AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › Blu-ray, HD-DVD & SD DVD Comparison Screenshots *WARNING - LARGE PICTURE FILES*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blu-ray, HD-DVD & SD DVD Comparison Screenshots *WARNING - LARGE PICTURE FILES*

post #1 of 1010
2/25/07 at 11:51am
Thread Starter 

XylonHD, YouTube Channel, @XylonHD

***Please no hotlinking!!! ***

My second screenshot thread with similar goals. How big is the difference in overall picture quality when upgrading from standard definition to High Definition? Is it really worth spending all that galleons for a HD viewing set, HD player, HD sat, HD DVR and all the peripherals that comes with it? If you are a long time AVS reader then you already know the answer

To AVS members please refrain from making any comments pertaining to Blu-ray vs HD DVD debate, you have your own section for that. Try your best to be neutral and level headed in this thread.

I request that you don't "quote" the pictures. Just indicate the reply # if you want to talk about a particular shot. So again this is HD vs DVD comparison NOT Blu-ray vs HD DVD.




I highly recommend hooking up your monitor using digital connections. They show PQ closer to what you are seeing with your HD DVD player.

All screenshots are made with the help of my Tandem 1.0 HTPC.

 

XylonHD, YouTube Channel, @XylonHD


Edited by Xylon - 9/15/12 at 4:55am
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 1010
2/25/07 at 11:52am
Thread Starter 
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire(VC-1) 19.5 GB



Reply
Reply
post #3 of 1010
2/25/07 at 11:52am
Thread Starter 

Reply
Reply
post #4 of 1010
2/25/07 at 11:52am
Thread Starter 

Reply
Reply
post #5 of 1010
2/25/07 at 11:53am
Thread Starter 

Reply
Reply
post #6 of 1010
2/25/07 at 11:53am
Thread Starter 

Reply
Reply
post #7 of 1010
2/25/07 at 11:53am
Thread Starter 
Underworld Evolution(MPEG-2) 17.70 GB


Reply
Reply
post #8 of 1010
2/25/07 at 11:54am
Thread Starter 

Reply
Reply
post #9 of 1010
2/25/07 at 11:54am
Thread Starter 

Reply
Reply
post #10 of 1010
2/25/07 at 11:54am
Thread Starter 

Reply
Reply
post #11 of 1010
2/25/07 at 11:55am
Thread Starter 

Reply
Reply
post #12 of 1010
2/25/07 at 12:21pm
Er... the watermarking is lame. Also, for comparisons sake, still images at full resolution would have made more sense IMHO. But the watermarks really ruin this (for me anyways).
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 1010
2/25/07 at 12:36pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkedgex View Post

Er... the watermarking is lame. Also, for comparisons sake, still images at full resolution would have made more sense IMHO. But the watermarks really ruin this (for me anyways).

This is all about saving bandwidth and preventing you from seeing the frogs (hopefully). Can you name me an image hosting site that can handle the traffic with bigger file size limit so I can use it? and wont suddenly go under. Hopefully this will make more sense to you.

Until then this is the best I can up with.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 1010
2/25/07 at 1:07pm
Umm why are these not full rez?
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 1010
2/25/07 at 1:25pm
Thx Xylon....

Suggestion.....

1) The Harry Potter stuff is heavy on FX, and it often looks fuzzy to keep you from not seeing it is fake.

2) More distant shots of large crowd, details in the sets, etc. often show the largest differences.

Thx for taking the time to post these pics !! I enjoy them.

-- Cain
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 1010
2/25/07 at 3:33pm
Lot of the images are not working.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 1010
2/25/07 at 3:55pm
Not full resoultion = pointless. You lose all of the extra detail if you simply downsample a HD capture to a lower (DVD) resolution. It's little wonder that these shots look nearly identical since the DVD transfers were likely taken from the same HD master and simply downsampled to DVD resolution in the first place.

PS, watermarking copyrighted content of others is pretty lame.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 1010
2/25/07 at 4:02pm
What is your equipment lineup Xylon? Camera? Display? HD Player? HDMI switch? External scaler? etc.

I'm sure you've already posted this somewhere, but I can't find it ...

I'm surprised at these presented results quite frankly, but don't have the proper info./equipment to judge.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 1010
2/25/07 at 4:08pm
Great thread! Keep them coming!

Those pictures could come in handy when trying to explain the benefits of HD discs to somebody who doesn´t believe in them.
DVD can look very good when it´s well done, but it can never be a match to HD DVD or Blu-Ray.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 1010
2/25/07 at 4:10pm
I'm not seeing any difference between those shots.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 1010
2/25/07 at 5:24pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalsaber View Post

Lot of the images are not working.

Fixed. Frogs came up very quickly. Good thing I have a backup. Imagine these are all bigger files. It won't last a couple of hours.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 1010
2/25/07 at 6:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilka View Post

What is your equipment lineup Xylon? Camera? Display? HD Player? HDMI switch? External scaler? etc.

I'm sure you've already posted this somewhere, but I can't find it ...

I'm surprised at these presented results quite frankly, but don't have the proper info./equipment to judge.

furthermore regarding the camera:

what kind, what lens, what settings (ISO, aperture, shutter speed), tripod or handheld, MLU or not (if not timer or finger press).

Without full information, unfortunately those pictures mean absolutely nothing. Sorry.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 1010
2/25/07 at 9:42pm
Were these screen captures from a PC based player? Then scaled to identical 1536x864 same resolution? Very noticable difference even with "soft shot" CGI type material. The colors with hi def were much better. Viewing fullscreen with a 1080p 37" LCD. Nice job Xylon.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 1010
2/25/07 at 9:51pm
This is a rediculous thread. Files aren't even large enough to broadcast DVD's capabilities, nevermind HD.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 1010
2/25/07 at 10:03pm
Wow, give the guy a break. I for one notice a difference and do appreciate screen captures. Especially HP!
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 1010
2/25/07 at 10:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark0 View Post

This is a rediculous thread. Files aren't even large enough to broadcast DVD's capabilities, nevermind HD.

I think that the size works when you consider normal viewing distance from many hi def displays. People seem to see an improvement with their large 1366x768 displays. Isn't one of the broadcast HD formats 1280x720p? I had my nose just about 18" from my 1080p 37" LCD (could easily see the display's screen door effect). The HD captures did look sharper. The differences are there -- what is the big problem? That it does not show the total improvement possible?

Granted it would be interesting to see a similar thread with 1920x1080 PC based screen captures and everything (incl the SD DVD) rescaled to 1920x1080. And using a very sharp/hi detail film title. The Searchers? Seabiscuit? That would take a large amount of png file hosting space. But it would show an even larger improvement
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 1010
2/25/07 at 10:56pm
Quote:


This is all about saving bandwidth and preventing you from seeing the frogs (hopefully). Can you name me an image hosting site that can handle the traffic with bigger file size limit so I can use it? and wont suddenly go under. Hopefully this will make more sense to you.

Xylon i've got some webspace that doesn't have data limts where i host my 1080p images. I'll happily host any of your fullres shots. Send me a PM if you want to take me up on the offer.

Feel free to test the speed by goign here http://david2k.orcon.net.nz/

PS i to considered watermarking but decided against it.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 1010
2/26/07 at 3:41am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gooki View Post

Xylon i've got some webspace that doesn't have data limts where i host my 1080p images. I'll happily host any of your fullres shots. Send me a PM if you want to take me up on the offer.

Feel free to test the speed by goign here http://david2k.orcon.net.nz/

PS i to considered watermarking but decided against it.

Thanks I will keep that in mind. Lets see how this one holds up.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 1010
2/26/07 at 3:43am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cain View Post

Thx Xylon....

Suggestion.....

1) The Harry Potter stuff is heavy on FX, and it often looks fuzzy to keep you from not seeing it is fake.

2) More distant shots of large crowd, details in the sets, etc. often show the largest differences.

Thx for taking the time to post these pics !! I enjoy them.

-- Cain

Thanks.

I inserted a new screenshot at post #4 with large crowd, wide view. You are right the diff are much bigger.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 1010
2/26/07 at 3:51am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean_O View Post

PS, watermarking copyrighted content of others is pretty lame.

To prevent leechers from using my personal imagehosting account for their own use. That way they can't post the pix and claim that they made it on their own. I want them to know that it came from AVSforum and participate here.

These are large files I have no choice.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Software Media Discussion

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › Blu-ray, HD-DVD & SD DVD Comparison Screenshots *WARNING - LARGE PICTURE FILES*