Do you care about high definition video ?
- Thread starter morcar
- Start date
- Replies 44
- Views 549
Cant live with this argument. I only have 24-27" monitors and i love 720p instead of the normal sd resolution. 1280×720 Pixel isnt such a big resolution, so you profit from it with small monitors too.
I dont know about 1080p, but the file size is too big for me anyway, and for blu rays i have the PS3 with a 27"....
I always will watch HD content where available rather than SD.
However the 360 and PS3 do a good job of upscaling DVDs which is nice.
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
However the 360 and PS3 do a good job of upscaling DVDs which is nice.
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
I can easily tell the difference between SD and HD on a 24" monitor, even the difference between 720p and 1080p is noticeable... But i do sit closer to it than i do with a TV which is probably why
. I think 1440p on a 27" monitor and 1600p on a 30" look amazing!
HD is all well and good, and since I recently invested in a decent HDTV, I like to be able to take advantage of it, but realistically, an SD DVD has pretty decent image quality already, it's not really a huge deal either way.
I know a couple of people who say the difference between DVD and 1080p Blu-ray is hardly noticeable... I say they need glasses or a better quality TV :roll:.
Yeah they do! My wife can even see the difference between DVD and Blu Ray on our TV and that's coming from someone who wonders why I needed to "upgrade" my cute PS2 to the massive and noisy PS3 (Phat model which has since died) I showed her the awesome GFX of the PS3 (Motorstorm was my first game) she was all "I don't see the difference". I was WELL miffed I tell thee! 
It must be down to what you perceive as important.
It must be down to what you perceive as important.
Yeah they do! My wife can even see the difference between DVD and Blu Ray on our TV and that's coming from someone who wonders why I needed to "upgrade" my cute PS2 to the massive and noisy PS3 (Phat model which has since died) I showed her the awesome GFX of the PS3 (Motorstorm was my first game) she was all "I don't see the difference". I was WELL miffed I tell thee!
It must be down to what you perceive as important.
I still have my old phat PS2 and it's amazing how different the graphics look compared to the PS3/X360 on the same TV (with both games and DVD/Blu-ray)... Not sure why i still have the PS2 as i never use it :roll:. A guy at work made me laugh when he said Blu-ray is all about 7.1 sound and NOT the picture quality
oh:.Spot on! Same with me too Phil. Won't pay sky extra for it either but if I'm streaming / Downloading I prefer prefer HD for Movies but happy to use SD for 20 minute sit-com's etc
John
SD DVD is up to 345,600 pixels per frame and 1080p HD (i dislike referring to this as 'Bluray' as i prefer to differentiate that 'Bluray' is actually a laser/disc format) is up to 2,073,600 pixels per frame (6x more), but yeah....that's not the point....
(DVD supports 7.1 in MP2 (tho i don't believe it has been used much) and 6.1 in DTS, more than sufficient in my opinion)
side note: DVD9 can hold approx 3 hours of HD video. it isn't storage medium dependant
(i have a few AVConDVD movies and they look just fine to me)
(DVD supports 7.1 in MP2 (tho i don't believe it has been used much) and 6.1 in DTS, more than sufficient in my opinion)
side note: DVD9 can hold approx 3 hours of HD video. it isn't storage medium dependant
(i have a few AVConDVD movies and they look just fine to me)
Exactly.
As long as the source (aural / visual) is of sufficient detail to let the brain form a concise construct, all's fine. The mind may actually well disregard any extra detail if it finds it to be a prolonged distraction factor (the mind can process that much detail in a given time frame, after all).
Not necessarily saying we've reached our mental limits with SD or HD or EHD (Even Higher Definition) or RHD (Ridiculously Higher Definition) but for sure the gains are not linear anymore.
Also, I think a lot depends on the source format. Remastering 1960s Doctor Who to DVD was a worthwhile exercise, but there's no point in attempting to make it HD!
On the other hand, Tron Legacy is positively stunning in 1080p with 5.1 audio!
My missus couldnt see it until the handball world championships
---------- Post added at 15:42 ---------- Previous post was at 15:40 ----------
You've not seen the African Queen on Blu then?
Can't say I've ever even heard of it...
commodorejohn
Shameless recidivist
It's like Father Goose with the fun removed, but it's got Humphrey Bogart in it so it's highly acclaimed.
I prefer HD on my monitors for the extra screen real estate and sharper image, but as far as HD pictures for movies and TV goes, it's much nicer but I am happy to do without it.
Now what I definitely don't care about is 3D...
Now what I definitely don't care about is 3D...
In the US, prior to digital, many shows and sitcoms were shot on film. Anything shot on film looks great when converted to HD as film has the resolution to support the conversion to HD.
Shows shot on tape look downright ****ty when converted to anything other than 480p quality.
The great thing about film is that once used, it cannot be recycled for other shows.... Something the BBC is famous for.
Similar threads
- Locked
