Blu-Ray Vs. DVD Image Quality

[Hardknock]

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2666&p=13

Blu-ray vs. DVD Image Quality
One thing we did get a good chance to see at the show was a number of live Blu-ray and HD-DVD demonstrations with real high-definition content, and honestly, we weren't all that impressed. Don't get us wrong, it looked good, just not breathtaking or anything like that.

The problem is that the jump from progressive scan DVD (480p) to Blu-ray and HD-DVD at 720p or 1080p just isn't that great, even on a 46" display. When viewed side by side with DVD content, the picture looks quite comparable, it's just that the Blu-ray/HD-DVD content is noticeably sharper (which makes sense since it is much higher resolution).

The other thing to keep in mind is that the move to HDTV from standard analog cable was so dramatic because of the very poor quality of most cable feeds. With Blu-ray/HD-DVD, the quality of DVD is already pretty high, so it's really tough to achieve the same wow-factor with just an increase in resolution and bitrate.

The larger your TV the more you will notice the difference and of course the quality and compression of the content itself is going to determine how different Blu-ray/HD-DVD look from present day DVD.

Pioneeractually had a display comparing Blu-ray and DVD with the exact same content that illustrated our point pretty well. The Blu-ray content on the left was playing back at 1080p, while the DVD content on the right was 480p upscaled to 1080p:

http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/9033/blurayvsdvd7as.jpg

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1605/blurayvsdvd21wa.jpg


Again, the image quality of the Blu-ray player/content was top notch and definitely sharper than what was outputted from the upscaling DVD player, but the impact wasn't absolutely mindblowing. You will obviously have to find out for yourself, but we just wanted to aid in setting your expectations for both Blu-ray and HD-DVD.

 

[DudeMiester]

I think most of the difference isn't visible in those shots because at that distance all the added detail of 1080p is lost anyways. I have run both resolutions on my computer monitor, and the difference is incredible. Even so the colours and sharpness are definitly better with the 1080p.

 

[Hardknock]

Yeah the first picture the difference is drastic. In the second one, not so much..

 

[AlphaWolf]

I think most of the difference isn't visible in those shots because at that distance all the added detail of 1080p is lost anyways. I have run both resolutions on my computer monitor, and the difference is incredible. Even so the colours and sharpness are definitly better with the 1080p.

How far are you going to sit from your TV set when you watch a movie? I'd say I am usually 8-10 feet away, sometimes more. If you have to be closer than that to see a difference, for most people that would mean there is no difference.

There's clearly a difference in the quality of the two displays, but I don't know that it's enough to get people (aside from videophiles) to jump on any premium priced TVs/players/content. Talk to me in 5+ years when there is a 42"+ 1080p set for under 2k.

 

[davepermen]

the trick is to have a big (really big) tv. so that the individual pixels (or simply the loss of sharpness) on the dvd image gets very visible even in your prefered sitting and watching distance.

hdtv doesn't make sence in a distance/size ratio where you can't see the difference. but then again, if you're far away enough, you can run it on gameboy res (160x144) as well, and won't see the difference

we, at home switched to a plasma recently, with 720p. from the distance we sit, a 1080i or 1080p tv with same size would not make a difference. the difference to dvd is visible. but after 720p, we wouldn't see an individual pixel anymore really.

so, to have use of a 1080 screen, we'd just need a bigger screen. i wouldn't say no.... (espencially running the pc on it rocks )

 

[London Geezer]

As i've said already, no one will be able to tell the difference with those shots.

It's like taking 2 pictures of the same thing, one 1920x1080 and one 640x480 and resampling both to about 60x40 pixels. Obviously they'll look pretty much the same.

The difference will be seen on the same HDTV, LIVE. On the same HDTV in front of you, a Bluray/HDDVD image will look noticeably sharper than a DVD image, even upscaled.

Unless you post pictures of a decent size (at least 1920x1080) no one will be abole to tell the difference. It's logical really...

 

[DemoCoder]

Anand thinks a 46" inch display is big? Feh.

 

[Rys]

Anand thinks a 46" inch display is big? Feh.

Put it away!!!!

 

[London Geezer]

Don't know what u guys are used to, but to me, anything above 9" is "big"........

 

[Hardknock]

As i've said already, no one will be able to tell the difference with those shots.

It's like taking 2 pictures of the same thing, one 1920x1080 and one 640x480 and resampling both to about 60x40 pixels. Obviously they'll look pretty much the same.

The difference will be seen on the same HDTV, LIVE. On the same HDTV in front of you, a Bluray/HDDVD image will look noticeably sharper than a DVD image, even upscaled.

Unless you post pictures of a decent size (at least 1920x1080) no one will be abole to tell the difference. It's logical really...

Well of course this isn't the greatest comparision, but we do have this guys impressions to go off aswell...

 

[DudeMiester]

How far are you going to sit from your TV set when you watch a movie? I'd say I am usually 8-10 feet away, sometimes more. If you have to be closer than that to see a difference, for most people that would mean there is no difference.

Your eyes are much higher resolution then a camera, so then you would see the difference.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Your eyes are much higher resolution then a camera, so then you would see the difference.

At what range? If you mean any distance, I'd have to say BS. If you mean 8-10feet, I'd say maybe.