Is BLU vs. S-DVD the new format war?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by DoYouBlu

there is. no. more. format. war.

edit: yes i know the OP isn't talking about hd dvd vs bluray. but there is not a format war between bluray and dvd. that isn't a war. it's a phasing out. over the next few years more and more titles will be released on bluray, less will be released on dvd. blu prices will go down, and the technology machine will do it's thing.

[Anthony P]

Your anecdote talked about playing the media over 480i. That is not evidence agaisnt my suggestion that upscale DVD in stereo sound is surprisingly similar to BD in stereo sound on a small screen from a large distance.

And for clarity's sake, my instance is a 25 inch 720p screen viewed from a distance of about 13~15 feet. It's the TV in my family's living room and I'm always commenting on how I wish upscaled DVD looked as good on my 42 inch 1080p set that I view from about 3~4 feet generally.

Why is his experience less important then yours? On a 1080p TV you compare real BD to upscaled DVD (either done by your player or the display) in his example he compared real DVD to down scaled BD (since he had an SD TV). In your test you are comparing nothing. You are comparing the downscaling ability of your BD player or display to the upscaling ability to your DVD player or display. Someone with different devices could end up with very different results

Also it is obvious that it is all relative, watch a 25” TV (or 50” or 100”)1 mile away and you can’t even see the TV. What’s the point?But to take that and go on that that the difference between SD and HD on cable is noticeable but not on disk is just BS. There is more difference between BD and DVD then SD cable and HD cable.

[imbozzy]

Originally Posted by Sonny

I remember when a pizza was $30.
I remember when a CD was $30.


& in a number of years I'll be saying, I remember when a Blu-ray was $30.

What the hell kinda pizza are you buying?

[DRC72]

DVDs days are pretty much numbered now.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Why is his experience less important then yours?

I didn't say it was less important, just different.

On a 1080p TV you compare real BD to upscaled DVD (either done by your player or the display)

When I play something on my BD player on a 1080p signal, it actually fills in gaps and makes a nice, if blurry, picture. When I have something hooked up over composite, I get big nasty pixels. The upconverting players (BD players included) do not just blow up the pixels to display. They look at surrounding pixels and create additional lines of resolution. It doesn't add additional information into the image, but it does make the image higher resolution without looking pixelated.

in his example he compared real DVD to down scaled BD (since he had an SD TV).

They both should be nearly identical in that case. DVD's native resolution should look the same as BD downscaled when viewed on a SD set.

In your test you are comparing nothing.

No... I was saying that upscaled DVD performs relatively well on a small set from a large distance. The point for comparison would be BD which also looks great, but edges it out in colors and a little sharpness. Basically, I am saying DVD looks remarkably good, even though BD looks better. That's the comparison.

You are comparing the downscaling ability of your BD player or display to the upscaling ability to your DVD player or display. Someone with different devices could end up with very different results

This is true, but does that mean we cannot tell stories about setups we've seen and make comments about how we feel about various situations because of them? Everything is subjective in one way or another, we don't all have the same setups or viewing distances, so there are bound to be differences. Does this mean we shouldn't be allowed to talk about our feelings we've developed from looking at systems we are familiar with?

Personally, I think my anecdote is personally reasonable and I'd wager that most would agree with me that upscaled DVD can look rather good on a small screen from a larger viewing distance.

Also it is obvious that it is all relative, watch a 25” TV (or 50” or 100”)1 mile away and you can’t even see the TV. What’s the point?

Slippery slope, buddy. No one mentioned viewing distances where the set would no longer be visible. I'm talking about what would probably be the upper end of a reasonable distance. From one side of the room to the other, not miles away.

Incidentally, visual acuity of an average person should allow them to see a TV set from a mile away, assuming there are absolutely no other sources of light near it that would bleed it out. You wouldn't be able to see any detail really, but you should still be able to tell that its there.

But to take that and go on that that the difference between SD and HD on cable is noticeable but not on disk is just BS. There is more difference between BD and DVD then SD cable and HD cable.

You're right in saying that there is a bigger difference in SD:HD cable than SD:HD disc .

But if you notice, upconverted DVD is NOT SD. It is upconverted to HD. Blurry HD, but HD. Upconvertion drastically improves the appearance of the picture of DVDs beyond that of SD programming of any kind. It's not on par with native HD material, but it is a LOT better than anything else which could be called SD.

[Ernest Rister]

They both should be nearly identical in that case. DVD's native resolution should look the same as BD downscaled when viewed on a SD set.

Again, I ran several A-B comparisons, and the sharpness and vivid colors on Cars, Pirates, Pixar Short Films etc. vs their DVD counterparts was easily apparent.

[FinalEvangelion]

A new format does have to face the challenge of replacing an older format. It looks as if BD is set to do that.

But, to say it's the format war, is a spin by the you-know-who.

[Anthony P]

\When I play something on my BD player on a 1080p signal, it actually fills in gaps and makes a nice, if blurry, picture. When I have something hooked up over composite, I get big nasty pixels. The upconverting players (BD players included) do not just blow up the pixels to display. They look at surrounding pixels and create additional lines of resolution. It doesn't add additional information into the image, but it does make the image higher resolution without looking pixelated.

There are different up/down scaling algorithms. Not all of them are the same and not all of them give the same result. But one fact remains the same. For example if someone is wearing a black and white striped shirt and it is scanned at a lower resolution and the scanner reads 50% grey (or worst 25%/75% due different number of black and white lines per pixels) up scaling will never turn it back into black and white stripes in the final image.

It usually does reduce the square ness of pixels but it does not improve resolution. Data lost can NEVER be regained.

Don't get me wrong, up scaling and displaying to a higher resolution is always better then displaying at a lower one and up scaling better is always better then up scaling worst, but having the (a) higher resolution through the whole process is always much better (If you can)

They both should be nearly identical in that case. DVD's native resolution should look the same as BD downscaled when viewed on a SD set.

but they are not. Just do the test. This is for 3 reasons

1) BD has a better colour space
2) BD has higher BW (it is one thing to say it has more resolution but that resolution is also much less compressed 54mbps vs 9mbps and using better CODECs)
3) Even though downscaling can add problems, most of the time (if done right) it can add more detail as well. That is why studios scan movies at a higher resolution then used on disks, during compression it can use the extra information in the higher resolution to better decide what is important

Do your own test. You will see.

No... I was saying that upscaled DVD performs relatively well on a small set from a large distance. The point for comparison would be BD which also looks great, but edges it out in colors and a little sharpness. Basically, I am saying DVD looks remarkably good, even though BD looks better. That's the comparison.

And my dad thinks his TV using rabbit ears for an OTA snowy pic performs relatively well. What is your point. If one decides quality does not matter (or more precisely are not interested in the higher cost for the higher quality -aka sour grapes) then any improvement is negligible.

This is true, but does that mean we cannot tell stories about set-ups we've seen and make comments about how we feel about various situations because of them?

you where the one that shot down the other poster for saying that the difference he saw on an SDTV between BD and DVD made him insist on getting an HDTV.

Personally, I think my anecdote is personally reasonable and I'd wager that most would agree with me that upscaled DVD can look rather good on a small screen from a larger viewing distance.

yes for anyone that has never seen BD and is trying to convince themselves that it is not worth it.

Slippery slope, buddy. No one mentioned viewing distances where the set would no longer be visible. I'm talking about what would probably be the upper end of a reasonable distance. From one side of the room to the other, not miles away.

come on a 25" HDTV @15' yours was just as delusional an example. I am sorry, even that small at that distance the difference would be visible. But like you said (you where trying to post BS and) you went with the most extreme case you could come up with. I don't know of anyone that has a 25" TV in their LR or FR or TVR or whatever they call the room where their primary display is located. Maybe in a bed room, or a kitchen but then chances are that they are also not 15' away.

But if you notice, upconverted DVD is NOT SD. It is upconverted to HD. Blurry HD, but HD. Upconvertion drastically improves the appearance of the picture of DVDs beyond that of SD programming of any kind. It's not on par with native HD material, but it is a LOT better than anything else which could be called SD.

lol, so you are the one that bought that magic HDTV that miraculously changes the number of pixels it displays. EVERY display changes the resolution

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

There are different up/down scaling algorithms. Not all of them are the same and not all of them give the same result. But one fact remains the same. For example if someone is wearing a black and white striped shirt and it is scanned at a lower resolution and the scanner reads 50% grey (or worst 25%/75% due different number of black and white lines per pixels) up scaling will never turn it back into black and white stripes in the final image.

It usually does reduce the square ness of pixels but it does not improve resolution. Data lost can NEVER be regained.

It makes a high resolution picture out of a low resolution picture. The quality of the high resolution picture will be low because of the process, but it is a high resolution picture regardless.

Don't get me wrong, up scaling and displaying to a higher resolution is always better then displaying at a lower one and up scaling better is always better then up scaling worst, but having the (a) higher resolution through the whole process is always much better (If you can)

Right, but what does this have to do with what I've said? Are you contending the idea that upconverted DVD can look remarkably good on a small screen from a distance? I'm not sitting here saying that DVD can look as good as BD; I'm saying that under the right circumstances, it can compare rather well despite not being of the same quality.

but they are not. Just do the test. This is for 3 reasons

1) BD has a better colour space
2) BD has higher BW (it is one thing to say it has more resolution but that resolution is also much less compressed 54mbps vs 9mbps and using better CODECs)
3) Even though downscaling can add problems, most of the time (if done right) it can add more detail as well. That is why studios scan movies at a higher resolution then used on disks, during compression it can use the extra information in the higher resolution to better decide what is important

Right, but do these things show through on a SD set? Over composite cables? Do they show through well?

And my dad thinks his TV using rabbit ears for an OTA snowy pic performs relatively well. What is your point. If one decides quality does not matter (or more precisely are not interested in the higher cost for the higher quality -aka sour grapes) then any improvement is negligible.

I don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make and you seem to be painting me as someone I am not.

I am NOT one of the insane people that think upscaled DVD is "good enough" or anything of the sort. I've only been saying that upconverted DVD can look quite good depending on the setup. I'm not saying that the additional quality BD affords is nonexistent or irrelevant. All I'm saying is that it's not as pronounced in many cases.

you where the one that shot down the other poster for saying that the difference he saw on an SDTV between BD and DVD made him insist on getting an HDTV.

He was responding to what I said and I only pointed out that his situation was a completely different one than the one I was describing. DVD to BD over HDMI is not the same comparison as DVD to BD over composite.

yes for anyone that has never seen BD and is trying to convince themselves that it is not worth it.

So you're saying you can easily tell the difference between upconverted DVD on a 25 inch screen from 15 feet away? Oh and using the stereo speakers in the TV set.

If it's that easy for you, I must concede that your senses are much keener than mine, probably far above average overall as well.

come on a 25" HDTV @15' yours was just as delusional an example. I am sorry, even that small at that distance the difference would be visible. But like you said (you where trying to post BS and) you went with the most extreme case you could come up with. I don't know of anyone that has a 25" TV in their LR or FR or TVR or whatever they call the room where their primary display is located. Maybe in a bed room, or a kitchen but then chances are that they are also not 15' away.

You don't know any lower middle class families?

My family living room has a 25 inch set and is viewed from between about 5 and 15 feet. This is not a home theatre I am talking about here. This is a relatively poor family's living room.

lol, so you are the one that bought that magic HDTV that miraculously changes the number of pixels it displays. EVERY display changes the resolution

What?

Is my BD player the only one that generates a 1080p picture from a DVD source? Do you honestly believe there is no difference in the picture between an upconverted DVD over HDMI and a standard old DVD player on composite?

Again, I don't know about everyone else's TV set, but on mine, if i give it a composite/component connection, it just blows up the pixels and everything looks like it's built from giant pixels.

[Anthony P]

You don't know any lower middle class families?

My family living room has a 25 inch set and is viewed from between about 5 and 15 feet. This is not a home theatre I am talking about here. This is a relatively poor family's living room.

yes, I also know people that are below that. I am not saying that some people don’t have small TVs, but everyone that I know that has a small TV is still using an old CRT SDTV and everyone I know that has bothered to get HDTV has gone bigger (mostly 42” or bigger depending when they bought it). The issue is that people tend to keep their TVs for a long time and TV sizes tend to grow. In the mid 80’s (and maybe early 90’s) that might have been the LR size. But not for most people that are buying TVs now.

Is my BD player the only one that generates a 1080p picture from a DVD source? Do you honestly believe there is no difference in the picture between an upconverted DVD over HDMI and a standard old DVD player on composite?

Again, I don't know about everyone else's TV set, but on mine, if i give it a composite/component connection, it just blows up the pixels and everything looks like it's built from giant pixels.

No, like I said before, upconversion means nothing. Be it composite or HDMI, your TV still shows the exact same number of pixels. Now that being said, the algorithm on your BD player could be better then the one on your TV (especially if you bought a low end TV) and most cable does have more compressed info then DVD (which makes upconverting harder). But be it in the player (done more nicely) or on the TV (done more crudely) neither adds any information that was not there in the source. All your player does (from what you said) is make the group of pixels look less boxy by rounding the corners with a middle colour which would make it less boxy looking but more blurry. You do not see any more detail, and in reality it can kill some as well (i.e. the real imge might have realy had that blocky part in the movie) but all upconversion is dumb and it does not know how the picture should be.