300 Visual comparison SD DVD-BLU - Blu-ray Forum

pro-bassoonist · 09-28-2007, 08:02 AM

Here's a look at the visual comparison between the SDVD and BLU (HDDVD) our colleagues at the Spanish ZONA have compiled:
http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?n...icle&artid=749

Bonus: Take a look at the exclusive steelbook by the French-Spanish vendor FNAC:
http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?n...icle&artid=748

Forza Italia...

Pro-B

david2189 · 09-28-2007, 08:14 AM

wow blu ray comes out far superior didnt expect it to be that different

Deciazulado · 09-28-2007, 09:18 AM

Well the PAL* DVD pics are uprezed 42% in area, while the 1080 pics are reduced to 28% their original size, so I think the BD looks even a leetel bit better than that

What I find interesting is the bit they say about the bits of the high def versions in their egg containers sizes..

oh well

¡Que viva España!

*(which on their own have 20% more resolution than the NTSC DVD)

DrinkMore · 09-28-2007, 11:09 AM

I am always amazed that I have been watching crap for many years. Thank you Blu!

HDJK · 09-28-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

...
What I find interesting is the bit they say about the bits of the high def versions in their egg containers sizes..

oh well

Care to elaborate for the non Spanish speaking folks here

?

Copywriter · 09-28-2007, 06:27 PM

http://www.zonadvd.com/imagenes/arti...a_300/300.html

The difference makes it look like we've all been watching movies through dirty glasses all these years.

Of course, I'd like to see an upscaled comparison. I know my oppo does a great job upscaling.

Manco · 09-28-2007, 06:54 PM

Excellent work! That is a stunning comparison example.

Can we somehow put that up on our site so when people say "it looks grainy" we can say "no...it's clarifying the visual elements".

I was in BestBuy over the weekend and and there was a guy fumbling around with the S300 display for which they were showing POTC. He asked me: "Do you know anything about this stuff. Why does the movie look so coarse?". I noted his choice of language: "coarse". He was evidentally trying to fine-tune the TV. I said: "Sure do. You are used to to seeing softened images from VHS and DVD and not yet used to the extremely detailed clarity of HiDef, especailly when the intent of the film maker is too add some visual hardness or grain".

I find these comments interesing. Most people's visual clarity has been dumbed down from year of SD/VHS/DVD and seem to expect softend imagery. Or maybe it's from too many years of reading Playboy??

Xerious · 09-28-2007, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by david2189

wow blu ray comes out far superior didnt expect it to be that different

OMG, the SD looks so much better... the HD version has soooooo much grain

just kidding...

sj001 · 09-28-2007, 06:34 PM

The difference is striking, I should show this to my GF, she says that Blu-ray only looks a "little" better than DVD.

dialog_gvf · 09-28-2007, 06:35 PM

Where did all the snowflakes go on DVD?

haushausman · 09-28-2007, 06:57 PM

Holy S*it!!! Huge difference! But the grain?... why is it grainy?

LOL.. j/k... I haven't heard the word "grainy" for awhile now... thought these boards needed a dose.

The scene where they are rebuilding the wall... the DVD makes all the rocks appear only as rocks. The HD version you can clearly see the dead bodies.

Awesome

Copywriter · 09-28-2007, 07:10 PM

Once upon a time we were told to buy Widescreen to "see what we were missing."

That time has returned. Buy BLU and see what you're missing.

dobyblue · 09-28-2007, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xerious

OMG, the SD looks so much better... the HD version has soooooo much grain

just kidding...

Maybe you meant to say "the HD version shows sooooo much rain"

tron3 · 09-28-2007, 09:23 PM

Ok. I know now I know the server was moved and that is why I lost my post. Thanks for recovering it. Here is my original post they recovered. thanks.

The DVD pics all look muddied and blurred. It really is amazing people put up with that crap all these years.

I might be mistaken, but I think read an article about the original inception of TV. While people were amazed at the technology of tv, it was thought the picture left something to be desired. Yes, people probably noticed it back then. After all, they were accustomed to the theater resolution.

When I was still a teen, my father knew an old man, Mr. Wolf, who repaired TV's before retiring. He said when he was young and TV was becoming available, someone told him it was just a passing fad and nothing would become of it! Even back in the 80's this old guy understood how TV took off and the technology was even used in computer monitors.

So yeah, HDTV and blu-ray are passing fads.

Teazle · 09-28-2007, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tron3

I know I replied here and nothing was wrong with what I said.

WHo is deleting my posts?

This isn't the only place I see it happening.

I lost one post (different thread) during the move to the new server earlier today.

Frode · 09-28-2007, 09:54 PM

*sigh* Yeah, my posts got nuked as well. What I did say though, is that this comparison is a dud. What they're showing isn't how much better HD is over SD, it's how bad the Spanish 300 DVD is. The comparison pics are in anamorphic PAL SD resolution, so by all rights the quality should be about equal, with the HD only having a minor edge on the SD for horizontal resolution. Instead the difference is huge, which means that the DVD is botched. It's only a valid comparison for these discs in particular, but not really something you can use for HD vs SD in general.

Xerious · 09-28-2007, 10:00 PM

:: meh :::

should relabel the tags from DVD to HD-DVD... then show it to people

pro-bassoonist · 09-29-2007, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frode

*sigh* Yeah, my posts got nuked as well. What I did say though, is that this comparison is a dud. What they're showing isn't how much better HD is over SD, it's how bad the Spanish 300 DVD is. The comparison pics are in anamorphic PAL SD resolution, so by all rights the quality should be about equal, with the HD only having a minor edge on the SD for horizontal resolution. Instead the difference is huge, which means that the DVD is botched. It's only a valid comparison for these discs in particular, but not really something you can use for HD vs SD in general.

With all due respect the visual comparison is anything but a dud. In fact, ZONA is the one site (in addition to a French review forum) which I always give as an example for quality work. I do not wish to sound too insisting since I am also a staff reviewer at TALK but the auntenticity of what is being posted is not to be questioned.

Pro-B

Frode · 09-29-2007, 11:27 AM

Pro-B, re-read my post. I'm sure the comparison is valid, in that they took proper screenshots of the same frames and didn't to any post-processing etc. What it does show us however, is how bad the 300 DVD is, not how much better HD is than SD in general. The HD shots aren't IN HD, so if you actually took those at native res without downscaling to SD, the difference would be even greater. If you want to do a general comparison of HD vs SD you'll have to pick a DVD that's considered to be reference, say 5th Element Superbit, upscale THAT to 1080P and then compare that to the BD version.

PS. Deci - I wouldn't really call that an upscale. DVD pixels aren't square, so all you'd be doing is "stretching" the pixels in order to get the correct aspect ratio. It's necessary in order to do a proper comparison of the two, AR to AR, and it's also the "native" resolution of anamorphic PAL played back on a computer. Mind you I do realize that the HD version that's downscaled to it will have _slightly_ more horizontal detail since the pixels in that case are square. A proper way to negate that would be to downscale the HD first to 720x576, and then stretch it to match the anamorphic SD at 1024x576.

Deciazulado · 09-29-2007, 05:43 AM

I saw one post asking something more or less like: "how is 576 x 1024 42% bigger since that is the only way to display widescreen PAL DVDs w/o loss" (that was Frode's or Tron's?)

Well 576 x 1024 is a 42% enlargement because the PAL frame is 576 x 720 and to widen it to 1024 you have to upscale the 720 pixels 42%: 720 x 1.4222 = 1024

About the bit about the bits it mentioned something abuout small diferences in bitrates between the formats because of the differences in disc sizes (50GB and 30GB). Maybe I'll do a full translation tomorrow. (or maybe I'll just watch Dracula

)

09-28-2007, 08:02 AM	#1
pro-bassoonist Blu-ray reviewer Top contributor Member since:Jul 2007 Location:X Home Theater Gallery:47 4K collection:- Blu-ray collection:- DVD collection:- Blu-ray reviews: 31 Trading Score:23	300 Visual comparison SD DVD-BLU Here's a look at the visual comparison between the SDVD and BLU (HDDVD) our colleagues at the Spanish ZONA have compiled: http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?n...icle&artid=749 Bonus: Take a look at the exclusive steelbook by the French-Spanish vendor FNAC: http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?n...icle&artid=748 Forza Italia... Pro-B

09-28-2007, 09:23 PM	#14
tron3 Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Aug 2004 Location:New Jersey Blu-ray reviews:3	Ok. I know now I know the server was moved and that is why I lost my post. Thanks for recovering it. Here is my original post they recovered. thanks. The DVD pics all look muddied and blurred. It really is amazing people put up with that crap all these years. I might be mistaken, but I think read an article about the original inception of TV. While people were amazed at the technology of tv, it was thought the picture left something to be desired. Yes, people probably noticed it back then. After all, they were accustomed to the theater resolution. When I was still a teen, my father knew an old man, Mr. Wolf, who repaired TV's before retiring. He said when he was young and TV was becoming available, someone told him it was just a passing fad and nothing would become of it! Even back in the 80's this old guy understood how TV took off and the technology was even used in computer monitors. So yeah, HDTV and blu-ray are passing fads. Last edited by tron3; 09-29-2007 at 06:16 PM.

09-29-2007, 11:27 AM	#19
Frode Special Member Member since:Feb 2007	Pro-B, re-read my post. I'm sure the comparison is valid, in that they took proper screenshots of the same frames and didn't to any post-processing etc. What it does show us however, is how bad the 300 DVD is, not how much better HD is than SD in general. The HD shots aren't IN HD, so if you actually took those at native res without downscaling to SD, the difference would be even greater. If you want to do a general comparison of HD vs SD you'll have to pick a DVD that's considered to be reference, say 5th Element Superbit, upscale THAT to 1080P and then compare that to the BD version. PS. Deci - I wouldn't really call that an upscale. DVD pixels aren't square, so all you'd be doing is "stretching" the pixels in order to get the correct aspect ratio. It's necessary in order to do a proper comparison of the two, AR to AR, and it's also the "native" resolution of anamorphic PAL played back on a computer. Mind you I do realize that the HD version that's downscaled to it will have _slightly_ more horizontal detail since the pixels in that case are square. A proper way to negate that would be to downscale the HD first to 720x576, and then stretch it to match the anamorphic SD at 1024x576. Last edited by Frode; 09-29-2007 at 11:57 AM.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
Taken Blu-ray/DVD Comparison	Blu-ray Movies - North America	Phoenix Theory	10	05-18-2009 04:05 AM
Spiderman 3 (DVD) vs Spiderman 3 BR (visual comparison)	Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology	pro-bassoonist	35	11-10-2007 05:43 AM
300 Blu-ray vs. 300 HD DVD	Blu-ray Movies - North America	Mr. Joshua	137	08-03-2007 03:43 PM
Comparison HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray	Blu-ray Movies - North America	Mikey616	1	08-05-2006 09:55 PM
Blu Ray vs HD dvd direct comparison	Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology	GTP	0	02-13-2006 01:51 AM

09-28-2007, 08:14 AM	#2
david2189 Expert Member Member since:Sep 2007 Location:London, UK Blu-ray collection:183	wow blu ray comes out far superior didnt expect it to be that different

09-28-2007, 09:18 AM	#3
Deciazulado Site Manager Top contributor Member since:Aug 2006 Location:USiberia Home Theater Gallery:6 4K collection:1160 Blu-ray collection:7047 DVD collection:4044	Well the PAL* DVD pics are uprezed 42% in area, while the 1080 pics are reduced to 28% their original size, so I think the BD looks even a leetel bit better than that What I find interesting is the bit they say about the bits of the high def versions in their egg containers sizes.. oh well ¡Que viva España! *(which on their own have 20% more resolution than the NTSC DVD)

09-28-2007, 11:09 AM	#4
DrinkMore Banned Member since:Apr 2007 Location:That's What She Said! Blu-ray collection:140 Blu-ray reviews:7 Trading Score:3	I am always amazed that I have been watching crap for many years. Thank you Blu!

09-28-2007, 06:27 PM	#6
Copywriter Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Sep 2007 Location:Vegas Baby, Vegas	http://www.zonadvd.com/imagenes/arti...a_300/300.html The difference makes it look like we've all been watching movies through dirty glasses all these years. Of course, I'd like to see an upscaled comparison. I know my oppo does a great job upscaling.

09-28-2007, 06:54 PM	#7
Manco Special Member Member since:Jun 2007 Location:Tucumcari	Excellent work! That is a stunning comparison example. Can we somehow put that up on our site so when people say "it looks grainy" we can say "no...it's clarifying the visual elements". I was in BestBuy over the weekend and and there was a guy fumbling around with the S300 display for which they were showing POTC. He asked me: "Do you know anything about this stuff. Why does the movie look so coarse?". I noted his choice of language: "coarse". He was evidentally trying to fine-tune the TV. I said: "Sure do. You are used to to seeing softened images from VHS and DVD and not yet used to the extremely detailed clarity of HiDef, especailly when the intent of the film maker is too add some visual hardness or grain". I find these comments interesing. Most people's visual clarity has been dumbed down from year of SD/VHS/DVD and seem to expect softend imagery. Or maybe it's from too many years of reading Playboy??

09-28-2007, 06:34 PM	#9
sj001 Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Aug 2007 Location:Rochester, NY Blu-ray collection:317 DVD collection:17 Trading Score:5	The difference is striking, I should show this to my GF, she says that Blu-ray only looks a "little" better than DVD.

09-28-2007, 06:35 PM	#10
dialog_gvf Moderator Member since:Nov 2006 Location:Toronto Blu-ray collection:320	Where did all the snowflakes go on DVD?

09-28-2007, 06:57 PM	#11
haushausman Special Member Member since:Jan 2007 Location:Chicago Home Theater Gallery:12 Blu-ray collection:343 Blu-ray reviews: 5	Holy S*it!!! Huge difference! But the grain?... why is it grainy? LOL.. j/k... I haven't heard the word "grainy" for awhile now... thought these boards needed a dose. The scene where they are rebuilding the wall... the DVD makes all the rocks appear only as rocks. The HD version you can clearly see the dead bodies. Awesome

09-28-2007, 07:10 PM	#12
Copywriter Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Sep 2007 Location:Vegas Baby, Vegas	Once upon a time we were told to buy Widescreen to "see what we were missing." That time has returned. Buy BLU and see what you're missing.

09-28-2007, 09:54 PM	#16
Frode Special Member Member since:Feb 2007	sigh Yeah, my posts got nuked as well. What I did say though, is that this comparison is a dud. What they're showing isn't how much better HD is over SD, it's how bad the Spanish 300 DVD is. The comparison pics are in anamorphic PAL SD resolution, so by all rights the quality should be about equal, with the HD only having a minor edge on the SD for horizontal resolution. Instead the difference is huge, which means that the DVD is botched. It's only a valid comparison for these discs in particular, but not really something you can use for HD vs SD in general.

09-28-2007, 10:00 PM	#17
Xerious Special Member Member since:Mar 2007 Location:Washington, DC Blu-ray collection:238 Blu-ray reviews:4	:: meh ::: should relabel the tags from DVD to HD-DVD... then show it to people

09-29-2007, 05:43 AM	#20
Deciazulado Site Manager Top contributor Member since:Aug 2006 Location:USiberia Home Theater Gallery:6 4K collection:1160 Blu-ray collection:7047 DVD collection:4044	I saw one post asking something more or less like: "how is 576 x 1024 42% bigger since that is the only way to display widescreen PAL DVDs w/o loss" (that was Frode's or Tron's?) Well 576 x 1024 is a 42% enlargement because the PAL frame is 576 x 720 and to widen it to 1024 you have to upscale the 720 pixels 42%: 720 x 1.4222 = 1024 About the bit about the bits it mentioned something abuout small diferences in bitrates between the formats because of the differences in disc sizes (50GB and 30GB). Maybe I'll do a full translation tomorrow. (or maybe I'll just watch Dracula )

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals