-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Casino Royale DVD vs. Blu-ray comparison
- Thread starter DarkJediKnight
- Start date
- Status
pel1300
Member
The reason why this thread is retarded:
Very few ppl actually watch their dvds on a 10ft wide projector.
I watch my dvds in 480p resolution on a 53 inch hdtv, and they look great.
No matter how you spin it- this thread is misleading.
Obviously bluray looks better than dvd.
But seriously, no one is gonna watch dvds blown up 4x their natural resolution.
Those dvd scans look worse than vhs.
Very few ppl actually watch their dvds on a 10ft wide projector.
I watch my dvds in 480p resolution on a 53 inch hdtv, and they look great.
No matter how you spin it- this thread is misleading.
Obviously bluray looks better than dvd.
But seriously, no one is gonna watch dvds blown up 4x their natural resolution.
Those dvd scans look worse than vhs.
those are horrible reasons -
you can see the differences ON YOUR SCREEN NOW, and the pictures are downsized from its native 10-foot span. if you were able to switch instantly from the DVD feed to its HDTV feed the difference in quality will be more apparent. a perfect example - i have a small 27" HDTV in my room that i mainly use for OTA HD signals. during the NCAA tourny feed CBS temporarily switched to it's 480p feed, which was upscaled to the 1080i signal. i could tell it looked like shit, and it was even more pronounced once the HD signal kicked back on and gave me an instant comparison.
you can see the differences ON YOUR SCREEN NOW, and the pictures are downsized from its native 10-foot span. if you were able to switch instantly from the DVD feed to its HDTV feed the difference in quality will be more apparent. a perfect example - i have a small 27" HDTV in my room that i mainly use for OTA HD signals. during the NCAA tourny feed CBS temporarily switched to it's 480p feed, which was upscaled to the 1080i signal. i could tell it looked like shit, and it was even more pronounced once the HD signal kicked back on and gave me an instant comparison.
scorcho said:
There seem to be a lot of idiots in this thread...
pel1300 said:
It's not so much that DVDs look bad - more that HD material looks better. Go figure!
I am posting this on an 8-9 foot wide screen and while DVDs are certainly watchable, they look nowhere near as good as real high definition. The pictures are pretty representative of my experience...I bet it's about the same for anyone who has a fairly large HDTV. Surely you can tell the difference, or are you not getting any HD programming?
FirstInHell
Banned
This is what it looks like on my 29.99 APEX DVD player from KMART. I think Blue Ray looks better.
I should have posted a new topic for this.
I should have posted a new topic for this.
Frankfurter
Member
Seriously, these comparison threads are always completely worthless.
The DVD pics always look like they are from VHS (and lousy quality VHS) and Blu Ray/HD-DVD look like a DVD on my 32" LCD (connected via Scart/RGB, so not even upscaled).
The DVD pics always look like they are from VHS (and lousy quality VHS) and Blu Ray/HD-DVD look like a DVD on my 32" LCD (connected via Scart/RGB, so not even upscaled).
Outcast2004
Banned
LJ11 said:
No, the TV switches to the right resolution. My TV will automatically switch to 480p for regular DVDs and bumps itself back up to 1080i for my HD-DVDS
I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. HD formats have better IQ than DVD? Shocking.
Anyways, when watching this DVD under NORMAL circumstances with my upscaling player and my HDTV, it looks amazing. I would say that CR is in the top 10 of all my DVDs (500+) in terms of image quality. It looks really pristine to me. The black and white intro is especially striking.
Anyways, when watching this DVD under NORMAL circumstances with my upscaling player and my HDTV, it looks amazing. I would say that CR is in the top 10 of all my DVDs (500+) in terms of image quality. It looks really pristine to me. The black and white intro is especially striking.
AlphaSnake
...and that, kids, was the first time I sucked a dick for crack
The BR pictures aren't showing... =(
Edit: Nm.
Edit: Nm.
Some of the replies in this thread are driving me crazy. If DVD "doesn't look that bad" or is "sharp as hell", it just means you have a small TV or you're sitting too far away. Certainly visual acuity isn't uniform across all humans, but as a whole, the following resources can help you determine optimal viewing distances:
http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html
http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
thats really your opinion..Soybean said:
i have upscaling dvd with 42 inch sharp aquios and i dont sit too far away...
the dvd looks amazing
mashoutposse
Ante Up
scorcho said:
So then why the eff are you guys here?
Of course no one is surprised that there's a friggin' difference. Some people actually have an interest in seeing just how large the difference is. Also, some would like a DVD format that takes advantage of their new HD display hardware.
I'm a little confused by what everyone's bitching about.
What does it matter that his screen is 10' big? The image quality flaws a screen of that size shows (coupled with taking a picture and displaying it at the res posted here) affects the BluRay pics as well.
Absolute image quality isn't the point here ... what this does show off, and shows quite well ... is a gauge for the difference in detail you'll see between the formats.
What does it matter that his screen is 10' big? The image quality flaws a screen of that size shows (coupled with taking a picture and displaying it at the res posted here) affects the BluRay pics as well.
Absolute image quality isn't the point here ... what this does show off, and shows quite well ... is a gauge for the difference in detail you'll see between the formats.
Ninja Scooter
Member
im sure BluRay looks better, quite a bit better in fact, (otherwise what would be the point?) but i just watched Casino Royale on regular DVD on a 56 inch 1080p tv last night and it doesn't look anywhere near as blurry and bad as those shots would have you think. I actually was thinking about how much better it looked than your average dvds.
Soybean said:
It means you're fine without blowing $2000+ on a HD setup with a huge 1080p TV, blu-ray player, good speakers, etc.
If you're one of the 5% of people with all this crap already and money to blow, you may want to get a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player, but most of us will wait for the price to drop to sane levels.
Frankfurter
Member
Onix said:
Err, what everyone is bitching about is that the comparison just is complete nonsense. The difference between HD and DVD is FAR less pronounced on smaller screens (and that is obviously also the reason why these comparison pics are always taken from huge screens).
Don't you think that sth. went entirely wrong with that comparison when a DVD on my 32" LCD (via SCART/RGB) looks WAY better than the Blu Ray comparisons shots shown here?
Frankfurter said:
Assuming a 1080p TV with a sufficient viewing distance to fully resolve the image, the difference IS that pronounced as far as detail goes.
Please reread my post. I stated the pics should not be used as a barometer for image quality, only for gauging the difference in detail.
These shots are good comparison for people with fixed pixel displays.. obviously, my 4 foot screen isn't going to be as bad on the DVD side of things as the 10 foot screen.. but its hard as hell to watch DVD on my TV anymore.
Hell, Casion Royal isnt even a Tier 0 release on BluRay.. there are much better examples on HDDVD and BluRay on the differences between DVD and the high def formats.
Hell, Casion Royal isnt even a Tier 0 release on BluRay.. there are much better examples on HDDVD and BluRay on the differences between DVD and the high def formats.
Frankfurter
Member
Onix said:
Yeah, I would only need a 80-85" screen at my ~11.5 feet distance to take full advantage of 1080p.
You buy a fixed pixel display device, you should know what you're getting into. It'll make your DVDs look like shit. Yes, thank you, that's all well and good. But that was your choice. The issue with these comparisons is that they create a false point of comparison. The only people they are *valid* for are people who have an HDTV but don't have a BR or HDDVD player.
But let's be honest. That's just preaching to the choir. The people these threads are really designed to convince are people who haven't upgraded substantially to HD yet. And those people are not usually running fixed-pixel displays yet. And so their DVDs do not end up with three quarters of their pixels made up by their dvd player or TV. And that means they don't look like dog shit.
But let's be honest. That's just preaching to the choir. The people these threads are really designed to convince are people who haven't upgraded substantially to HD yet. And those people are not usually running fixed-pixel displays yet. And so their DVDs do not end up with three quarters of their pixels made up by their dvd player or TV. And that means they don't look like dog shit.
Pristine_Condition
Member
Actually it is probably a good thing that some of these guys can't make out the finer details of Mr. Bond's tie. Anyone who lacks the refinement of taste and keenness of eye to see the superiority of high bitrate HD via Blu-ray over standard DVD would surely have trouble getting his head around 007's whole "a Windsor necktie knot is a mark of a cad" concept. :lol
Pristine_Condition said:
the tie is a good example of why its more than just pure resolution. HD discs have way less high frequency filtering going on. They do that on DVDs to reduce the amount of data needing to be compressed, so you get less artifacting. But with HDs much higher bitrates and more efficient codecs you don't need to do that.
- Status