HD VS SD |
HD VS SD |
May 28 2010, 05:25 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Tick tock, Bill Group: Administrator Posts: 8,764 Joined: Dec 2005 Member No: 333,948 |
I never thought that I would become a quality whore but lately, I can hardly stand to watch anything in standard definiation. Beyond that, I read reviews for just about everything I'm thinking of upgrading (most recently, Sin City which is an amazing blu-ray upgrade).
It's actually becoming a problem because we only two blu-ray players - The PS3 downstairs and the blu-ray player in my room. What that means in the long haul is that my son and my mother can't watch anything new that I'm purchasing (since they only have DVD players). Anyway, I was wondering if anyone else was experiencing the same thing - becoming nearly completely adverse to watching standard def. |
|
|
May 28 2010, 09:05 PM
Post
#2
|
|
/人◕‿‿◕人\ Group: Official Member Posts: 8,283 Joined: Dec 2007 Member No: 602,927 |
tbh I can't see the difference
|
|
|
May 28 2010, 09:20 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Sex, Blood, & RocknRoll Group: People Staff Posts: 5,305 Joined: Nov 2007 Member No: 596,480 |
I have never watched anything in HD, or if I did couldn't tell the difference.
|
|
|
May 28 2010, 10:29 PM
Post
#4
|
|
in a matter of time Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,151 Joined: Aug 2005 Member No: 191,357 |
Yeah I definitely can't stand SD! I hardly watch shows at their scheduled time anymore, as I don't have HD...I just download the HD episodes and watch on my PS3.
|
|
|
May 29 2010, 05:26 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,665 Joined: Aug 2008 Member No: 676,364 |
tbh I can't see the difference I have never watched anything in HD, or if I did couldn't tell the difference. top is bluray, bottom is standard dvd. notice the natural colors and how the pixels aren't thinned or stretched and that the image is slightly sharper. |
|
|
May 29 2010, 09:53 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Senior Member Group: Administrator Posts: 2,648 Joined: Apr 2008 Member No: 639,265 |
I was really amazed by the difference. Last year, my roommate had an HD TV so we had HD cable. I never thought I'd say this, but even watching something like football or hockey is way better in HD. I was impressed.
I've gotten pretty pampered by screens lately. I have a MacBook Pro with a really nice glossy LED display, and the colors are so rich and images are so sharp that I even get annoyed using a computer with a normal LCD screen. Definitely can't wait for LED TVs to become more mainstream and cheaper. |
|
|
May 30 2010, 12:56 AM
Post
#7
|
|
/人◕‿‿◕人\ Group: Official Member Posts: 8,283 Joined: Dec 2007 Member No: 602,927 |
top is bluray, bottom is standard dvd. notice the natural colors and how the pixels aren't thinned or stretched and that the image is slightly sharper. HD has nothing to do with stretched pixels or image sharpness, it's about resolution. You simply cannot tell the difference at smaller sizes. Obviously, hd is going to look better at 40", but nobody with more sense than money watches TV at that size. |
|
|
May 30 2010, 05:14 AM
Post
#8
|
|
Senior Member Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,665 Joined: Aug 2008 Member No: 676,364 |
HD has nothing to do with stretched pixels or image sharpness, it's about resolution. You simply cannot tell the difference at smaller sizes. Obviously, hd is going to look better at 40", but nobody with more sense than money watches TV at that size. well duh, that's just common sense if you're talking about 1080p. But 720p can still look very awesome on TV's less than 40". but why are we talking about TV sizes? . but like i said, the colors are still more natural even on smaller tv's. regular dvd < blu ray quality |
|
|
May 30 2010, 12:27 PM
Post
#9
|
|
/人◕‿‿◕人\ Group: Official Member Posts: 8,283 Joined: Dec 2007 Member No: 602,927 |
|
|
|
May 30 2010, 02:20 PM
Post
#10
|
|
Senior Member Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,665 Joined: Aug 2008 Member No: 676,364 |
well when you talk about resolution, that's basically the quality of the picture.
QUOTE The display resolution of a digital television or display device is the number of distinct pixels in each dimension that can be displayed. It can be an ambiguous term especially as the displayed resolution is controlled by all different factors in cathode ray tube (CRT) and flat panel or projection displays using fixed picture-element (pixel) arrays. if you're talking about TV's QUOTE Obviously, hd is going to look better at 40", but nobody with more sense than money watches TV at that size. then you're talking about picture quality. HD does have to do with picture quality. what else would there be? |
|
|
May 30 2010, 02:24 PM
Post
#11
|
|
I'm Jc Group: Mentor Posts: 13,619 Joined: Jul 2006 Member No: 437,556 |
i've never had a problem with SD. i haven't been able to tell the difference either really. maybe if i watched it all the time and then switched back.
|
|
|
May 30 2010, 02:33 PM
Post
#12
|
|
Tick tock, Bill Group: Administrator Posts: 8,764 Joined: Dec 2005 Member No: 333,948 |
Maybe it's just the perception of higher quality? Regardless, my eyes love the HD. If I'm watching a blu-ray disc and switch to TV (we haven't switched to HD cable yet) there is a huge difference. Everything is fuzzier, the colors are less vibrant, the sound isn't as clear, and so on.
|
|
|
May 30 2010, 03:49 PM
Post
#13
|
|
Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,154 Joined: Feb 2005 Member No: 95,404 |
We recently got an HD TV and I jizzed my pants at the beautifulness of it.
|
|
|
May 30 2010, 03:58 PM
Post
#14
|
|
/人◕‿‿◕人\ Group: Official Member Posts: 8,283 Joined: Dec 2007 Member No: 602,927 |
well when you talk about resolution, that's basically the quality of the picture. if you're talking about TV's then you're talking about picture quality. HD does have to do with picture quality. what else would there be? High resolution means you can make it bigger without it looking like a big pile of ass. It has almost nothing to do with the quality of the picture. Blu-ray vs. DVD is a totally different argument. Since you can fit so much more data on a blu-ray disk, that leaves room for better quality graphics, better quality audio, etc. Put a 30 second clip at 1080p in a blu-ray disk and in a DVD, I can guarantee they will look and sound exactly the same. Edit: Hell, put a 1080p clip on a VHS and on a Blu-ray disk, it will still look exactly the same. |
|
|
May 30 2010, 05:37 PM
Post
#15
|
|
Senior Member Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,665 Joined: Aug 2008 Member No: 676,364 |
High resolution means you can make it bigger without it looking like a big pile of ass. It has almost nothing to do with the quality of the picture. alright, i get the high resolution part, but just to clarify High Resolution is a part of HD and picture quality. are you saying that if i have a resolution of 1920x1080 vs. 480ix100, the quality would still be the same? like you said, more space is available, but the clarity of the image is much different. i don't know if this would count, but if you try switching the view format of a PS3 from say, 1080p to 480p, then there the screen would look more compact since there's not much space to transfer. but the first thing noticeable is the quality and jaggyness. i'm just trying to say that resolution has a thing to do with image quality, which sounds just about right if you ask me. QUOTE Blu-ray vs. DVD is a totally different argument. Since you can fit so much more data on a blu-ray disk, that leaves room for better quality graphics, better quality audio, etc. Put a 30 second clip at 1080p in a blu-ray disk and in a DVD, I can guarantee they will look and sound exactly the same. New high-resolution soundtrack formats, such as Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio, are in blu-ray compared to regular dvd, so the sound will be much different. srsly, just use a bluray player from someone and put in a movie that has two versions. a regular dvd version and blu-ray, then tell me if you see any differences. the only thing that'll be the same for both versions is their memory usage on the cd, but of course, blu-ray will still leave more memory available. oh and if you ask me, the colors look more natural. |
|
|
May 30 2010, 06:12 PM
Post
#16
|
|
/人◕‿‿◕人\ Group: Official Member Posts: 8,283 Joined: Dec 2007 Member No: 602,927 |
This is what I'm talking about"
Here are two images blown up to 1080p color quality is the same, right, it's just one is jagged. Now look at the same two images thumbnailed, which happens to be the actual resolution you'll be watching it on with most televisions. Looks no different. Here is an example that's even more in my favor: Oh, and can you tell which is which? (if you get it don't let it go to your head, you've got a 50% chance) |
|
|
May 30 2010, 08:35 PM
Post
#17
|
|
Senior Member Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,665 Joined: Aug 2008 Member No: 676,364 |
obviously, you don't see the color difference. dvd looks much more saturated, while bluray is more natural, again. and like i said you should watch it for yourself, besides just examining one still image. oh and pics won't help you favor in your sound theory being the same.
and i'm gonna take a wild guess and go with the tv on the right is bluray, just sayin cuz i see the bluray logo on the player. |
|
|
May 30 2010, 10:56 PM
Post
#18
|
|
/人◕‿‿◕人\ Group: Official Member Posts: 8,283 Joined: Dec 2007 Member No: 602,927 |
The color difference has nothing to do with the medium
You don't see a color difference in the first one, the second you only see a color difference because the bluray version is remastered, and the third you only see a color difference because the tv on the left has it's color settings f*cked up because the display is trying to show the merits of blu-ray |
|
|
May 30 2010, 11:21 PM
Post
#19
|
|
Senior Member Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,665 Joined: Aug 2008 Member No: 676,364 |
for the first one, i meant as in shadows, sorry. the shadows for the first one is slightly better. for the second image, the bluray dvd is remastered, so that's definitely a point for me for having an original movie completely edited and then being shown on a bluray cd is awesome, cause bluray is just cool like that. and for the third image, excuses. are you saying that the left tv is trying to compete or level the playing field to even the odds with bluray quality? so that means the regular dvd version needs to be improved with the tv settings just to look similar to the bluray version?
and QUOTE oh and pics won't help you favor in your sound theory being the same.
|
|
|
May 31 2010, 12:51 AM
Post
#20
|
|
Senior Member Group: Administrator Posts: 2,648 Joined: Apr 2008 Member No: 639,265 |
I am now dumber for having read this thread.
|
|
|
May 31 2010, 12:53 AM
Post
#21
|
|
/人◕‿‿◕人\ Group: Official Member Posts: 8,283 Joined: Dec 2007 Member No: 602,927 |
for the first one, i meant as in shadows, sorry. the shadows for the first one is slightly better. what shadows are you even looking at? for the second image, the bluray dvd is remastered, so that's definitely a point for me for having an original movie completely edited and then being shown on a bluray cd is awesome, cause bluray is just cool like that. no, it's a point for me because the only difference is that they f*cked with the saturation and for the third image, excuses. are you saying that the left tv is trying to compete or level the playing field to even the odds with bluray quality? so that means the regular dvd version needs to be improved with the tv settings just to look similar to the bluray version? and I'm saying they f*cked with the color settings on the left tv so it turns out blue and less natural looking, they f*cked it up, not improved it |
|
|
May 31 2010, 12:53 AM
Post
#22
|
|
/人◕‿‿◕人\ Group: Official Member Posts: 8,283 Joined: Dec 2007 Member No: 602,927 |
|
|
|
May 31 2010, 01:22 AM
Post
#23
|
|
;p Group: Member Posts: 280 Joined: May 2004 Member No: 17,685 |
buttsex, cum, buttsex, cum
|
|
|
May 31 2010, 03:10 AM
Post
#24
|
|
◕ ◡ ◕ Group: Official Member Posts: 4,779 Joined: Jun 2006 Member No: 416,697 |
lmao
|
|
|
May 31 2010, 07:01 AM
Post
#25
|
|
(′ ・ω・`) Group: Official Designer Posts: 6,179 Joined: Dec 2004 Member No: 72,477 |
|
|
|