What is Digg?142 Comments
- lechatron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+93I like mousing over the images and making the hobbits dance.
- jhuynh, on 10/12/2007, -4/+94GUYS THIS IS NOT HD DVD! This is a really old article comparing an HD source (satellite/cable or OTA not sure which) to a DVD.
- devo6273, on 10/12/2007, -9/+90I agree that the HD versions look much better, but does anyone else feel like the regular DVD shots look blurrier than they should? I swear they don't look that blurry on my TV.
The most noticeable place is where the hobbits are hiding under the tree from the black rider... you can barely see any of Frodo's facial features. I need to go check my dvds. - Hale, on 10/12/2007, -7/+68the HD-DVD add-on for XBox 360 is only $200. :)
- Vizin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+46No, but you should go in for an eye exam.
- greekgoat91, on 10/12/2007, -4/+46@devo6273
These are just single frames, if you see the actual video it won't look as blurry when the frames are put together. Still, HD-DVD looks a lot better - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+46Very Nice!!!!
really is a big difference... - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+37This article is ancient. Those HD transfers are far from state of the art now.
- Avogadro65, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33filthy hobbitses
- Matteos, on 10/12/2007, -14/+41Dupe, dupe, dupe...
http://digg.com/movies/Fellowship_of_the_Ring_-_HD_vs_DVD_quality_comparison
Come on people! - inkubux, on 10/12/2007, -13/+37Nice but not worth a 500$ upgrade. The difference is there don't get me wrong, but I'll wait until I can get a player for 200$
- bedouin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23"The difference is there don't get me wrong, but I'll wait until I can get a player for 200$"
I'll wait until it's $40, like my current DVD player was.
VHS to DVD was a huge, welcome jump, not only because of picture quality (though it was night and day), but because I no longer had to rewind tapes or spend absurd amounts of time cueing something. I'm not as enthusiastic about HD. - galaxie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18I want to know what the hobbit in the bottom right hand corner is doing in shot #3... dirty dirty hobbit
- incognit0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Agreed, I remember reading this article when Fellowship actually came out on dvd in 2002.
- L0t3k, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23Those DVD shots look like they came off a 10 year old vhs cassette.
- interiot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17"Blurry" is how your eye interprets lower resolution. If you compared a cinema 4K version of the LotR to the HD version, the HD version would definitely look blurry. If you don't have any reason to suspect that you're not seeing the full resolution of an image though, your brain doesn't interpret it as "blurry", it just interprets it as max resolution.
(sort of like how people don't realize they need glasses, and don't realize how blurry their vision is, until the put glasses on for the first time and see the direct comparison) - WolfwoodX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12$160 with the 40offof200 CircutCity coupon
- tyme, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19devo: it appears that way because he basically stretched the standard dvd images to the resolution of the HD DVD images, as he states:
"I used Photoshop to bicubically resample the DVD source images from 852x480 to match the 1920x1080 of the HD images."
Increasing the resolution of any image, even if done with resampling, will cause the image to become blurred. Really, a more fair comparison would have had him match the HD images to the resolution of the standard DVD image. Even then, it wouldn't quiet work out, but it'd be closer because instead of trying to add pixels to a low resolution (causing blur) you'd simply be dropping pixels from a high resolution (less likely to cause any distortion of the original image). - sonofagunn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Yes. A pirate movie that was filmed in St. Pete was supposed to be a HD porno. Or so I've heard.
- slickrate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9one cool thing hd-dvd is doing is making some discs a dvd/hd-dvd combo so if you dont have a player yet you could still enjoy the movie and also be building your hd-dvd collection until you get one
- lostradamus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Too bad the HD shots aren't as bright.
- friday06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+735 mm film resolution is far better than 1080 HD resolution wich isn't even 2 megapixels (1080 * 1920 = 1.973.760) so if the movie was shot in digital HD or analog 35 mm shouldn't be an issue...
- JoeBaynham, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15Rofl! Shot 3 if you move your mouse over the image again and again they clap!
- teamparadox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Its not that simple my friend. Aside from the fact that your paying for the player your also paying for the R&D and the upgrades the assembly lines needed to make the new player and disks.
Once those are paid for (just like dvd) you will see prices drop and every company under the sun will start making cheap players. - superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9These are not upsampled DVD shots but downsampled HD shots.
- samadam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Also the color is different. See shot 7.
- voteforblank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Ummm... Interlaced v. Progressive
You need two full frames on the Interlaced to make the comparison.... - martoony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The best part is that this is a cable hd transfer which isn't definitive of the quality of hd-dvd. Peter Jackson hasn't even overseen the true hd transfer yet. It'll be even better once the real hd-dvd versions of these movies come out in a year or so.
- gostars, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9A better comparison would be a DVD transfer vs something on HD-DVD that was actually filmed with HD cameras.
- greekgoat91, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8isn't the pr0n industry going Blu-Ray?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14http://www.duggmirror.com
- astrosmash, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8If both frames look the same to me, should I bother with HD?
- Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No worries, those aren't HD screenshots. At a grand total of 480 scanlines, those screenshots are just 480p. If you want to see the difference, you need a 1080 scanline pic and then upscale the DVD to that size.
You can barely see the difference, but most of it is lost due to the huge downscale that the author did.
Honestly, if this article actually showed the sum-total of the difference between SD and HD video, HD would be nearly worthless.
EDIT: [points at self and laughs] *Click* the images and you can see them at the appropriate size to make a comparison. The mouseover is just a thumbnail. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11I'll probably be the only one who says this, but I see no real point in upgrading to HD. The regular movies look fine, and honestly I don't need to see every single drop of sweat in a movie.
I'm sure I will upgrade in the future, but I see no pressing reason too at the moment. - gbonham, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13http://www.digg.com/movies/Fellowship_of_the_Ring_-_HD_vs_DVD_quality_comparison
submitted 291 days ago - LycoLoco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"If you have an XBOX 360, you have access to that $200 player right now. Definitely made my mind up now."
Nope, you can have access to it right now if you have a computer that can decode HD-DVDs fast enough. The drive doesn't care what platform it's on. - astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Those f...... hobbit movies were boring as hell. All it was, was a bunch of people walking, three movies of people walking to a ***** volcano."
-Randal Graves (Clerks II) - BlackKnight6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4HD disc formats will also have better compression having a wider range of colors and brightness (meaning higher contrast ratios, brighter brights and darker darks), not just higher resolution.
- maehem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3First, if you are watching on 720p you're still missing alot. Get a 1080i/p set and it gets even better.
The hover is caused by the heavy compression used for cable/satellite signals. It's still there in the details with HD but the broadcasters take way too much liberty with compression of SD signals(often 4x more than a DVD disk signal) and you get the 'hover' effect alot. The broadcast stuff isn't much better than VHS any more. DVD gets you EDTV (Enhanced definition) and isn't too bad compared to 720p. I call it 'poor man's HDTV'. DVD is about as close as you can get to what the broadcasters see at the head end before it's transmitted (but still not as good as full NTSC editing quality). HD does nicely blow past alot of these limitations of NTSC though.
The other thing to note is that although the HD images appear darker, the color is truer and the dynamic range is WAY better. The DVD images appear brighter because NTSC has a nasty habit of blowing out the bright part of images. Color in NTSC is encoded as a 'hack' since the original TV signals (back in the 50's) did not have color. It was added later, with great effort and had to be backwards compatible. Remember that NTSC is nearly a 60 year old standard with many warts added on over time. - Matteos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I don't know what your smoking, but i have never seen faces hover....
P.S. Can I have some? - LiquidPenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@interiot
For clarification. Not disputing blur issue here.
The human eye is not measured in resolution in the same term as a PC monitor. In fact, the terminology and design between human eye and PC visual HID is so out of whack, we're only just now beginning to get things aligned and hardly anybody is on the same page.
So to say that the human eye can see (just to use your numbers, not disputing the actual numbers) a resolution of 1000x1000 points or pixels is not exactly accurate. It's hard to translate something that equates to 20/20 vision when you have variables dealing with the number of cones/rods, lense shape, fluids, nervous tissue and brain interpretation.
Like colors, technology is increasing the pixel/dot resolution in the world around us and we keep seeing more and more detail and the older stuff looks fuzzy. - jaba1337, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5this is oldddddddddddddddddddd, and not a good comparison because of the resizing and compression.
- interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's the most accurate way to compare them (unless you used sinc resampling).
If you had DVD-resolution film (like the real stuff, cellulose) and displayed it side-by-side with a more normal high-detail film, the DVD version would look blurry too (and maybe more grainy as well).
Sure, in some cases when you view low-resolution video on a high resolution display, you see giant square pixels, but that's just an artifact of the digital process, it's not at all the most representative of how your senses normally perceive low resolution material.
For instance, lenses affect how much resolution a camera can record. Slap a 6MP sensor with cheap lens on a cellphone camera, and it will take really blurry 6MP pictures. Put the same sensor on a better lens, and you'll get something that looks sharper. - Portwineboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3According to AVN the pr0n industry is waiting for the format war to end before diving into HD.
- ij00mini, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4More like, "Or so you've seen..." Perv. ;)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You'll see the difference when you CLICK on the images, instead of looking at the thumbnails.
- M2Ys4U, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2PAL > NTSC
- osc1882, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's about time. I get so sick of seeing side by side comparisons at stores and they say " here's the movie in dvd " and they play the most blurred to hell and back video. ( because it would seem that media companies think we are dumb as *****, even tho we own like 40 dvds and none of them come near to looking that bad. ) and then they show us the HD dvd and it doesn't look that grand.
This does a great job.
although to other thoughts:
#1 I won't be buying a HDTV for a long time, until all of the HD battles are over.
#2 ***** Blu-Ray. - friday06, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4have you ever thought about the bandwith issues of a story posted on digg?
- cRaCKh0rN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"I used Photoshop to bicubically resample the DVD source images from 852x480 to match the 1920x1080 of the HD images."
Bicubic resampling will blur the image way too much to make an accurate comparison. -
Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is