Can anyone actually TELL the difference between Blu-ray/HD-DVD over DVD?

[edDV]

I'm still uncovinced corvette77 has his $6500 ($9999 list) Panasonic TH-65PX600U or his $800 Denon AVR2307CI fully functional.

Even if he can't see the difference, why spend so much without demo?

I just can't understand the behavior of the wealthy.

[maxpower2078]

It's pretty simple, go to a bigger screen size. I too cannot see too much of a difference between SD and HD DVDs on my 32in LCD and 56in DLP, but when I say go big, you don't measure in inches, you measure in feet.

I also have a front projection system and granted it is only 720p, but at 12 feet diagonal you can certainly see the difference. I don't even watch a movie or show on the projector unless it is an HD version. I don't want to waste the lamp time on something that I would enjoy just as much on the 56inch.

I agree on the cabling, obliviously using High quality HDMI or DVI cables are a must if you are viewing a digital signal.

Another thing to consider is what has been shot on film and shot in digital. For example, I just watched top gun in HD-DVD, 20GB (35 MBITs) VC1 DD Plus etc... but it was still transferred over from a somewhat grainy film. You will not see this grain from a digitally shot movie or pretty much any Prime time TV show these days.

This is just the video end, I am just getting my audio portion setup now and can't say that much, but should add that if there is any week spot in your setup (receiver, dvd player, speakers etc...) then your whole system is only as good as the weakest point.

[yoda313]

On my 32inch 720p westinghouse I can tell the differences between dvds, upconverted dvds, and hddvds (on my xbox 360 hddvd add on - through component cables).

Actually I was watching some stargate dvds through the plain xbox 360 dvd drive and it was in 480p mode. It was fairly bland picture. It did have the proper 16:9 strectch as the official discs I have are that way. However compared to my insignia upconverting dvd player it just didn't have that pizzaz that the processing adds. It's hard to quantify it. But it is just sharper on the upconverted dvd player (through hdmi vs component on the xbox 360).

However all gets blown away by the xbox 360 hd-dvd add on drive. Although I only have a component model xbox 360 the hddvd is spectacular. Any cg elements in a modern movie are just drop dead georgeous even on my lowly 1366x768 lcd 32inch screen.

The level of clarity on the hddvd's are incredible. Unfortunately it seems like I'll never be able to use dolby true hd on just the xbox add on. Though I haven't bought a new amp to utilize it just yet anyway.

I will buy a bluray player when they are cheap enough. HD is worth it. The only reason I'd buy a ps3 is to use it as a bluray player. I prefer the 360 game selection.

[edDV]

He says he is using a $6500 65" 1080p plasma.

The problem with high end AV equipment is manufacturers often assume a middleman to get it working.

[yoda313]

I understand but I am just saying that I can tell a difference between hd and normal dvd.

[edDV]

I understand but I am just saying that I can tell a difference between hd and normal dvd.

I was responding to maxpower2078. Your post happened while I was typing.

[yoda313]

I understand but I am just saying that I can tell a difference between hd and normal dvd.

I was responding to maxpower2078. Your post happened while I was typing.

oops sorry.

[maxpower2078]

He says he is using a $6500 65" 1080p plasma.

The problem with high end AV equipment is manufacturers often assume a middleman to get it working.

Wow, just think of the projector you could get for that much! I paid $850 for mine and love it for that. I subscribe to electronic house and enterainment and one of them had a projector 1080p buyers guide in the last couple of months. The sweet spot seems to be around $3000 - 4000 right now, but range from 2000 - 60000 if you want to go for the Runco (drool)

[maxpower2078]

I understand but I am just saying that I can tell a difference between hd and normal dvd.

I was responding to maxpower2078. Your post happened while I was typing.

Yes I agree that these processes of setting up a system completely are not bullet proof and are requiring more knowledge than the old days of rabbit ears, but I guess you can still get OTA HD with rabbit ears, so that theory is blown, lol.

Anyways, as mentioned earlier seperating the audio and video and going straight to the source (IE: plug the PS3 directly into the HDMI in of the TV) and see what happens is the best place to start.

[jagabo]

AVSForum: Official Panasonic PX60/600 Tweaking, Settings, Issues, Technical Thread

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=657575&highlight=px600

Let us know if you find out what's wrong with your setup.

[davideck]

From a theoretical perspective, a "Full HD" 1080i/p image has six times as many pixels as one 480i/p image. A 1080 image contains the equivalent of six full resolution 480 images. It has six times the detail potential.

Do all 1080 images have six times the detail of 480? Of course not. But the detail in some of them is absolutely jaw dropping!

Comparing 480i/p to 1080i/p is like comparing one image to six. It is like comparing a one megapixel camera to a six megapixel camera. It is like switching the Screen Area of your PC monitor between 720x480 and 1920x1080. If you don't notice a difference, then HD may not be for you.

BTW, a feature that I find useful on an HDTV is Picture-by-Picture (POP), the ability to display two sources side-by-side. For SD sources, both images can be displayed in full resolution. It is like having two identical SD monitors.

[Ollie6431]

... Honestly, you could probably show 99% of the population a blu-ray or hd-dvd disc, and they'd think it's just a regular DVD unless you told them. I guess I'm just spoiled with how astronomically better DVD was over VHS. The next "major" jump won't happen until they either go 4D/Surround picture. ...

Thanks for sharing your comparison results. This is a very thorough study, not just casual comparison. This confirms my observation that it is very difficult (for a layman like myself) to see a significant improvement of bluray video over upconverted DVD (some experts would disagree on this). I had been amazed with progressive/upconveted DVD a few years back but have not been impressed by the same degree with Bluray & HD-DVD. A good DVD movie is still amazing now on a setup with 1080 HDTV and upconverted player.

I guess the bigger the TV and the closer one sits in front of it, Bluray/HD-DVD may make a difference. However, a typical 50-60''TV with a usual sitting distance should not show a big difference.

[Krispy Kritter]

... Honestly, you could probably show 99% of the population a blu-ray or hd-dvd disc, and they'd think it's just a regular DVD unless you told them. I guess I'm just spoiled with how astronomically better DVD was over VHS. The next "major" jump won't happen until they either go 4D/Surround picture. ...

Thanks for sharing your comparison results. This is a very thorough study, not just casual comparison. This confirms my observation that it is very difficult (for a layman like myself) to see a significant improvement of bluray video over upconverted DVD (some experts would disagree on this). I had been amazed with progressive/upconveted DVD a few years back but have not been impressed by the same degree with Bluray & HD-DVD. A good DVD movie is still amazing now on a setup with 1080 HDTV and upconverted player.

I guess the bigger the TV and the closer one sits in front of it, Bluray/HD-DVD may make a difference. However, a typical 50-60''TV with a usual sitting distance should not show a big difference.

Most users can't see a difference between DVD and upconverted DVD. Since you seem to have the hardware capable of making the distinction possible and that you can see the difference, you should also be able to see the difference upgrading to HD.

Regardless of everyones opinion of how things should look, the bottom line is what you can see and what you feel comfortable spending. Once you have seen the difference between DVD, upconverted DVD, and HD on a quality setup, then you will know there is a real difference. The problem is the many different types of hardware available. Most of the TV's currently on the market ar labeled "HD Ready" or whatever. Joe Consumer buying his first 35" 720P HD Ready LCD is not going to get the full benefit of what HD has to offer. Those with the knowledge and money to spend will most benefit from HD. There is a quality difference, but buying into the hype of "HD is better" on almost all new hardware is just hurting the consumers and their image of HD.

[videobread]

It is impossible to tell the difference between Blu-ray DVD or HD DVD played on a top of the line system wired properly and a standard DVD done right. Cars is the perfect example because it is animated. Using a good new animated title is the best way to judge. Too many movies on DVD are just not done right. They are just slapped onto DVD. That is the problem. The newer Blu-ray and HD DVD titles are not slapped together. That is just because they are new. Examples of poor quality DVD's are Mad Max and El Cid. Both titles have been done over and done right. The first releases on DVD were the worst of the worst DVD's ever made. The new El Cid DVD when compared to El Cid on Blu-ray or HD DVD will be like Cars. You won't be able to tell the difference.

Blu-ray has always been about copy protection and decreasing the amount of consumer backup going on. Baldrick said a few weeks ago that the majority of people visiting this site are interested in backing up DVD's. If you are into backing up DVD's you should in no way be supporting Blu-ray. Sony is the force behind Blu-ray becuase thay own content.

Macrovision just bought digital content protection, (SPDC), from a company called Crytography Research Inc. It is enhanced Blu-ray security. They paid 45 million plus a bunch of Macrovision stock. They are serious. It is not for HD DVD. It is coming down the road to a Blu-ray disc that you may buy. HD-DVD on the other hand is just DVD on steroids and will always be crackable.

I am satisfied with DVD and will not be upgrading anytime soon if ever. I will never support Blu-ray. Just my opinion.

[edDV]

It is impossible to tell the difference between Blu-ray DVD or HD DVD played on a top of the line system wired properly and a standard DVD done right. Cars is the perfect example because it is animated. Using a good new animated title is the best way to judge. ...

... Just my opinion.

It just doesn't follow that an upscaled 720x480 version will match a 1920x1080 version when displayed on a 1920x1080 screen even if the source is an animation from a 4Kx2K master like Cars. Animations are unique in that they can be rendered to each release size instead of transfered film style.

If it were true that upscaling can match 1 to1 pixel display try setting your LCD computer monitor to 640x480 and see how it compares to native display (e.g. 1280x1024).

All of the above assumes you are sitting close enough to the display factored by screen size. If you are judging 10 feet back from a 32" display, then you won't see the difference.

[Ollie6431]

...Using a good new animated title is the best way to judge. Too many movies on DVD are just not done right. They are just slapped onto DVD. That is the problem. The newer Blu-ray and HD DVD titles are not slapped together. That is just because they are new...

Agreed, this video stuff reminds one of similar resolution situation in digital photography:
- An 8 megapix image taken from a new $150 camera looks like crap whereas one taken from an old professional 6 megapix SLR camera is far superior
- One can not tell the difference between a 6 megapix image and a 10 megapix image in regular album size (both taken from high-quality SLR camera) until the image is printed on 3 ft x 4 ft size.

[edDV]

Agreed, this video stuff reminds one of similar resolution situation in digital photography:
- An 8 megapix image taken from a new $150 camera looks like crap whereas one taken from an old professional 6 megapix SLR camera is far superior.

True, because the plastic lens on the consumer camera is crap and the sensors differ in other characteristics than "pixel resolution". A direct analogy is comparing a $1000 consumer HDV cam to the cameras used for HD movie production.

- One can not tell the difference between a 6 megapix image and a 10 megapix image in regular album size (both taken from high-quality SLR camera) until the image is printed on 3 ft x 4 ft size.

Direct analogy to screen size and viewing distance.

[corvette77]

I can't tell if I'm being mocked or defended LOL. I honestly just wondered if anyone else couldn't tell a noticable difference. When I got the 60" TV, I wasn't concerned with the best of the best, which at the time at least seemed to be the Pioneer FHD-1 (or some model number like that). I was just concerned about the size and that it could output 1080P. I got it along with my receiver just before the PS3 even came out. Blu-ray/HD DVD were just getting started, weren't they? I got my receiver at about the same time. The thought of audio codecs like Dolby TrueHD or DTS HD weren't even in my mind. Were they even out at that time? I I don't sit two feet from my TV. That's why I asked if anyone else could tell the difference. It was just an honest question. I thought that if everyone else could that maybe I had things set up wrong and people could help me get it right.

[louthewiz]

I. The OP is right, there is no significant noticeable difference between HDDVD and conventional DVD. It's purely marketing to sell you the same movies over and over again because they can't produce anything better to sell you.

If you think so then you must still have a display with rabbit ears and think that dvd is hi-def.

[edDV]

...

It was just an honest question. I thought that if everyone else could that maybe I had things set up wrong and people could help me get it right.

I still suspect you have something set wrong. I'd encourage you to visit a high end home theater shop that sells similar TV sets and ask them for a Blu-Ray 1080p demo on a similar size screen.

[Heywould3]

I can't tell if I'm being mocked or defended LOL. I honestly just wondered if anyone else couldn't tell a noticable difference. When I got the 60" TV, I wasn't concerned with the best of the best, which at the time at least seemed to be the Pioneer FHD-1 (or some model number like that). I was just concerned about the size and that it could output 1080P. I got it along with my receiver just before the PS3 even came out. Blu-ray/HD DVD were just getting started, weren't they? I got my receiver at about the same time. The thought of audio codecs like Dolby TrueHD or DTS HD weren't even in my mind. Were they even out at that time? I I don't sit two feet from my TV. That's why I asked if anyone else could tell the difference. It was just an honest question. I thought that if everyone else could that maybe I had things set up wrong and people could help me get it right.

I dont think you are being mocked.

You should be able to see a difference in the two is the short answer. and with your setup the video will be more of an improvement than the audio. if you dont see a differnce make sure you have hdmi right into tv. your tv should have an optical out for th audio to reciever. use that . then make sure that your settigns are set correctly on the player and the tv. make sure you are telling it to display 1080P both from on your tv and from your player. thats all i can say.

any comments made about your setup being high end and costly were IMO made because for most of us the only way that kinda money would get spent would be after a very extensive demo. thats nothing aginst you but hell i researched my tv for weeks before i even went to the store and it only cost me 900$

the is another forum that might be of help to you, someone might have your model its called AVS Forum.

hope that helps

[corvette77]

I look at myself and what I have, and I can see why I look wealthy. Honestly, I make only mid-40K a year, and the wife about mid-30K. I have no kids. I have a duplex, not a house. I really don't know how I do it other to say I'm an electronics nerd and spend almost every penny I have on it. As insane as it is, I was thinking of upgrading receivers. I have a thing for Denons (good luck I guess), and was looking at the model AVR-2808CI. Looking at the features, the main things that stick out are the TrueHD & DTS Master support, DHCP compliance, and HDMI 1.3A (with repeaters? what are those?). It has a list of what seems like thousands of features that are way above my head and are probably just rhetoric anyway. I only want one HDMI cable going to my TV. Would this receiver give me FULL advantage of blu-ray video and audio? Does anyone know anything about this model? It seems really new.

[Grain]

As insane as it is, I was thinking of upgrading receivers. I have a thing for Denons (good luck I guess), and was looking at the model AVR-2808CI. Looking at the features, the main things that stick out are the TrueHD & DTS Master support, DHCP compliance, and HDMI 1.3A (with repeaters? what are those?). It has a list of what seems like thousands of features that are way above my head and are probably just rhetoric anyway. I only want one HDMI cable going to my TV. Would this receiver give me FULL advantage of blu-ray video and audio? Does anyone know anything about this model? It seems really new.

Never apologize for having nice things! Denon makes great kit, the 2801CI will do all your looking for, ie Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master decoding. One thing for you to consider though, it only has 2 HDMI inputs. If your plan to use it as a video/audio switcher, you'll be a bit limited. Example, HDMI from your HD Sat/HD cable, BluRay, upconverting DVD player, XBox 360, HD-DVD player, PS3 etc.... While you may never have all those, with this receiver you can only ever have 2! Granted you can use component inputs, and perhaps feed your TV directly with HDMI, but with both of those options you won't be able to use HDMI for audio. Something to consider. Another option would be the addition of a HDMI switcher if you like this receiver.

[corvette77]

Well here's what I need to hook up: PS2, PS3, Xbox, Xbox360, Wii, and, Hi-Def Cable Box. I currently have 2 HDMI, 3 component, and several composite inputs in my receiver. I have my PS2, Xbox with an optical out, and Hi-Def Cable box hooked up to my component outputs. The Wii is so graphically weak that I just hook it up to a composite jack. The PS3 and Xbox360 are in my HDMI slots. My hi-def cable box doesn't have an HDMI out, but I just found out they came out with a new model that does. The AVR-8202 that I was looking at has an extra component in. Well my Xbox360 is an Elite, but why waste an HDMI slot when games can't take advantage of it anyways since all the previous Xbox360's didn't have that port? I only got an Elite in the first place because I ran out of component spots and HDMI was my only open port. With that extra component in, I can hook up with 360 into there with an optical out. Then I can hook up my new cable box to my open HDMI port and get 1080p instead of 1080i. That's why I was looking at the 8202 and wondered if anyone else had one or knew anything about it.

[dLee]

I've got a Denon AVR2807 Receiver which is a close cousin of the Denon AVR2307 but with more connections.

I bought it when I replaced my Sony HD CRT with a Sony LCD because my old receiver didn't do HDMI.

The tv must live several feet away from the equipment cabinet, so I always had a pretty substantial umbilical cord to the tv stand.

The HDMI cord looks better and is smaller than my homebrew umbilical, but I had to add a speaker wire for the center speaker and a stereo pair so I can feed audio to the built in speakers of the tv. The HDMI connection passes audio from my Dish HD receiver and from my Oppo DVD player, but the Denon receiver does not pass it to the TV or at least I haven't been able to make it do so.

Corvette77 was close with his original setup of the receiver and the call to Denon should resolve his last issue.

One thing I like about the receiver is that it upconverts all the SD sources for transmission over the HDMI cable. I don't have it upconvert DVD's because I think Sony probably knows how to make the panel look the best with SD sources - but the Oppo is a close second.

Never had any HDCP issues, except that it takes several seconds for the TV to display anything when the source is changed. My guess is that they are handshaking. (I think there's a sticky over at AVS Forum entitled "Why you don't need HDMI 1.3")

I don't have a PS3 but my daughter's PS2 looks pretty good via a component connection - much better than S-video.

I also don't have Blu-ray or HD, though I can play HD content thru my computer. I'm not impressed. I've watched a lot of BR/HD while shopping and I didn't seen anything that made me want to jump - "format war" notwithstanding.

Sports look much better from the DishHD as compared to DishSD, but you can still see compression artifacts in the image if you look closely.

The original question of this thread begs another question, "Which SD DVD and which BR / HD Disc?

Most SD DVD's are what I call "indifferently scanned" - bitrate between 4K and 6.5K. This may be done to fit the movie on one DVD or to sell a higher resolution version later, but they just aren't that sharp. My Star Wars III DVD clocks in at 9K to 10+K bitrate (audio and video) and looks very sharp.

SD TV over DishHD channels looks better (a lot) than DishSD.

I think SD can look as good as a lot of HD sources if you throw enough bitrate at it. I know HD sources are theoretically better, but I don't see it too frequently.

[corvette77]

Why do I keep saying 8208? I meant the AVR-2808. Does anyone have or know about that model?

[lordsmurf]

Most SD DVD's are what I call "indifferently scanned" - bitrate between 4K and 6.5K. This may be done to fit the movie on one DVD or to sell a higher resolution version later, but they just aren't that sharp. My Star Wars III DVD clocks in at 9K to 10+K bitrate (audio and video) and looks very sharp.
SD TV over DishHD channels looks better (a lot) than DishSD.
I think SD can look as good as a lot of HD sources if you throw enough bitrate at it. I know HD sources are theoretically better, but I don't see it too frequently.

No need to make up terms. The discs are using VBR (variable bitrate).

Your Star Wars III DVD does not have 9-10k bitrate. That's just the maximum rate specified in the stream. All 2-hour-ish movies of 720x480 on a dual-layer disc are in the 7000-8000k average range, assuming ZERO bonuses or space-wasting menus. More junk, less space for the movie, lower bitrates.

Sharpness is largely determined by the anti-aliasing of the film/digital transfers (down from film or pro HD, to DVD). For example, my ATI All In Wonder cards have sharper 352x480 than some cheap DVD recorders and cheap capture cards do at 720x480.

It's really a combination of factors that causes ANYTHING in video to actually happen.

This is why myths like "my DVD died" or "HD is better than SD" or"352x480 is softer than 720x480" are bullcrap. Those are simple (and ignorant) conclusions to fairly complex processes and interactions of actions that happen after the lens that captured the footage, and before the eyeball watches the footage. All that "stuff" in between (capturing, conversion, edit, author, transmission, compression, etc) is what truly determines image quality. Liek so many others, you're starting observe the myth of "HD is better".

Dish SD uses crappy receivers. End of story. Always have. Your observation is typical.

[harrisonford]

When comparing equipment.


Wires, uints machines setup, etc, nearly almost everything makes a difference.

I have a DVD player and HD/ Blu and HD-DVD, and the all play differently on all 9 of LCD tv, and from all 7 different computer in each room, with some of my computer with the same video cards, mobo's memory Hard drive etc, and same 42 inch LCD or 50 32 inch, no system is the same, quality between same systems are different.

So point is, one system is better than another, with the same equipment. Talk of HD or DVD better on screens smaller than 60 inches is pointless, NOW the new LCD back lite FP coming out will make a huge difference and LCD TV will be more stable or same quality within the same line and size, comparisons will become better I hope?

[dLee]

Most SD DVD's are what I call "indifferently scanned" - bitrate between 4K and 6.5K. This may be done to fit the movie on one DVD or to sell a higher resolution version later, but they just aren't that sharp. My Star Wars III DVD clocks in at 9K to 10+K bitrate (audio and video) and looks very sharp.
SD TV over DishHD channels looks better (a lot) than DishSD.
I think SD can look as good as a lot of HD sources if you throw enough bitrate at it. I know HD sources are theoretically better, but I don't see it too frequently.

No need to make up terms. The discs are using VBR (variable bitrate).

I made up the term, but I wasn't referring to VBR, but rather the indifference of an industry that could easily produce a better visual experience for very little effort and money - and - I could enjoy it on equipment I already own.

Maybe it would be more accurate to say "indifferently encoded". A higher bitrate closer to the maximum would look / be sharper. The cost of a second disc and a slightly different case is negligible.

Sharpness is largely determined by the anti-aliasing of the film/digital transfers (down from film or pro HD, to DVD). For example, my ATI All In Wonder cards have sharper 352x480 than some cheap DVD recorders and cheap capture cards do at 720x480.

Yes, my 9800Pro is still one of my favorite capture devices.

Dish SD uses crappy receivers. End of story. Always have. Your observation is typical.

SD on my DishHD receiver looks better than the same station from my DishSD receiver. Better equipment or maybe I'm seeing some of the new MPEG4 streams.

HD camcorder footage almost always looks better than SD camcorder footage.

[lordsmurf]

I see now. You mean sloppy-made discs. Not the tech or anything, but the people doing the work. If you want to see truly awful DVDs, look at Thundercats, Married With Children, Leave It To Beaver, Garfield & Friends, and latter Pokemon box sets. Grainy, noisy, overly-compressed.