My HD-DVD impressions

[Michael Mackenzie]

(Apologies if creating a new thread for my own impressions is verboten, but I couldn't find anything similar.)

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/mdbhdcase.jpg

What better way to start the month in style than with the arrival of my first ever HD-DVD title? Million Dollar Baby (R0 USA) popped through the letterbox this morning, and, naturally, I couldn't wait to peel off the shrink wrap and pop it into the player.

So, the question you're all wanting an answer to, no doubt, is whether or not the leap from standard definition to high definition is as great as people have been saying. I'll answer that in a moment, but first of all I'll describe the experience of playing an HD-DVD.

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/mdbhdfbi.jpg

The first thing you see (after waiting 60 seconds for the disc to begin playing, that is) is, naturally, the FBI warning. Already, the increase in resolution is obvious, in that you can actually read the "Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity" insignia on the FBI badge, which, in standard definition, was pretty much just a smudge. After that, the Warner Home Video logo plays, followed by a trailer for Warner's all-new HD-DVD "experience", featuring clips from films like Batman Begins, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, The Dukes of Hazzard and The Matrix, in which the announcer trumpets some of the revolutionary new features of the format, such as good picture quality. (Other less important features include menus that don't interrupt your viewing of the film and special "in-movie experience" bonus features that, so far, have only been announced for a handful of titles.) The trailer is a great showcase for what the format is capable of, given that, unsurprisingly, the emphasis is on fast-moving, detailed material. This trailer can, by the way, be skipped.

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/mdbhdmenu.jpg

After that, the MPAA card appears (in upscaled standard definition - boo), then the film starts. That's right, no waiting through pointless menu transitions and all that crap, the film just sarts. This player was worth the price already!

Now, the nitty-gritting: image quality. How is it? The short answer: brilliant. The long answer: read on.

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/mdbhd1.jpg

I will say this once and once only: anyone who tells you they've viewed high definition material but didn't see the big deal is either vision impaired or a liar. Even with the native 1920x1080 image being rescaled to 1366x768 (the maximum resolution my brother (http://www.lyris-lite.net)'s panel allows), the difference is easily as big as the leap from VHS to SD-DVD, perhaps even more. I knew roughly what to expect, having already seen plenty of downloaded Windows Media HD trailers, but even so, I was surprised by just how much visible detail there was in Million Dollar Baby's transfer. I've no idea how much truth there is in the horror stories of Blu-Ray tech demos comparing SD and HD transfers of the same film and the demonstrators having to point out the subtle differences to their audiences, but believe me, even your myopic grandmother could see what the improvements that have been made to this particular film. Close-ups look incredible, skin glistens, and even wide shots show a phenomenal amount of detail. I know it's relative to the size of the display, and that it's unfair to compare a 32" screen to a 10-foot cinema projection, but, to tell you the truth, the level of detail on display is perceptually greater than anything I've seen theatrically.

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/mdbhd2.jpg

Any caveats? Well, there are two, but the identity of the culprit is questionable. They are the usual bugbears: edge enhancement and noise reduction. Let me stress that both are very slight and didn't bother me unduly, but they were definitely there. In the case of the edge enhancement, we know that My brother's TV is slightly augmenting this (He's pushing for a fix, which is looking increasingly likely), and there is also the distinct possiblity that the player is also responsible for some of it, but I suspect that a bit of it is also present on the disc itself. Now, one thing to bear in mind that, as a film that was colour corrected using a digital intermediate, it is entirely possible that some edge enhancement existed in the final master itself and can never be got rid of. (I've seen films projected theatrically that exhibit edge enhancement, including The Machinist.)

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/mdbhd3.jpg

Ditto with the noise reduction (My brother says that Flightplan exhibited noise reduction artefacts theatrically). In a couple of instances, you can see the texture of walls in tracking shots getting a bit smeared, and there is a distinct lack of grain throughout. This, again, could have been caused during the DI process (the SD-DVD looks similar, if my memory serves me correctly), so I don't want to point any fingers at this stage and blame the encoders. The bottom line is that, by my criteria, this is a solid 9/10 transfer (where a 10/10 is one with no perceptual flaws that interrupt my enjoyment of the film). There are problems, yes, but they are slight and in no way detract from the gigantic improvement that this represents over SD. Flicking back to SD material, such as the film's theatrical trailer (included on the disc), was a horrifying experience.

As far as I'm concerned, this was worth both the wait and the money. Once you've tried it, you won't be able to go back. I know I can't.

[thescrounger]

Sounds good, lets hope HD-DVD wins!!

[Tempest]

Thanks for the excellent review.

Out of interest, could you try and explain about distance from screen to seeing maximum detail in the image.

Or to put it another way, how far back from the screen would you be, before you start loosing the detail (assuming good eyesight)

I must say I've have voiced my doubt about HD with a 32" screen in a normal house sitting about 10ft from the screen.
I'd have thought you'd need to sit a lot closer, or have a much larger screen to really get the benifit of HD.

So I would be interested how far back you can go (from YOUR size screen) before you start missing some detail.

Perhaps we can do some maths later then re screensize/viewing distance for maximum HD benefit?

[Michael Mackenzie]

Tempest:

I don't think I can really answer questions about viewing distance. It's best to just work from a "trust your eyes, not figures" perspective. I've looked at it on both a 32" HDTV (from a couple of metres away) and a 20" LCD monitor (sitting on the desk right in front of me) and was very happy with the level of detail for both. I certainly didn't sit any closer or further away than I do when watching standard def material.

[shand754]

I have seen about 12 HD DVDs now and I would not say that Million Dollar Baby was the best of the movies released so far in terms of transfer. Watch Chronicles of Riddick, Training Day or Serenity and you should see a substantial improvement.

[Michael Mackenzie]

I have seen about 12 HD DVDs now and I would not say that Million Dollar Baby was the best of the movies released so far in terms of transfer. Watch Chronicles of Riddick, Training Day or Serenity and you should see a substantial improvement.That's great to hear. I've got Serenity on its way and I'm also considering picking up Constantine (not wild about the film, but it's been getting a lot of praise for its transfer). I'll also be picking up Unleashed, Land of the Dead, Red Dragon and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas when they come out later this summer.

[Grandmaster]

Nice review Michael :thumbs:

There's a great thread over on the AVSForum about authoring your own HD content onto DVD-R which I'm enjoying participating in at the moment.

The HD-DVD format seems to be set up extremely nicely for authoring your own disks on any kind of media.

[AndyWilson]

I will say this once and once only: anyone who tells you they've viewed high definition material but didn't see the big deal is either vision impaired or a liar. Even with the native 1920x1080 image being rescaled to 1366x768 (the maximum resolution my brother's panel allows), the difference is easily as big as the leap from VHS to SD-DVD, perhaps even more.

I'm neither vision impaired nor a liar, but I've not yet been impressed by any HD material I've seen. (admittedly limited to BR and Telewest demos) The Sony BR demo even includes a split SD/HD screen to demonstrate the difference. My first impression was that they had just turned up the brightness and contrast on the HD side! Yes there is more detail and resolution, but nothing that would make watching a movie more enjoyable unless you're the sort of person who will watch cricket, despite hating it, just because you're impressed by the picture - or listen to soulless music because it's a technically good recording.

I think, as I said in the BR thread, that people are forgetting how bad commercial VHS releases could be. I clearly remember the last Star Wars boxset being a grainy, colour bleeding, unwatchable mess when zoomed on a 32" widescreen TV. I've seen very few DVDs where the quality actually detracts from the film watching experience.

[Michael Mackenzie]

I'm neither vision impaired nor a liar, but I've not yet been impressed by any HD material I've seen. (admittedly limited to BR and Telewest demos) The Sony BR demo even includes a split SD/HD screen to demonstrate the difference. My first impression was that they had just turned up the brightness and contrast on the HD side! Yes there is more detail and resolution, but nothing that would make watching a movie more enjoyable unless you're the sort of person who will watch cricket, despite hating it, just because you're impressed by the picture - or listen to soulless music because it's a technically good recording.Ah, now I should probably have said "Anyone who tells you they've viewed HD-DVD material but didn't see the big deal..." I get the impression that broadcast material is certainly not in the same ballpark and Blu-Ray... well, let's just say I cancelled my pre-order of the Sony player when I heard people's reactions to the first releases.

The improvements offered are about far more than simply offering more detail for the sake of it. For me, it's all about more faithfully capturing the experience of watching films in the cinema, something that, in my opinion, very few standard def DVDs were able to do. Personally, I'm in no doubt that the move from DVD to HD-DVD is just as momentous as VHS to DVD. I'm not exaggerating here - to my eyes it really is that much better.

[thescrounger]

While HD shop demos of wildlife and scenery might not be mind blowing, it's amazing seeing the clarity in those small photos you've posted above.

[Michael Mackenzie]

While HD shop demos of wildlife and scenery might not be mind blowing, it's amazing seeing the clarity in those small photos you've posted above.Photos alone don't do it justice. I just wish there was some way of capturing the full 1080p images from the disc. You can grab 480i images using a capture card via S-Video, but naturally they just look like a normal DVD.

Here's a larger version of one of the shots (sorry about the pattern on it - that's the TV screen).

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/mdblarge.jpg

[thescrounger]

Yeah even in that enlarged picture, the extra detail is more than apparent.

[GarethH]

Any pictures of the actual discs?

[Michael Mackenzie]

Any pictures of the actual discs?You mean actual screen captures? No, sorry, I don't have an HD-DVD drive for my PC, and in any event, there currently isn't any playback software available. The best I can do is capture a 480i downconversion via a TV capture card's S-Video input (geniuses spent so much time harping on about content protection and then forgot to enable Macrovision :D), but as you can probably imagine, there's not much point in that.

[Grandmaster]

The gulf in quality between SkyHD and HD-DVD should be akin to watching a DVD and then watching the same movie again on Sky Movies.

Satellite broadcasts operate on a strictly limited bandwidth and don't have the same attention put into the encoding as HD-DVD will have. We also don't know what kind of 1080p to 1080i conversion is done at Sky or Telewest HQ.

It's a safe bet to assume that while the HD channels will obviously be better than standard definition, HD-DVD should look significantly better.

[GarethH]

You mean actual screen captures? No, sorry, I don't have an HD-DVD drive for my PC, and in any event, there currently isn't any playback software available. The best I can do is capture a 480i downconversion via a TV capture card's S-Video input (geniuses spent so much time harping on about content protection and then forgot to enable Macrovision :D), but as you can probably imagine, there's not much point in that.

I meant photos of the actual disc. I don't think i've seen what colour the playing surface is.

[LouBarlow]

What does 'verboten' mean?

Nice review - i'll be investing once some titles I actually want to own, are released. The line-up so far doesn't interest me, even if the technology does :thumbs:

[Michael Mackenzie]

I meant photos of the actual disc. I don't think i've seen what colour the playing surface is.Ah, gotcha. There's not much to see, but here we go, front and back:

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/mdbfront.jpg http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/mdbback.jpg

It has a slightly misty blue-grey surface (same for Blu-Ray), although that's not really apparent in the picture.

[Michael Mackenzie]

What does 'verboten' mean?

Nice review - i'll be investing once some titles I actually want to own, are released. The line-up so far doesn't interest me, even if the technology does :thumbs:"Verboten" is German for "forbidden".

[GarethH]

Ah, gotcha. There's not much to see, but here we go, front and back:

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/mdbfront.jpg http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/funbag/mdbback.jpg

It has a slightly misty blue-grey surface (same for Blu-Ray), although that's not really apparent in the picture.

Cheers for that! You're right, nothing much to see but I was curious. Have you tried scratching it and seeing if it still plays? :nuts:

[Michael Mackenzie]

Cheers for that! You're right, nothing much to see but I was curious. Have you tried scratching it and seeing if it still plays? :nuts:Want to buy me a new copy when it refuses to play? :D

[Tempest]

I will say this once and once only: anyone who tells you they've viewed high definition material but didn't see the big deal is either vision impaired or a liar.

(Not wanting to cause an argument) :D

Or they just don't care! and feel normal DVD is plenty good enough for them to enjoy a movie.

I know I like HD and I enjoy the added detail I've even seen so far with my TVDrive.
But, standing back and looking at this topic, it's very much in great danger of becoming very anal. and incredibly :dork:

I can kinda see some people just sitting down after a nice meal and enjoying a good movie together, just watching the FILM

Then another load of single guys with odd teeth and thick glasses, looking close at the screen going, ohh look can you see the enhanced pixel definition of the spot on that persons face, and oh, we can now read the writing of the logo on the side of the ship as it sinks.

For god sake boys, sit back and just enjoy the dam film :D

Ok, I'm being a bit Devils advocate here, but I can see that there will be many people who may well think this way.

As I said, I have got HD now (screen and TVDrive) and will get a HD-DVD player when prices are sensible, without question.

I've pointed out some HD Demo's (in shops powered by a computer) to some people (non tech types) and they just look and say, yes, that's nice, and thats it.

I feel there's only so many (and not THAT many) consumers out there right now that really give that much of a stuff about HD, esp when it's not THAT much better, from a normal household TV in the corner of the room watching eastenders type of device.

From a Big Screen, home cinema point of view, yeah, fantastic.
As I've said in another thread, if people were THAT bothered about quality there would not be thousands or poss even tens of thousands of pirate DVD's being sold to punters at markets and car boot fairs ever week in the UK.

But, back to topic, great review, and I want one, but I just think that the majority of (dare I say it) "Normal" people are not so bothered about examining the screen for extra detail as perhaps many here are, Including myself :D

[Michael Mackenzie]

I think it depends on how much the shortcomings of DVD bother you. For me, they are at times so noticeable that they actually detract from my viewing experience. This is especially true of something like The Lord of the Rings, which, on DVD, looks so blurry that I keep thinking there's something wrong with the sharpness control on my TV, or any of Blue Underground's releases, where the edge enhancement is so pronounced that my eyes are continually drawn to the thick haloes around peoples' heads rather than what these people are actually saying and doing.

(The irony is that these problems could have been avoided if the people responsible for encoding the DVDs had taken more care and/or had more of a clue about what they were doing. In that regard, part of the appeal of HD-DVD is that it is forcing the studios to up their game and pay more attention to ensuring excellent image quality - something that, by the sounds of it, Sony has failed to do with Blu-Ray.)

Sure, you can make an argument that plenty of people don't care about the increase in detail and overall image quality or are able to look past DVD's shortcomings, but the exact same was true of the people who didn't get the big deal of DVD when it first came along, and as I said before, the improvement of HD-DVD over DVD is as much, if not more, than that of DVD over VHS.

For me, it's all about replicating the experience of watching a film at the cinema. DVD was fundamentally unable to do that. HD-DVD, from what I've seen of it so far, gives it a pretty good go and is definitely getting there.

[Tempest]

I think it depends on how much the shortcomings of DVD bother you. For me, they are at times so noticeable that they actually detract from my viewing experience. This is especially true of something like The Lord of the Rings, which, on DVD, looks so blurry that I keep thinking there's something wrong with the sharpness control on my TV, or any of Blue Underground's releases, where the edge enhancement is so pronounced that my eyes are continually drawn to the thick haloes around peoples' heads rather than what these people are actually saying and doing.

Sure, you can make an argument that plenty of people don't care about the increase in detail and overall image quality or are able to look past DVD's shortcomings, but the exact same was true of the people who didn't get the big deal of DVD when it first came along, and as I said before, the improvement of HD-DVD over DVD is as much, if not more, than that of DVD over VHS.

For me, it's all about replicating the experience of watching a film at the cinema. DVD was fundamentally unable to do that. HD-DVD, from what I've seen of it so far, gives it a pretty good go and is definitely getting there.


Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way saying there is anything wrong with your opinion, it's just I guess you are a professional who knows his stuff and this matters to you.

You can imagine perhaps a professional artist, or a top chef complaining either about the brush strokes on a work of art being poor, or perhaps the seasoning in a meal being really bad in their expert opinion.

The likes of me and you would just look at the PICTURE or eat the MEAL and thing both were excellent.

Poss silly examples.

From my own "Personal" limited experience I've not had too many bad DVD experiences. There are a few I've seem where you have the nasty macrovision blocks in the background dark colours.

I do have a Home Cinema Projector (which is not HD ready) on a 7ft wide screen and that would MASSIVLY benifit from HD as I'm sitting 9ft from a 7 foot screen. (this is driven from my PC so when you can get HD Drives that work via a HD graphics card I shall get a HD projector :)

I'm in agreement with you, I want and love the extra quality.

There is only 1 point that I would actually disagree with. ;)

The move from VHS to DVD was IMHO way WAY bigger that the move from DVD to HD-DVD

Video = Physically bigger. (lot fatter)
Video = Have to rewind the movie at the end of the film
Video = Picture quality = very poor
Video = Not proper Surround Sound (like we have now)
Video = Not really widescreen (like we have now)
Video = No nice front end to jump to bits in the film
Video = Picture degraded over time
Video = Bad freeze frame and slow motion
Video = No extra audio tracks (directors commentary)
Video = Not really any extra's (in the way DVD has)

I feel DVD answered ALL of the above issues and hence was/is a major improvement in every way over video.
The only downside was it's easier to damage a DVD as the idiots decided they would not use a caddy (shame we're not going to even use one for HD-DVD or BluRay either now it seems)

So, all the superb reasons why DVD was better than VHS, and it easily won over VHS as VHS had been out so long, has had it's day and people could see the obvious ways it was better.
Hey, even not having to rewind is a god send.

but now we have another format, and what's it's selling point over the current format (normal DVD)?
Well, the picture is better if you have a massive screen, or look closely, and the menu system may be a bit flasher.

This is why I'm not yet convinced it's going to get far at the moment.

Certainly I can't see many people (general population) selling their current DVD players and spending £500 (rather than £50 or less) on a HD player.

Even myself who would love one is not going to get caught out again, this time around. Last time I waiting till DVD players were £99 before buying (bargain forum!)

Not sure what price point I'll jump at this time.

PS3, perhaps.... (well only if that drops also) but then we have the format wars in the way as well.
The very last thing we need.

Hay ho........

Hopefully in 5 years time we'll have £99 HD players and all the cheap china made models with have reverse engineered the chipsets, and we can just all have HD without caring about it.

But it's all looking a bit LazerVision, or SACD, or MiniDisc at the moment.

Well, only my 2 cents, I'm sure others will totally disagree with everything I say :D

[LouBarlow]

Surely HD-DVD is the new LD?

i.e. an improvement over VHS (SVHS?) but likely to be only appreciated my the hardcore, or the collector - I'm not convinced it will become as mainstream as DVD has become.

Though there will of course be a format in the future that does become the norm, I'm not sure this first step is it.

[Michael Mackenzie]

Tempest:

I'm not a professional, just a professional nit-picker. :p

Anyway, I agree with a lot of what you're saying regarding VHS vs. DVD, but I do wonder to what extent the average punter was considering issues like extras, widescreen and surround sound. I think that people have now warmed to them and expect them is a result of the uptake of DVD rather than the other way round.

Don't get me wrong, I expect HD-DVD to remain a niche format for some time, but that's not surprising. For the majority of people, the current format, whatever it is, is always "good enough", and it's a combination of factors (including advertising and the emphasising of gimmicks to sucker in the punters) that eventually leads to a new format taking off. In that regard, as a niche product, the HD-A1 is actually pretty reasonably priced. Let's not forget that £500 is actually somewhat less than what a lot of tech-savvy customers would end up paying for a top of the range standard definition player. It's also considerably less than what the first generation of DVD players cost, and the initial line-up of titles is a lot better too. By the end of the year we'll have Batman Begins, The Matrix and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire available on HD-DVD (in the US, that is), and I suspect that the prospect of seeing "better" versions of these will appeal to a lot of people.

[Michael Mackenzie]

Surely HD-DVD is the new LD?

i.e. an improvement over VHS (SVHS?) but likely to be only appreciated my the hardcore, or the collector - I'm not convinced it will become as mainstream as DVD has become.

Though there will of course be a format in the future that does become the norm, I'm not sure this first step is it.You may be right, and to be honest I'd actually be quite happy for it to become "the new LD" (I do own a LaserDisc player, after all), if only because it would encourage the studios to put a lot of effort into their releases in order to maintain a small but committed group of customers.

Again, though, I'd disagree with the 'DVD to HD-DVD = VHS to LD' analogy. The difference is a lot greater than that.

[thescrounger]

One thing is that HD will look much better to people who've been watching normal DVDs for a long time on an LCD or plasma, because these displays really aren't designed for SD material and basically make it look poor. I'm not saying there's no leap at all obviously, but if you've spent a considerable amount of time watching SD pictures on a flat panel display, HD wil seem like a more marked difference.

[LouBarlow]

One thing is that HD will look much better to people who've been watching normal DVDs for a long time on an LCD or plasma, because these displays really aren't designed for SD material and basically make it look poor.

Amusingly some friends of my sister bought an HD television, and managed to convince themselves that just plugging and playing the new set, with a regular Digibox, was giving them the benefits of high definition - they were raving to everyone about it, when everyone else watching it thought it looked ***** :nuts:

Back on topic - I watch my DVD's on a 'tweaked to perfection' HTPC, feeding an H79 projector, and am amazed by how good they look in comparison to just playing the same titles on even top-end standalone DVD players (I bought and sold on a Pio 868 DVD player, as it couldn't compete)

I also watch high-def material, from disk (not SKY) on this HTPC set-up, and while it is excellent quality (Sin City looked particularly fine) it is not *that* much of an improvement...at least not enough for me to splash out on the new dedicated hardware.

While I fully accept that the standalone HD-DVD encoded discs, are likely to be an improvement further over the HD encodes I've been watching, the difference is no way akin to that of jumping from VHS to DVD, for me anyway.

[Tempest]

Glad to see we're all (kinda) agreeing on this topic (makes a change) :D

Although I know I have kinda poo poo'd HD-DVD a bit, I know this time around we have a BIG difference, in that many people (over time) are going to upgrade to HD sets.

In fact it's going to be very hard soon Not to upgrade to a HD set.

Many of the big high street stores appear to have given up with CRT sets pretty much now and are just wanting to sell flat panels.

Panel makers are pumping them out like no-ones business, and I'm sure pretty much everyone would like a flat TV rather than a CRT TV (I'm talking size/weight rather than pic quality)

HD standard (well the current low one) seems to be what mos tof the new sets are being made to.

So it's looking like when your widescreen set you bought 2 years ago, packs up in another 3 years, then you'll just end up with a flat panel HD screen by default.

Sky will end up totally HD as will Telewest, as will normal TV transmissions.

It will just happen even if you don't want it.

the same will happen with HD-DVD although it remains to be seen in what form as it's a bit of a mess at the moment and deff needs cheap chipsets.

I'd say without a doubt HD will just become the norm, but we'll evolve into it, rather than all rushing out and buying it cos it's a must have.

Well, that's one view anyway :)

[Shaun666]

[QUOTE=Michael Mackenzie]I think it depends on how much the shortcomings of DVD bother you. For me, they are at times so noticeable that they actually detract from my viewing experience. This is especially true of something like The Lord of the Rings, which, on DVD, looks so blurry that I keep thinking there's something wrong with the sharpness control on my TV, or any of Blue Underground's releases, where the edge enhancement is so pronounced that my eyes are continually drawn to the thick haloes around peoples' heads rather than what these people are actually saying and doing.

Have to say I'm amazed by what you say about Lord of The Rings on DVD. I've got the R1 4 disc extended editions and they look pretty good on my 36" Toshiba CRT. I only bought that 2 years ago so probably won't be looking to move to HD for at least another 3 years or more.

[Tempest]

my 36" Toshiba CRT. I only bought that 2 years ago so probably won't be looking to move to HD for at least another 3 years or more.

Exactly my point.

To be honest, TV's in the UK, have in general not changed much until recently and people normally have expected a TV to last MANY years.

Widescreen CRT's were VERY expensive until quite recently, when having just got a DVD player, perhaps many families decided to upgrade to a widescreen CRT.

Now, just 12 or 24 months later, we have shops full of flatscreens and CRT's worth nothing secondhand.

I can see many people in the same situation, feeling they've only just got their new set, and want another few years from it before paying out again on a flat screen.

Myself I was lucky in that I held out with my old 4:3 Sony 27" CRT until HD LCD screens were at a resonable price, and made the jump all in one go from a normal 4:3 CRT to a flat HD widescreen in one go.

I know a number of people personally who have in the past year or so got widescreen CRT's and they have no intention of getting rid of them yet.

Mind you, it will be a little while before we get £299 32" HD flat screens.
Perhaps not THAT long if they flood the market.
that's when the change will really happen.

[Edge]

The first thing you see (after waiting 60 seconds for the disc to begin playing, that is) is, naturally, the FBI warning. Already, the increase in resolution is obvious, in that you can actually read the "Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity" insignia on the FBI badge, which, in standard definition, was pretty much just a smudge.

After that, the MPAA card appears (in upscaled standard definition - boo), then the film starts. That's right, no waiting through pointless menu transitions and all that crap, the film just sarts. This player was worth the price already!

Good job you watched a Warners disc first then :) Universal discs go straight into a menu system and then, after you hit play, you get the FBI badge and it pretty much is a smudge!

Edge

[Michael Mackenzie]

My first ever HD-DVD review is now up:

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=62038

[xraystan]

What we've got to be careful of here is having a case of "emperor's new clothes". Are the details in HD that much better current DVD output or do people who've invested in expensive players and displays see the massive improvements becuase they want to see the money they've spent hasn't been wated.
The HD stuff I've downloaded off the internet and played via DVi into my pioneer plasma has looked stunning, but it hasn't persuaded me to get SkyHD, never mind paying ££££'s for a HD-DVD player and discs.

[thescrounger]

What we've got to be careful of here is having a case of "emperor's new clothes". Are the details in HD that much better current DVD output or do people who've invested in expensive players and displays see the massive improvements becuase they want to see the money they've spent hasn't been wated.


I think the difference is obvious.

[Michael Mackenzie]

Are the details in HD that much better current DVD outputYes.

[Lee_eel]

I agree that many dvds are now off-putting to the viewer because they are just banged out without the necessary care taken to really push dvd to it's limits. I don't wan't to sound like a fanboy but i have always found Micheal's reviews to be spot on and unlike many reviewers, he really has a grasp of what is and isn't a good transfer. A perfect example is Thirteen (R2). This disc was reviewed as being overly grainy and having artefacts when in fact (has his review pointed out) the grain was superbly handled and the film looked probably as good as it could on the format) It is people like myself who will benefit most from HD. By that i mean someone who is brought out of the dvd viewing experience by dancing pixels and fog and mist breaking up into an awful stuttery movement across the screen. I am slightly obsessed about film and just love to watch films in the best possible format at home. If that means watching HD that in theory should eliminate the majority of digital artefacts (should!) then that is the way forward for me. This may sound ridiculous but i am that obsessive that some of my favourite films remain locked up in my wardrobe because they were not of the quality that i want. (American Werewolf In London being an example because of the horrible pixelation early in the movie. Only transfers i consider acceptable are on display in my now 450 strong collection. I am well aware of how that sounds (very anal) but that is the way i am. So in short i will be investing in Hd dvd but only if afore mentioned artefacts are not noticeable!

[xraystan]

I think the difference is obvious.

Yes, but you would say that.

Yes.

See above. ;)

[thescrounger]

Why would I say that?

[Lee_eel]

Well i back up scrounger and Michael simply because they seem to know what they are talking about. Hd is good for film fans, is it not?

[Grandmaster]

I am a huge HD advocate, but even I can see that HD-DVD or Blu-Ray are not mainstream products compared to DVD. On a specially set-up home cinema, of course there will be an immeasurable benefit, but this is not the average living room layout.

DVD maximised the potential from existing technology (CRT TVs especially) and delivered an immediate 'bang for your buck' advantage. Neither HD format offers anything to most people's existing set-ups, therefore its appeal is immediately extremely limited to those willing to spend at least £1500 on a) a screen that can resolve HD content and b) a screen big enough to make that difference apparent in the average living room set-up.

Not everything needs or wants a big screen in their lounge any way.

There's also the small matter of how films are shot. The camera focuses on one set of elements in the given frame, the rest is out of focus, therefore the argument that those elements need HD resolution is questionable..

So essentially, HD offers brilliant resolution, but only really apparent on the stuff that's in focus, but (and this is most likely the unsung hero of the format) far less colour compression - so you get a much brighter, better clarity image.

HD makes a much, much bigger impact in gaming - everything is pin-sharp with ultra-fine edges, and everything is in focus - there's an infinite depth of vision. Also, games-playing generally takes place right up next to the screen, something that movie-watchers aren't comfortable with.

So will the winning format be the next Laserdisc? Perhaps. Unfortunately I think it's a niche market as it is already and the format war could destroy both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray's chances.

[xraystan]

Why would I say that?

It seems everytime there is a HD DVD discussion, as opposed to a HD-DVD one, you act like you have a vested interest in HD-DVD, that's all.

[hunts1uk]

Michael Mackenzie

Great review m8,i've had my player a few months now and im still blown away by it.Van Helsings been the best film i've watched so far,sound and picture are outstanding.

[thescrounger]

It seems everytime there is a HD DVD discussion, as opposed to a HD-DVD one,

Are you speaking in riddles??

[xraystan]

Are you speaking in riddles??

Yes.

[thescrounger]

Well, your opinion is odd to say the least. You enjoy watching HD material and you can see the improvement, yet you think HD-DVD is a case of the Emperors new clothes.

Very odd.

[douglasb]

Notice how "the youth" are listening to their tunes via their mobile phones (not via the earpiece) but via the in-built speaker? In terms of quality, the sound is probably equivalent to a very cheap 1940s gramophone.

Expand that concept and you will understand why the vast majority of people are quite happy with their £30 DVD players. It is the format and useability of DVD that has been the real success. Had picture quality been largely the same between VHS and DVD, DVD would probably still have won out.

People switched from vinyl to CD for ease-of-use and the fact that any CD would sound better than the vinyl that they'd abused and used on the Dansette that had had the same stylus for 15 years.

D.

[Darkman]

Of course, and this is probably the most obvious point, the studios and electronics manufacturers could simply force everyone into HD-DVD by merely stopping production of SD-DVDs and CRT TV's.

Any movie lover who says they don't want HD is a liar. As a movie lover I want optimum quality. As soon as we, the consumer, know where we stand regarding HD-DVD and BR-DVD, I will jump in. But at the moment, you can't even buy an HD- or BR-DVD player here in the UK.

Has a frame-rate been decided upon? I know NTSC and PAL will be a thing of the past - but will 24fps (or 29fps?) be a global standard?

[thescrounger]

Notice how "the youth" are listening to their tunes via their mobile phones (not via the earpiece) but via the in-built speaker? In terms of quality, the sound is probably equivalent to a very cheap 1940s gramophone.

Expand that concept and you will understand why the vast majority of people are quite happy with their £30 DVD players. It is the format and useability of DVD that has been the real success. Had picture quality been largely the same between VHS and DVD, DVD would probably still have won out.

People switched from vinyl to CD for ease-of-use and the fact that any CD would sound better than the vinyl that they'd abused and used on the Dansette that had had the same stylus for 15 years.

D.

Youth will always be like that though, I doubt they even pay for their music. Youth is never the market for this sort of thing. AV set ups are usually aimed at adults.

[douglasb]

Any movie lover who says they don't want HD is a liar. As a movie lover I want optimum quality.

Don't seek to speak on behalf of everyone who likes (or loves) films.

People who spend £5k on hi-fi seperates do not necessarily love music more than someone who spends £200 on a midi system.

I love film but my equipment for viewing it still amounts to a CRT and a sub-£100 DVD player. Would I like better kit? Mmmm ... but clearly not enough to feel it would upgrade the experience enough. I'm sure a big chuff-off plasma would slay me, and I would appreciate certain titles more, but for most people's needs technology as it stands is probably fine.

D.

[Darkman]

You misunderstand me - I said want, not necessarily afford a HD set-up. I'm still with SD-DVD and a CRT set. I can't really afford to upgrade, but that doesn't mean I don't want to.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound offensive - it's the people who say they don't want to upgrade that I was aiming my comments at. I think most movie lovers want to upgrade, even if they can't afford it!

[AndyWilson]

Any movie lover who says they don't want HD is a liar. As a movie lover I want optimum quality.

That's a total pile of testicles! Plenty of movie lovers are quite happy with a small screen and DVD quality. It's only us geeks who soil ourselves at the thought of higher definition so we can see every pock mark in Willem Defoe's face!

There's a very very large chunk of people whose attitude to HD is "so what?"

[hunts1uk]

That's a total pile of testicles! Plenty of movie lovers are quite happy with a small screen and DVD quality. It's only us geeks who soil ourselves at the thought of higher definition so we can see every pock mark in Willem Defoe's face!

There's a very very large chunk of people whose attitude to HD is "so what?"


Would disagree with you there m8,once you've watched films in HD on a large sceen thats the way you'll want to keep it. :) I own the XA-1 HDVD player and watch on a 50" screen and won't be going back to SD dvd's.

[bradavon]

Fair point hunts1uk but with only about a dozen HD DVDs (not to be confused with HD-DVD) you'll have a lot of spare time between each film unless you like watching the same film over and over again.

[hunts1uk]

Fair point hunts1uk but with only about a dozen HD DVDs (not to be confused with HD-DVD) you'll have a lot of spare time between each film unless you like watching the same film over and over again.


Think there about 20 out so far,i've got about 10 and can't find enough time to watch them. :lol:

Trust me watch Van Helsing in HD and you'll never go back. :notworthy

[PlexShaw]

Trust me watch Van Helsing in HD and you'll never go back. :notworthy
Presumably, the film is just as rubbish in HD as it is in SD?

That said, I'm sure Beckinsale looks even tastier... :n0rty:

[LouBarlow]

Presumably, the film is just as rubbish in HD as it is in SD?

:lol:

It's just as rubbish, but you can see in greater detail, why it is so rubbish.

I think it's always a danger to watch a film to be solely impressed by the transfer or image quality - I only really notice that once - it tends to be the content that has me coming back.

Of course, I keep the willy-waving discs for when me mates pop round, but I would never watch them solely to be impressed by how they look - content is everything.

[Michael Mackenzie]

I can't say I have a burning desire to add Van Helsing to my growing HD-DVD collection. I can see why it would be considered demo material, though, if only because the increased detail makes the CGI look even more craptacular. :lol:

[hunts1uk]

:brickwall Ok so no one likes Van Helsing then.

[Darkman]

That's a total pile of testicles! Plenty of movie lovers are quite happy with a small screen and DVD quality. It's only us geeks who soil ourselves at the thought of higher definition so we can see every pock mark in Willem Defoe's face!

There's a very very large chunk of people whose attitude to HD is "so what?"

So you're saying that if any given movie fan were offered a state-of-the-art HD set-up that they would decline in favour of their current inferior equipment?

People may well say 'so what' - but my argument is that that's because they can't afford it, not that they don't want it. I want it, but can't afford it right now. But when it becomes affordable I reckon everyone will be scrambling for a slice of the HD pie.

[Tempest]

I'm going to be interested how the manufacturers play this HD thing.

The very fact that there are 2 formats, although a stupid state of affairs, in normal business, it SHOULD be good for consumers as it's not a monopoly and you have 2 competing standards that both want to win.

which (in theory) should bring prices down.

also, the prices of the actual films too.

I know there was/is talk about HD-DVD doing the SD and HD version of the film on the same disk.

It's obvious really, the makers need to get movies and players into people's homes.

The PS3 is going to get a LOT of BluRay players into homes next year,

I'm not sure how the HD-DVD camp will manage, unless the Xbox360 will help (though I don't feel this will have much of a impact)

If they deliberatly keep prices high for a premium product, then it will fail and remain a niche product.

Be intersting to see where we are in another 2 years from now.

[Harsin]

So you're saying that if any given movie fan were offered a state-of-the-art HD set-up that they would decline in favour of their current inferior equipment?

Well there's plenty of music fans who prefer to listen to music on their 'inferior' record players.

[Michael Mackenzie]

Well there's plenty of music fans who prefer to listen to music on their 'inferior' record players.Apples and oranges. I think the "record vs. CD" argument has parallels with the "film vs. digital" argument, but not when it comes to low resolution DVD vs. high resolution DVD. I think a more appropriate parallel would be to compare listening to a low quality RealAudio download of a song vs. listening to the full CD quality version (or, to be fair, a high bit rate MP3/WMA/ATRAC).

[AndyWilson]

So you're saying that if any given movie fan were offered a state-of-the-art HD set-up that they would decline in favour of their current inferior equipment?

People may well say 'so what' - but my argument is that that's because they can't afford it, not that they don't want it. I want it, but can't afford it right now. But when it becomes affordable I reckon everyone will be scrambling for a slice of the HD pie.

I'd say that they would. Most people's enjoyment of a film isn't enhanced at all by the picture quality. Practical concerns like how unobtrusive the screen is are a greater concern to most.

I was an early adopter of DVD - but that was partly because I'm a gadget geek and partly software driven - I wanted a copy of The Big Lebowski and the only available VHS version was about $70. I could afford HD quite easily but there is nothing that makes me want it yet - and as I said, I'm a gadget geek. The average person in the street couldn't care less - it's nothing to do with affordability.

[Michael Mackenzie]

I'd say that they would. Most people's enjoyment of a film isn't enhanced at all by the picture quality. Practical concerns like how unobtrusive the screen is are a greater concern to most.

I was an early adopter of DVD - but that was partly because I'm a gadget geek and partly software driven - I wanted a copy of The Big Lebowski and the only available VHS version was about $70. I could afford HD quite easily but there is nothing that makes me want it yet - and as I said, I'm a gadget geek. The average person in the street couldn't care less - it's nothing to do with affordability.This reminds me so much of that ad on TV for long-life lightbulbs.

Salesperson: "You can have lightbulb A, which is very dim and burns out really quickly, or you can have lightbulb B, which is bright and lasts for ages. Both cost the same."
(Long pause)
Customer: "No, I'll just take lightbulb A."

[AndyWilson]

Why? Lightbulb B has an obvious advantage over bulb A.

High Definition does not necessarily make a film any more enjoyable.

[JamesK]

And long life light bulbs aren't bright anyway:p They're rubbis if you only need a light on for a few minutes as they take ages to warm up.

[Darkman]

Well, y'know, over the years I've heard/read a lot of people talking about movies and how they want to see the film as the director intended. Well, standard definition DVD ain't it - not even close. Doesn't come anywhere near to touching the resolution of 35mm film. So each and every technology advancement brings us closer to that. So why wouldn't movie lovers embrace that?

[Darkman]

High Definition does not necessarily make a film any more enjoyable.

By that logic we should have all remained happy with VHS. After all, it's the movie that counts, eh? The delivery format can't possibly make the viewing experience more enjoyable, can it?

[Grandmaster]

Well, y'know, over the years I've heard/read a lot of people talking about movies and how they want to see the film as the director intended. Well, standard definition DVD ain't it - not even close. Doesn't come anywhere near to touching the resolution of 35mm film. So each and every technology advancement brings us closer to that. So why wouldn't movie lovers embrace that?

Because the size of the display and the distance you sit away from it have a massive impact on the amount of actual resolution the human eye can detect. Not everyone has the space or the inclination or the indeed the money to splash out on a huge screen. Does that make them unable to be a movie lover?

DVD *did* sort out a lot of the problems of VHS - proper anamorphic support for widescreen TVs, totally stable digital image, digital mapping to get the most out of the available resolution on a standard definition screen. I'd say it's a perfectly viable playback medium for most people's lifestyles.

[tizza]

I really want a HD projector , but weve only had our other one two year so mrs wont let me get more debt on!!


I reckon HD DVD will take off big style once the prices drop, remember whatever you say about currys etc they are very good at giving people credit! :lol: Every Joe bloggs with a passing interest in technology will be persuaded into getting hi-def stuff.


Out of interest, what size are these HD-DVD discs in terms of GB?

[Michael Mackenzie]

Out of interest, what size are these HD-DVD discs in terms of GB?30 GB for a dual-layer disc.

[thescrounger]

By that logic we should have all remained happy with VHS. After all, it's the movie that counts, eh? The delivery format can't possibly make the viewing experience more enjoyable, can it?

That logic is wrong. It's more like comparing CD to SACD. I'm not going to start loving my favourite Stones album more because it's on SACD am I? That's the point he was making.

VHS delivered barely anything close to a cinema experience, the dependance on analogue tape technology, which only offered a 3rd of broadcast resolution and audio that was limited to dolby stereo, with dropouts galore. The leap from DVD to HD-DVD is quite significant but is in no way comparable to the leap from VHS to DVD.

[Michael Mackenzie]

Sorry, but I disagree. This is easily as big as the VHS to DVD leap. Having just watched Serenity on HD-DVD, there's no way I could ever go back to the DVD. The difference is H U G E.

[hunts1uk]

Sorry, but I disagree. This is easily as big as the VHS to DVD leap. Having just watched Serenity on HD-DVD, there's no way I could ever go back to the DVD. The difference is H U G E.


My favorite so far. :thumbs:

[thescrounger]

Sorry, but I disagree. This is easily as big as the VHS to DVD leap. Having just watched Serenity on HD-DVD, there's no way I could ever go back to the DVD. The difference is H U G E.

The difference is big, but the leap is not the same. Objectively as a format it is not the same.

[Michael Mackenzie]

Have you seen the HD-DVD of Serenity?

[thescrounger]

No, but your not seeing the point, that objectively as a format the leap is not the same. They are both disc formats, both offer a level of interactivety that VHS did not. The fact the HD-DVD has vastly better image quality does not mean that the leap from DVD to HD-DVD is the same. Yes in terms of image quality but not in terms of a format objectively. Do you get me? If anything the leap is smaller. It's a less painful upgrade, than the 'leap' to a brand new format that VHS was.

[Michael Mackenzie]

Yeah, I think so - I was thinking primarily of image quality, which, to be honest, is going to be the easiest thing to demonstrate in in-store displays.

[Tempest]

Would I be right in thinking the cheapest way of getting a HD-DVD player is going to be when Microsoft launch it for the Xbox360?

Going to be £130 (ish) isn't it?

Assuming you already have a 360 that it.

Going to make the current prices of HD-DVD Players look a bit silly within the next 5 months.

[Spectre07]

So you're saying that if any given movie fan were offered a state-of-the-art HD set-up that they would decline in favour of their current inferior equipment?I know people who would be happy to continue using a bus even if they were giving away Rolls Royces.

[Spectre07]

Apples and oranges. I think the "record vs. CD" argument has parallels with the "film vs. digital" argument, but not when it comes to low resolution DVD vs. high resolution DVD. I think a more appropriate parallel would be to compare listening to a low quality RealAudio download of a song vs. listening to the full CD quality version (or, to be fair, a high bit rate MP3/WMA/ATRAC).An appropriate analogy would be CD vs SACD.

[Spectre07]

Because the size of the display and the distance you sit away from it have a massive impact on the amount of actual resolution the human eye can detect. Not everyone has the space or the inclination or the indeed the money to splash out on a huge screen. Does that make them unable to be a movie lover?

DVD *did* sort out a lot of the problems of VHS - proper anamorphic support for widescreen TVs, totally stable digital image, digital mapping to get the most out of the available resolution on a standard definition screen. I'd say it's a perfectly viable playback medium for most people's lifestyles.And lets not forget the most important thing... having to remember to press the rewind button once you finished watching a film. :)

[Michael Mackenzie]

An appropriate analogy would be CD vs SACD.Not really. The difference between DVD and HD-DVD is much more immediately noticeable, especially to the non-technogeek.

[Spectre07]

No, but your not seeing the point, that objectively as a format the leap is not the same. They are both disc formats, both offer a level of interactivety that VHS did not. The fact the HD-DVD has vastly better image quality does not mean that the leap from DVD to HD-DVD is the same. Yes in terms of image quality but not in terms of a format objectively. Do you get me? If anything the leap is smaller. It's a less painful upgrade, than the 'leap' to a brand new format that VHS was.Also you didn't have to chuck out your exisiting TV and buy a 'DVD ready' TV to truely appreciate the difference between DVD and VHS.

[Spectre07]

Not really. The difference between DVD and HD-DVD is much more immediately noticeable, especially to the non-technogeek.When I first heard an album on SACD I noticed the diiference between the recording and it's CD counterpart. Didn't make me want to rush out and buy a SACD capable CD player.

[Michael Mackenzie]

When I first heard an album on SACD I noticed the diiference between the recording and it's CD counterpart. Didn't make me want to rush out and buy a SACD capable CD player.To tell you the truth, I'm not entirely sure what your point is. You noticed the difference between SACD and CD and it didn't make you rush out to buy a SACD player - fair enough. I noticed the difference between HD and standard definition and it did make me want to rush out and buy an HD player. :shrug:

[AndyWilson]

Posters here aren't the General Public though - Michael in particular, judging by his DVD Times reviews, is extremely fussy about video quality. Most people would consider the Finding Nemo DVD to have an amazing picture. Michael described it as something like an artefact ridden mess. Personally, the fact I didn't notice those artefacts until they were pointed out and I looked for them makes me think HD-DVD might well be wasted on me...

[Spectre07]

To tell you the truth, I'm not entirely sure what your point is. You noticed the difference between SACD and CD and it didn't make you rush out to buy a SACD player - fair enough. I noticed the difference between HD and standard definition and it did make me want to rush out and buy an HD player. :shrug:The point is, although the SACD demo sounded better, I was happy with my existing CD collection and set up. I certainly chucked out my cassette deck and bought a CD player once I could afford to but SACD didn't have that draw. I feel the same way about HD-DVD etc. I don't feel the need to update any time soon if at all.

[Tempest]

Whilst I have said many many times how much I want HD Movies.

The sad fact remains that there are millions of people who have in past years gone out and bought Argos, Sainsburys, Woolworths, Asda etc, dirt cheap and nasty silver TV/DVD Combo CRT sets and DVd players on silver stands for prices such as £299 and £399 just cos they wanted a nice big cheap TV.

All they, and millions want is a nice big picture, they don't care about quality as to them it's just a TV to watch East Enders, a few Nature progs on, and the odd DVD.

They have a busy life and go out and do things with friends and family all the time (no insult meant to anyone here!) and to them, it's ONLY a TV.

I could be sexist and say that it's probably women who would say, jees it's only a TV, what's wrong with the one we have it's fine.

These I feel are the Masses, and they are still a long way from their Flat TV's at the moment.

It's the £99 type price point I think we'd have to break before they'd even remotly consider a HD player, and poss even the £49 we'd have to break.

When I bought my 1st DVD player for £99, I was only 1 of a tiny few people at work (average types - mostly men) who had a DVD player.

I'm hoping the makers will get a nasty shock when they realise they're not going to sell many at current prices.

Current Prices (£30) are amazing for a DVD player, and it's hard to bring someine in at 20 times the price which is a just a bit better (to most people on normal sets)

As I said however, I want one for a projector screen, but I'm not gonna be stung this time around.

[hunts1uk]

Just doing my 1st firmware upgrade on my XA-1 Toshiba now,doing it over the internet.Not for the faint hearted as i know nothing about this sort of thing :thinking:

[Michael Mackenzie]

Posters here aren't the General Public though - Michael in particular, judging by his DVD Times reviews, is extremely fussy about video quality. Most people would consider the Finding Nemo DVD to have an amazing picture. Michael described it as something like an artefact ridden mess. Personally, the fact I didn't notice those artefacts until they were pointed out and I looked for them makes me think HD-DVD might well be wasted on me...On the other hand, if someone as anal as me is singing HD-DVD's praises, then it must be really good. :D

I guess we must just agree to disagree.

[Tempest]

Must admit, I didn't have any issues with Finding Nemo, mind you, I have not watched it on my new LCD TV, so perhaps that will show up more faults.

I look foward to seeing for myself the same film in "Normal" and "HD DVD" formats.

I've got no doubt, I'll enjoy the extra quality.

I do doubt a bit that (from normal across the room viewing distance) it will be THAT noticable, however (as I've said a number of times) I'm certain that when I EVENTUALLY get a new HD Cinema projector and watch the same movie on a 7ft wise screen the differerence is really going to blow me away and I look forward to this.

All I need is a HD-DVD (or bluRay) player for my PC and perhaps the graphics card with HDMI which I believe you will need.

Unless VGA or DVI will be able to feed HD to a projector.

[Boink!]

The sad fact remains that there are millions of people who have in past years gone out and bought Argos, Sainsburys, Woolworths, Asda etc, dirt cheap and nasty silver TV/DVD Combo CRT sets and DVd players on silver stands for prices such as £299 and £399 just cos they wanted a nice big cheap TV.
All they, and millions want is a nice big picture, they don't care about quality as to them it's just a TV to watch East Enders, a few Nature progs on, and the odd DVD.
They have a busy life and go out and do things with friends and family all the time (no insult meant to anyone here!) and to them, it's ONLY a TV.
I could be sexist and say that it's probably women who would say, jees it's only a TV, what's wrong with the one we have it's fine.
These I feel are the Masses, and they are still a long way from their Flat TV's at the moment.
It's the £99 type price point I think we'd have to break before they'd even remotly consider a HD player, and poss even the £49 we'd have to break.
When I bought my 1st DVD player for £99, I was only 1 of a tiny few people at work (average types - mostly men) who had a DVD player.
I'm hoping the makers will get a nasty shock when they realise they're not going to sell many at current prices.
Current Prices (£30) are amazing for a DVD player, and it's hard to bring someine in at 20 times the price which is a just a bit better (to most people on normal sets)
That's so true, my Mum only got her first DVD player last year and her TV is a 21" 4:3. I think she only changes TV every 8 years or so, and my dad would only buy a second hand set.

[neilalford]

I'm hoping the makers will get a nasty shock when they realise they're not going to sell many at current prices.

Current Prices (£30) are amazing for a DVD player, and it's hard to bring someine in at 20 times the price which is a just a bit better (to most people on normal sets)

I doubt they expect to sell many at the current prices, at the moment it's early adopters who will be buying them, people who are willing to pay those sort of prices, the first DVD player I bought (and also the first one released I believe) cost me £330 (rrp £400) for a totally basic model, which is roughly comparable to, if not slightly more than, the first HD-DVD player. In fact if I was to go out and buy an HD-DVD player now I think it would be the cheapest DVD player I've ever bought, not including a £280 Sony 930 I got rid of after a month because it was rubbish! But obviously as time goes on, the prices will drop, and I doubt it will be that long till sub £100 players start appearing, in fact I imagine we'll be looking at a similar timescale to DVD.

I don't currently plan to rush out and buy a HD-DVD player mind you, for a couple of reasons, the main one being that my projector isn't HD but also because I'd want to get a player at a similar build quality to my current one (a Denon 2900) and I believe with these first players you're paying a premium for their HD abilities but I imagine that in other areas (CD playback etc) they will be weaker than my current player. Oh, and also I'd ideally want a player that's multi-region for both HD-DVD, SD DVD and which also plays SACD and DVD-Audio, though I could live without SACD as I only have one album in that format.

So I will be holding off for a little while, until the mid to high-end players start appearing, by which point I imagine they'll cost a similar amount (or maybe slightly more) than the current entry-level players.

Though I may end up getting an HD-DVD drive for the X-Box to tide me over, though I'm not expecting that to be especially good based on the usual DVD playback performance of most consoles.

[Lee_eel]

I agree with a lot,of comments on this topic. What i always find puzzling is people investing in a technology but not being particularly bothered about picture quality. I remember people rushing out to buy dvd players and then watching them on normal 4:3 televisions and saying the quality was not that great!!!! Another example would be a couple that i observed whilst in a electrical store. They were looking at LCD screens and one said to the other "It's not much better than dvd is it?" That was after looking at a screen with a poor feed and a soft picture!!!!!!

Another thing that bugged me was when people were raving about the Lord Of The Rings EE r2 dvds. The picture quality was rubbish! Filtered, poorly handled compression (especially the first one) and badly handled grain. Yet people were raving saying it was the best transfers they had ever seen! Where are these people looking?

[Tempest]

Though I may end up getting an HD-DVD drive for the X-Box to tide me over, though I'm not expecting that to be especially good based on the usual DVD playback performance of most consoles.

I could well be totally wrong here, but I'd expect the quality to be very good from this add-on.

My reasoning is that HD-DVD is all about image quality, pretty much nothing else.
If Microsoft release a HD-DVD player which is not VERY good, they are going to have the poo kicked out of them and the product rubbished by everyone, DVD Hardware Reviews, Sony (with their BluRay).

If the HD-DVD drive was built in, and needed for games anyway, then you could get away with only OK(ish) performance for a movie as playing a movie was just a bonus on top of the console operation.

But to make a seperate unit JUST for playing films, and then to make it poor would be suicide.

[Grandmaster]

Would I be right in thinking the cheapest way of getting a HD-DVD player is going to be when Microsoft launch it for the Xbox360?

Going to be £130 (ish) isn't it?

Assuming you already have a 360 that it.

Going to make the current prices of HD-DVD Players look a bit silly within the next 5 months.

My guess is that the add-on has no video circuitry in it whatsoever, so the HD-DVD picture will be rendered by the 360's GPU at 1280x720... not an issue for most people, and hopefully by the time 1080p screens are availably widely, HD-DVD players will be a lot cheaper.

I have to admit though that this will be the HD-DVD player I'll be waiting for myself.

[Tempest]

My guess is that the add-on has no video circuitry in it whatsoever, so the HD-DVD picture will be rendered by the 360's GPU at 1280x720... not an issue for most people, and hopefully by the time 1080p screens are availably widely, HD-DVD players will be a lot cheaper.

I have to admit though that this will be the HD-DVD player I'll be waiting for myself.

You could well be right.
I think it was mentioned that this box will have the HDMI connectors on the back of it (the drive itself)

So do we assume the addon box will read the data, it will get passed to the 360 via whatever connection cable they use, processed, then back down the cable to the unit to be output via it's HDMI connector/s ?

[Grandmaster]

There is no HDMI on it - those are USB 2.0 ports. The output comes through the 360's standard AV port. So, component, VGA and standard definition outputs then.

[Tempest]

There is no HDMI on it - those are USB 2.0 ports. The output comes through the 360's standard AV port. So, component, VGA and standard definition outputs then.

I thought you needed HDMI to watch these new HD movie's?

Who whole reason why all new TV's have HDMI connector on them (for copywrite/encryption or whatever) on the disks.

[pompeyfan]

I thought you needed HDMI to watch these new HD movie's?

Who whole reason why all new TV's have HDMI connector on them (for copywrite/encryption or whatever) on the disks.

HDCP is the copyright/encryption bit and can be had on HDMI and DVI connectors (the only difference between them is HDMI carries sound too like a mini-SCART and DVI needs seperate audio cables).

[Lee_eel]

Just a question from a novice (when it comes to hi-def). I have heard a lot of talk of juttery movement and motion blur when watching LCD displays. Is this the source material or will HD-DVD look better with fast moving scenes. I don't see the point of having high def if the screen technology makes it look like a juddery mess sometimes.
i was planning on buying a Sony Bravia KDL 32v2000 but even this model displays these artifacts apparently. Advice would be much appreciated

[andrewh]

I've seen some evidence of motion blur on my Sony Bravia with sky Hd but only on some of the Discovery and National Geographic programs the content from sky and the bbc is great, hopefully i shall have a Toshiba A1 player soon so i can check that out to.

[Lee_eel]

andrewh, what was your first impression when you saw hi-def on the Bravia?

[S1515]

Just a question from a novice (when it comes to hi-def). I have heard a lot of talk of juttery movement and motion blur when watching LCD displays. Is this the source material or will HD-DVD look better with fast moving scenes. I don't see the point of having high def if the screen technology makes it look like a juddery mess sometimes.
i was planning on buying a Sony Bravia KDL 32v2000 but even this model displays these artifacts apparently. Advice would be much appreciated


I have a Toshiba 32wlt66 and motion blur so far is only vaguely visible on standard def Sky.

I got my HD-A1 HD-DVD player last night and have to say the picture quality is superb - much better than I was expecting goven all the people that say HD-DVD is only marhinally better than upscaled DVD - def no motion blur or any other quality issues. Also I only have Sky Captain and Jarhead so far and these arent among the nest disks for picture quality.

[Michael Mackenzie]

I have a Toshiba 32wlt66 and motion blur so far is only vaguely visible on standard def Sky.

I got my HD-A1 HD-DVD player last night and have to say the picture quality is superb - much better than I was expecting goven all the people that say HD-DVD is only marhinally better than upscaled DVD - def no motion blur or any other quality issues. Also I only have Sky Captain and Jarhead so far and these arent among the nest disks for picture quality.You should get Serenity. Its clarity and grain reproduction are amazing.

I'll say it before and I'll say it again: anyone who thinks the picture quality is only slgihtly better than upscaled standard definition is crazy, or has poor eyesight, or is in denial, or all three. :D

[S1515]

You should get Serenity. Its clarity and grain reproduction are amazing.


Thats on its way - als ordered The Searchers as thats supposed to be excellent even though its 50+ years old.

[thescrounger]

I'll say it before and I'll say it again: anyone who thinks the picture quality is only slgihtly better than upscaled standard definition is crazy, or has poor eyesight, or is in denial, or all three. :D

Or perhaps they don't care? Plenty of punters will see what some see as a huge increase in resolution, as just a bit of a sharper clearer picture on a larger screen.

Unfortunately this is the truth, and why HD formats face an uphill struggle. Sad but true.

[thescrounger]

andrewh, what was your first impression when you saw hi-def on the Bravia?

The current crop of bravias are rubbish, unfortunately. I urge you to consider another brand.

[Michael Mackenzie]

Or perhaps they don't care? Plenty of punters will see what some see as a huge increase in resolution, as just a bit of a sharper clearer picture on a larger screen.

Unfortunately this is the thruth, and why HD formats face an uphill struggle.Not caring is considerably different than not seeing the scale of the difference. To use an analogy, I don't care about football, but I can see the difference between the ability of David Beckham and that of an amateur.

[thescrounger]

Not caring is considerably different than not seeing the scale of the difference. To use an analogy, I don't care about football, but I can see the difference between the ability of David Beckham and that of an amateur.

Many people probably couldn't of course. That's the whole point. Unless you know your game, you can't judge it very well.

[anephric]

I can see the difference quite clearly between DVD and HD-DVD, and in an earlier part of my life would've been falling over myself to import a player and software rightnowwww, exactly as I did when I bought my LD player and burned up a fair few thousand pounds on discs.

Most of my friends thought I was insane and aloof. I imagine that's the attitude of most of the public to HD-DVD/Blu-Ray (although the software's cheaper, unless it's Fox *cough*). To this day, I own the most elaborate and expensive home cinema setup of anyone I know, but compared to most people's in this thread it would seem laughable and budgetastic.

I just can't afford to be as frivolous anymore (especially as I know that if I go down that route I'll start replacing extant DVDs in my collection with HD-DVDs and the whole thing will spiral out of control since I've already double- and triple-dipped on DVD) and DVD, as it stands, will do me/will have to do me for a good while yet.

[Tempest]

As I'm sure has been said before. (probably even by me) :)

How big is your TV?
How far away from your TV do you sit?

These are really the 2 points that will decide how much HD means to you.

Sitting 10 or 12 feet away from a 28" set it's not going to make a blind bit of difference.

Sitting 10 feet away from a 7ft wide projection screen (as I do) it should be a "in your face, slap you round the chops with a wet kipper" difference.

1 problem many will have to overcome is persuading the wife they should have a 37", 42" etc TV in the 1st place!!! ;)

[Spectre07]

I'll say it before and I'll say it again: anyone who thinks the picture quality is only slgihtly better than upscaled standard definition is crazy, or has poor eyesight, or is in denial, or all three. :DI'm firmly in the 'I don't care' camp. I've now seen a HD disc being fed into a 47" LCD display and quite frankly I wasn't blown away by the experience. The DVD picture played thru the same LCD was more than good enough. When I get round to replacing my 36" CRT, I can't see myself buying a flat panel display much bigger than the 47" screen I saw so I'm happy that my DVD collection is far from being replaced by it's HD variant.

[AndyWilson]

I think that there are very very few people for whom better picture quality will really make them enjoy a film more.

There are a lot of people however for whom very poor picture quality can detract from the enjoyment - but personally I can count the DVDs where the picture has been that bad on the fingers of one hand after a tragic rubiks cube accident...

Just like with MP3 vs CD - "good enough" is good enough quality for the vast majority of people, so they're unlikely to pay a premium for better..

[Michael Mackenzie]

I think that there are very very few people for whom better picture quality will really make them enjoy a film more.

There are a lot of people however for whom very poor picture quality can detract from the enjoyment - but personally I can count the DVDs where the picture has been that bad on the fingers of one hand after a tragic rubiks cube accident...Whereas I can just about count the DVDs with picture quality that I consider acceptable on one hand. :dork: I suppose it all comes down to (a) where you set your standards and (b) how likely you are to notice the flaws. I'm fully aware that, for a considerable number of people, standard def is completely acceptable. For those of us who want something more detailed and considerably closer to the cinema experience, though, HD DVD really is a revelation.

[Spectre07]

(a) where you set your standards and (b) how likely you are to notice the flaws....and how deep your pockets are. I have to admit, if I won the lottery, I'd be into HD in a big way. But in absence of a huge jackpot I'm loath to spend my hard earned cash replacing my exisiting hardware and DVD collection.

[Michael Mackenzie]

...and how deep your pockets are. I have to admit, if I won the lottery, I'd be into HD in a big way. But in absence of a huge jackpot I'm loath to spend my hard earned cash replacing my exisiting hardware and DVD collection.
Okay, I'll give you that. I split the cost with my brother so I wasn't as stung by the price as I would have been if I'd bought it myself. Still, there's no actual reason to replace your DVD collection unless you really can't stand how DVDs look now. If you think of the player as an amazingly good upconverter that also happens to play HD discs, it suddenly seems like much better value for money.

[Gedalia]

We're talking about the general public here right? And whether they will embrace HD-DVD?

I use my mother and in-laws as examples.

My mother has a 24" 4:3 TV and is absolutely perfectly happy with it and wouldn’t even consider getting an even cheap widescreen CRT until her current TV dies and wouldn’t spend more than £250 tops on one when the time comes a few years down the line. She is not at all fussed with picture quality although loves dvd's due to their undeniable convenience over VHS.

My in-laws replaced their dead 4:3 TV last year, what did they get? A piece of **** £299 28" widescreen that looks like a goldfish bowl it’s so curved with a supper ***** picture quality on their £30 dvd player and they think they've got it good.

These kind of people are not going to spend £500 plus on even the most basic HDTV let alone an hd-dvd player.

I believe there is a market for HD, and it will be bigger than a small niche but the mass market will not embrace HD until they are forced to by the fact that any new TV will automatically be HD in 3-5 years time.

Then there is myself. I spent what was for me a fortune (just under £700) on a quality 32" crt about 20 months ago. There is no way I am going to replace this tv anytime soon. The picture quality for SD is superb on it and although I wouldnt mind an lcd or plasma, there is no way I could justify the cost while my current tv works perfectly and has a great sd picture as well.

[S1515]

The uptake of LCD's and Plasma's is what will drive sales as thats the biggest barrier to buying into HD because of the relative price of them compared to CRT's. However we know CRT's are def in the decline so I think stuff like HD-DVD and Sky HD will become more popular and cheaper over the next 24 months.

Also all these conversations about whether they will take off were had about Sky+ and DVD and look what happened there...

[LouBarlow]

Well I've managed to do what I intended not to, and ordered my Tosh.

A player plus 6 titles for just over 400 seems to be as good value as it will get for a while, even counting the Xbox360 add-on, which is not guaranteed to be of the same quality - can always sell it on anyway I guess

:thumbs:

[Michael Mackenzie]

Which titles have you ordered?

[LouBarlow]

Which titles have you ordered?

Serenity
Pitch Black DC
Bourne Supremacy
Happy Gilmore :dork:
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
The Rundown

I went for 4 demo discs (well based on reviews anyway) and 2 films I can watch over and over - I'll let you guess which is which :D

I was considering waiting for the Gen2 players, with (probably) dedicated chipsets, rather than the PC in an old VHS case that we have now, but I'm not convinced that the newer hardware will fare much better performance-wise, and I'm not worried about 1080p for a few years anyway :p

[Michael Mackenzie]

Nice list. :) Serenity is the best-looking disc I've seen so far, and The Bourne Supremacy is no slouch either.

Be sure to update the firmware to 2.0 (although make sure you don't have a disc in the drive when you do so, or the player will be permanently borked). It enables TrueHD support and greatly improves menu performance.

[xraystan]

That's a good price, Lou.
An HD-DVD player is THE gadget I want to get next, but I just can't justify one. The reason? I have far too many standard DVD's from various regions and the current HD-DVD players won't play them. I can't justify haveing a standard DVD Recorder and a HD-DVD player sitting under my plasma.
It also wouldn't fit as I've got an Amp, Sky+, DVD Recorder, XBOX 360 and a center speaker there. :D
It looks like I'm going to have to go for the 360 HD Drive add on and hope that I can ignore the noise of the 360, when watching a movie.

[LouBarlow]

That's a good price, Lou.
An HD-DVD player is THE gadget I want to get next, but I just can't justify one. The reason? I have far too many standard DVD's from various regions and the current HD-DVD players won't play them. I can't justify haveing a standard DVD Recorder and a HD-DVD player sitting under my plasma.

Well I bought an Oppo SD DVD player too today so I will be pretty much future proof for a while :D Am selling my HTPC to finance some of the deal, as I'm just getting too bored with tweaking the nuts out of it to get the best image

I paid at least 500 for my first DVD player, so found it hard to resist at that price - can't wait to see it in action on my H79!

[LouBarlow]

Well, the beast arrived this morning, and impressions are, as you might say, mixed:

Love:

The picture
The Sound

Hate:

The way the player has a mind of it's own, even after upgrading the firmware.

The way it refuses to play nice with my H79 PJ - a PJ relatively common, and able to deal with everything else I've thrown it's way - HDMI support is absolutely shocking.

The way it's almost impossible to calibrate properly as the blacker than black signals one relies on when calibrating with Avia, is missing.

The way that even when you find a THX disc to calibrate with, the DVD settings are not even close to those required for viewing HD-DVD material properly - far too dark in my experience.

The way that the remote cannot be seen in the dark - having to turn on the light to find a control, that is placed in the most random place ever, kinda spoils the mood.

The way that no disc seems to be able to resume from where you stopped it previously.



The actual a/v is/are spectacular, but the hardship of getting it working, almost ruins the experience for me.

[Spectre07]

Sounds like someone dropped it in the factory.

[splobber]

The clunkiness of that Tosh has convinced me to wait around for the release of HD-DVD here and see what fayre we get served up.

I've fiddled around with a Toshiba DVD recorder that looks like the same chassis as the US Tosh HD player and the firmware was shockingly bad and it took an age to decide on anything that you were asking it to do.

[Xenole]

A player plus 6 titles for just over 400 seems to be as good value as it will get for a while, even counting the Xbox360 add-on, which is not guaranteed to be of the same quality - can always sell it on anyway I guess

:thumbs:

Most people probably wouldn't class that as good value especially when you can pick up a dvd player for £20 upwards and say 5 dvds in a 5 for £30 sale........so you get a dvd plus films for an 1/8th of the price.

[Michael Mackenzie]

Most people probably wouldn't class that as good value especially when you can pick up a dvd player for £20 upwards and say 5 dvds in a 5 for £30 sale........so you get a dvd plus films for an 1/8th of the price.Plus about 1/8th of the quality, which is something that anyone considering buying an HD machine presumably cares about.

[LouBarlow]

Xenole - Well you're not comparing like with like - an HD-DVD player is not a DVD player so seems strange to compare them.

It's a new technology, so bringing up the current price of it's predecessor seems a bit irrelevent.

[Michael Mackenzie]

Hate:

The way the player has a mind of it's own, even after upgrading the firmware.

The way it refuses to play nice with my H79 PJ - a PJ relatively common, and able to deal with everything else I've thrown it's way - HDMI support is absolutely shocking.

The way it's almost impossible to calibrate properly as the blacker than black signals one relies on when calibrating with Avia, is missing.

The way that even when you find a THX disc to calibrate with, the DVD settings are not even close to those required for viewing HD-DVD material properly - far too dark in my experience.

The way that the remote cannot be seen in the dark - having to turn on the light to find a control, that is placed in the most random place ever, kinda spoils the mood.

The way that no disc seems to be able to resume from where you stopped it previously.I've not experienced any HDMI issues, but I can relate to all the other problems. There are some maddening design flaws in the player, and the constant HDMI "handshaking" means that if you change the resolution, switch off the display or anything like that, it loses sync and forces you to restart the disc from the beginning.

By the way, I read somewhere that turning on black enhancement in the settings menu will allow you to achieve blacker than black. Not sure how accurate this is, and whether or not it mangles the black level, as I'm not able to check for myself at the moment, but you might want to give it a go and see if you have any luck.

[LouBarlow]

I'm really at a bit of a loss at the moment.

Set it up to my component outputs last night before I went out - came back home to try it, and the picture is just not a stable image - there is a slight 'shimmering' where the picture appears to be moving up and down slightly - best seen on menus and static shots - happens playing DVD's as well.

I put it down to my drunken state last night, but I'm watching it now and it is the same, which kinda means component is out for me too - I'll be giving composite a go later :|

[LouBarlow]

OK. so the shimmering is gone in 720p mode - that's something I suppose :brickwall

Michael, back me up on this one - why the hell am I not able to stop a film and then press play and have it start again from the same place?

I'm not talking about stopping - turning the player off and then returning the next day and expecting it to be ready for action...I am talking - get into a film - need a **** around the hour mark, so I stop the film - come back fully refreshed, press play, and the film starts at the mofoing beginning again? :nuts:

A feature that has existed since the VHS and it doesn't seem able here?

I can't believe Toshiba would be so stupid as to force the filmgoing public to sit through an entire movie without breaks - still I guess it adds to the cinematic experience :|

I'm so, so tempted to box this whole mess up and flog it in the classifieds, as it is an absolutely tedious piece of kit, and life is too short.

[Michael Mackenzie]

Lou - if the shimmering disappears in 720p mode, then it sounds as if your display isn't capable of 1080i film mode, and is therefore displaying it "bobbed". My HDTV can do 1080i film mode, and as a result looks very nice, although my PC monitor, which can accept HDMI via a DVI converter, displays it bobbed, so I can sometimes see the shimmer you mention. This is a shame, because the quality of the player's 1080i output is much better than its 720p output (although this has improved somewhat with the 2.0 firmware).

I don't know why the resume mode doesn't work. I seem to remember it working for standard def DVDs but not HD DVDs - I may be wrong, though. As I mentioned in my previous post, the most annoying part is that you can't pause an HD DVD and switch off the display, or it decides that you're getting up to dodgy business and forces the disc to start from the beginning again. Not sure if this is just the stupidity of the player's design or a general HDMI issue.

To be honest, I've learned to work around these problems. They're annoying, but I think perseverance is worth it for this system. Selling it on might not be a bad idea, though, if it's giving you that much grief, especially with the second generation players due out before the end of the year.

[LouBarlow]

Lou - if the shimmering disappears in 720p mode, then it sounds as if your display isn't capable of 1080i film mode, and is therefore displaying it "bobbed". My HDTV can do 1080i film mode, and as a result looks very nice, although my PC monitor, which can accept HDMI via a DVI converter, displays it bobbed, so I can sometimes see the shimmer you mention. This is a shame, because the quality of the player's 1080i output is much better than its 720p output (although this has improved somewhat with the 2.0 firmware).

It only does it via component Michael - HDMI@1080i is lovely and stable.

Just researched the 'resume issue' and it seems a trademark of Warner titles, so I might fire up one of the other discs and see if it's any different.

After you have stopped a disc on yours, do you get any display at all, or just a blank screen?

[Michael Mackenzie]

After you have stopped a disc on yours, do you get any display at all, or just a blank screen?Yeah, black screen for me as well. You might be able to change this, though, by selecting a different skin in the options menu.

[Tempest]

Just think, in (Perhaps) 5 years time there will be £20 HD-DVD and Bluray players in Tesco :)

Then again?

Methinks I shall wait a while...............

[LouBarlow]

If I get 380£ worth of joy out of equipment, over 5 years, I'll be happy.

Finally managed to iron out the few (!) problems I was having, and am loving the output this machine produces - images are stunning, but I wasn't expecting the audio advances, which are certainly worthy.

[Michael Mackenzie]

Glad things are working out for you. The audio improvements took me by surprise too - I was floored by Serenity's audio. Do you have any titles with TrueHD? It's definitely worth checking out for the sheer level of detail present in the soundscape.

[Dan]

What sort of audio equipment are you guys using?

[splobber]

What sort of audio equipment are you guys using?

An Alba micro system.

[Tempest]

An Alba micro system.

Pah, that's nothing compared to my system.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c145/Paul-rs/3f6f93d5.jpg

[Napoleon]

I have owned a vhs,laserdisc and dvd player,all used on the same 36" crt Panasonic television.When i received my dvd player,an old great Toshiba sd100(still going fine today) the difference in quality,usability,features and all round enjoyment was absolute.
I have to say reading through the original posters' comments,they became ever more absurd :ie not being able to watch a standard definition dvd again,how he notices noise reduction artifacts(whatever the hell that is),how a standard dvd is 1/8 of the resolution of a high definition dvd. .For the masses standard definition dvd is the medium of choice;there will of course be a minority who upgrade to high definition dvd,and desperately feel the need to trash the sheer greatness of the dvd revolution.

[Michael Mackenzie]

I have to say reading through the original posters' comments,they became ever more absurd :ie not being able to watch a standard definition dvd again,how he notices noise reduction artifacts(whatever the hell that is),how a standard dvd is 1/8 of the resolution of a high definition dvd.
I stand by all these comments. Care to enlighten me on what exactly about them is "absurd"?

EDIT: I never said standard DVDs were 1/8th of the resolution of HD DVDs. I said they were about 1/8th of the quality, which factors in far more than just bare number crunching (the noise reduction, filtering and edge enhancement problems I referenced). If you want to get technical, 1080p high definition is exactly 5 times the resolution of standard definition PAL and exactly 6 times the resolution of standard definition NTSC.

[lyris]

I have to say reading through the original posters' comments,they became ever more absurd :ie not being able to watch a standard definition dvd again,how he notices noise reduction artifacts(whatever the hell that is),how a standard dvd is 1/8 of the resolution of a high definition dvd.
What is absurd about any of this?

Not being able to watch an SD DVD again would be very limiting and I'm sure it was an exaggeration.

8 times is also an exaggeration but 5 times is pretty much exact (if we're talking PAL DVD). But remember that most standard def DVDs don't take advantage of all of those 720x576 pixels thanks to the excessive noise reduction and filtering that Michael mentioned.

[thescrounger]

But remember that most standard def DVDs don't take advantage of all of those 720x576 pixels thanks to the excessive noise reduction and filtering that Michael mentioned.


It's also worth noting that noise reduction and filtering of normal DVDs only happens on a display like an LCD or Plasma. There's no filtering required on a normal 50 or 60HZ CRT. Where a normal DVD will look much better, over being played on a LCD.

[lyris]

It's also worth noting that noise reduction and filtering of normal DVDs only happens on a display like an LCD or Plasma. There's no filtering required on a normal 50 or 60HZ CRT. Where a normal DVD will look much better, over being played on a LCD.
Not true.

Just about every DVD is filtered after telecine to ease the compression process. This is different to digital toying-around done by the display.

You're right when you say that it's more likely that a digital flat panel will offer the facility for NR like this, but you can disable it - unless the TV is really naff. A lot of CRT TVs also had noise reduction circuitry.

[thescrounger]

Not true.

Just about every DVD is filtered after telecine to ease the compression process. This is different to digital toying-around done by the display.

.

I'm talking about the process from player to screen. Where this is more likely to apply to flat panel screens that need to resize the original source material.

I wasn't talking about what happens when a film is encoded to MPEG2 for DVD production. Where does that come into the debate?

[lyris]

I'm talking about the process from player to screen. Where this is more likely to apply to flat panel screens that need to resize the original source material.
That would be scaling and perhaps deinterlacing - which should be (largely?) free of noise reduction.

I wasn't talking about what happens when a film is encoded to MPEG2 for DVD production. Where does that come into the debate?
Well, it affects the quality tremendously.

[thescrounger]

That would be scaling and perhaps deinterlacing - which should be (largely?) free of noise reduction.



scaling = resizing. Will often introduce artifacts that need NR to hide them.



Well, it affects the quality tremendously.

Of course it does, but so does it apply to the manufacture of HD-DVD and Bluray. As I said, I'm not sure that was specifically part of the debate we were having. Or specifically part of the point I was making.

[Napoleon]

I am talking about the whole impact of dvds as a product which the original poster seems to have missed.The humble shiny disc has educated the masses(including myself) to appreciate a widescreen presentation;it has engendered a love for the product through collecting which at times verges on the manic.The hours that people spend researching dvds,hoping their favourite film is available somewhere in the world.And so on.
Whatever the benefits of high definition dvd for those with large display devices,it is only an adjunct for a minority and does not in any way negate the package that you seemed to so disparage,namely standard defintion dvds.

[Chief Brody]

Question - what happens if you get a HD-DVD player and watch a HD-DVD on a standard-definition TV, through S-Video, or (yuck!) composite video? Do you a) get a picture not appreciably different than standard DVD, b) get a picture slightly better than standard DVD, or c) get no picture at all? Yes, i know the very notion of watching a HD-DVD on a SDTV seems a little peculiar, but think about it. That way someone could start accumulating a collection of High-Def material and enjoy them without necessarily getting the best out of them, and then, when the time comes to finally upgrade to a HDTV, does not have to re-purchase all their DVD's on the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray format. Those with limited budgets or who want to wait for the price of HDTV sets to come down (which they will) would certainly want to consider this option, especially since HD-DVD will start to go day-and-date with standard DVD very soon.

[KRW]

I'm so, so tempted to box this whole mess up and flog it in the classifieds, as it is an absolutely tedious piece of kit, and life is too short.

I'd be interested....




;)

[Spectre07]

Those with limited budgets should wait a few years to see which format if any wins the race otherwise they'll be investing in obsolete software.

[Michael Mackenzie]

Question - what happens if you get a HD-DVD player and watch a HD-DVD on a standard-definition TV, through S-Video, or (yuck!) composite video? Do you a) get a picture not appreciably different than standard DVD, b) get a picture slightly better than standard DVD, or c) get no picture at all? Yes, i know the very notion of watching a HD-DVD on a SDTV seems a little peculiar, but think about it. That way someone could start accumulating a collection of High-Def material and enjoy them without necessarily getting the best out of them, and then, when the time comes to finally upgrade to a HDTV, does not have to re-purchase all their DVD's on the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray format. Those with limited budgets or who want to wait for the price of HDTV sets to come down (which they will) would certainly want to consider this option, especially since HD-DVD will start to go day-and-date with standard DVD very soon.I've not tested it myself, but yes, I think you'll see a slight increase in quality. The thing to bear in mind is that most commercially available DVDs are so heavily filtered that they don't even come close to using the full resolution that the format allows. With a down-converted HD DVD, though, the player is working with a much higher source resolution and then scaling it down, so in theory at least what you see on the screen should actually use all 480 available lines of resolution. If you don't have an HDTV at the moment, though, I definitely wouldn't recommend buying into either of the high definition formats until the players come down in price. One thing that might be a good idea, though, is, if you intend to upgrade to HD DVD at some point in the future, to start buying DVD/HD DVD combo releases if they are available for titles that you're interested in. That way, although they tend to be slightly more expensive than a regular DVD, it'll mean that you won't need to rebuy them at a later date if you want to see them in high definition.

[Spectre07]

That way, although they tend to be slightly more expensive than a regular DVD, it'll mean that you won't need to rebuy them at a later date if you want to see them in high definition.Surely if HD DVD succeeds the discs will fall in price as they become more readily available just like DVD's have become cheap. Rather than waste your money now and risk buying into an obsolete format it's better to just wait.

[Michael Mackenzie]

Surely if HD DVD succeeds the discs will fall in price as they become more readily available just like DVD's have become cheap. Rather than waste your money now and risk buying into an obsolete format it's better to just wait.
My point is, if you want a title now and it's available in combo format, then buy the combo format rather than the stand-alone DVD. Obviously, if you don't mind waiting, then that's great.

[Chief Brody]

Ok Michael, thanks for the feedback - i intend to get a PS3 anyway when they finally appear so i guess i'll be trying a few Blu-rays on standard-def TV. I don't want to get a HDTV until i can do it in style (1080p, 40 inches plus) and that's simply too expensive for me currently!

[Spectre07]

My point is that you might be wasting your money buying a more expensive disc in a format that may become obsolete in a few short years from now. It's cheaper to stick to the established DVD format.

[LouBarlow]

My point is that you might be wasting your money buying a more expensive disc in a format that may become obsolete in a few short years from now. It's cheaper to stick to the established DVD format.

HD discs are as low as 8