LOTR: HD vs. SD Comparisons
01-26-07 | 07:05 PM
#26
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 4,433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Los Angeles, CA
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..
01-26-07 | 10:36 PM
#27
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Last edited by Frenzal Rhomb; 01-26-07 at 10:41 PM.
01-26-07 | 11:42 PM
#28
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. 
01-27-07 | 12:14 AM
#29
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..
01-27-07 | 01:16 AM
#30
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 6,830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Mpls, MN
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
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.
01-27-07 | 01:23 AM
#31
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
01-27-07 | 12:38 PM
#32
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Diego
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.
Now that guy that took pics of his projector a few posts up...those were amazing HD pics.
01-28-07 | 01:50 AM
#33
Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: MI
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.
Now that guy that took pics of his projector a few posts up...those were amazing HD pics.
