High-Def isnt all that good.

BoomAM · 12 Jan 2006 at 16:30

Dolph said:
Couple that with the fact that you're not using a decent dedicated source, your TV is small and you're refusing to listen to any possible setup changes or corrections you may need to make, and it's looking far more like you're having a rant that you're disappointed rather than searching for answers, and you're blaming the film rather than your equipment.

The thing is though. That there isnt anything wrong with my setup. Everything is setup fine.
The only corrections that need to be done is when i now connect up the telly to my new lappy instead.
And i dont remember asking for help with my setup either. So suggesting something that i havnt asked for isnt gonna do anything is it?

lightbulb said:
He was quite happy the other week with regards to some vids on hdclips.net
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6169335&postcount=11

True. I was pleased with the stuff of HDClips.net, but the novelty has worn off. I still dont think that its as massive a jump as people make out. Sure, i was impressed at first. But its like that whenever you get something new isnt it? After a while, i can be objective and start to pick flaws out.

Dolph · 12 Jan 2006 at 16:34

BoomAM said:
The thing is though. That there isnt anything wrong with my setup. Everything is setup fine.
The only corrections that need to be done is when i now connect up the telly to my new lappy instead.
And i dont remember asking for help with my setup either. So suggesting something that i havnt asked for isnt gonna do anything is it?

If you're truely convinced it's not that good, I'd suggest there is something wrong with your setup

As for your complaints, given that they are most likely setup related, then assistance to fix them should be something you welcome unless you just wanted to rant, in which case expect people to disagree with you.

True. I was pleased with the stuff of HDClips.net, but the novelty has worn off. I still dont think that its as massive a jump as people make out. Sure, i was impressed at first. But its like that whenever you get something new isnt it? After a while, i can be objective and start to pick flaws out.

Can't we all, however that's not what you seem to be doing at the moment.

darreny · 12 Jan 2006 at 16:43

BoomAM said:
True. I was pleased with the stuff of HDClips.net, but the novelty has worn off. I still dont think that its as massive a jump as people make out. Sure, i was impressed at first. But its like that whenever you get something new isnt it? After a while, i can be objective and start to pick flaws out.

but that could be said for almost all technological advances, but as standard tv's in peoples homes get bigger then the need for higher resolution source material will carry on, if you watch a video cassette film on a projector then it looks truely horrific, it also helps the economy to keep going

BoomAM · 12 Jan 2006 at 16:53

Dolph, you seem to be intentionally trying to spark an argument out of me. Wether thats just your posting style, or wether you are, can you not do it please.
This thread was a rant. I admit that.
But i do not think that HD is as big a difference as people make out. Im not alone in this conclusion either. My friend recently bought a HDTV as well, a 32" version of my telly, and he himself is not overly impressed either.
Now. You can go shouting 'you havnt got it setup right' or whatever, but, in my eyes, HD isnt all its cracked up to be. Yes its a step up. But its not the revolution that people are making out.

Dolph · 12 Jan 2006 at 17:17

I'm not trying to spark an argument, apologies if you thought I was (I must spend too much time in SC).

The thing with HD currently is that it's still young, the sources aren't all there yet (a PC isn't a patch on a decent normal DVD player, so I definately have my doubts about it's abilities as a good HD player), and the technology is still young.

Your post kind of reminded me of when DVD first appeared and people complained it wasn't much better than VHS because they were watching it through composite on an old tv (hell, I still do this on one of my tv's, because it's not capable of anything more and doesn't need replacing, and you can't really tell the difference between VHS and DVD on that one).

Once the true HD sources come out (eg HD-DVD, Blu-ray and HD sat, nicely linked by HDMI) then we can get a much better idea of what the tech is really capable of.

Personally, I think the technology has fantastic potential, but if it doesn't sort out the early adopter problems by getting a full solution out quickly, then it's going to start getting a bad reputation, much as your post shows.

-Dolph

Goatboy · 12 Jan 2006 at 19:16

Dolph said:
a PC isn't a patch on a decent normal DVD player,

You have that the wrong way round, you'd be hard pressed to find a DVD player in any price range that can match what a properly configured PC can do picture-wise.

Bomag · 12 Jan 2006 at 19:29

Totally agree with you Goatboy, especially if you have 1:1 mapping. Also PCs are normally more effective in upscaling SD to HD, even on a naff DVB MUX2 signal (five).

MrM3 · 12 Jan 2006 at 20:24

I think it could be a combination of things though all of them do assume you are not seeing what you should be seeing ie at least 4 times the detail.

1) Do not judge HD on one source (Starship Troopers) it may be a poor conversion or low bit rate as you say. In vlc I think you can turn on the bitrate to check.

2) 26" is small...though depends how far you sit though.There is a BBC study on this. Distance and size ratio... greater than 3m should be > 37" for example.
Study like this http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_300-wood.pdf

3) How well have you configured your screen ? Some people's job is just to calibrate displays. Very technical. See avforums...

4) Your samsung scalers may be bad try some 720p stuff.

5) Your standards have raised because you are using a HTPC which has already improved your DVDs.

Basically most of the stuff I have seen is great and has caused me to spend a small fortune. I love it.

I'm hoping I do not get suckered in SKY HD on day one... the money !
Also I hope BBC simulcast the World Cup in HD for Sky.

MrM3 · 12 Jan 2006 at 20:27

Dolph said:
Personally, I think the technology has fantastic potential, but if it doesn't sort out the early adopter problems by getting a full solution out quickly, then it's going to start getting a bad reputation, much as your post shows.

-Dolph

This potential though has been enjoyed already in US, Japan , Australia for a while. It is proven and I have seen enough to be convinced.

jhmaeng · 12 Jan 2006 at 23:57

Yup, I was seeing Blu-Ray demos during last year's CeBIT at numerous stands (Panasonic probably had the most, but also NEC and a few others), and HD material just looks stunning on a 50"+ HD set.

For sure, once you go past 50", even with decent interpolation you're never going to get decent definition out of standard DVD. Especially on something like a 82" LCD (it was just monsterous)

Kappa · 13 Jan 2006 at 00:05

Dolph said:
Couple that with the fact that you're not using a decent dedicated source, your TV is small and you're refusing to listen to any possible setup changes or corrections you may need to make.

tbh, with the setup he is saying he has, the difference should be HIGHLY noticable without a larger screen or dedicated setup...

darreny · 13 Jan 2006 at 00:46

the face on that watch looks stunning yet the winder looks blurry to me

jhmaeng · 13 Jan 2006 at 00:53

That's probably because the video camera used a very large aperture. When you use a very large aperture, the depth that stays in focus (i.e. sharp in the picture) is very thin, so there wasn't enough depth of "in-focus area" for both the watch face and winder to be sharp at the same time.

agw_01 · 13 Jan 2006 at 00:55

darreny, perhaps that's how it's supposed to be

(edit... beaten to it)

Regarding what everyone else has said about screen sizes, I'm going to have to agree. I saw a couple of LG LCD's in a hot and spicy

high-street shop a few months ago and was blown away by the HDTV feeds.

Also, DVD playback on my PC sucks when compared to my seperate DVD player and a 14 year old TV, so I wouldn't really count on the PC to provide you with the awesomness you expect from a HD recording.

jhmaeng · 13 Jan 2006 at 01:02

One thing that really puzzles me is why, why on earth Electrical retailers on the high street won't use proper sources to show off the capabilities of their latest TV sets.

For example, you'll often find the whole shop's TV range being fed by a dodgy analogue TV signal with horrible crackling, or even DVD fed through composite outputs.

Why on earth they can't spare 10 more minutes of setting up (and maybe £30 per display slot if you really want to go all-out) properly showing off their TV sets so that shoppers can be stunned into opening their wallets there and then, is beyond me.

But to bring the thread vaguely on topic, I definitely think that there is a (semi-)physical limit as to how much impact you can get out of HD on a small screen. Sure, you can have very high resolution on a small set, but you simply won't have that "wow" of a huge screen that is pin sharp throughout.

Goatboy · 13 Jan 2006 at 07:19

agw_01 said:
Also, DVD playback on my PC sucks when compared to my seperate DVD player and a 14 year old TV,

You must be playing it back on a regular PC screen then, connect your PC and DVD player to a decent screen get the PC set up right and it will wipe the floor with your DVD player. Replace your DVD player with one costing ten times as much and the PC will still wipe the floor with it

Kappa · 13 Jan 2006 at 07:41

Goatboy said:
You must be playing it back on a regular PC screen then, connect your PC and DVD player to a decent screen get the PC set up right and it will wipe the floor with your DVD player. Replace your DVD player with one costing ten times as much and the PC will still wipe the floor with it

OT - But what program do you use for good dvd playback?

I know where the revolution in HD will lie, its in normal TV (I.E. Sky etc), I saw some NBC footage in 1080i from america and to think thats whats shown on TV live is amazing.

Goatboy · 13 Jan 2006 at 12:03

Theatertek using NVidia post processing and ffdshow to scale to the native resolution of the display.

Smiley Man · 13 Jan 2006 at 14:13

kill bill vol 1 and 2 look amazing in HD even on my 24" dell

cant get audio and video in sync though

Jez · 13 Jan 2006 at 14:31

Goatboy said:
You must be playing it back on a regular PC screen then, connect your PC and DVD player to a decent screen get the PC set up right and it will wipe the floor with your DVD player. Replace your DVD player with one costing ten times as much and the PC will still wipe the floor with it

Errr, a regular PC screen is about the best display you will ever get? Too small for film watching obviously but i am yet to see anything ever which will beat some of the 21" units built in the days when they were all the rage for CAD etc. Ive a couple of old units sitting here which will show 1080P resolutions all day long without strain, they have huge bandwidth and huge contrast ratio's? Better by far than my 8" projector, which will still wipe the floor with all these LCD DV displays.

High-Def isnt all that good.

Man of Honour

Man of Honour

Man of Honour