difficulty telling DVD quality and HD apart

On Mar 29, 9:30*pm, Tim923 wrote:
I've seen Fun With Dick and Jane on DVD and on directTV(HDTV). *I
couldn't tell a difference. *Is this a common problem or rare, or is
my screen too small?

Perhaps if I had a movie sized screen I could tell a difference?

It mostly depends on your TVs upconversion, although FwD&J is not a
cinematically intensive movie. Try a screenshot where there are many
small items to render, like falling leaves, or something with
incredible texture. That's where HD really shines.

I've seen Fun With Dick and Jane on DVD and on directTV(HDTV). I
couldn't tell a difference. Is this a common problem or rare, or is
my screen too small?

Perhaps if I had a movie sized screen I could tell a difference?

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:46:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Try a screenshot where there are many
small items to render, like falling leaves, or something with
incredible texture. That's where HD really shines.

Yeah, like Will Smith's whiskers in I Am Legend.

Awesome Blu-ray transfer!

A_C

Agent_C wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:46:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Try a screenshot where there are many
small items to render, like falling leaves, or something with
incredible texture. That's where HD really shines.

Yeah, like Will Smith's whiskers in I Am Legend.

Awesome Blu-ray transfer!

A_C

I saw them on my upconverted regular DVD.

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:46:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

It mostly depends on your TVs upconversion, although FwD&J is not a
cinematically intensive movie. Try a screenshot where there are many
small items to render, like falling leaves, or something with
incredible texture. That's where HD really shines.

Now that I think about it, sometimes the text in the end credits
doesn't come out well in 480.

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 01:30:51 GMT, Tim923 wrote:

I've seen Fun With Dick and Jane on DVD and on directTV(HDTV). I
couldn't tell a difference. Is this a common problem or rare, or is
my screen too small?

Perhaps if I had a movie sized screen I could tell a difference?

Maybe DirectTV broadcast from a lowres source.

A digitally restored movie from DVD can look pretty good upconverted,
but in general, you can see the difference from way across the room,
so no, I don't think screen size is the issue.

Now, the difference may not be huge, even if you can tell. Could I
guess correctly the source 100% of the time? Probably not if shown
them singly, probably come pretty close if presented side by side.
Heck, my old Maltese Falcon DVD looks pretty good played on the HD!

J.

Tim923 wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:46:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

It mostly depends on your TVs upconversion, although FwD&J is not a
cinematically intensive movie. Try a screenshot where there are many
small items to render, like falling leaves, or something with
incredible texture. That's where HD really shines.

Now that I think about it, sometimes the text in the end credits
doesn't come out well in 480.


Compared to 1080P, 480 looks like warmed over puppy turds.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:23:14 -0500, Jer wrote:

Compared to 1080P, 480 looks like warmed over puppy turds.

The directTV box's resolution(res) is set to 1080i and the max
resolution of the HDTV is 1080i.

Tim923 wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:23:14 -0500, Jer wrote:

Compared to 1080P, 480 looks like warmed over puppy turds.

The directTV box's resolution(res) is set to 1080i and the max
resolution of the HDTV is 1080i.


Maybe on *your* TV it is, but...

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:28:19 GMT, Tim923 wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:23:14 -0500, Jer wrote:

Compared to 1080P, 480 looks like warmed over puppy turds.

The directTV box's resolution(res) is set to 1080i and the max
resolution of the HDTV is 1080i.

If the source is low-res, that doesn't help.

J.