View Full Version : First HD-DVD titles to be 1080p
Some front and back shots which state that they are formatted in 1080p
http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/hi-def-releases.html
Yep, this was know ages ago, all titles for both formats will be 1080p24 and the players will convert. It doesn't make much difference to HD DVD though since there won't be a 1080p player this year
Spectre07
15-04-2006, 12:11
What does this mean? What's the significance of 1080p? I understood it to be 1080 lines and p is for PAL. Is this correct?
p stands for progressive.
Spectre07
15-04-2006, 12:49
p stands for progressive.thanks, so what's the significnace of that?
thescrounger
15-04-2006, 15:32
It means it doesn't use interlaced fields. It's a superior way of displaying pictures.
Germinator
15-04-2006, 17:50
How can movies like Robocop, The Terminator be in HD. Were they not filmed using a normal 35mm film.
How can movies like Robocop, The Terminator be in HD. Were they not filmed using a normal 35mm film.
Although 35mm is analog if it transferred with high quality lens etc is can produce an an image with an equivalent to over over 10 million pixels (better the lens the more details that can be extracted)
Even Super 16mm is suitable for HD if used with high quality capture equipment.
1080 is 2 million pixels.
Some guy has already picked up the Toshiba HD-DVD player and a couple of disks.
http://www.hdbeat.com/2006/04/14/hd-dvd-have-arrived/
thescrounger
15-04-2006, 20:49
One thing that has been pointed out with older films, as in 10 years old or more. Is that they have more grain, and grain will be magnified more on HD, and it's a lot harder to Noise Reduce HD footage. In some cases older films on HD might not look as clean as noise reduced SD DVD versions. Assuming NR is not applied to some HD releases. For example I've seen some broadcast quality 1080i footage of Robocop, and it's not that much more impressive than the DVD and the grain *is* more noticable, just like a cinema screen.
Some guy has already picked up the Toshiba HD-DVD player and a couple of disks.
http://www.hdbeat.com/2006/04/14/hd-dvd-have-arrived/
According to Sony HD Info forums, Camcorder HD files put on disc play on the Toshiba in HD too! Still not gonna make me buy it, roll on blu-ray!
Grandmaster
16-04-2006, 16:52
According to Sony HD Info forums, Camcorder HD files put on disc play on the Toshiba in HD too! Still not gonna make me buy it, roll on blu-ray!
Heh, that's an interesting quirk, but HDV (the HD camcorder standard) is basically high definition MPEG2, so not entirely unexpected. Of course, the clips would need to be pretty short to fit onto a 4GB DVD-R.
Heh, that's an interesting quirk, but HDV (the HD camcorder standard) is basically high definition MPEG2, so not entirely unexpected. Of course, the clips would need to be pretty short to fit onto a 4GB DVD-R.
True, it'd be interesting to see if VC1 and H264 files play too! You'd be able to fit maybe 60 mins of footage to a 4.7gb disc you'd think!
Niceguygeoff
16-04-2006, 18:38
One thing that has been pointed out with older films, as in 10 years old or more. Is that they have more grain, and grain will be magnified more on HD, and it's a lot harder to Noise Reduce HD footage. In some cases older films on HD might not look as clean as noise reduced SD DVD versions. Assuming NR is not applied to some HD releases. For example I've seen some broadcast quality 1080i footage of Robocop, and it's not that much more impressive than the DVD and the grain *is* more noticable, just like a cinema screen.
To paraphrase Wall Street's Gordon Gekko, "Grain is good" - at least to me anyway. It's what makes film, well, film, and the visible increase in grain goes hand-in-hand with HD's obvious increase in fine detail reproduction. You start playing around with DNR and HD can look absolutely horrible, resembling the lifeless airbrushed photos you see in magazines. As far as I'm concerned, that extra graininess is something to be embraced in the HD age as long as what's being seen is indicative of the filmmakers' intentions.
It's funny you should mention Robocop, as the Criterion DVD of this classic movie features one of the finest SD transfers I've ever seen. It's incredibly grainy, even more so than the MGM DVD, and the picture looks very detailed and life-like because of it. The MGM DVD is a poor relation, even though it's anamorphic and the Criterion is not, because the grain has been toned down and fine detail suffers as a result. Even then the compression isn't very good on the MGM version, with noticable blocking during some scenes while the Criterion is unaffected by this artefact. Man, if only that Criterion transfer was anamorphic...
thescrounger
17-04-2006, 00:34
Don't forget, grain is harder to compress. Usually why NR is applied. I can't recall being particularly wowed by the Criterion Robocop (which was a laserdisc port), but then it's not exactly a film that shows off image quality. Seeing as it was low budget and all the money went on the costume they used lower quality film stock.
I don't believe we've seen a definitive transfer of Robocop yet. I found the R1 MGM transfer better than the R2. Sold the criterion, as it was single layer, non anamorphic. Looked terrible zoomed in. If you like grain, then you'll love the HD version as there's even more of it to look at, sadly though it's not the directors cut. :(
If you like grain, then you'll love the HD version as there's even more of it to look at, sadly though it's not the directors cut. :(
Is the blu-ray version of T2 the directors cut?
Is the blu-ray version of T2 the directors cut?
There's a DC? I thought it was either theatrical or T-1000 edition (is that what you mean?). Details haven't been announced but I'd expect it to be the Theatrical cut with possibly deleted scenes on the disc or seemlessly branched. I'm not that bothered if it's the theatrical, I wasn't that enamoured by the deleted scenes
kiran_mk2
17-04-2006, 19:20
Oh great - we're going to get all the re-releases all over again - first 2 barebones, then T2 branching and then T2 ultimate...
There's a DC? I thought it was either theatrical or T-1000 edition (is that what you mean?). Details haven't been announced but I'd expect it to be the Theatrical cut with possibly deleted scenes on the disc or seemlessly branched. I'm not that bothered if it's the theatrical, I wasn't that enamoured by the deleted scenes
The T1000 was the directors cut, it was just the name of the version the VHS was called. By definition of the content, it was actually called the directors cut.
Apart from the smiling scene (bit out of place) and the michael bein scene, i thought the extra scenes all had a alot of meaning.
RobDickinson
18-04-2006, 02:13
I assume when all modern films were digitised they were converted to a mega sized super quality digital format and the DVD was downscaled from that (and processed for noise etc?).
I doubt many films will require going back to the celuloid.
I assume when all modern films were digitised they were converted to a mega sized super quality digital format and the DVD was downscaled from that (and processed for noise etc?).
You'd think, but it seems that 4k transfers weren't as common a few years back as they are now. A lot of them are being remastered for HD it seems.
Oh great - we're going to get all the re-releases all over again
Probably, but at least we know what to expect now. What annoys me is that we have to wait for the SE when we could have it now.
RobDickinson
18-04-2006, 23:35
Reviews are out for The last Samuri.
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/lastsamurai.html
They have a 1080p RPTV (DLP) but the HD-DVD player can only output 1080i.
thescrounger
19-04-2006, 13:01
Reviews are out for The last Samuri.
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/lastsamurai.html
They have a 1080p RPTV (DLP) but the HD-DVD player can only output 1080i.
Interesting to note this part of the review:
However, the difference between the HD-DVD and standard DVD does narrow a bit if you output the standard DVD via the Toshiba's HDMI out, which can upconvert standard DVD's 480p native resolution to 720p or all the way up to 1080i
Spectre07
19-04-2006, 13:12
Interesting to note this part of the review:Yes I read that bit two or three times. :)
thescrounger
19-04-2006, 14:12
Because it confirms our suspicions, that were also mentined in the review:
I venture to guess that on smaller screen sizes, average consumers might not be wowed as much by the HD-DVD. Certainly, if these new next-gen high-def DVD formats are going to win over the mainstream, they need to be seen on larger screen sizes. At when compared to upconverted standard DVD, they just don't deliver the same quantum leap in quality that standard DVD did with VHS.
Spectre07
19-04-2006, 14:37
Exactly, I've always said it's only worth getting HD if you intend to get a larger (36 inch plus) display. The differences between DVD and HD are less apparent on smaller screen sizes at normal distances.
Well that's one persons viewpoint. Also you're talking about two different things here, upconverting and HD DVD. Upconverting a DVD won't look that good and a HD picture will look amazing. The larger displays maximise the picture quality of course.
What were you suspicious about?
Spectre07
19-04-2006, 14:55
Well that's one persons viewpoint. Also you're talking about two different things here, upconverting and HD DVD. Upconverting a DVD won't look that good and a HD picture will look amazing. The larger displays maximise the picture quality of course.There's at least one person on these forums who has an upscaling DVD player and has said he doubt's a HD player could better the image by much.
that'What were you suspicious about?Me personally, that the difference between HD and DVD isn't as stark as the difference between DVD and VHS, and that it's not worth the upgrade unless you have a very large display or projector.
There's at least one person on these forums who has an upscaling DVD player and has said he doubt's a HD player could better the image by much.
Doesn't sound like they've actually seen ANY HD footage then!
Me personally, that the difference between HD and DVD isn't as stark as the difference between DVD and VHS
So what HD footage have you seen?
No offence but I have seen tons of HD footage and maybe I'm wrong. However if someone has limited or no experience is in a poor position to judge. If I has a pound for everytime someone has said "I dismissed HD when I heard about it but I saw it today and was totally blown away!" I'd have... well probably a fiver
Was the difference between DVD and VHS that stark? Maybe but I've been watching DVD quality video my whole life, I've only seen HD in the last year or two.
thescrounger
19-04-2006, 15:23
Doesn't sound like they've actually seen ANY HD footage then!
You did read the review? ;)
You did read the review? ;)
Yes. I can't believe you'd have to wait 1min 30secs to start the film! And that's before any unskipable ads/warnings are inserted. :brickwall
Spectre07
19-04-2006, 16:12
So what HD footage have you seen?
I've seen the usual landscapes and vistas, fluffy animals and people sitting in parks, playing golf or riding motorbikes. Nothing familiar like a well known film. So the footage isn't exactly stimulating.
No offence but I have seen tons of HD footage.Like I said, I suspect the difference isnt that great. I don't have any empirical evidence and I'm not saying HD is worse than DVD, it just doesn't seem that big a deal.
Was the difference between DVD and VHS that stark? .Yes, I saw a Warner film compilation, DVD/VHS side by side, on a 36" widescreen TV and the difference in the images were mind blowing. Having said that the thing that really wowed me about DVD was the surround sound and that's why I thought I had to have DVD, not so much because of the PQ.
I've seen the usual landscapes and vistas, fluffy animals and people sitting in parks, playing golf or riding motorbikes. Nothing familiar like a well known film. So the footage isn't exactly stimulating.
Well that's a personal thing but it does give you a pretty good idea of what to expect.
Spectre, I assume you have a PC at home probably with a fairly decent connection, why not pop over to quicktime and download some 1080p trailers? Try Chicken little and something live action-y. I suggest downloading a 480p version as a preview because some of them are teasers rather than proper trailers.
Grandmaster
19-04-2006, 19:46
Well camaj, I work in HD and I'm going to go with the review. The average consumer is not going to notice the difference between upscaled DVD and HD-DVD. However, to make that distinction, the average consumer will need a really good display and an upscaling DVD player. My bet is that they will have neither. Aside from a drop in macroblocking artefacts, HD offers nothing new to the average consumer's current set-up. This is why it will be a niche market for several years at the very least.
As for why upscaling works, it's down to the plain and simple fact that the human brain is more concerned with content rather than detail and while watching a movie, an average person is more interested in the story than the picture quality. Secondly, the human eye is drawn to motion and pin-sharp detail is a distant second. To illustrate, in LotR the audience is interested in what Aragorn is saying and doing, not staring in wonder at how many follicles of his beard they can see.
This is why comparing stills of SD vs HD side by side always works in HD's favour - the brain has no distractions, so 'searches out' the extra detail in the HD pictures. But even then note how the discussion is all about skin tones, detail in the background etc, nothing crucial to the experience of watching a movie. In terms of motion, especially on a conventionally sized TV and most especially at the average viewing distance of six foot+ away from the screen, HD almost becomes an irrelevance.
Of course we are talking about 'average consumers' here - their wants and needs. For the movie enthusiast ready to turn his living room into a true home cinema with a 1080p 50" screen and uncompressed 7.1 surround sound, he is going to have a great time and a far richer experience. But this set-up is incompatible with most people's living spaces and lifestyles.
But for most people's movie-watching wants and needs, there's nothing wrong with 576i, a nice CRT set and a fair to middling surround sound speaker set. And of course, this is the genius of DVD - it maximised results from existing technology, something that HD-DVD and BluRay palpably fail to do.
RobDickinson
19-04-2006, 20:25
I recently saw a (BBC production I think) called senses, vision episode.
At one point to demonstrait how the humab brain interprets what we see they showed a basketball game to an audience of about a dozzen, told them to keep their eye ON the ball.
Half way through a bloke in a gorrila suit came onto the court, stoped in the middle, beat his chest and walked slowly off.
Once asked afterwards only 2-3 people spotted the gorrilasuit. Because they were concentrating on the action.
As much as a technophile I am for most people , especialy with smaller screens HD will make no difference to their measurable movie pleasure (mmp (c) RJD 2006).
Personaly I'm going to wait it out until I can buy an affordable 1080p projector.
Spectre07
19-04-2006, 23:51
But for most people's movie-watching wants and needs, there's nothing wrong with 576i, a nice CRT set and a fair to middling surround sound speaker set. And of course, this is the genius of DVD - it maximised results from existing technology, something that HD-DVD and BluRay palpably fail to do.I think for a lot of people buying a HD DVD or Blu Ray player will be a little like buying a Ferrari only to drive it around the congested streets of a city, they won't be able to appreciate the full potential.
Well camaj, I work in HD and I'm going to go with the review. The average consumer is not going to notice the difference between upscaled DVD and HD-DVD.
To be fair, we were talking about DVD and HD DVD/Blu-ray. They will certainly notice the difference there and I'd be surprised if upscaling came anywhere close. There's not much point in buying a Blu-ray player and just watching upscaled material if you have the choice.
Aside from a drop in macroblocking artefacts, HD offers nothing new to the average consumer's current set-up.
If by current you mean non-HD then of course you're right, there's little advantage watching HD content on an SD display.
To illustrate, in LotR the audience is interested in what Aragorn is saying and doing, not staring in wonder at how many follicles of his beard they can see.
True, but those details to stand out and looking at the whole picture those details provide an impressive image even if you're not focusing on details.
To be honest, it's pretty hard not to keep looking at the details though. You could argue that HD is a distraction. Once we get used to it, it won't matter though.
thescrounger
20-04-2006, 09:47
HD is a curse and a blessing, in this greedy quest for perfection and constant improvment comes the negative side. With a lot of films, the clearer the picture...the worse it starts to look. You will start to see all the little imperfections that the film contains, such as some of the props, costumes, models, CGI and such. Also, as I mentioned in another thread with older films, more visable grain. Many TV shows that switched to HD shooting had to completely redress their sets because everything suddenly looked like a set on HD.
Grandmaster
20-04-2006, 12:23
Having a high definition film doesn't necessarily equate to having a 'noiseless', non-grainy image. And whilst I can appreciate that TV productions may have to adjust their methods (just as they did with the move from black and white to colour), movies are primarily designed to be exhibited in a form of high definition any way when the film is shown on a large cinema screen.
HD is a curse and a blessing, in this greedy quest for perfection and constant improvment comes the negative side. With a lot of films, the clearer the picture...the worse it starts to look. You will start to see all the little imperfections that the film contains, such as some of the props, costumes, models, CGI and such. It was a similar thing when CD came out - you could suddenly hear all the bad edits and rubbish that used to be masked by the noise of the LP. Oddly enough, and completely unexpectedly, the recordings that really came into their own with CD (at least in the classical industry) were the analogue recordings, which with sympathetic mastering came up clean like restored old masters; the issue of historical recordings is now a big deal in classical CD.
I wonder if a similar thing will happen in film - all those classic films will come up good, complete with proper grain, while the CGA laden modern blockbusters will look rubbish?
I'm all for seeing something warts and all. Give me grain if it's there. It's something we don't really notice at the cinema. Also I get the impression that HD video will possibly look akin to digital projection rather than the scratched up and dull looking images we usually get
Niceguygeoff
20-04-2006, 21:58
I gotta side with Grandmaster here (well, in post no. 40 anyway :D) - film is the highest of definition, so to speak, so the overwhelming majority of movies really shouldn't be looking like an old episode of Dr Who once they migrate to HD.
While the HD medium I use (DVHS) does not represent the zenith of HD formats, the results it can give are still nothing short of spectacular, from older classics like Alien and Die Hard to enjoyably vacant guff like The Transporter or The Rundown.
Try as I might, I can't see the joins. But I do see fine grain (hallelujah!), staggering amounts of detail and precisely graded colours. And it's not just expensive product that benefits, as even low-budget movies like Ghost Dog or Van Wilder come across really well, although their hyper-grainy appearance would be off-putting for the average punter I think.
It's the grain that really hits people when they see film at HD resolutions. We've got a couple of HD sources at work, one delivering a 1080i demo reel shot on HD video, another delivering 1080i movie clips and trailers. Folk see the HD video reel and they are bowled over, but then they see the movie clips and are distinctly unimpressed because of all the grain.
I can't wait for Sky HD to get up and running because then we'll finally be able to gauge the reaction to HD of a wider section of the public - and get a clue as to the UK public's possible reaction to the HD disc formats. I still can't believe they (the studios) were stupid enough to go with two competing formats. :(
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.