@Harold: One of my favorite movies is Enter The Dragon with Bruce Lee... there really isn't much difference between them
OK, I like ETD as well, but I have to question your judgment when you put it as one of your favorite movies :-) It isn't THAT good.
When it comes to quality, you are right, the difference between DVD and BD are there, but you can not expect a 25 year old print to yield the quality of image that you get with footage that is newer. The exception is Bladerunner which is stunning, amazing and absolutely unbelievable in the BD release, but the cost of restoring a movie the way Bladerunner was for BD would be cost prohibitive for something like Enter the Dragon.
Its a $5000 panasonic 26" LCD reference monitor. Now these guys are mastering in some cases million dollar projects on this and it's only 26 inches. Another post facility has a crazy expensive 34 inch CRT HD monitor it uses for Telecine work. This is incredibly detailed work and they are working with a 34 inch monitor, I'm assuming because they don't make CRT HD sets any bigger.
Now I'm all for big monitors but I just don't buy the "gotta be bigger than a 42" to see the difference between DVD (standard def) and Blu Ray (HD).
Oh, and Enter The Dragon is THAT good and we demand a slavish Criterion restoration!!! :)
"gotta be bigger than a 42" to see the difference between DVD (standard def) and Blu Ray (HD).
When people want to compare objectively, they desperately reach for something, anything that can be measured objectively.
In the case of HD viewing they pick arcseconds of resolution, and they show convincingly that the human eye can't possibly see well enough to tell the 1080p difference unless the screen is at least 42" diagonally.
Case closed?
No.
Sorry, you only measured one part of the perceptual viewing experience. There is also contrast rendition, perhaps best measured through the Modulation Transfer Function.
It is this last part that can make a lower resolution image look much sharper than another image that measures higher in pure resolution.
And it's also part of what makes it possible to identify that an old newspaper photograph printed in 1 col. wide by 2 inches high was taken with a larger format camera, not 35mm.
If you sit too close to a 720p screen, the image falls apart because of interference from the image structure, often referred to as the "screendoor effect."
Switching to a 1080P at the same distance will eliminate the screendoor effect. But the 1080p screen may have cheezier image processing, so that the picture barely matches the 720p.
So there is a lot more to it than just resolution, and this discussion is not different from what I've seen re film resolution for the last 30 years. Same head scratching now as then.
"Now I'm all for big monitors but I just don't buy the "gotta be bigger than a 42" to see the difference between DVD (standard def) and Blu Ray (HD)"
Agree! The majority of HDTVs being sold today are < $2500 and simply lack the quality that is possible. Compare Blu-ray and SD on a Sony XBR series with any 720 (or cheap 1080 set) and if you can't see the significant difference then you need to stick to using autofocus on your camera!
Agree! The majority of HDTVs being sold today are < $2500 and simply lack the quality that is possible. Compare Blu-ray and SD on a Sony XBR series with any 720 (or cheap 1080 set) and if you can't see the significant difference then you need to stick to using autofocus on your camera!
I happen to have a Sony XBR 60" LCD RP set. It only does 720p, and you are invited over to my home to compare the quality of of any two movies you want. You will come to the same conclusions I have.
Getting tired of people who do not own a 720p television and other like equipment telling me I do not know what I am talking about.
Until you can tell me you have the same equipment, you have no right to tell me, or anyone else, what they are seeing and what they are not seeing. It is ignorant and arrogant to do so.
If you really knew anything at all, you would know the process of upsampling a DVD and/or down sampling a BluRay disc can introduce image quality issues.
It is not as simple as looking at the lines of resolution and declaring BluRay is best based on that alone. The quality of the hardware is also involved in the equation. The DVD player, the TV, the BluRay player, the connections (HDMI, Component,...composite....), all play a hand in what you end up seeing.
It is quite moronic to declare BluRay is the best simply based on nothing more than any one person's limited experience with it. No one can possibly have viewed every television and player combination available in the market.
There is absolutely no sense in being insulting about it.
Tell me, what hardware did you use for the comparison?
Did not mean to be insulting... if I was. Just stating the facts!
I should have added Sony late model XBR LCD panels 40" thru 52".
(I believe Sony as well as other manufacturers are phasing out RP and 720 sets altogether.)
I am simply saying that on a current state-of-the-art Sony XBR LCD panel the difference between upconverted SD and Blu-ray is quite obvious.
"It is quite moronic to declare BluRay is the best simply based on nothing more than any one person's limited experience with it. No one can possibly have viewed every television and player combination available in the market."
I don't recall saying anything about Blu-ray being best.
Walk into any showroom in the country and see the 720 sets compared to the 1080 sets, Blu-ray or not!
I agree that on a 720 set the difference is not as apparent!
I have a friend who has a perfectly good Mitsubishi 60" RP 720 set. He was blown away when he saw my 46" XBR 1080p and went out and bought a 52" XBR... he had no problem seeing the difference!
"It is quite moronic to declare BluRay is the best simply based on nothing more than any one person's limited experience with it."
First of all, I'm not a moron. Secondly, the Blu-ray disc format is absolutely, undeniably, positively the highest quality consumer video playback format currently in existence. I am certainly not alone in this judgement. I'm sorry that you don't own a television capable of enjoying it to the fullest.
I was harsh to state it in the manner I did. I apologize for that, but it gets tiresome being effectively told you are a liar or incompetent simply because you lack the hardware to be able to enjoy the format in its best light.
My point was that you simply cannot pull the media out of the box and declare it the best without taking the equipment into consideration. That point did get lost in the manner I worded it.
I am not complaining my setup does not show the best BluRay has to offer. I am quite happy to find out that my DVD setup is doing a rather admirable job of playing DVD content. It should though. It is very good equipment for that task.
I have never said BluRay was a crap format. All I have ever said was that in a 720p configuration it just does not look that good and that in my configuration an upconverted DVD to 720p shows little, if any, difference in the picture quality.
I have had friends over who have also commented on how bad the PS3 plays DVD's as compared to my DVD player. They also remarked there is no reason I should waste money on BluRay media as there is virtually no difference between the two formats in my particular configuration. One of my friends has a nice 1080p television and a PS3, and BluRay media looks fantastic on it.
I realize it is the price to pay for being an early adopter of HD. I have no issue with that. I am happy to concur that a proper 1080p television set would blow away my 720p setup. I look forward to the day when I can replace the television.
I am not happy to sit here and listen to those of you who have not seen my setup basically call me a liar, and make judgement on my ability to handle videographer work. Quite insulting me, and I just might not be as harsh.
Deal?
Tell me bsuratt, what equipment in those comparisons you did was being used? I am talking about the DVD player, the BluRay player, and the televisions? What source materials?
"My point was that you simply cannot pull the media out of the box and declare it the best without taking the equipment into consideration."
Now THAT is a good and valid point to make.... one that might just DOOM Blu Ray. With DVD that's exactly what you did... pull it out of the box and connect it up to your EXISTING setup and away you went. It was the simplest shift in technology that average Joe could have hoped for. It's no where near the same with Blu Ray
"DOOM" seems a bit harsh. I think it is reasonable to assume the format is taking longer to adopt than many would have liked simply due to the fact, the lion share of the televisions capable of showing any HD content are 720p, or less (analog TV's using a digital converter box).
In this economic turmoil, the luxury of simply buying a new television to be able to enjoy BluRay's 1080p content is a weak excuse for most consumers. Much of the broadcast HD content is 720p as well. DiSH, DirectTV, most cable networks are all 720p.
There is just very little 1080p content available, right now. Obviously there is more 1080p available today than there was a year ago, and there will be more available next year, and so on.
Our company is not going to commit to delivering BluRay for another year (at least). For us, it is a matter of the standard still evolving and the cost involved in mass production. It is staggering compared to DVD. Thankfully DVD will remain a viable format for some time to come or we would have to shut our doors.
It must be Xmas eve because I'm going to have to agree with Blink here. In fact I said much the same thing a long time ago in much the same topic.
SD DVDs took off like wildfire because there was no compelling reason not to buy into that tech. It was all positives.
BD has improved in that area since the early days.
We still have a way to go. Only a few days ago someone asked me about recording an OTA HD program. I had to honestly tell the caller I don't think you can and I wasn't the first person he'd called.
My brother-in-law's daughter has been part of the Dallas Cowboys Thanksgiving half time show for several years now. He is a fireman, and he had to work this year and asked if I could record the show for him.
I have a DVR, so I recorded it and played it for him. Then he asked about putting it on a disc, which he has has done in year's passed (from the analog recording) and I had to tell him it could not be done. They were all more than just a little sad about it. They are real big into keeping a running video on all things involving thier children.
Once they thought it over, they got down right pissed off about it, especially when they realized this was the future they were looking at.
"Only a few days ago someone asked me about recording an OTA HD program."
I don't know how things are in Australia, but here in the U.S., I record over-the-air HD broadcasts on a daily basis. All that's required is a simple USB 2.0 ATSC receiver available for well under $100. In fact, I have four of these tuners hooked up to my server running the "BeyondTV" PVR software and it works flawlessly. It is completely unencrypted, so I can take the transport stream that it records and do pretty much anything with them. The tuners from Dvico and Aver Media are particularly good.
Now that is something that did not occur to me. Quite frankly I was not sure if "over the air" HD content was encrypted or not. I had assumed it was and checked no further. Thanks for the information.
Unfortunately, I believe what I have on my DVR is encrypted as it came down from DiSH. Not 100% certain about it, but I may be able to output the content via the composite output of the DVR. I am going to try it as this is pretty important for them.
Yes, Dish is encrypted, but you can output your DVR via composite and record it. (Although, composite would be downconverted to SD only.) I have my DVR hooked up via component analog HD to the input of a $350 Blackmagic Intensity Pro card and can record anything, encrypted or not.
I had been recently looking at the Blackmagic card and was wondering how well it worked. It does capture the 720p output from the DVR? I assume it is doing the decrypting then.
I know the composite output would be SD, but going on a DVD it should be ok, if the output is good quality.
Oh, sorry for the hijack. My bad.
Thanks for the information John_Cline. It is appreciated. I am used to working with camera footage alone so I appreciate the "how to" outside that realm.
As far as mainstream goes.... I don't think so. Right now this is an enthusiast's sport and it has an overwhelming chance of not making it much further.
Joe public at present is not set up to take Blu Ray into the home, and as I mentioned before according to statistics, they won't be set up in the future either. Statistics are showing that of the flat panels and such that Joe public is buying... they're 42" and under. Not to mention the lack of a reasonable sound system.... if you don't have one of those then Dolby true hd and dts ma has lost all it's advantage.
Then throw in the messed up economy, and that fact that Sony has clearly stated in both words and actions,"there must be a certain profit margin involved"......
Yes, the Intensity will capture 720p via its analog inputs. It will capture HDTV 1080i/59.94, 1080i/50, 720p/59.94, 720p/50 via HDMI or component inputs as well as SD NTSC and PAL via composite, S-Video or component inputs.
As an aside, the Intensity captures 4:2:2 video in both uncompressed and MJPEG, I use it to capture old analog SD tapes (VHS, Beta, Betacam, 3/4" and 1" Type-C) and it looks MUCH, MUCH better that capturing in the 4:1:1 DV format.
John_Cline, do you have any experience with any of the Canopus products?
I have a ton of VHS tapes to restore and convert to DVD, and have been using various Canopus products for quite a while. Do you think the Intensity would be a better capture choice?
Back on topic: Blink, if you recall, laser disc was also a hobby format and yet it had quite a good run. Yes, I was one of those nuts who bought a $4,500 laser disc player.
I think once 1080p becomes as pervasive as 720p is today, things will start to turn around for BluRay. However, I think a price reduction in the pre-recorded media will have to happen as well.
Watching the (r)evolution in hardware, I can't believe that Cards won't replace Blu Ray soon.
I wouldn't be surprised if they already could outperform BluRay technically. Are there issues such as less copy protection with Solid State - or maybe other issues?
I have a ton of VHS tapes to restore and convert to DVD, and have been using various Canopus products for quite a while. Do you think the Intensity would be a better capture choice?
A higher end Canopus with time base corrector could be better if your tapes are old and wobbly, but the output will be 4:1:1 NTSC, which when rendered to 4:2:0 MPEG-2 for DVD becomes 4:1:0.
John described capturing the analog signal from the VHS deck to a 4:2:2 codec, which becomes 4:2:0 on DVD, i.e. no chroma loss.
Sony 46" KDL46XBR2 (I think they are up to XBR6 now)
Sony BDP-S350 Blu-ray player
For example:
1080i HDV material rendered to 1080i Blu ray and also rendered to standard SD from my HDR-FX7 camera
Also, I was an early adopter of HD-DVD with a Toshiba HD-XA2 and HDV to DVD-R was clearly superior to upconverted commercial SD DVDs on a 1080p TV. (In fact, I believe the HD-XA2 playback of my HDV material was actually slightly sharper than the Blu-ray version of the same material on a BDP-S350 player.)
Incidentally, the HD-XA2 has the best SD upconversion I have ever seen... noticeably better than the Sony BDP-S350! I'm keeping it just for that purpose.