Mike Lowrey

OK, we all know that the range of quality of transfers on the current DVD format. They range from barely VHS quality to outstanding for 480p.

So when the next HD disc format war is over, will all transfers be top notch as there's "presumably" only one way to master in HD.

Is the current problem with variable quality transfers based on NTSC limitations, source material (ie. restored as opposed to damaged and dirty prints), MP-2 compression, or what?

chipmac

The possibility of poor HD transfers is the same as with SD DVD. Just as some DVDs were mastered from VHS or laserdisc masters the same can said about HD DVD. If the studio doesn't feel like striking a new master if an HD one doesn't already exist then the results will be just like an upconverted DVD. You can also have high quality film elements used but the transfer is ruined by poor compression or extensive use of filtering and EE. Then you have the varying new codecs that can be used and that will mean technicians most likely will experiment with finding the best settings to use for each one. So until they find the sweet spot the first few releases can be subpar. Most but not all titles have HD masters struck already but there are still many things that can effect the transfer.

So yes there probably will be some poor releases on the next gen formats since studios tend to skimp if they feel they can get away with it. The techs need to find the right balance for compression but learn from SD DVD that excessive filtering and EE is not what makes a good transfer.

sracer

I don't understand the question. What is this "one way to master" an HD-DVD?

There is nothing inherent in the HD-DVD authoring/manufacturing process that guarantees a better quality product.

dsa_shea

The source material must already be high definition for any of it to make a difference. Taking this into consideration many of the older titles wont be improved on much by the new high definition format. You can only bring out so much detail in a picture or film. And in many cases using the high definition will bring out more flaws if theyre not digitally corrected. However, the problem with compression and excessive grain on some releases can be and should be corrected.

Iron_Giant

Yes, I have seen bad HD broadcast of different movies/shows.

Mike Lowrey

Well, what I meant by that is that one would think that there's only one way to transfer an HD source. But then I don't know...if you got a better explanation.

Admiral7

Film is not a high definition source. The movie wasn't shot in high definition, it was shot in film (which is a higher resolution than HD by the way). Film is TRANSFERRED and remastered in high defintion, and many of our current DVDs and presumably our next generation DVDs will come from that. So I really don't believe that older films cannot benefit from HD-DVD. I have seen older films on HDNet and Universal HD, and some look ok and some look amazing. But the same is also true with more current movies on HBO. Some look ok and some look amazing.

There are a number of DVDs in your collection, including some television shows that are mastered in high definition that are not perfect transfers, sometimes due to encoding or compression problems, such as trying to fit too many episodes on a single disc (King of Queens).

ShagMan

it's a combination of bad source, and bad technique (compression factors)... You're definitely going to see a lot more mediocre/poor source transfers on HD, more so than on regular ol' DVD, just due to the additional resolution needed.

obscurelabel

Bad transfers will still be done in HD. What I hope is that the bar will be sufficiently raised so that a "bad" HD transfer will still be better than a mediocre standard DVD transfer. But just the nature of things is that there will be some bad, some good, and some great, I don't think a new format will change that.

Adam Tyner

Also, bear in mind that it's pretty much standard practice nowadays for transfers to be mastered in HD and then downconverted for DVD. So if it looks pretty bad on DVD, unless it's retransferred (or if there was some sloppy authoring on the DVD), many of those flaws will still be visible on the higher-res format.

rw2516

The way I understand it, if there is a digital or HD master used than a HD-DVD will be of higher quality than that of a standard dvd from that same master. If a analog master is used than the quality will be pretty much the same as the standard DVD version, and a lot of stuff out there is from analog masters. What I hope is that the players allow you to connect to the tv with the DVI input. Since the players are suppose to be backward compatible, all our current dvds will look better ansd sharper.

DVD Josh

These threads always make me laugh (but you know I love you Mike, and I'm not referring to you). The vast amounts of misinformation is staggering. Take Admiral 7's comment (I'm not using you for any special exclusionary reason, but just as an example). He says that film "is not a high definition source". Well that's absolutely true, IT'S MUCH BETTER!! Film has 4,000 (FOUR THOUSAND) lines of resoultion. That SMOKES anything any HD format can offer.

So the bottom line is that yes, ANY film CAN look better on HD format (and probably will), but of course can still have a bad transfer.

Brian Shannon

Exactly right!

This is the primary reason why I believe that most of the discussion surrounding HD-DVD is far too premature. I intend to get at least five more years out of my current collection before worrying about the next format.

milo bloom

Josh, he pretty much says film is higher than HD in his post, isn't that what you were pointing out?

Also need to remember, they can't be too perfect, or else the pirates will steal their movies and all the actors will suddenly be poor and have to live in cardboard boxes.

DVD Josh

I was mostly just pointing out that he was the only one who seemed to grasp that concept (re: film "mastered in HD").

djtoell

Speaking of misinformation, in strict terms, film doesn't have any "lines of resolution" whatsoever. Any discussion of the resolution of film in terms of lines or pixels is an approximation at best.

DJ

Shazam

Although film cannot be directly expressed in terms of pixels, the best film cameras out there can resolve the equivalent of about 35,000 lines of resolution...

DVD Josh

Well bottom line - it will look better

Mike Lowrey

Now you've got me all confused. (Which apparently ain't hard to do. ) Anyway, if standard celluloid film is the equivalent of 4000 or 35,000 lines of resolution (depending on who you talk to), what's the resolution of HD digital "film" cameras, ie. Attack of the Clones, Once Upon a Time in Mexico?

All I know is that the better the display capability of the monitor, the worse lower res source material looks. For example, when I bought my standard def. Sony Flatscreen in late '01, my VHS collection looked like shit on it. Even the few S-VHS tapes I had looked terrible. I quickly disconnected my VCR and said "Adios to VHS". So could we assume that all HD players will be able to up-convert standard DVDs to 720p?

chipmac

Mike a display that can show the deficiencies in the source material will always be a problem. On a HD monitor anything that isn't in HD needs to be converted to 480p and higher for display. This conversion can sometimes improve things and sometimes make it worse by adding in up conversion artifacts. Whether the signal is up converted or not still doesn't make up for the fact that the original source used a lower resolution than the native resolution of the HD monitor you're using. So whether the display up converts or these new players do it the source from SD DVD or SD broadcasts are limited to 480i and results of the up conversion will vary with the scaler used.

As for HD digital cameras I believe that they're recording at 2400p but I could be wrong.

hogfat

Nope. Last I read, HD cameras store 1440x1080, though they might store the full resolution on current generation models.

sdk

I read that hi def cams store at 1080p, but i guess id depends on the camera.

The Bus

I don't know. Is Fox Lorber going to make movies for the new format?

Spiky

So far this is the only comment in this thread that makes any sense. You guys who know how it works are confusing me, and I know how it works. (more or less) Are you saying you agree that film is higher rez than HDTV, but getting a new transfer with 1080 lines won't look better than current 480 transfers? That is contradictory to itself.

If you want to discuss "resolution" of film, it would help to have several things down. One is insane, indepth knowledge of the specific lens used. One is insane, indepth knowledge of the particular film used. Of course, you need to know the film size, it's usually 35mm. I've never heard of a lens that could resolve 35000 lines. Most photography lenses are outstripped by the resolution of film or even some of today's digital sensors, depending on your viewpoint. People have tried to get a system (lph) for measuring resolution that works across different technologies, but it isn't perfect since it isn't agreed upon. (please don't think pixel=resolution) Hopefully all these digital technologies have enough bandwidth (unlike VHS) so there isn't yet another variable limiting resolution.

Course, we haven't even started discussing viewing distance or display technology, which is just as important as real, recorded resolution when trying to figure out how good it looks in your living room.

I don't really have the background to discuss this intelligently, myself. Suffice it to say, older movies SHOULD look much better than current DVDs with a good HD transfer since the original film should be much higher rez than either SD or HD television technology.

Chris777

, as long as the only print of a film is damaged, and the demand for that movie is high, there will still be quite a few of them...