Superbit vs. HBO-"HD"
- Status
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Joined
·
2,460 Posts
There isn't a huge difference between regular dvd's and superbit dvd's so you might as well just compare dvd's in general to HBOHD. My opinoin is that I have yet to see and HBO HD movie that is worse then a dvd but some aren't much better.
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
Quote:
This is sooo not true. Please see these Superbit reviews of The Fifth Element and Desperado . These screenshots will surely open your eyes.
| Originally posted by Savageone79 There isn't a huge difference between regular dvd's and superbit dvd's |
Joined
·
517 Posts
I agree completely with Vic. I have both versions of T5E and the difference on my 92" Stewart is striking.
What useless reviews. 
What, does he spend like 2 minutes on each one.
Talk about setting a standard, I am amazed every time I see one of Bjoern's pages. I never fail to get good info from them.
His EE comparisons of The Phantom Menace should be required reading for every studio exec.
What, does he spend like 2 minutes on each one. Talk about setting a standard, I am amazed every time I see one of Bjoern's pages. I never fail to get good info from them.
His EE comparisons of The Phantom Menace should be required reading for every studio exec.
Thanks Vic for posting those review links. These are two of my all time favorite DVDs.
I would conclude that superbit will indeed narrow the gap between most of what HBO is passing as HD and DVD. Already on many sets (such as mine) the difference is very subtle.
I will say that I still appreciate HBO HD, because they show many current movies in acceptable quality that I may never purchase in DVD, but still enjoy watching once.
John in VA
I would conclude that superbit will indeed narrow the gap between most of what HBO is passing as HD and DVD. Already on many sets (such as mine) the difference is very subtle.
I will say that I still appreciate HBO HD, because they show many current movies in acceptable quality that I may never purchase in DVD, but still enjoy watching once.
John in VA
Joined
·
184 Posts
I have the 5th Element on Superbit. I haven't seen the previous DVD release, although I did see it in the theater. It's not bad but its not HD. The output from the player is still 480p or 480i. When HD is done properly it is almost like watching the big screen. Within a few years we should see HD DVD players using the higher freq laser technology and perhaps better ecodings. Until then Superbit is the best you will see in your living room.
Joined
·
1,749 Posts
Quote:
Neither is HBO as far as I'm concerned. When you switch from HDnet to HBO, HBO looks awful. Most of the time HBO does not even show a full 16:9 image.
| It's not bad but its not HD |
If you read this forum enough you should learn
that "full 16:9 picture" does not necessarily
equal a good picture. (particularly with HBO)
Live events on HDnet are shot with HD video
cameras so they have less "processing" involved
compared to the HBO-HD movies which are
"telecined" from film. The HDnet cameras
are native 16:9 devices so you get a good
picture and "full screen"
On HBO-HD, the sharpest, best-looking movies
tend to be in OAR with letterbox band showing
above and below the image. If you see a full
16:9 picture on HBO it is probably one of their
"zoomed" HDTV movies which use some kind of
"pan & scan" type hardware to fill the screen.
The consensus is that those movies look blurry
compared to the non 16:9 OAR older HBO movies.
If you are talking about HBO-HD stuff with
bands on the left and right, then those are
4:3 "upconverts" from NTSC material and are not
worthy of being called "High Definition".
that "full 16:9 picture" does not necessarily
equal a good picture. (particularly with HBO)
Live events on HDnet are shot with HD video
cameras so they have less "processing" involved
compared to the HBO-HD movies which are
"telecined" from film. The HDnet cameras
are native 16:9 devices so you get a good
picture and "full screen"
On HBO-HD, the sharpest, best-looking movies
tend to be in OAR with letterbox band showing
above and below the image. If you see a full
16:9 picture on HBO it is probably one of their
"zoomed" HDTV movies which use some kind of
"pan & scan" type hardware to fill the screen.
The consensus is that those movies look blurry
compared to the non 16:9 OAR older HBO movies.
If you are talking about HBO-HD stuff with
bands on the left and right, then those are
4:3 "upconverts" from NTSC material and are not
worthy of being called "High Definition".
Joined
·
2,412 Posts
At the risk of rehashing this issue, the main reason HDNet looks better than HBO-HD is because HDNet shows electronic video-based HD while HBO-HD shows film-based HD from pan-and-scanned or cropped HD film transfers.
I stand by my contention that HBO-HD's look is due to either:
a)less resolution due to cropping or P & S to fill the 16:9 raster and/or,
b)less than stellar prints being used compared to, say, CBS-HD primetime film-based HD transfers
Also, note that for decades TV shows and commercials that are film-based are frequently transfered to video from the original camera negatives (then electronically made "positive") and film-to-video transfers done this way look stunning in SD or HD. I don't know for sure but I suspect that a lot of CBS-HD film-based shows may be done this way. I would defer to someone in the industry who knows for sure...someone like mmost or glimme.
I stand by my contention that HBO-HD's look is due to either:
a)less resolution due to cropping or P & S to fill the 16:9 raster and/or,
b)less than stellar prints being used compared to, say, CBS-HD primetime film-based HD transfers
Also, note that for decades TV shows and commercials that are film-based are frequently transfered to video from the original camera negatives (then electronically made "positive") and film-to-video transfers done this way look stunning in SD or HD. I don't know for sure but I suspect that a lot of CBS-HD film-based shows may be done this way. I would defer to someone in the industry who knows for sure...someone like mmost or glimme.
Joined
·
4,196 Posts
I am totally amazed and impressed by Bjoern's analysis; I have never seen his webpage before. I actually learned something (and I thought it was presented objectively); I actually wondered about the audio comparison's for TPM DVD vs. LD since I've held off buying the DVD because I've had the LD for a while. I now know that what I've been seeing (for years) in some discs is EE.
Joined
·
461 Posts
Quote:
I would like to read that, was it posted in this forum or a review somewhere else? If you have the link will you post it. I would like to read it.
Thanks.
| Originally posted by Lee L Talk about setting a standard, I am amazed every time I see one of Bjoern's pages. I never fail to get good info from them. His EE comparisons of The Phantom Menace should be required reading for every studio exec. |
I would like to read that, was it posted in this forum or a review somewhere else? If you have the link will you post it. I would like to read it.
Thanks.
Quote:
You CAN'T compare HD video and an HD film transfer. They have very different appearances and any attempt to compare the two just isn't a fair comparison.
| Originally posted by Randall Morton Neither is HBO as far as I'm concerned. When you switch from HDnet to HBO, HBO looks awful. Most of the time HBO does not even show a full 16:9 image. |
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
Quote:
They're all in Bjoern Roy's Place .
| Originally posted by Michael4JBL I would like to read that, was it posted in this forum or a review somewhere else? If you have the link will you post it. I would like to read it. |
Joined
·
461 Posts
SW was not good at all. I guess Lucas plans on SE versions later to make more money.
By the way Lucas said he was not going to redo 456 until after the first three so he could devote all of his attention to it. But this theory seems to be a contradiction to the DVD release of EPI.
Is this stupid to think about or is it a lagitamate complaint.
By the way Lucas said he was not going to redo 456 until after the first three so he could devote all of his attention to it. But this theory seems to be a contradiction to the DVD release of EPI.
Is this stupid to think about or is it a lagitamate complaint.
Quote:
In regard to the first issue (why HD Net and HBO "look" different) someone else already answered this. You can't compare video and film. They are two different mediums, used for two different purposes, that have two distinctly different looks. The look of live video is appropriate for a live sports event or an awards show or even a soap opera, but it is not appropriate for creatively photographed, creatively lit narrative drama. Film, on the other hand is very appropriate for dramatic storytelling, but is not appropriate for sports events or the like, primarily because under normal shooting conditions it doesn't have the "wow" factor of infinite depth of field, as video does. My personal "rule of thumb" on this matter is that when you want to tell a story, and in doing so, want to control what the viewer sees and thus feels by highlighting selected elements of the image through lighting and selective focus techniques, as well as create a mood through creative use of lighting and color, film is the ultimate medium for that, with 24p HD being a less flexible second choice. When you are shooting something that doesn't require selective control of the image and want the "hyper reality" that can expand the scope of the shot, HD video (at a higher refresh rate than 24 fps) is an excellent choice.
Regarding the second issue, television programs by and large are transferred from original negative (although not for "decades," more like for the past 15 years or so) and posted on videotape, whether standard def or hi def. There are some that are transferred directly from the assembled negative, such as West Wing, ER, Third Watch, NYPD Blue, and Citizen Baines. Features are usually transferred from an interpositive, which is a positive image printed on negative film stock, usually created for the purpose of making new negatives for release printing. Interpositive transfers are often even sharper than negative transfers, even though they are one film generation removed. This is because they are printed on a film stock that has finer grain than camera negative stocks, and because they have been "timed," or color corrected, during the printing process. They are used for transfer mostly to protect the original negative from excessive handling, but, as I said, they actually have other advantages. In television, Law & Order transfers (or at least used to transfer) from an interpositive, primarily because Universal had some original negative damaged in telecine on another show a number of years ago and was not willing to take the chance again. Although low contrast print stock that is optimized for telecine transfer is also available, I don't know of many who use it these days, aside from some made for TV movies that are also getting foreign theatrical release.
| Originally posted by David McRoy At the risk of rehashing this issue, the main reason HDNet looks better than HBO-HD is because HDNet shows electronic video-based HD while HBO-HD shows film-based HD from pan-and-scanned or cropped HD film transfers. I stand by my contention that HBO-HD's look is due to either: a)less resolution due to cropping or P & S to fill the 16:9 raster and/or, b)less than stellar prints being used compared to, say, CBS-HD primetime film-based HD transfers Also, note that for decades TV shows and commercials that are film-based are frequently transfered to video from the original camera negatives (then electronically made "positive") and film-to-video transfers done this way look stunning in SD or HD. I don't know for sure but I suspect that a lot of CBS-HD film-based shows may be done this way. I would defer to someone in the industry who knows for sure...someone like mmost or glimme. |
Regarding the second issue, television programs by and large are transferred from original negative (although not for "decades," more like for the past 15 years or so) and posted on videotape, whether standard def or hi def. There are some that are transferred directly from the assembled negative, such as West Wing, ER, Third Watch, NYPD Blue, and Citizen Baines. Features are usually transferred from an interpositive, which is a positive image printed on negative film stock, usually created for the purpose of making new negatives for release printing. Interpositive transfers are often even sharper than negative transfers, even though they are one film generation removed. This is because they are printed on a film stock that has finer grain than camera negative stocks, and because they have been "timed," or color corrected, during the printing process. They are used for transfer mostly to protect the original negative from excessive handling, but, as I said, they actually have other advantages. In television, Law & Order transfers (or at least used to transfer) from an interpositive, primarily because Universal had some original negative damaged in telecine on another show a number of years ago and was not willing to take the chance again. Although low contrast print stock that is optimized for telecine transfer is also available, I don't know of many who use it these days, aside from some made for TV movies that are also getting foreign theatrical release.
Joined
·
2,412 Posts
"Mmost" interesting, mmost, as always! Thanks.
Thanks.
Joined
·
4,836 Posts
I am watching the Superbit version of 'Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon' and comparing it to a HBO movie called 'Bagger Vance'.
There is no comparison at all.
The HBO movie is vastly better.
Some HBO HD movies don't look that much better then a good DVD but some of them look fantastic.
Frank
There is no comparison at all.
The HBO movie is vastly better.
Some HBO HD movies don't look that much better then a good DVD but some of them look fantastic.
Frank
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
