Thought some of you might be interested in seeing these. DVD caps are from R1 or R2 SE's. HDTV caps are from Voom HD broadcasts and are made from the same masters as the UE's. Didn't take any of the caps myself, can't be bothered!
And worth noting that Bond on Bluray will look a whole lot better. Better codec and higher bitrate.
Dr. No
From Russia With Love
Goldfinger
You Only Live Twice
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Diamonds are Forever
Thunderball
Moonraker
The Spy Who Loved Me
Live and Let Die
The Man With the Golden Gun
Bond: DVD Vs. HDTV *100Mbit Warning*
-
Lourdes
- Royal Tramp
- Posts: 1994
- Joined: 08 Jan 2005, 16:19
Bond: DVD Vs. HDTV *100Mbit Warning*
Last edited by Lourdes on 26 Nov 2006, 22:36, edited 2 times in total.
-
bradavon
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 24430
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 20:30
WOW thanks Lourdes.
However as the DVDs are from the inferior SE masters and the HD the Remastered UE masters it's not a fair comparison. I'm not sure I'm seeing a UE or HD improvement.
Why have the DVD captures been enlarged to the HD resolution? That would affect picture quality too. That's not the native DVD resolution.
Also at such a large resolution it shows me very little other than the obvious improvement in Picture Quality. I can't get an overall judgement of how they compare as everything is so huge and not in perspective. I think links or the Image Shack thumbnail button would've been better. That way the browser (if using links) would auto-resize to the browser window and you could see which is better. No offence but all we have right now is huge heads and no perspective.
I hope I'm not coming across as derogatory just some healthy criticism.
I presume the HD prints are from American TV? Lucky or what.
p.s - 100Mb, don't you mean 1Mb? Broadband of any speed pretty much will suffice.
However as the DVDs are from the inferior SE masters and the HD the Remastered UE masters it's not a fair comparison. I'm not sure I'm seeing a UE or HD improvement.
Why have the DVD captures been enlarged to the HD resolution? That would affect picture quality too. That's not the native DVD resolution.
Also at such a large resolution it shows me very little other than the obvious improvement in Picture Quality. I can't get an overall judgement of how they compare as everything is so huge and not in perspective. I think links or the Image Shack thumbnail button would've been better. That way the browser (if using links) would auto-resize to the browser window and you could see which is better. No offence but all we have right now is huge heads and no perspective.
I hope I'm not coming across as derogatory just some healthy criticism.
I presume the HD prints are from American TV? Lucky or what.
p.s - 100Mb, don't you mean 1Mb? Broadband of any speed pretty much will suffice.
-
tom2681
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 5577
- Joined: 25 Oct 2004, 16:18
- Location: Where you'll never find me
Can someone explain to Brad why downscaling would be pointless ?Brad wrote:Why have the DVD captures been enlarged to the HD resolution? That would affect picture quality too.
I've tried several times without success.
It's like talking to a thick brick wall...
Last edited by tom2681 on 27 Nov 2006, 01:55, edited 1 time in total.
I used to be "the man who loves the movies you hate".
Now I'm just "that weird french guy with a cat avatar who comes to BnB once a year for no reason and then disappears again".
Now I'm just "that weird french guy with a cat avatar who comes to BnB once a year for no reason and then disappears again".
-
Lourdes
- Royal Tramp
- Posts: 1994
- Joined: 08 Jan 2005, 16:19
I was just posting them to show the nice difference resolution makes.
Upsampling >>>> downsampling. When you downsample you're ditching pixels and should never, ever, ever, ever do it.
When you upsample you use bicubic interpolation to gain resolution.
You're actually getting an IMPROVEMENT in quality.
And photoshops bicubic resize is one of the best around.
Upsampling >>>> downsampling. When you downsample you're ditching pixels and should never, ever, ever, ever do it.
When you upsample you use bicubic interpolation to gain resolution.
You're actually getting an IMPROVEMENT in quality.
And photoshops bicubic resize is one of the best around.
-
tom2681
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 5577
- Joined: 25 Oct 2004, 16:18
- Location: Where you'll never find me
@Brad:
If you need proof, here it is:
Both of the following caps are at DVD resolution.
Due to the downscaling, the HD picture loses all its detail.
Both caps now look like they have the same amount of detail (even though the HD cap is much sharper in reality).
If you need proof, here it is:
Both of the following caps are at DVD resolution.
Due to the downscaling, the HD picture loses all its detail.
Both caps now look like they have the same amount of detail (even though the HD cap is much sharper in reality).
I used to be "the man who loves the movies you hate".
Now I'm just "that weird french guy with a cat avatar who comes to BnB once a year for no reason and then disappears again".
Now I'm just "that weird french guy with a cat avatar who comes to BnB once a year for no reason and then disappears again".
-
IronMonkey
- Royal Tramp
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 16:49
1280x1080i? I do hope you mean 1920x1080i! Otherwise we would have very square Bond films! 
Looking at the size of the HD images, you mean 1920x1080i. I think you're getting the resolutions of 720p & 1080i confused!
1280x720 & 1920x1080 are the correct ratios.
Thanks for the comparison though, although it would be better if the Ultimate Edition DVDs were used. It would've been a fairer comparison.
Maybe someone can add captures from the Ultimate Editions of the same frames seen in this thread?
Looking at the size of the HD images, you mean 1920x1080i. I think you're getting the resolutions of 720p & 1080i confused!
1280x720 & 1920x1080 are the correct ratios.
Thanks for the comparison though, although it would be better if the Ultimate Edition DVDs were used. It would've been a fairer comparison.
Maybe someone can add captures from the Ultimate Editions of the same frames seen in this thread?
TH-42PX80 | DMP-BD50 (MR BD & DVD) | SA-XR55 | SB-TP20 | XBox 360 Slim 250GB | XBox (XBMC, 160GB) | Zotac XBMC HTPC | Gaming PC | 8TB Media Server
-
Lourdes
- Royal Tramp
- Posts: 1994
- Joined: 08 Jan 2005, 16:19
No. It's 1280x1080, It gets scaled to 1920x1080 by the receiver. Saves bandwidth.
I'll give you an extreme example.
1920x1080 (true 1080p source)
https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... rdes/1.jpg
Downscaled to 100x1080
https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... rdes/2.jpg
Upscaled to 1920x1080
https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... rdes/3.jpg
Not too bad for something that lost nearly all it's H res eh.
Sort of like the way in which anamorhpic DVD's work. They're only 720x480 or x576 but get scaled to 854x480 and 1024x576 respectively. But with them it's a cunning way to squeeze in more image. HD Lite is to save broadcasters bandwidth. And with good scaling it doesn't look at all bad.
I'll give you an extreme example.
1920x1080 (true 1080p source)
https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... rdes/1.jpg
Downscaled to 100x1080
https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... rdes/2.jpg
Upscaled to 1920x1080
https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... rdes/3.jpg
Not too bad for something that lost nearly all it's H res eh.
Sort of like the way in which anamorhpic DVD's work. They're only 720x480 or x576 but get scaled to 854x480 and 1024x576 respectively. But with them it's a cunning way to squeeze in more image. HD Lite is to save broadcasters bandwidth. And with good scaling it doesn't look at all bad.
-
IronMonkey
- Royal Tramp
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: 08 Dec 2004, 16:49
Ah, I didn't realise they were transmitting at 1280x1080.
It does make it seem like they are cheating us out of true HD images though! Its almost as if now that we have enough bandwidth to move from interlaced to progressive pictures on TVs, they're now doing it the other way to save bandwidth on the width of the image instead of the height!
Grrr!
It does make it seem like they are cheating us out of true HD images though! Its almost as if now that we have enough bandwidth to move from interlaced to progressive pictures on TVs, they're now doing it the other way to save bandwidth on the width of the image instead of the height!
Grrr!
TH-42PX80 | DMP-BD50 (MR BD & DVD) | SA-XR55 | SB-TP20 | XBox 360 Slim 250GB | XBox (XBMC, 160GB) | Zotac XBMC HTPC | Gaming PC | 8TB Media Server
-
gojensen
- King of Beggars
- Posts: 603
- Joined: 01 Nov 2004, 10:44
- Location: Norway
- Contact:
1080i isn't 1280x1080... simply because 1080i transmits 540lines every other field. (Which is why there's a "huge" difference in vertical resolution between 1080i and 1080P - of course depending on source material... film will look good, video won't... though BluRay/HDDVD at 24fps 1080P WILL ).
So if HDTV truly transmits 1280 width and stretches it akin to how 720 pixels are 16x9 stretched on DVD then I can truly understand why people say 720p looks better than 1080i (as 1280x720 probably is better than "interlaced" 1280x540 scaled to 1920x1080)
Though your example was VERY extreme
).So if HDTV truly transmits 1280 width and stretches it akin to how 720 pixels are 16x9 stretched on DVD then I can truly understand why people say 720p looks better than 1080i (as 1280x720 probably is better than "interlaced" 1280x540 scaled to 1920x1080)
Though your example was VERY extreme
So long, and thanks for all the fish!