SciFi Channel looks like much of the time, but hey, it's a 16x9 image, so at least DirecTV has that part of HDTV right.
post #113 of 346
This is getting bad now even the E* captures look like crap and if you were getting this for your HD as a E* subscriber you would be calling up to cancel. They just do not display like this on either D* or E* with any display.
So whats the POINT
post #114 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by radius View Post

This is getting bad now even the E* captures look like crap and if you were getting this for your HD as a E* subscriber you would be calling up to cancel. They just do not display like this on either D* or E* with any display.
So whats the POINT


Its even worse than that. Remember that before this crap starts blocking to the point where we can post screen shots of it in a thread so that hard headed people will admit that its there, the picture loses some sharpness, vibrance, pop and color saturation long before the blocking occurs. But still people make comments about sitting far enough away to where they wont see the blocking.
post #115 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

I want to know what Dave is doing, is he looking for something he lost down there?

Oh Dave was being Dave...he was checking out her teeth.

Tim
post #116 of 346
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason View Post

SIR, reporting as ordered. The macroblocks on Fanning's fur collar and under her eye were visible even at 800X600, but going back to the AvP flame/steps shots with the bump up to 1280X1024 didn't help; still can't see significant differences. Thanks again for all the comparison efforts. Maybe it's not possible, for some reason, to compare E*/D* images of HDNet's Tuesday 6 am ET resolution wedges , run in such a way to contrast the 'blur' points on the largest center vertical wedges (horizontal resolution, X100 for rez/PH, then X1.78 for rez/16X9 PW). -- John

Acknowledged. 10-4
post #117 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by timify10 View Post

Oh Dave was being Dave...he was checking out her teeth.

Tim

Okay, I though maybe he was checking for some structural or capacity issues that might arise during some possible off-camera GreenRoom activity after the show.
post #118 of 346
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonscott87 View Post

So what you're saying is if I smash my face up on the screen then I'll see the difference or at super zoomed screen caps. Ok, I'll give you that. But at *normal* viewing distance of 10 feet or more then I doubt most will see the diff.

Before they say the pix are too small so I made it bigger now its too big? The 1920x1080i screen caps are not even necessary to see the difference for this movie.

Gimme a break here
post #119 of 346
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vurbano View Post

Some screen shots of the Kingdom of Heaven would be a good comparison that 2.5 hour movie comes in under 9.5 GB on D*

Working on it
post #120 of 346
I am a D* sub. I called today inquiring about bitrates. Spoke to five CSRs before one understood the question (three were in advanced technical department). The one that understood said D* does not even tell them the exact bitrates. However he knows they fluctuate and MPEG4 will be cut basically in half. Asked him if there are any plans to raise to compete with dish and cable. He searched some internal forums, and then said he doesnt see anything. I asked if there was any way to ask the engineers/architects such a question. He said they dont have any contact or means to pass questions to them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › D*HD-Lite vs E* HD screenshot thread *WARNING - LARGE PICTURE FILES TO LOAD*