V-Flyer

Now that Warner has ditched HD DVD and thrown it's lot in with the Blu-ray camp leaving only two studios still supporting HD DVD, Paramount and Universal, is HD DVD dead?

Where do you stand in the battle of the formats?

As you say Bazz, it seems Blu-ray is starting to win this battle now. From what I have heard the pron industry (which is a big factor in who will ultimately win the battle) have gone or are going down the Blu-ray route too. It is also becoming more obvious in the shops too, the Blu-ray section is more often then not at least double the size of the HD DVD one.

As you say Bazz, it seems Blu-ray is starting to win this battle now. From what I have heard the pron industry (which is a big factor in who will ultimately win the battle) have gone or are going down the Blu-ray route too. It is also becoming more obvious in the shops too, the Blu-ray section is more often then not at least double the size of the HD DVD one.

I'm really not that bothered to be honest. I'm quite happy with normal DVD as it is - looks good enough to me on my HD-upscaling DVD and HD Plasma.

Thanks,
Richard

I'm really not that bothered to be honest. I'm quite happy with normal DVD as it is - looks good enough to me on my HD-upscaling DVD and HD Plasma.

Thanks,
Richard

Originally posted by RichardMannion
I'm really not that bothered to be honest. I'm quite happy with normal DVD as it is - looks good enough to me on my HD-upscaling DVD and HD Plasma.

Thanks,
Richard

I actually disagree. Blu-ray with full 1080p is way ahead in terms of quality to even 1080i, I am not really a technology geek but even I can see/admire how good 1080p is. As long as you have a good enough tv then you should be able to see a sizable difference.

Originally posted by RichardMannion
I'm really not that bothered to be honest. I'm quite happy with normal DVD as it is - looks good enough to me on my HD-upscaling DVD and HD Plasma.

Thanks,
Richard

I actually disagree. Blu-ray with full 1080p is way ahead in terms of quality to even 1080i, I am not really a technology geek but even I can see/admire how good 1080p is. As long as you have a good enough tv then you should be able to see a sizable difference.

Originally posted by Neil

I actually disagree. Blu-ray with full 1080p is way ahead in terms of quality to even 1080i, I am not really a technology geek but even I can see/admire how good 1080p is. As long as you have a good enough tv then you should be able to see a sizable difference.

Well you would wouldn't you! [:p]

I must have forgot how much 1080P material there is out there....

Originally posted by Neil

I actually disagree. Blu-ray with full 1080p is way ahead in terms of quality to even 1080i, I am not really a technology geek but even I can see/admire how good 1080p is. As long as you have a good enough tv then you should be able to see a sizable difference.

Well you would wouldn't you! [:p]

I must have forgot how much 1080P material there is out there....

Originally posted by RichardMannion
I'm really not that bothered to be honest. I'm quite happy with normal DVD as it is - looks good enough to me on my HD-upscaling DVD and HD Plasma.

Thanks,
Richard

Richard, you need to get a better Plasma. No, seriously.

If you look at 576i (Standard Def DVD) upscaled to 'HD' (and that can mean 720i/720p/1080i/1080p, of which there is a large margin of quality), and compare that to a good transfer Blu-Ray running at full 1080p, you'll see a huge difference in quality. But it can be hindered by a poor monitor, and will also depend on the quality of the upscaler. A poor monitor can make HD look worse than it is, and a great upscaler can make clean SD look very good on a decent monitor.

A lot of the early HD ready sets struggled with SD pictures - the upscalers were pretty crude, and if you watched something like BBC News 24, the scrolling text would suffer from breakup as the monitor tried to take the 576i signal and convert it on the fly. Cheaper HD panels, and particularly the LCD variants, see to suffer from a blur/trails problem with softens up HD, reducing the high res nature. That's why it's important to make sure you see both a raw SD and HD picture into the screen you're planning to buy before you buy (I insisted my local Curry's did this before I coughed up for a Panasonic plasma in December, and the Pana is leaps and bounds ahead in quality to the LG plasma it replaced in my house).

For upscaling, the Virgin Media V+ box produces some of the best SD -> 1080i HD pictures out there. Clean material that was filmed in HD (such as Planet Earth, Cranford, Torchwood, etc) really does look beautiful on a Virgin Media V+ box on a decent HD display. I'm not sure how well the Sky HD box performs, but I've heard second-hand reports that it's not particularly brilliant.

Originally posted by RichardMannion
I'm really not that bothered to be honest. I'm quite happy with normal DVD as it is - looks good enough to me on my HD-upscaling DVD and HD Plasma.

Thanks,
Richard

Richard, you need to get a better Plasma. No, seriously.

If you look at 576i (Standard Def DVD) upscaled to 'HD' (and that can mean 720i/720p/1080i/1080p, of which there is a large margin of quality), and compare that to a good transfer Blu-Ray running at full 1080p, you'll see a huge difference in quality. But it can be hindered by a poor monitor, and will also depend on the quality of the upscaler. A poor monitor can make HD look worse than it is, and a great upscaler can make clean SD look very good on a decent monitor.

A lot of the early HD ready sets struggled with SD pictures - the upscalers were pretty crude, and if you watched something like BBC News 24, the scrolling text would suffer from breakup as the monitor tried to take the 576i signal and convert it on the fly. Cheaper HD panels, and particularly the LCD variants, see to suffer from a blur/trails problem with softens up HD, reducing the high res nature. That's why it's important to make sure you see both a raw SD and HD picture into the screen you're planning to buy before you buy (I insisted my local Curry's did this before I coughed up for a Panasonic plasma in December, and the Pana is leaps and bounds ahead in quality to the LG plasma it replaced in my house).

For upscaling, the Virgin Media V+ box produces some of the best SD -> 1080i HD pictures out there. Clean material that was filmed in HD (such as Planet Earth, Cranford, Torchwood, etc) really does look beautiful on a Virgin Media V+ box on a decent HD display. I'm not sure how well the Sky HD box performs, but I've heard second-hand reports that it's not particularly brilliant.

Originally posted by Pete
I'm not sure how well the Sky HD box performs, but I've heard second-hand reports that it's not particularly brilliant.

Sky HD is quite good at upscaling actually in the main. It does however really struggle when there are a lot of fast moving things, football for example is rubbish unless watched through the HD channel. Also, like you mentioned, it does sometime struggles with scrolling bars like they have on Sky news etc but with a decent tv its rare and hardly noticeable.

Originally posted by Pete
I'm not sure how well the Sky HD box performs, but I've heard second-hand reports that it's not particularly brilliant.

Sky HD is quite good at upscaling actually in the main. It does however really struggle when there are a lot of fast moving things, football for example is rubbish unless watched through the HD channel. Also, like you mentioned, it does sometime struggles with scrolling bars like they have on Sky news etc but with a decent tv its rare and hardly noticeable.

Pete,

I'm okay with my 6th generation Pioneer Plasma [;)] - the HD output on it is stunning in 1080i. I have my 360 outputting in 1080i and it looks good enough for me - given the shortage of 1080P output, I'm in no dire rush to go out and replace the Plasma because it doesn't do 1080P.

Thanks,
Richard

Pete,

I'm okay with my 6th generation Pioneer Plasma [;)] - the HD output on it is stunning in 1080i. I have my 360 outputting in 1080i and it looks good enough for me - given the shortage of 1080P output, I'm in no dire rush to go out and replace the Plasma because it doesn't do 1080P.

Thanks,
Richard

I'm waiting it out until the very end and couldn't care less which company it is, but I do hope the war comes to an end soon because I am anxious to get my hands on an HD player after my family got our first HD television a few months ago. At this point it looks like it'll probably be blu-ray. Studios are abandoning it and some retailers in the US are severely cutting prices on HD-DVD players.

I'm waiting it out until the very end and couldn't care less which company it is, but I do hope the war comes to an end soon because I am anxious to get my hands on an HD player after my family got our first HD television a few months ago. At this point it looks like it'll probably be blu-ray. Studios are abandoning it and some retailers in the US are severely cutting prices on HD-DVD players.

I too have a 6th generation Pioneer plasma - and whether it's 1080i HD DVD, 1080i Blu ray, 1080i Sky HD...or 1080i upscaled DVD pictures, I am more than happy with the set. In fact, I'm certain some of todays TVs don't give a picture as good as I enjoy, despite mine being 2 1/2 years old.

For sure, 1080p in theory is better, but if the de-interlacer on the set is good enough, it doesn't make all that much difference - and working where I work, I get to see my fair share of the latest TVs.

I too have a 6th generation Pioneer plasma - and whether it's 1080i HD DVD, 1080i Blu ray, 1080i Sky HD...or 1080i upscaled DVD pictures, I am more than happy with the set. In fact, I'm certain some of todays TVs don't give a picture as good as I enjoy, despite mine being 2 1/2 years old.

For sure, 1080p in theory is better, but if the de-interlacer on the set is good enough, it doesn't make all that much difference - and working where I work, I get to see my fair share of the latest TVs.

Originally posted by NS

For sure, 1080p in theory is better, but if the de-interlacer on the set is good enough, it doesn't make all that much difference - and working where I work, I get to see my fair share of the latest TVs.

There is a mathematical reason why 1080p is so much better than 1080i, and that is because it is sending twice as much information as 1080i. 1080i sends 540 lines per frame, so it's strictly speaking, less data than 720p, which is by definition 720 lines per frame. However, the eye merges frames to make one picture. It's good, but compare it to 1080p (ie, 1080 lines per frame), and you'll really see the difference. A de-interlacer on the set can re-combine the frames, but will effectively be making compromises because the data just isn't there. The most common reason why punters fail to see the difference is because the monitor isn't up to the job.

Originally posted by NS

For sure, 1080p in theory is better, but if the de-interlacer on the set is good enough, it doesn't make all that much difference - and working where I work, I get to see my fair share of the latest TVs.

There is a mathematical reason why 1080p is so much better than 1080i, and that is because it is sending twice as much information as 1080i. 1080i sends 540 lines per frame, so it's strictly speaking, less data than 720p, which is by definition 720 lines per frame. However, the eye merges frames to make one picture. It's good, but compare it to 1080p (ie, 1080 lines per frame), and you'll really see the difference. A de-interlacer on the set can re-combine the frames, but will effectively be making compromises because the data just isn't there. The most common reason why punters fail to see the difference is because the monitor isn't up to the job.

Originally posted by Pete

Originally posted by NS

For sure, 1080p in theory is better, but if the de-interlacer on the set is good enough, it doesn't make all that much difference - and working where I work, I get to see my fair share of the latest TVs.

There is a mathematical reason why 1080p is so much better than 1080i, and that is because it is sending twice as much information as 1080i. 1080i sends 540 lines per frame, so it's strictly speaking, less data than 720p, which is by definition 720 lines per frame. However, the eye merges frames to make one picture. It's good, but compare it to 1080p (ie, 1080 lines per frame), and you'll really see the difference. A de-interlacer on the set can re-combine the frames, but will effectively be making compromises because the data just isn't there. The most common reason why punters fail to see the difference is because the monitor isn't up to the job.

I agree in principle - but having seen a Sony KDL46X3500 fed 1080p I wasn't nearly as impressed as my Pioneer when fed 1080i. What would you put this down to?

(Bear in mind we tweaked and played with the Sony settings and just couldn't get a 'decent' picture)

Originally posted by Pete

Originally posted by NS

For sure, 1080p in theory is better, but if the de-interlacer on the set is good enough, it doesn't make all that much difference - and working where I work, I get to see my fair share of the latest TVs.

There is a mathematical reason why 1080p is so much better than 1080i, and that is because it is sending twice as much information as 1080i. 1080i sends 540 lines per frame, so it's strictly speaking, less data than 720p, which is by definition 720 lines per frame. However, the eye merges frames to make one picture. It's good, but compare it to 1080p (ie, 1080 lines per frame), and you'll really see the difference. A de-interlacer on the set can re-combine the frames, but will effectively be making compromises because the data just isn't there. The most common reason why punters fail to see the difference is because the monitor isn't up to the job.

I agree in principle - but having seen a Sony KDL46X3500 fed 1080p I wasn't nearly as impressed as my Pioneer when fed 1080i. What would you put this down to?

(Bear in mind we tweaked and played with the Sony settings and just couldn't get a 'decent' picture)

Originally posted by NS

I agree in principle - but having seen a Sony KDL46X3500 fed 1080p I wasn't nearly as impressed as my Pioneer when fed 1080i. What would you put this down to?

Plasma v. LCD - and plasma comes out on top?

Originally posted by NS

I agree in principle - but having seen a Sony KDL46X3500 fed 1080p I wasn't nearly as impressed as my Pioneer when fed 1080i. What would you put this down to?

Plasma v. LCD - and plasma comes out on top?