The HD News & Technology Thread!

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 06 Sep 2006, 11:53

It was, but superior doesn't always mean winner. The reason VHS won was because the porn industry liked it as it was cheaper to produce their films on VHS back in the day.

Plus the fact that consumers went for the cheaper option (even though Betamax did have a better picture) meant that Betamax died a death...

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 06 Sep 2006, 15:49

Not to be nit-picky, but I think what you meant to say was that superior doesn't always mean winner, rather than best.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 06 Sep 2006, 17:37

Yeah that's what I meant. Corrected.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Sep 2006, 15:54

How does 4:3 work on HD? Take WB's Robin Hood for example, the press release states 1080p 4:3.

But unless I'm missing something how can 1080p be 4:3? Unless it's a 4:3 frame inside a 1920×1080p resolution.

Which doesn't sound nice at all. Unless it's the same as DVD where 704×480/576 is 4:3 but it's also for 16:9, except the pixels aren't square. I don't believe this is the case for HD when WS is very much at the forefront of it's inception.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 23 Sep 2006, 16:08

Black bars on the sides, I think.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Sep 2006, 16:21

Has that been confirmed? If so that's awful. To the point where I'd stick with the DVD version, the black bars would be huge and make it unwatchable.

The DVD version would have much lower resolution but it would still look much better.

I hope they're not permanent black bars (i.e - like non-anamorphic WS) and just pillerboxing so I can switch my DVD player and get rid of them. Like I can do on TV where they sometimes show 4:3 content in a 16:9 frame.

There's no reason a HD standard can't be made for 4:3 content, they just need to adjust the resolution. Something x 1080p would suffice.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 23 Sep 2006, 17:26

AFAIK, 1440x1080 is within the HD-DVD specs.
But I don't think HD-DVD players support 4/3 displays.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 23 Sep 2006, 17:26

bradavon wrote:The DVD version would have much lower resolution but it would still look much better.

How do you figure that out? You obviously haven't seen much HD material if you think that.

By the way, anamorphic enhancement is not applicable to HD resolutions because they are fixed pixel resolutions, unlike DVD or standard TV. There in theory should also be no overscanning of HD material like there is on SD material now...

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Sep 2006, 18:09

tom2681 wrote:But I don't think HD-DVD players support 4/3 displays.

I hope they do, so at least if 4:3 HD content is going this way I can fix it.

IronMonkey wrote:How do you figure that out? You obviously haven't seen much HD material if you think that.

Very little but that's not relevant to my point.

The huge black bars needed to put a 4:3 Frame inside a 1920×1080p Resolution would for me at least make it unwatchable, hence I'd stick with DVDs which are properly formatted to 1.33:1 for 4:3 content.

Thankfully most content I watch is WS so there would be few titles I'd not pick up on HD.

Of course like I said I've not seen that much HD content so may change my mind, but then 4:3 content tends to be either old movies or TV shows neither of which can show HD to it's best capability anyway (even if they could those black bars are so off-putting).

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 23 Sep 2006, 18:29

bradavon wrote:The huge black bars needed to put a 4:3 Frame inside a 1920×1080p Resolution would for me at least make it unwatchable, hence I'd stick with DVDs which are properly formatted to 1.33:1 for 4:3 content.

The bars wouldn't be any bigger than when viewing 4:3 material on a 16:9 TV right now.

bradavon wrote:4:3 content tends to be either old movies or TV shows neither of which can show HD to it's best capability anyway (even if they could those black bars are so off-putting).

This is a common misconception of HD. People think that TV shows or old films won't benefit from HD resolutions. I will tell you now that anything recorded on film can be presented in HD (even old movies!) and indeed can benefit from the extra resolution.

35mm film can currently be digitized at about 4000x3000 pixels per frame, which is obviously higher than the current HD resolution limit of 1920x1080.

Oh, and for everyone's information, the industry leaders are now calling for 2160p (4 times the resolution of 1080p)!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Sep 2006, 19:41

The bars wouldn't be any bigger than when viewing 4:3 material on a 16:9 TV right now.

Well of course not but I don't watch 4:3 material on my 16:9 TV that way too. I've never used my 4:3 mode and never ever will. I'm willing to bet most people view 4:3 content this way tbh, sure maybe not AV enthusiasts but the general public for sure.

I hope it can be adjusted somehow. It's what you have to do when Sky think it's a good idea to put black bars on the sides of many of their football matches (which gets worse when they're a "lovely" silver graphicy effect so not black at all).

I remember "Dark Angel" being shown this way on C5, it was very annoying having to switch from 16:9 anamorphic to letterbox while this was on.

Thankfully in the days of anamorphic DVDs and Digital TV I don't watch much 4:3 TV at all.

This is a common misconception of HD. People think that TV shows or old films won't benefit from HD resolutions. I will tell you now that anything recorded on film can be presented in HD (even old movies!) and indeed can benefit from the extra resolution.

True but that's not what I said.

Oh, and for everyone's information, the industry leaders are now calling for 2160p (4 times the resolution of 1080p)!

I heard a rumour that HD2 is out in Japan. 2160p is decades off, at least anywhere near Western countries.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Sep 2006, 19:47

It will be interesting to read HD-DVD Robin Hood reviews when the disc comes out.

The point is pillerboxing isn't necessary on DVD (and VHS) so why is it on HD? Native 1440x1080 please.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 23 Sep 2006, 21:05

Why is 2160p 4 times the resolution of 1080p? Its twice the resolution, no?

What is HD2?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Sep 2006, 21:13

grim_tales wrote:Why is 2160p 4 times the resolution of 1080p? Its twice the resolution, no?

He he good point. I didn't bother to work it out like you

. It would be 3840x2160p (P meaning Progressive).

grim_tales wrote:What is HD2?

The name I'm using for HD version 2 (again made up). I've just heard a rumour Japan are using/will be using a newer version of HD.

HD over the air has been in the States for year and I'd imagine even longer Japan.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 23 Sep 2006, 21:19

OK

I'm sure ANY version of HD I get (whenever I get HD) will blow me away

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 23 Sep 2006, 21:52

Grim wrote:Why is 2160p 4 times the resolution of 1080p? Its twice the resolution, no?

Errrmm... No.

1920x1080 = 2 073 600 pixels.
3840x2160 = 8 294 400 pixels.

8 294 400 / 2 073 600 = 4.
2160p = 4 times 1080p.

I'm happy with 720p right now.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Sep 2006, 23:53

Erm no twice as much resolution, four times the pixels.

I'm happy with 720p right now.

That's only upscaling right? You don't actually own any HD hardware? (bar the display of course).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish the likes of Pioneer (who right now look to be in the BD camp) would get on and release dual supporting players so I can then join the HD World. Personally I don't see either format going anywhere any time soon so it's dual supporting players for me.

It will be years before the UK sees Free to Air HD TV (aka - Freeview) so it's solely disc content I'm interested in for the foreseeable future. That's where it's at anyway.

Television for me is mostly general/winding down viewing. Sky News or Channel 4 in HD doesn't exactly get me all excited, it's movies that hold the most interest.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 24 Sep 2006, 11:37

bradavon wrote:Erm no twice as much resolution, four times the pixels.

That doesn't even make sense. Its FOUR TIMES the resolution, much like HD-DVD & Blu-Ray are being advertised as FOUR TIMES the resolution of DVD.

bradavon wrote:That's only upscaling right? You don't actually own any HD hardware? (bar the display of course).

How about a PC? That's HD hardware and what I use to view HD material on my plasma. HD has been around for years but its only now that people are getting it drummed into their heads...

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 24 Sep 2006, 13:22

Brad wrote:You don't actually own any HD hardware? (bar the display of course).

Nope.

I'll go HD when the following checklist is completed:

I will go HD when:
- I Own a 720p or 1080i display. -> YES
(can't tell HD from SD on a low-resolution display)

- We are in january 2007. -> NO
(never buy a first-generation player)

- There will be at least 1 000 titles available. -> NO, only 381 yet
(>1 000 titles = Succesful format)

- Standalone HD-DVD Players will be below 300€. -> NO
- Standalone Blu-Ray Players will be below 300€. -> NO
- HD-DVD burners will be below 150€. -> NO
- Blu-Ray burners will be below 150€. -> NO

As you can see, I've got some time left before it all reads YES.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 24 Sep 2006, 17:33

IronMonkey wrote:That doesn't even make sense. Its FOUR TIMES the resolution, much like HD-DVD & Blu-Ray are being advertised as FOUR TIMES the resolution of DVD.

LOL because they roughly are (1080p anyway). Of course it makes sense: Resolution is things like 640x480 etc . . . not specifcally the number of pixels.

IronMonkey wrote:How about a PC? That's HD hardware and what I use to view HD material on my plasma. HD has been around for years but its only now that people are getting it drummed into their heads...

Of course but personally I would never use my PC for Film watching. The likes of Acer are making interesting Media Center PC's which crucially are the right shape but overall for me it's not there yet.

I watch HD clips and trailers (although my PC isn't really powerful enough so I stick to 480p). It's an AMD 2000+ and 1Gb of RAM, it runs XP Pro more than fine but I'll probably need to upgrade when Vista comes.

tom2681 wrote:(can't tell HD from SD on a low-resolution display)

I sure can. I'm basing this on the HD Trailers, they look much better than the SD ones.

It's also not multiregion and can't play PAL media. Both of which are essential as it would be replacing my DVD player too.

tom2681 wrote:- We are in january 2007. -> NO
(never buy a first-generation player)

I definitely agree. The Blu-ray players are a rip off and the HD-DVD Player looks tbh a mess. It uses solely PC parts and takes a full 2 minutes to boot up.

tom2681 wrote:- There will be at least 1 000 titles available. -> NO, only 381 yet
(>1 000 titles = Succesful format)

I didn't even realise there were that many. Do you mean both HD formats?

I'd say you need more than 1000 to be succesful. SACD has more than that and I'm sorry to say is pretty much a flop. I own it (& DVD-A) but only own about 12 titles from both formats.

When I go HD I'll probably have to give up on SACD and DVD-A. It's a shame as the titles I have are awesome (especially the SACD War of the Worlds, OMG it's OUTSTANDING!).

I already own two DVD players:

* Pioneer HD Recorder/DVD Recorder/Digital TV/DivX - Great for general use but no upscaling (Progressive Component though) and no DVD-A/SACD support
* Top of the range (last summer, current model 90% the same) Pioneer DVD-A, SACD, HDMI, Upscaling, Firewire DVD player. I hear the HD-DVD Players are good at Upscaling so most of this can be replaced with a HD Player.

I'd be keeping the Recorder.

If I were to get a HD Player too I'd need 3 Players which is definitely overkill (two I can handle) and would also run out of connections on my TV anyway (my LCD has 1 HDMI and 1 Component input).

Something has to go and I highly suspect I'm going to find much more use for HD than HD Multichannel Music, which like I said is a shame as it had/has so much potential.

Of course it's possible Pioneer will release a player with:

DVD, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, SACD, DVD-A

But that's YEARS off and franky I wouldn't be surprised if we ever see it. If I could keep one of the HD Multichannel Music formats it would be something.

The edge going to SACD for it's much wider range of titles and IMO it's the better format; Hybrid SACDs work wonderfully and also IMO the video content on DVD-A is very much a gimmick. Sony really got it right with SACD, it's such a shame like HD the stupid manufacturers couldn't make their minds up and frankly fucking PLUG the formats.

I don't believe either have had any advertising ever behind them.

tom2681 wrote:- Standalone HD-DVD Players will be below 300€. -> NO
- Standalone Blu-Ray Players will be below 300€. -> NO
- HD-DVD burners will be below 150€. -> NO
- Blu-Ray burners will be below 150€. -> NO

I've little interest in PC Writers right now.

I barely ever copies films anyway as the drop to Single Layer for me is to great (sure I can lose extras to make them fit, just but I frankly I don't want too) and 4.7Gb is already a decent amount of Data backup.

It bugs me Dual Layer discs are still a premium (even if they're much better priced). I can definitely see the same happening for HD. For the foreseeable future I'm only interested in HD titles I can buy.

It will be 10 years+ before HD Discs take over from DVD, that's for sure.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 05 Oct 2006, 19:17

may pick up the xbox hd dvd player add on which seems reasonably priced at £129

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 05 Oct 2006, 20:54

I'm counting 404 HD movies available/announced already.
But I'm only interested in 31 of them, so it's not worth the investment just yet.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 05 Oct 2006, 21:25

bradavon wrote:
The bars wouldn't be any bigger than when viewing 4:3 material on a 16:9 TV right now.
Well of course not but I don't watch 4:3 material on my 16:9 TV that way too. I've never used my 4:3 mode and never ever will. I'm willing to bet most people view 4:3 content this way tbh, sure maybe not AV enthusiasts but the general public for sure.

I hope it can be adjusted somehow. It's what you have to do when Sky think it's a good idea to put black bars on the sides of many of their football matches (which gets worse when they're a "lovely" silver graphicy effect so not black at all).

I remember "Dark Angel" being shown this way on C5, it was very annoying having to switch from 16:9 anamorphic to letterbox while this was on.

Thankfully in the days of anamorphic DVDs and Digital TV I don't watch much 4:3 TV at all.

Are you on CRACK!!

People who stretch the image are muppets, it looks like pure shit in a jar and ruins the picture sqashing a fullscreen picture into a shitty widescreen format.

I say every new dvd/tv broadcast should have forced black bars down each side if they are showing 4/3 images! stuff what the public thinks , it looks FUGLY! watch it the way it should be watched, not stretched like some morons dick in a vice trying to gain a few inches more

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 05 Oct 2006, 21:46

I can wait 5-6 years... I'm in no rush to upgrade and by the time I am ready, it should all be reasonably priced (as in same as current-day normal DVD-players and dvds.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 06 Oct 2006, 15:37

http://play.com/DVD/HD%20DVD/RCS/3-/113 ... oduct.html

So tempting, though...