Author |
Message |
| Blair | Resistance is Futile! |
Registered: October 30, 2008 | Posts: 1,249 |
| Posted: | | | | Obviously true HD (and not just a VHS tape converted to digital) is of higher quality than the old standard, if only minuscule in some circumstances; I don't think anyone could dispute that. But a friend a few days ago said something that surprised me: "I can't even watch standard anymore. I have gotten used to HD and now SD is difficult to watch at any length." I had heard one other person say this a few years ago, but he's a pathological liar, so he doesn't count Do you see HD as "so much better" that SD -- which we had been watching and had gotten used to for many generations -- needs to now be burned at the stake and thrown out as soon as possible? I have no problems with SD, and I don't see what the big deal is just because HD came along. I still watch YouTube videos at the lowest quality available (saves loading time on my slow connection.) The only HD anything that I own is a 21.5" widescreen monitor that I have had for only 8 months. I was happy with CRT monitors when they were the only thing available (still use one from time to time on an older system I don't pull out very often) and I am perfectly happy with the standard def LCD monitors I have had in the past. It's only because one of those burned out after almost 10 years that I bought this monitor. I watch television on a 14" CRT screen (it's only 3 feet away, so the picture isn't as small as you might think but this also means higher grain.) I still have VHS tapes that I watch on my CRT TVs. While I can understand the newest generation knowing only HD walking around with smartphones that have higher res than any of the large CRT televisions in my home, it surprises me how my generation behaves as if SD isn't just lower quality but evil. What are your thoughts? | | | If at first you don't succeed, skydiving isn't for you.
He who MUST get the last word in on a pointless, endless argument doesn't win. It makes him the bigger jerk. |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,493 |
| Posted: | | | | A friend of mine couple years back bought a 50 inch plasma and kept his regular analog cablevision (no Hidef digital) and as blurry as it was and the images were no way anamorphic to the 16x9 screen .. he thought it was the best thing to come along since sliced bread..
why?
Cause he was house bound and never saw what the set was supposed to do with the right wires and the right cable package .. ( his wife bought the TV and had it delivered)..
all he saw was a 50 inch screen with better color than his 26in tube..
I always felt sorry for him but never pressed it.. | | | In the 60's, People took Acid to make the world Weird. Now the World is weird and People take Prozac to make it Normal.
Terry | | | Last edited: by widescreenforever |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 3,321 |
| Posted: | | | | I much prefer HD. But in all honesty, if the movie / show is good, I'm not paying attention to the picture quality. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate it. Doesn't mean I don't notice it throughout. But at the end of the day, it's really all about the story. And it really doesn't matter how well you dress that up. A good story is a good story and a bad one is a bad one. SD / HD won't change that at all. Still, I prefer to view a good story in the best visual / audio quality I can. | | | Get the CSVExport and Database Query plug-ins here. Create fake parent profiles to organize your collection. |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 756 |
| Posted: | | | | We have an Oppo BD player, running 1080i via HDMI to an old Pioneer 50" (it won't do 1080p). The Oppo makes SD look very, very good. It makes HD look even better. So we buy both HD BluRays (for the more recent blockbusters) and SD DVDs when they're going cheap in Tesco! | | | Chris | | | Last edited: by Mole |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 950 |
| Posted: | | | | We have HD TV and while we don't watch Blu rays on it yet, we do have the HD package through our satellite provider. Honestly, I can take it or leave it. It doesn't look that much different. And yes, I know it's set up correctly. I can see the small improvements but honestly, to me, the differences are just that, small. There's no problem going back and forth between HD and my old TV in my bedroom that I watch just as often. Now, on the other hand, about a month ago I watched a VHS tape for the first time in about 3 years (the show was only available on that format) and I was stunned at the quality differences between that and DVD. Blurry, grainy, I thought something was wrong with my eyes for a minute before the light bulb went off... | | | Lori |
|
Registered: December 10, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 3,004 |
| Posted: | | | | SD depends a lot. If it's slapped straight on the disc without processing, it can look decent, just not as detailed as HD. I've been watching Stargate SG-1 and it mostly looks great. On the other hand, any filtering or especially sharpening show up really badly. I watched Hulk on DVD the other day and marveled at the halos around everything. |
|
Registered: March 10, 2007 | Posts: 4,282 |
| Posted: | | | | The only thing that really bugs me is watching a non-anamorphic DVD on the projector screen. Hard to believe some studios fought against anamorphic for so long. *Cough* Fox *Cough* | | | Invelos Software, Inc. Representative |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 20,111 |
| Posted: | | | | I'd prefer to watch HD any day, it generally looks so much better than SD. I still watch (and buy) standard def DVD's only when no Blu-ray is available.
Some SD looks very good if it's sourced from a nice transfer, but like Ken stated above...older DVD's that were only letterbox and not anamorphic-enchanced are often a pain to watch. Even Criterion were guilty of that. | | | Corey |
|
Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,850 |
| Posted: | | | | I have a 73" television and watch lots of SD DVDs on it. Most of them look fine.
Of course, my Blu-rays look better...
--------------- |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 3,436 |
| Posted: | | | | HD is prefered, obviously, but I always found that a good DVD transfer can even be better than a low-grade Blui-ray transfer. Everything is relative.
But like scotthm's post indicates, the bigger the screen, the more stretched the SD will be and will start to show its weaknesses. | | | Achim [諾亞信; Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan. Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 3,197 |
| Posted: | | | | Depends on the display size and viewing distance. On my 32" the difference is negligible, on the 40" it's quite noticable and beyond that I'm sure SD would hurt my eyes... But for a really big screen 1920x1080 isn't that impressive. I'm waiting for 4K. | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
Registered: July 16, 2010 | Reputation: | Posts: 526 |
| Posted: | | | | There seems to be quite a wide range of variation in the quality of the pictures within each format, be it HD, SD or VHS, so to consider each a simple jump from the last with nothing in-between is probably over simplistic; it’s more a slope of variations, rather than steps. The size of the TV and how far you sit from the screen makes a big difference to how we perceive these differences too, plus all the other electronics as well. Even within a film the quality can change quite noticeably from shot to shot; from inside to outside, or close up to panoramic. Having said that, there isn’t a great deal of overlap between the three formats I’ve listed; it takes a very good DVD to actually beat a crappy Blu-ray.
I do find it a bit frustrating to watch VHS these days without the quality getting in the way, but that’s probably because I have a decent sized TV (55”) and sit a bit too close to the screen. But I rarely find the quality of a DVD spoils the viewing experience for me. A rubbish film is never going to be very entertaining, however good the picture is. I probably buy about a 60:40 split of DVD vs Blu-ray these days; (loads of films still haven't been or aren’t released on Blu-ray). But if you want to watch the little people walking about on the bridge of the Enterprise as part of a long shot of the ship, then Blu-ray does it for me!
Paul | | | Do you ever find yourself striving for perfection with an almost worthless attempt at it? Guttermouth "Lemon Water". Also, I include in my Profiler database VHS tapes, audio DVDs, audio books (digital, cassette and CD), video games (digital, DVD and CD) and 'enhanced' CDs with video tracks on them, as well as films and TV I've bought digitally. So I'm an anarchist, deal with it. Just be thankful I don't include most of my records and CDs etc in it too; don't think I haven't been tempted... | | | Last edited: by SpikyCactus |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 4,596 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote: The only thing that really bugs me is watching a non-anamorphic DVD on the projector screen. Hard to believe some studios fought against anamorphic for so long. *Cough* Fox *Cough* Got that right. FOX really dragged their feet and didn't see the light until season 7 of the X-Files. Now it'll probably be years if ever before we see the series released in HD. Last word from Frank Spotnitz was that neither he nor Chris Carter are involved in any Studio decisions for a Blu-ray release of the series. From what I've gleaned from Mr. Spotnitz's blog, the series was shot it 35mm but the special effects were shot on video at a lower resolution so it's highly unlikely that an HD release of the series will see the light of day due to quality issues...which is a very sad thing indeed . Thanks a lot FOX . Just one of your many blunders over the years. | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 4,667 |
| Posted: | | | | How much difference you see between HD and SD depends very much on your equipment. I have an Oppo connected to a 40" Sony and the difference isn't that great, partly because of the relatively small (by todays standards) screen, partly because the Oppo does a bang up job with SD (like Mole said). | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users. Gunnar |
|
Registered: March 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,018 |
| Posted: | | | | I'm with GSyren on this one, as a fellow Oppo owner, and I share SpikyCactus' nuances as well. Much depends on the source material. If a good new transfer was done for a blu-ray release, the difference can be stunning (e.g. Monty Python's Life of Brian). If existing transfers were good to begin with, my Oppo can make SD look surprisingly good, too. When watching TV, true HD material (as opposed to upscaled broadcasts) is a lot better than SD (e.g. History HD vs. SD History). |
|
Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,850 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting dee1959jay: Quote: When watching TV, true HD material (as opposed to upscaled broadcasts) is a lot better than SD (e.g. History HD vs. SD History). I'll grant you that HDTV looks a lot better than SDTV, but my local cable company compresses its signal so much that most of what it calls "HD" struggles to rise above the quality of a good SD DVD, and nothing that they broadcast can touch a decent Blu-ray. --------------- |
|