HD Talk The place to discuss Blu-ray, 4K and all other forms and formats of HD and HDTV.

Was it hard to say goodbye to DVD?

Old 10-09-07, 12:56 PM
  #51  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,134
I recently upgraded to HD-DVD and have not slowed too much in my DVD purchases. I never bought "new-releases" anyway so its not much of an issue. If the film I want is available in both SD and HD-DVD, I will go with the HD version (ie: Fantastic Planet), if it is not available in HD, I am not going to not buy the film. My only dilema so far has been wether or not to double-dip a title I already own in SD that is made available on HD and gen. I will make the upgrade if the film is worth it (ie: Dog Day Afternoon)
BambooLounge is offline  
Old 10-09-07, 04:34 PM
  #52  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
buckee1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Minding the precious things in the Local Shop
Posts: 4,107
I'm not sure I'll ever say "goodbye" totally to SD DVD. I have way too may titles on SD and will not re-buy most of them. I am totally floored by both HD & Blu Ray and try to get all my new releases in these formats, but am still buying SD discs that look great on SD.
buckee1 is offline  
Old 10-09-07, 08:34 PM
  #53  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,309
Originally Posted by Terri
Full HD is 1920 x 1080 pixels. I have heard that a DVD disc played on a HDTV will look much better than it does on a regular TV.

How high is the resolution (horizontal and vertical pixels) on a good quality DVD disc? I ask because I wonder how much I am missing in detail compared to a HD disc, and how urgent I should feel in replacing my old DVD discs.
On a good quality DVD, the resolution is still the same (720x480--others can chime in on this) but where you get the better quality DVDs, is with the bitrate number. The bitrate spec tells you how much "bandwidth" is being fed out from your DVD player, out from it's processor, and to your television every second. If the number is low, then you will probably see artifacts. If it's high (like around 8Mbps), you will generally get a spectacular DVD.

Now let's confuse you more. You have movie manufacturers which advertise a high bitrate, but the original recording was shitty in the first place. So, what you have is a high bitrate of shit. If that makes sense. If you have an inferior quality print to begin with, it does not matter what bitrate it is, or if it's in HD or not. It will still be crap. It's a basic principle, but I use it a lot. So, your mission, when you choose your HD DVDs, is to find the reviews of it. Find more than one review. Get at least three reviews of it. This will give you an idea of what to expect.

You might want to start a separate post, but the reason for the DVD (generally referred to as an "SD DVD" on the forums) looking better on an HDTV is because the television has a significantly better video processor and can handle a wider dynamic range of colors. Widescreen CRTs which are HD televisions, are still made, but very few of them made. I think Circuit City had a sale on a 30" or something. Samsung was the brand.

Now, please be advised there are some movies which just do not "look" like they are HD. I'm going to get some raised eyebrows when I say this, but Casino is not as good as I would have expected. Colors are exceptionally better. No doubt about that. But the "clarity" is somewhat missing from other HD DVD titles I have. This is due to Martin S's love for a slightly grainy feel to his gangster movies, which is fine, but I would have preferred an immaculate version, with no grain.

You also have to consider some DVDs are made so well, you may not want the HD version after you buy it and watch it. Enter Casino yet again. The SD DVD version of Casino was rather nice. In fact, it was probably one of the best SD DVDs out there. So, you will have a few SD DVDs which will certainly give you your money's worth and make you re-think your HD DVD purchase. However, in the end, the HD DVD purchase is 99% the way to go. There are maybe a few titles which are just horrific on HD DVD, and you should look for the reviews of them.

Some "instant gratification" HD DVDs are:

The Thing (if you've seen the regular DVD version)

Charlie and The Chocolate Factory--the colors are just amazing and will certainly bring out your HDTV's potential.

Unforgiven--you thought a western could look so crisp and clear? Well, it can. One of my fave shots is a close-up of Morgan Freeman's face when he and Eastwood have just arrived in town at the local saloon, and are about to meet Gene Hackman's character.

Phantom Of The Opera

Battle Of The Bulge--gotta love the colors on this. In fact, I'm watching it again this weekend.

You might want to read a few of my previous posts in this thread about HD DVDs as I describe differences a little bit (of course, I'm dragging out this post already). Overall, you are missing a lot of detail from SD DVD. More color, more "clarity", more defined shapes and objects, and basically ZERO color overflow (where the colors blend in with their neighboring colors and should not).
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 10-10-07, 01:08 PM
  #54  
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 103
That was very informative. Thank you so much!

I need a smaller HDTV. But small HDTVs (not even all larger ones) don't have full HD resolution. 1680 x 1050 pixels for the 22" Sony Vaio PC/TV is the most I have found. Will this Sony do the HD resolution and colors justice?

Last edited by Terri; 10-10-07 at 01:54 PM.
Terri is offline  
Old 10-10-07, 07:52 PM
  #55  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,309
Well, we have a few factors you brought up which you need to clarify a little more. You want a smaller HDTV. How small? Because you lose the benefit of HD as the television size gets smaller. 22" is way too small to see much of a difference between HD and DVD. There will be some, but certainly not as much as if you were watching it on a 50" screen. I'd say try to shoot for a 32" size television. 37" would be the target though if you could.

If you absolutely need a 22" size for compactness, then I wouldn't worry about HD at this point.

Last edited by DVD Polizei; 10-10-07 at 07:59 PM.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 10-11-07, 05:27 PM
  #56  
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 103
Space is very limited (plan to have it aboard a boat), and thought to have a combined TV/PC. (I am not sure if it would be comfortable to do computorwork on a big screen.) I figured that if you watch a 22" screen up close, say 3 to 4 feet away, this would compensate for the small size, so that you see the same thing as on a big screen far away.

Ok. Maybe I should rethink for another solution. I suppose I could get a 28" or 32" screen, but it would probably really dominate the space.

Last edited by Terri; 10-11-07 at 05:31 PM.
Terri is offline  
Old 10-11-07, 07:06 PM
  #57  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Drexl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 15,987
I think Boyz II Men said it best:

"If we get to see tomorrow
I hope its worth all the wait
It's so hard to say goodbye to DVD.

And I'll take with me the memories
To be my sunshine after the rain
It's so hard to say goodbye to DVD."

For the most part, no it hasn't been hard, but then again there are still titles yet to be released that may take a while to be available in HD, if ever. In some instances it's just not possible, such as with a show produced in SD like The State or Hardcore TV.

For another thing, I feel we have another OAR fight beginning when it comes to HD versions of some 4:3 material like TV shows. There doesn't seem to be as much controversy over this compared to cropping movies. If they decide to crop the image to fill a 16:9 screen, I'll take the DVD because aspect ratio trumps resolution.
Drexl is offline  
Old 10-23-07, 04:43 PM
  #58  
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 103
I plan on getting a 32" Sony HDTV. I figure I would watch it from about 3,5 feet away when really getting into a movie for theatrical effect, unless when "lazywatching" further away. Should 1366x768 pixels be sufficient, or is it better to go for full HD?

One thing I don't understand. Watching a DVD disc (maximum 720x480 pixels) couldn't possibly show any sharper details on a full 1920x1080 HDTV than on a 1366x768. Even if a HDTV had as low resolution as 720x480, it would have shown the DVD as sharp as it can be shown. So then the resolution above the 720x480 stage doesn't make any difference for a DVD?

Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
Some "instant gratification" HD DVDs are:

The Thing (if you've seen the regular DVD version)

Charlie and The Chocolate Factory--the colors are just amazing and will certainly bring out your HDTV's potential.

Unforgiven--you thought a western could look so crisp and clear? Well, it can. One of my fave shots is a close-up of Morgan Freeman's face when he and Eastwood have just arrived in town at the local saloon,...

Phantom Of The Opera

Battle Of The Bulge--gotta love the colors on this. In fact, I'm watching it again this weekend.

...More color, more "clarity", more defined shapes and objects, and basically ZERO color overflow (where the colors blend in with their neighboring colors and should not).
Do you include 1366x768 resolution for these wonderful qualities, or is it specifically for full HDTV 1920x1080?
Terri is offline  
Old 10-23-07, 05:37 PM
  #59  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
lizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: the Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 7,937
Originally Posted by Terri
I plan on getting a 32" Sony HDTV. I figure I would watch it from about 3,5 feet away when really getting into a movie for theatrical effect, unless when "lazywatching" further away. Should 1366x768 pixels be sufficient, or is it better to go for full HD?
To get an idea of viewing distance, screen size, and resolution check out this chart:

http://www.carltonbale.com/wp-conten...tion_chart.png

One thing I don't understand. Watching a DVD disc (maximum 720x480 pixels) couldn't possibly show any sharper details on a full 1920x1080 HDTV than on a 1366x768. Even if a HDTV had as low resolution as 720x480, it would have shown the DVD as sharp as it can be shown. So then the resolution above the 720x480 stage doesn't make any difference for a DVD?
This is a bit hard to explain, but upscaling SD DVDs involves interpolating the pixel information to create greater numbers of pixels. Yes, the basic information is still 480 x 720. While technically there isn't any additional information when going from 480 lines to 768 to 1080, the higher resolution pictures do, indeed, look better if the upscaling is properly done. This is especially true for easy-to-upscale stuff like animation (large areas of the same color and simple, bold, lines tend to interpolate better than complex live film footage). Just having more lines of resolution makes the picture look smoother at a given viewing distance. This is the whole reason for upscaling DVDs on HD displays; something that many of us have been doing for years.

Do you include 1366x768 resolution for these wonderful qualities, or is it specifically for full HDTV 1920x1080?
There have been many reports here from those with 768 line displays that high def programming and media look considerably better than standard def. Make no mistake about that! Whether 1080 lines look better than 768 depends primarily on viewing distance. If one is sitting close enough, the higher resolution should look better, other things being equal (display quality, calibration, and the like).

[Edited to embed the chart image.]

Last edited by lizard; 10-26-07 at 01:29 PM.
lizard is offline  
Old 10-24-07, 11:44 AM
  #60  
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 103
Thank you. (I can't get the link open on my computor, but I will look at it later on another.)

I can see now about the resolution of detail. If more pixels are used to present the same detail, the lines or borders of forms inevidebly become more smoothly curved.
Terri is offline  
Old 10-24-07, 12:05 PM
  #61  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
The Bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 54,840
Originally Posted by slop101
I have slowed down considerably. But I should point out that Criterion is still releasing great dvds that get me excited - but that's about it.
Considering every new release they have comes from a high-definition master, I'm not giving them another cent until they release in HD.

Might be boorish, but it's the truth. I don't want to rebuy a bunch of movies when I know there's HD masters.
The Bus is offline  
Old 10-24-07, 03:20 PM
  #62  
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 103
I don't see why Sony doesn't make the 32" in full HD. The bigger full HD 40" is viewed from a greater distance than the 32", and still, even though it is much bigger, the pixels are actually smaller in size. If you mentally outline a 32" 16:9 piece of the 40", this part still has more pixels than the 32" 1366x768 screen, namely 1512x850 pixels. Even though you are watching it further away. It doesn't make sense. It should have been the other way around. Since the 32" is watched from closer distance, its pixels should be comparatively smaller in size.
Terri is offline  
Old 10-24-07, 05:00 PM
  #63  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,309
Originally Posted by Terri
Do you include 1366x768 resolution for these wonderful qualities, or is it specifically for full HDTV 1920x1080?
Most certianly @ 1,366 x 768. I have a 50" Plasma which is 1080i (but not native of course). The max resolution is 1,366 x 768.

But it's not just the resolution. 1920 x 1080 can be misleading. It's the amount of information being transferred via the signal per second--the bitrate which is important. Unfortunately, we have this to consider also. Some HD titles just suck and are not worth the upgrade--although there are relatively few, and while they technically have a resolution of 1080p, the data flowing from the HD DVD to your HDTV is just not even close to what it should be.

So, again, you could have a 1080p HD/BD DVD as the spec on the case--meaning 1920 x 1080, but in reality, it won't matter much if the data signal passing from the DVD player to your television, is inferior.

And then the third factor is the quality of the film itself to begin with. You could have a high bitrate on HD DVD, but if the quality of the film was from a period where it was just not possible (or the director just didn't use much care in thinking about future quality), then it just won't compare to the latest HD releases. It's like taking your VHS-recorded movies, and then recording them digitally at 20/Mbps, expecting a HD quality result.

Hope that makes sense. Using all those factors is necessary in determining just how much better a title is going to be on HD.

Reviews of HD titles are essential. More so than SD DVD because the financial investment is so much greater.

Last edited by DVD Polizei; 10-24-07 at 05:05 PM.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 10-24-07, 06:32 PM
  #64  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
lizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: the Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 7,937
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
Most certianly @ 1,366 x 768. I have a 50" Plasma which is 1080i (but not native of course). The max resolution is 1,366 x 768.
Just to clarify, a 1366 x 768 display is not "1080i". It has to accept and downconvert a 1080i input because that is one of the HDTV broadcast standards.

But it's not just the resolution. 1920 x 1080 can be misleading. It's the amount of information being transferred via the signal per second--the bitrate which is important. Unfortunately, we have this to consider also. Some HD titles just suck and are not worth the upgrade--although there are relatively few, and while they technically have a resolution of 1080p, the data flowing from the HD DVD to your HDTV is just not even close to what it should be.
Any HD DVD or BD player connected via HDMI has sufficient bandwidth to provide excellent picture quality. Essentially all BDs and HD DVDs are encoded at 1920 x 1080 resolution (or its equivalent, in the case of non 16:9 aspect ratio material). Whether or not they take full advantage of HD resolution has to do with several factors, including the quality of the master and how well the master was compressed. But bitrate is rarely the limiting factor in the new HD formats. Both formats have the disc space and bandwidth to provide excellent picture and audio quality, as we have seen on numerous titles released thus far.

So, again, you could have a 1080p HD/BD DVD as the spec on the case--meaning 1920 x 1080, but in reality, it won't matter much if the data signal passing from the DVD player to your television, is inferior.

And then the third factor is the quality of the film itself to begin with. You could have a high bitrate on HD DVD, but if the quality of the film was from a period where it was just not possible (or the director just didn't use much care in thinking about future quality), then it just won't compare to the latest HD releases. It's like taking your VHS-recorded movies, and then recording them digitally at 20/Mbps, expecting a HD quality result.
Pretty much any movie shot on film has the potential to look terrific in HD unless the film itself is degraded. As has been pointed out in this forum numerous times, the effective resolution of film stock is considerably greater than 1920 x 1080. However, TV shows recorded on video tape at 480 lines of resolution probably can't be much improved in transferring to HD. Many TV shows were shot on film though and could look pretty good if the film remains in good condition.
lizard is offline  
Old 10-28-07, 11:22 AM
  #65  
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 103
A Sony 40" in full HD 1920x1080 resolution has a dynamic contrast of 7000:1.

The 32" with 1366x768 resolution has a dynamic contrast of 8000:1.

Will the higher contrast compensate somewhat for the lower resolution, and give a sharper image?
Terri is offline  
Old 10-28-07, 11:37 AM
  #66  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 14,802
I'm still purchasing standard DVD's (of course I just joined the HD-DVD club a week ago). I've been renting from Netflix and I've bought a few so far...but certain things I don't see being in HD for a while (Scrubs, for example) and certain movies are only on Blu-Ray, which I won't be purchasing (Spiderman 3), so those will be SD purchases for me.

= J
Tarantino is offline  
Old 10-28-07, 11:57 AM
  #67  
DVD Talk Legend
 
TheMovieman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,402
I haven't gone HD quite yet (later this year or early next year) but my plan is to just buy HD-DVDs for specific titles (Batman Begins, Transformers, etc). If there's a comedy I like and the features are comprable, I'll probably still buy the SD-DVD.
TheMovieman is offline  
Old 10-28-07, 12:16 PM
  #68  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
lizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: the Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 7,937
Originally Posted by Terri
A Sony 40" in full HD 1920x1080 resolution has a dynamic contrast of 7000:1.

The 32" with 1366x768 resolution has a dynamic contrast of 8000:1.

Will the higher contrast compensate somewhat for the lower resolution, and give a sharper image?
Short answer: No.

The contrast you are referring to has to do with black levels. Contrast/black level has little to do with perceived resolution, although a higher contrast display should show more detail in dark areas of a picture. But a difference of 7000:1 to 8000:1 is not significant anyway (7000:1 versus 700:1 would be noticeable, under some viewing conditions).
lizard is offline  
Old 10-28-07, 12:50 PM
  #69  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Paul_SD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hiking the Sisyphian trail
Posts: 6,312
I view HDMs as a vitamin supplement, or dessert- while my steady diet is and will remain for some time, sd dvd.

after all, its all about content, and the content I most want to watch is going to be overwhelmingly on sd dvd.
I don;t anticipate this ratio changing all that much in the next 5 years.
Especially not with studios like Warner cutting back on release of catalog titles and classics.
Paul_SD is offline  
Old 10-28-07, 03:52 PM
  #70  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,309
Originally Posted by lizard
Any HD DVD or BD player connected via HDMI has sufficient bandwidth to provide excellent picture quality. Essentially all BDs and HD DVDs are encoded at 1920 x 1080 resolution (or its equivalent, in the case of non 16:9 aspect ratio material). Whether or not they take full advantage of HD resolution has to do with several factors, including the quality of the master and how well the master was compressed. But bitrate is rarely the limiting factor in the new HD formats. Both formats have the disc space and bandwidth to provide excellent picture and audio quality, as we have seen on numerous titles released thus far.
Oh I agree--it has the capability. But the problem is, how do we know if the HD content is actually being transfered at a given bitrate--no one seems to be checking--and second, if it was recorded at a higher bitrate on level with a typical HD output, was the source material good enough so the higher bitrate would be beneficial in the first place.

I can't tell you how many times I've checked the disc capacity on a typical DVD, and while it could have been about 6GB-7GB in size, it was merely 3 or 4GB in size--and this is on a dual-layer disc. Of course, the features are probably to blame for the inferior picture quality, as the studios want to cram as much idiotic features on the disc. We have SD DVD capacities which aren't even maximized on the most part. I'm hoping we don't have the same problems with HD content, but I'm still cautious. Overall, I am grateful for HD.

Originally Posted by lizard
Pretty much any movie shot on film has the potential to look terrific in HD unless the film itself is degraded. As has been pointed out in this forum numerous times, the effective resolution of film stock is considerably greater than 1920 x 1080. However, TV shows recorded on video tape at 480 lines of resolution probably can't be much improved in transferring to HD. Many TV shows were shot on film though and could look pretty good if the film remains in good condition.
Once again, I agree. Having potential is the key here. We have so many obstactles a film goes through to when the consumer presses play on their HD player, it's actually amazing to me we manage to get such great picture quality on most HD movies.

Last edited by DVD Polizei; 10-28-07 at 03:58 PM.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 10-28-07, 08:32 PM
  #71  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
lizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: the Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 7,937
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
...Once again, I agree. Having potential is the key here. We have so many obstactles a film goes through to when the consumer presses play on their HD player, it's actually amazing to me we manage to get such great picture quality on most HD movies.
True that! Encoding issues aside, the film restoration wizards have done some amazing things with older films. The HD DVD of Casablanca probably looks better than the original film did during much of its theatrical run, once it got scratched and dirty.
lizard is offline  
Old 10-30-07, 07:20 PM
  #72  
DVD Talk Legend
 
TheMovieman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,402
When I make the change to HD-DVD in Dec/Jan, I'll still buy regular 'ol DVDs for comedies and other titles that I don't need in HD (unless it has some great exclusives that would be worth the extra cost).

Pre-ordered my first HD-DVD today: Blade Runner (5-Disc)
TheMovieman is offline  
Old 10-30-07, 08:07 PM
  #73  
DVD Talk Legend
 
islandclaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 20,035
I haven't said goodbye, and I won't. I just got my HD player on Saturday so I relatively new to the game, but there is WAY too much stuff I want on SD. SD still looks good people. We drooled over it when it first arrived and it's still drool-inducing at times now. Sure, an AWESOME HD-DVD will always look better than a SD, but there are plentyof SD's out and coming out that will look fabulous in their own right. Plus some titles I want are BD only, so I have no choice.
islandclaws is offline  
Old 10-31-07, 09:32 AM
  #74  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,132
Originally Posted by KillerCannabis
I haven't said goodbye, and I won't. I just got my HD player on Saturday so I relatively new to the game, but there is WAY too much stuff I want on SD. SD still looks good people. We drooled over it when it first arrived and it's still drool-inducing at times now. Sure, an AWESOME HD-DVD will always look better than a SD, but there are plentyof SD's out and coming out that will look fabulous in their own right. Plus some titles I want are BD only, so I have no choice.
I'm in the same boat -- I just got my HD-DVD player on Sunday, and I'm finding that there are titles I want that are Blu-ray only, so in those instances I will buy the SD because I don't have a choice. (Buying a Blu-ray player is not an option -- I'm not independently wealthy.) And truth be told, some of the HD-DVD prices are staggering, which will certainly curb my blind buys (at least in HD).
bookcase3 is offline  
Old 10-31-07, 11:28 AM
  #75  
tpc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 406
I don't know how I'll react to this. We're getting ready to purchase an HD Set and an HD-DVD player. Over the years, I've amassed a nice DVD collection, and I'm sure I'll eventually upgrade some of them to HD. I can't see rebuying all of them immediately. I mean, certain movies, like the LOTR trilogy, you need in cutting edge quality... but do I need The 40 Year Old Virgin in 1080p? I'm not sure.

That said, once it's in my house, and I see it all in action, I may be swayed differently.
tpc is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.