HD DVD movie screenshot thread...[big files] - Page 3

than just use hyper links.
pics that size stretch out the entire browser two times over.
and 1/4 of the image is only shown at one time per page, its ridiculously large.

image size is fine to me. Its ok if you arent running some crap resolution.

It's nice to see them with the extra details that you get from a bigger picture. Although I might have just cut out one of the eyes on its own.

considering I seriously doubt everyone that reads the forum uses 27" pc monitors, those on laptops dont have the luxury as you do. Does not give you the right to indirectly insult me with you elitist attitude. anyone with a laptop or smaller pc monitors will have problems viewing the images and scrolling through.

whats worse? ruining the browser proportions and increasing web page load times, for those not as good as your computer? thus us being crap and yours being fine? or just using hyperlinks for oversized images or thumbnails hyperlinked to the full sized image and everyone happy?

I can see JPEG compression in those screenshots. Kinda ruins the whole full resolution thing.

Benes, what did you use to take full resolution screen captures?

Wake up, its a screenshot thread. Theres no damn reason to cry about big pics. You know when you open the thread what you're going to get. Get over it. Stop trying to dictate to everyone else and get a real monitor.

save as png.

Links to shots I posted some time ago. Note that a couple of the shots from Vertical Limit are upconverted SD DVD:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post8957228

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post8920916

[url]http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8923422&&#post8923422[url]

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post8682061

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post8610976

Dan

There is no need to be an *******. Like he said, not everyone surfs the web on a giant screen.

This elitist jerk likes the full-sized pics. Quite useful for one who's never seen HD-DVD in action live, considerably moreso than dvd-res sized ones. The SD/HD comparison shots are useful at that size, but yeah, I've got both horizonal scrolling and a huge canvas so I like 'em big. You don't have to scroll manually, just ignore the pictures if they're too big to be practical.

They look great on my little 14" laptop screen but hey its 1400x1050

don't confuse screen size with resolution.

Yeah when I said huge canvas I may have been a little vague. 2560x1600, I was talking resolution

what justifies a real monitor? is a laptop screen not a real monitor? ive already have my screen maxed out in resolution. Considering I cant afford to buy a new laptop or computer monitor, you're being a hypocrite yourself by dictating to me that I should buy a new computer or desktop screen.

its people like you that ruin the experience of other members here on the forum, essentially your answer is, "Im better than you so get the **** out of my forums because I have better ****. The forums are only for people like me"
I see this crap go on in audiophile forums also, nice to see this also transfers to videophiles.

you really are truly an elitist jerk in every word.

I dont see how a request to hyperlink thumbnails is worse off than a direct link to a 1088 image. Considering this isnt even a direct screen capture, the resolution is slightly larger than actual source resolution saved in jpeg. The fact that its saved in jpeg already ruins the intention of a full 1080 pic, and its not even saved in 1080, in the first place.

All I see is portions of the pic at a time, which would have the same effect as just cropping it. There also isnt a 480 comparison shot either, use your brain. if you were to put in a real 480 res image from sd dvd, than how would one be able to associate a true comparison? it would look like a small pic versus a big pic.

it doesnt work that way. you can just as easily get a better comparison by crop zooming on areas between the two.

anyhow, as mentioned earlier, hyperlinking as to direct image embedding, would not effect the overall impact of the picture quality, but help others view the post better. hyperlink also opens the image in the entire screen, rather than encase itself within the forum's columns.


tutelary, the jpeg files are already large enough for browsing, self embedding a png file in large picture format would create several megs.

than you have to consider DPI. most people dont use 200+ dpi photos. But those are the resolutions you need to get the most detail. most people run that at 72 or 90 or so, which by itself already loses detail information. if your running 200+ dpi settings (what I do when I work in photoshop and corel with digital imaging, and yes that is what im currently studying, digital editing for films) youre in for a very large heavy file. but than if you are as true to the the screen shot, thats the route you would go. anything less and you'd lose information.


cheers.

What's the deal with everyone here always cranking up the contrast so high? Isn't the whole point to make it look as cinematic as possible? Don't know what cinemas you guys have attended, but fill light that outlines faces etc. is not supposed to have the intenisty of a key light, at least not with any mainstream director.

Can you show us a comparison of two examples, 1 right, 1 wrong? I always like lots of contrast, but I'm not sure how much is too much.

The tendency I've been seeing recently, especially with mainstream stuff, is for filmmakers to pump the contrast higher and higher, resulting in a very striking image but one with blown-out highlights. In any event, it's very difficult to get an accurate representation of contrast from a photograph.

the contrast in a movie theater, at least from the most recent films i've been to have consistantly been very high. much higher than these screenshots.

what cinema have you been to? maybe the bulbs need to be replaced

http://members.cox.net/huffmanjb/TV%20003.jpg

Made it a link instead so as not to anger the laptop crowd.

if they are real screen captures, what dpi are you using? and dont shift the burden of blame, I requested if you would kindly use hyperlinks. Pictures are always welcome.
but im not the only one experience picture viewing problems as mentioned by several other members. Theyre just extremely large highly compressed screenshots anyway. Jpeg photos compress a lot, so doesnt really give you the right to bash others here in the thread people they posted smaller photos.

read my other posts, I asked if they can be thumbnailed hyperlinked, which would be much more practical. But my guess is this is a "show off my pictures" post which is why you embedded them, it becomes an involuntary download. If you see other picture threads, people generally just hyperlink them because of their size.

regarding the rant, I wouldnt be responding, if it werent for a couple of posters here in question flaming with such elitist attitudes, which is just uneccesary.
I like how you fish for sympathy and compliments and they stick a cheapshot flame in your PS comment. Psychologically, this usually mean, that there was some truth to my posts and I hit a nerve with you, so you resort to a post to playing the victim to garner more praise.



benes, I appreciate your efforts, and dont get your feathers too ruffled

have a good day cheers.

ps: heres a tip for those that resize the images and still wish to retain the detail, before resizing set your dpi above 200. you will avoid a lot more compression photo artifacting while still retaining the high res detail in a small picture.

clarence, you have no issues at all, from what Ive seen from your images, youve provided some of the best looking examples of hd content, regardless of whether they are screen captures or not. Your photos look so clean anyone with two eyes can tell they are looking at hd content.

Gary, after seeing these images and others you have posted elsewhere I can't help but think you like your reds!

200dpi using ghetto nero photsnap


72dpi using ghetto nero photsnap


both files identical image source file,
one saved 72dpi other saved 200dpi

than both resized to the same image size,
than both equally increased to 2000 pixels width and cropped a portion of the image,
this is an sd dvd pic btw



the idea is to use larger images before editing to retain the most amount of visual information before any other editing such as resizing and such.

when I worked in class at the work station, all our digital photos were edited in higher dpi settings, as it reduces artifacting that may result after editing on a lesser image. this was important when we would make physical print outs.

and of course, jpegs were a no no , we'd have to use the native image file to the paint program.

cheers

the 200dpi pic, is better, I stated why it was better at first, but removed the explaination to see if anyone could tell a difference without giving the answer too early.

clarence, do you see a difference between both pictures?

photobucket seems to have issues displaying the pics, they arent loading.

anyhow here is the answer.

the image that was shown originally is an upscaled 480p image to 720p.

the 200dpi cropped pic, exhibits an image more true to the source file, it captures the the artifacts in the image, while the 72dpi loses the information, and thus creates a softer looking image not exhibiting the actual blocking from the upscaled image.

there is also a drop in contrast in the 72 dpi image,and overall softness, this is because detailed informatin is lost. black level details are also compressed and white details are lost, both ends of the black/white spectrum are essentially snipped, all the blockiness that was captured in the 720 image is gone in the 72 dpi and flattened out. while the 200 dpi still retains the information.
there are also signs of dithering which are not present in the 200 dpi that are present in the 72

a couple of things to take into consideration, Im not using an advanced photo programs for these and depending on ones computer monitor, some may not even see any difference. Some may actually prefer the 72dpi image because it hides the the artifacting present in the 200 dpi image, however the 200 dpi image should be in all regards to the more true to the actual source image.

btw clarence, the images you reposted in png, look like they may have been altered once again during the conversion, because they dont look identical to the original ones I posted?

dpi settings only relate to PRINTING

not to displaying on the PC.

Really enjoyed this thread up to about page 3 when the **** started. Sheesh, lets just get back to the actual screenshots. The thread was going on so nicely too. For those who've taken the trouble to upload and post their pics, I sincerely appreciate it and hope you post even more.

I'll try, that is if I can find someone who has Standard DVD of one of my HD DVD titles. Shouldn't be too hard.