|
Originally Posted by Frenzal Rhomb
dunno about you guys, but to me it just looks like they altered the colors, and that's it, I don't see more details or anything, it's like they just played with contrast and sharpness for both pictures, and to make it even better, they didn't even captured the SAME frame for most of them..
|
hehe don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it looks better, but don't you think it has more to do with color tweaking than anything? I've seen comparisons of both format on some other forums, and well they were not THAT huge, that's for sure...
|
If you don't notice the improvements in clarity from those screen captures which, due to the poor enlargement of the SD version, are even more pronounced, you probably do not need an HD-DVD player. :)
|
please don't be sarcastic, I said I DID notice them, but they don't give a proper comparison, the SD is blurry and the colors were somewhat muted, just go there,
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...pearl++raiders check for post #187, you'll see some Indiana Jones Standard Definition screenshots, which were very good for SD, and they look WAY better than the one showed by that site, of course the guy is using a great projector, but still.. |
Originally Posted by mmconhea
duh.
HD is going to look better than SD. This test compaired SD to HD in HD resolution. No shit it's going to look better. why was this even done? Let's race a stock prius against a 911 next and see who wins. I'm saying it would be interesting to see if even sampled down to the SD playing feild that HD can provide more detail than these mastered DVDs. Which This comparison was done because people want to compare how HD discs and DVD will look on their HDTV. And my point, and others in this thread have agreed, is that if the test were done properly the comparison would be far more valid. But this test seems designed to make DVD look as bad as possible, which makes it stupid. |
Originally Posted by Spiky
No, you have it backwards. There is no point to downrezzing for comparison, it wouldn't have more detail than DVD at that point because you just chopped out all the extra detail. They would look virtually the same.
This comparison was done because people want to compare how HD discs and DVD will look on their HDTV. And my point, and others in this thread have agreed, is that if the test were done properly the comparison would be far more valid. But this test seems designed to make DVD look as bad as possible, which makes it stupid. |
I guess i'm in the minority on this one. I thought most of the SD pics looked better. The "HD" ones looked like the guy just ran some phostoshop contrast effect on them...brighter but grainy/blurry. I highly doubt actual HD versions of these movies would look that bad.
Now that guy that took pics of his projector a few posts up...those were amazing HD pics. |
Originally Posted by discostu1337
I guess i'm in the minority on this one. I thought most of the SD pics looked better. The "HD" ones looked like the guy just ran some phostoshop contrast effect on them...brighter but grainy/blurry. I highly doubt actual HD versions of these movies would look that bad.
Now that guy that took pics of his projector a few posts up...those were amazing HD pics. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:47 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.