AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › DU Test screenshots thread (big files!) for HD DVD and Blu-Ray
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DU Test screenshots thread (big files!) for HD DVD and Blu-Ray - Page 3

post #61 of 498
great thread!

just a small remark: IMH almost no SD DVD really has full 480/576p resolution. The PAL-extended version of "Two Towers" and "Return of the King" and the 2004 version of "Empire strikes back" (PAL) may come close.

extension of the "small remark": I still have a Panasonic AE300 LCD projector with a 540x960 panel. It reproduces PAL /576p by removing the 36 surplus lines and maps the remaining 540 lines precisely on its 540 panel lines. BUT: If i watch 720p-HDV (Winged migration), the picture is much sharper than almost every SD DVD I own (only the aforementioned titles come close). Since the Panasonic has to downscale the 720p picture to 540p, the conclusion is, that normal DVDs have clearly less than technically possible resolution.

So I am not surprised that many HD discs do not have full HD resolution either.
post #62 of 498
Thread Starter 
Thank you guys for the good work!

So we can add the following to the rankings:

The Matrix (HD DVD) - HD Ready Quality Master (between 720p and 480p)
POTC: Dead Man's Chest (Blu-Ray) - Full HD Quality Master (between 1080p and 720p)
POTC: CotBP (Blu-Ray) - Full HD Quality Master (between 1080p and 720p)
The Big Lebowski (HD DVD)- DVD Quality Master (equal or below 480p)
Lost in Translation (HD DVD)- HD Ready Quality Master (between 720p and 480p)

Remember: you can contest the above at anytime just posting a picture with a DU Test that proves your point.

Regarding the question of more increments like 540p or 960p:

I was thinking about that, but the problem is that a movie definition has a great variability from scene to scene, as you demonstrated with Lost in Translation. Some scenes are in the 540p-720p range, others in the 480p-540p range, and others even in the sub 480p range. Even the best movies (Pirates or King Kong) have some scenes in witch they go below the 960p range.

So adding more increments to the scale will be useless, because there is too much variation.

So from now on I ask you to post only DU Tests for 720p and 480p. You can post other resolutions if you want, but those two must be presents for me to rank the movie.

Regarding the upscaling algorithms:

I believe the best algoritms to use are those indicated in the first post:

Bicubic Sharper (Best for Reduction)
Bicubic Smoother (Best for Enlargement)

The reasons are the following:

1) they are the reccomended procedures by Adobe itself, indicated in the Photoshop CS3 Manual for the best results in upscaling and downscaling

2) a normal bicubic will naturally introduce a softness that should not be in an original 720p master. The sharpen filter will compensate for the smoothing effect of the reduction filter. If you don't apply this, images will appears different even if they are not.

3) Bicubic smoother will smooth the pic in the same way an upscaling filter used on the master to upscale it to 1080p will do. Not using this filter and limiting ourselves to the normal Bicubic will make the picture appears as with less details even if it has the same level of details.

Some other suggested procedures:

1) For DU comparisons please use a crop about max 250x400 pixels, so the 2X zoomed image will be at max 500x800 (and the DU comparison side by side around 1000x800)

2) post only 2x zoomed images (many people have only 17 inchers connected to their PC, not the 50 inchers they use to watch the movie.. so we have to compensate for give a true comparison)

3) use only lossless PNG format

4) I will save all the picture comparison in a dedicated dir and I suggest you to do the same. Imageshack free bandwidth consumes very fast, so if you see a picture disappears, just PM me and I will upload it again or PM the poster to upload it again.
post #63 of 498
re: Rankings

Lost in Translation should be below Big Lebowski. Barely HD, unless some really amazing screen captues come along.

re: More increments:

I've found that doing several resolution versions and choosing the one that's close as possible to be the best way to pinpoint the effective resolution. 480p and 720p will always be standard levels, but if the 480p/720p is too close to call I could go lower until there is a visible difference.

540p is probably too close to 480p so I probably won't do that anymore. You've used 576p. PAL fan?

There should be something in between 720p and 1080p. Maybe 900p instead of 960p. Or maybe not.

re: Scaling methods

I've tried both ways and the difference is smaller than I thought it would be. It's like the smoother cancels out the sharper.

About sizes:

I'll do smaller crops in the future and revise a few of the larger ones. I only use 200% crops (except the Matrix ones I have to redo) but I tend to forget that not everyone can see these pics full screen. I'll try to optimize for 1024-1280 displays. Lossless png of course.
post #64 of 498
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

re: Rankings

Lost in Translation should be below Big Lebowski. Barely HD, unless some really amazing screen captues come along.

In the last screen (with the neon lights) we can clearly see more details over the 540p DU test (some kanji are more readable). As I said, the movie quality varies greatly from frame to frame, and most of the movie is above 480p. So, above 480p is the right guess for the master.

I've not seen any screen with details above 480p for Big Lebowsky instead. So I put it below 480p for now. Let me know.

Quote:


re: More increments:

I've found that doing several resolution versions and choosing the one that's close as possible to be the best way to pinpoint the effective resolution. 480p and 720p will always be standard levels, but if the 480p/720p is too close to call I could go lower until there is a visible difference.

540p is probably too close to 480p so I probably won't do that anymore. You've used 576p. PAL fan?

Yes, but as I said, the movie definition change too much from scene to scene. We cannot restrict much further than 3 tiers. A single screenshot yes, but the whole movie is impossible to pinpoint. I'd like to, believe me. But it's impossible.

Quote:


There should be something in between 720p and 1080p. Maybe 900p instead of 960p. Or maybe not.

The difference with 1080p is too small. Only 180 lines! You can do the 900p test if you want, but the ranking must be limited to 3 tiers. Almost all movies goes up and down in picture definition. Intervals smaller than 300 lines are too small to be meaningful.

Quote:


re: Scaling methods

I've tried both ways and the difference is smaller than I thought it would be. It's like the smoother cancels out the sharper.

Ok, so we can use the ones Adobe reccomends.

Quote:


About sizes:

I'll do smaller crops in the future and revise a few of the larger ones. I only use 200% crops (except the Matrix ones I have to redo) but I tend to forget that not everyone can see these pics full screen. I'll try to optimize for 1024-1280 displays. Lossless png of course.

Great!
post #65 of 498
Thread Starter 
I have to correct myself... I redid the DU test for Lost In Translation but with the resampling algorithms suggested by Adobe, and the Kanji details are preserved, and no difference is noticeable now. This is a furter proof of Adobe competence.

So I put Lost In Translation in the DVD Quality Master tier.
post #66 of 498
I'm building a photoshop action so hopefully we will all end up using the exact same settings.

The one for 1080p vs 720p is done.

Am working on intergrating 480p into the same action to keep the "frame crop area" the same. I just need your thoughts on one thing.

I presume the main aim of doing 480p is to compare to a perfect DVD resolution master? If so we should scale down to the non square pixel resolution of 720x 480?
post #67 of 498
Photoshop action can be downloaded here:
http://david2k.orcon.net.nz/photosho...%20Actions.atn

Notes:
- I run it directly from the actions tab/window, as i haven't tested it on a batch job.
- Source image should be 1920x1080, and a PNG per above.
- 720p sample is downscalled to 1280 x 720
- 720p sample is downscalled to 720 x 480
post #68 of 498
Results from action

Total Recall HDDVD





Conclusion: beter than 720p (but not by whole lot)
post #69 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grubert View Post

Well Batman Begins is S-O-F-T.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Batman Begins and . . . . are just soft.



Nice to see objective confirmation of something that many of us have been complaining about since this title was released.
post #70 of 498
Batman Begins HDDVD





Conclusion: beter than 720p (but not by whole lot)
post #71 of 498
Adventures of Robin Hood HDDVD





Conclusion: beter than 720p
post #72 of 498
I had thought that Warner had done a somewhat better job on The Matrix than on their other recent releases, but it appears not.
post #73 of 498
Grand Prix HDDVD





Conclusion: Smack in the middle between 720p and 1080p
post #74 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

The HD-DVD is actually "better". It's the difference between a clean and dirty pillow though. Still soft.

The problem isn't just the filtering away of the grain, it's also the slightly whacked out colours. The C More broadcast is a much more faithful representation of what I saw in the theatre (even though it does block quite a bit like you said). The HD-DVD just doesn't look right in motion.

Also someone said it already, but you're kinda assuming DVD is maximizing it's full resolution in the first place, when very few DVDs actually do.
post #75 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrick99 View Post

I had thought that Warner had done a somewhat better job on The Matrix than on their other recent releases, but it appears not.

The matrix is still a good looking film, but only the future holds what it will look like in 1080p.
post #76 of 498
Wow, new screenshots I haven't seen anywhere! Good job, gookie. I see that NZ site has a lot. Enter the Dragon has some serious jaggy problems and Bullet looks like it came straight off of HDNet (not good). King Kong and Serenity are drop dead gorgous though. Eon Flux looks very nice too.

About the grain in Lost in Translation, broadcast version... When you blow it up you see a ton of artifacts, not real grain IMO. It doesn't mean the HD-DVD isn't filtered but, eh, it doesn't matter, they both suck. I don't see that much difference in the colors though. Maybe because the softness is so distracing.

I don't think the 480p res level is assuming any dvd comes close to that. Just that it is a reference, like 1080p is a reference even though like 3 or 4 titles actually come close to resolving all of it.
post #77 of 498
Can you guys possibly edit your post to put images side by side? One after the other is REAL hard to pan back and forth on...
post #78 of 498
The 480p examples from 'real' 1080p or 720p masters are beyond DVD resolution as they are (near) 4:4:4. DVD is 4:2:0.
post #79 of 498
Thread Starter 
Gooki, great work with the photoshop script! WoW!

Just a couple of things:

1 - MEC2 is right: all original screenshots crops should be merged side by side with the DU test crops, with the original on the left and the DU Test on the right, as I usually do. Because many browsers just put the images one below the other. This means that the original will be repeated many times, but it's necessary. Can you add this to the script?

2 - Can you please be more specific about where do you see the differences in the comparisons of Grand Prix, Robin Hood, Batman Begins and Total Recall? I do not see any noticeable differences. Remember that due to the scaling the DU image is always less contrasted, and deprived of compression macroblocks. You must not count this as differences, only real additional details. All the above cited movies seems equal to 720p or below to me.
post #80 of 498
Thread Starter 
Spartacus (HD DVD)

DU Test for 720p:





No noticeable difference. Let's proceed with the 480p DU Test:





This is tricky. The differences are noticeable, but the only additional details are the artifacts. In this situation I will go with a DVD Quality Master verdict.


UPDATE: The Upscaling-Downscaling test images have been updated with the new method estabilished in post #179.
post #81 of 498
Thread Starter 
House Of Flying Daggers (Blu-Ray)

DU Test for 720p:





This is tricky as Spartacus: no differences if we exclude the compression artifacts.

Let's try the 480p DU test:





Same as above: the only differences are the compression artifacts. Macroblocks seem to add details, but they disappears at a closer look. Verdict: DVD Quality Master.



UPDATE: The Upscaling-Downscaling test images have been updated with the new method estabilished in post #179.
post #82 of 498
Thread Starter 
Scorpion King (HD DVD)

DU Test for 720p:





No noticeable differences or additional details, just some artifacts due to compression. We proceed with the 480p DU Test:





Very noticeable differences. Definitely above 480p. Verdict: HD Ready Quality **.


UPDATE: The Upscaling-Downscaling test images have been updated with the new method estabilished in post #179.
post #83 of 498
Thread Starter 
Black Hawk Down (Blu-Ray)

DU Tests for 720p:






No noticeable differences. We proceed with the 480p DU Tests:





Very noticeable differences. Verdict: HD Ready Quality ***.



UPDATE: The Upscaling-Downscaling test images have been updated with the new method estabilished in post #179.
post #84 of 498
BTW folks, I feel that when you blow the images up 200 percent, the pixellation adds perceived sharpness that can make the lower quality images look very close in some cases.

It might be good to show both the 100% as well as the 200% versions for comparison in these cases.

Mission Impossible HD DVD:

1080p Original . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080>720<1080





Detail does in fact, exceed 720p - an obviously softer look to the 720p version here - and just look at the door seam on the pick-up truck at the very top of this blowup frame.
post #85 of 498
Underworld HD DVD - (added blowups below)

1080p Original . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080>720<1080





Loads of difference - Definitely very good detail exceeding 720p. Nice Full HD 1080p quality.. (see also all the fine hair in front of ear).
post #86 of 498
Revised - using bicubic in both directions (was using Lanczos before) - hit refresh to see revised images.
post #87 of 498
The Prestige HD DVD

1080p Original . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080>720<1080

post #88 of 498
Planet Earth HD DVD

1080p Original . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080>720<1080





The difference in detail is very obvious. Definitely very good detail exceeding 720p. Nice Full HD 1080p quality..
post #89 of 498
King Kong HD DVD

1080p Original . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080>720<1080





Clearly discernible difference (no surprise here). Definitely very good detail exceeding 720p. Nice Full HD 1080p quality..
post #90 of 498
Thread Starter 
Happy Feet (HD DVD)

DU Test at 720p:



Very noticeable difference in definition. Full HD Quality Master **.


UPDATE: The Upscaling-Downscaling test images have been updated with the new method estabilished in post #179.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Software Media Discussion
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › DU Test screenshots thread (big files!) for HD DVD and Blu-Ray