cornbread.org — "Being amazed at how fantastic the HD transfer of Fellowship of the Ring looked, I decided to compare it to the transfer on the DVD. Now, the DVD transfer is among the best you can find on DVD, so this really is comparing the respective creams of the crops."
Dec 14, 2006 View in Crawl 4
scabbersDec 14, 2006
I've never seen a DVD look that bad. Piss off.
necrisqueDec 14, 2006
This comparison has been around for long. I can't believe digg hasn't come by it until now.
unibeatDec 15, 2006
Yeah, i could have sworn frodo's face didn't look like a blob the last time i watched The Lord Of the Rings.
gwalbridgeDec 15, 2006
"Surprisingly, even at DVD-resolution the [downsampled] HD source features more detail."Of course it does you f**king twit. Whenever you downsize a higher resolution image to match the size of a lower resolution image, it will always feature more detail than the lower resolution image.Nice pictures, but god damn that was a stupid thing to say. "Surprisingly..." Surprisingly?!?!/rant
radiatedantDec 15, 2006
Spoken like a true "poor man's" hi-def aficionado
mirag3Dec 17, 2006
@friday06Thank you, people are idiots. They don't understand that supported resolution only matters when you're talking about digital cameras, analog film camera's resolution is entirely dependent upon the size of the film grain which is for the most part ridiculously high (as in,. we wont have HDTV resolution that high for years). Goodfellas anyone?
mirag3Dec 17, 2006
@leptonWhat, you think that it cost them nothing to develop? R&D costs money my friend - most modern CPU chips cost about the same amount of money to make (~$20 ive heard), but what do you buy some for? $600? The cost of the manufacturing isn't the cost of the product.
johnvidDec 17, 2006
Also he forgot to adjust the colour space. So the HD downsamples are a lot darker, making it difficult to see the details