Screening samples in HD vs SD

Patrick Moreau · April 19th, 2007, 10:57 AM

My HD LCD will play back 1080i or 1080 p but its resolution is 1366x768 so there is not enough pixels there to properly show HD, unless I'm missing something. When it comes to my 30" Dell, the resolution is 2560x1600 so there is no more than enough pixels to properly show HD. That is what I am attributing the difference to.

Patrick

Jason Bowers · April 19th, 2007, 11:43 AM

Hype!!! Having worked for Sony Canada, there is alot of hype on HD, but the upgrade is not as significant as you would think. They bill it as the greatest thing to happen to television but in reality when we were to setup the showroom we were to make the SD sets look so so and were given a disc to setup the HD sets. We in the business call it the bait and switch. Show them the crappy picture with a good price point and dazzle them with the HD picture and upsell them instantly. I think that neither format will win and both may just fade away, as people can't seem to really see the difference.

Patrick Moreau · April 19th, 2007, 11:49 AM

With a proper comparision, I find it impossible not to see the difference.

Kevin Shaw · April 19th, 2007, 12:30 PM

Update: I just ran a demo on my 1080p display in which the difference between SD and HD was more noticeable than an earlier demo I'd created. The main distinction between the two demos was that the first one was split-screen while the later one switched back and forth between SD and HD versions of the same shot. Surprisingly (for me), I'm finding it easier to see the difference in the full-screen version than the split-screen one, perhaps because I can focus on the same object at the same place on the screen in each scene.

Below is a link to the file I created for demonstrating this, for those who want to see it. The first section of the clip is HDV footage downsampled to DV and then uprezzed back to HDV; second section is a full-quality HDV version of the same thing.

http://www.videomem.com/hdv/HDvSD.m2t

Jon Omiatek · April 19th, 2007, 12:33 PM

I disagree with the bait and switch comparison between SD and HD. I can only campare my sony SD and HD cameras but there is a definate difference between the two formats.

Kevin Shaw · April 19th, 2007, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Bowers

They bill it as the greatest thing to happen to television but in reality when we were to setup the showroom we were to make the SD sets look so so and were given a disc to setup the HD sets.

On the other hand, when I go into most stores which sell HDTVs they've done little or nothing to demonstrate the full quality such displays are capable of generating. And yet people are still buying them left and right because they like the image qualtiy, even from a poor signal on a non-optimized HDTV set. And even if HD quality doesn't matter to most consumers, the switch from a 4:3 to 16:9 viewing format is reason enough to upgrade our production gear. Most DV cameras can't generate decent widescreen SD footage, let alone HD.

Jason Bowers · April 19th, 2007, 03:41 PM

There is a visible difference between the two there is no doubt about that. However, it is not as significant as the hype dictates. The future of tv and video is HD there is no doubt about that as well. The reason most people are buying HD ready tv's is because we are being sold on the promising future ahead of us. Also, a key selling feature is 16:9 format as most DVD's are widescreen and look alot better than 4:3. For the average consumer they might not really care about HD yet but the promise of a better video in the future might be enough to entice them. As with anything we are selling if you pitch it right they will gobble it up even if the picture difference is minimal on your LCD screen. If you talk like the difference is great they will see it. It is all a mind game. The 16:9 video also looks better because it gives you a more cinematic feel as opposed to plain video which seperates us from the uncle Bob can do that mentality. We constantly use the term movie as opposed to video and cinematography to videography because it plants that message that it is a quality product and seperates us from our competition. Also Patrick how big is your studio? And how many staff are working for you? Have you been doing this long?

Kevin Shaw · April 19th, 2007, 04:56 PM

I'd agree to some extent with what Jason said, but add that with HD it's arguably easier to deliver a clean image than with SD. When I play a finished HDV clip at full bandwidth on my HDTV there's no question it looks good, whereas with regular DVDs it's a struggle to squeeze adequate quality out of so few pixels at such low data rates. So even if average viewers don't notice whether HD looks significantly better than SD, at least they'll think the HD looks good. Making SD look that good is hard work and costs movie companies a lot of money for encoding equipment; we can match or exceed that level of quality now with a few thousand dollars in production gear.

Michael Y Wong · April 19th, 2007, 04:59 PM

If i we're to showcase 1080p on a tv to clients in a normal room, id look into at least a 46+" 1080p display, or even better hopefully a 1080p projector filling up a 100" screen. That will defeinately do the trick. Of course the 30" Dell will suffice provided hte viewer is sitting @ the monitors standard viewing distance. But once you treat the monitor like a TV and sit as far back as you would if it were a 30" TV, u will not notice as much differnece.

Perceived resolution is determined by display resolution, screen size, and viewing distance.

For regular TV displays where you are required to sit a reasonable distance from the TV set itself, you will need as large as possible display to fully see and appreciate the brilliance of 1080p (WUXGA). I never understand why anyone would actually pay an extra 1/3 of the price for a 32/37" or even a 42" 1080p tv when to the average viewer, itll be impossible to tell the differnce between the 720p version. Sure it is double the resolution on paper, but considering the size of the screen and the viewing distance there is no percerived resolution difference whatsoever.

On a computer display capable of WUXGA 1080p native resolution, i think the minimum size is 24" right now. Now at the standard 2 feet viewing distance looking @ a 1080p 24" monitor or perhaps Patricks 30" monitor (I think its 2k rez/WQXGA) there is a HUGE difference difference between my 1080i hdv work vs my downsized anamorphic widescreen 720x480 dvds. In this case the display size and the viewing distance allows the viewer to see the detail in HD. Mind you the DVD does look good, but just cannot compare to the MPEG2 HDV.

If your screen is large enuf considering the viewing distance, and the material is properly encoded, there is a significant difference between HDV vs SD. Once you skew any of the above factors then you'll have a harder time tellign the differnece. I notice this all the time @ the Sony stores. I stand far away and watch some HD demo on a 50-60 inch tv and it looks fantastic. Once I move close enuf I realize its a SD DVD demo, with the material shot in HD. But from far away enuf, you can never tell the difference.

Also Patrick, I would recommend that when showingcasing to clients SD vs HD, I'd say your best bet is to pop in a regular DVD for your SD stuff, then just stickign with playing a de-interlaced MPEG2 HDV .m2t for the HD stuffs.

IMO BD & HD DVD are still in its infancy to get a workflow good enuf for us videographers to get pristine output with minimal signal loss and so forth; even with dvds being around for so long I am shocked at some of the crappy DVD output ive seen some videographers present even today. (a little off topic i know)

Giroud Francois · April 19th, 2007, 05:10 PM

now it is properly admitted that in regular situation, you would be not able to find a great difference between a good SD and HDV or between an 1366x768 or full HD.
by regular situation , i mean the use of LCD screen at any size (usually between 32-42") viewed at at least 6 feet.
the fault is due to the high quality of commercial DVD and the (relative) low quality of HDV (it is a different story with movies shot with real HD cams). Additionally most of players are not properly connected to the screen (using HDMi or components at minimum)
For sure, if you play a commercial blu-ray/HD-DVD movie on a 60" 1080 screen, you will see a difference, as well on big screen from projector.

Kevin Shaw · April 19th, 2007, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Y Wong

I never understand why anyone would actually pay an extra 1/3 of the price for a 32/37" or even a 42" 1080p tv when to the average viewer, itll be impossible to tell the differnce between the 720p version.

I just paid $1099 plus tax for a 42" 1080p monitor and feel that was money well spent: I can connect it to my laptop or surf the internet from my PS3 with no straining to read any fine text, and it looks great for displaying digital photos. I thought about saving a few bucks by getting a 720p screen of the same size, but my wife convinced me it was worth spending more for showing HD content to clients. (Bless her heart.) Now I'm confident I'm finally seeing my HD projects at something approaching maximum quality, which I didn't feel I was getting with lesser HDTVs. And even though I may not use this display very often as a computer monitor, knowing that works well was worth the price.

April 19th, 2007, 04:59 PM	#24
Michael Y Wong Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Toronto Ontario Canada! Posts: 353	If i we're to showcase 1080p on a tv to clients in a normal room, id look into at least a 46+" 1080p display, or even better hopefully a 1080p projector filling up a 100" screen. That will defeinately do the trick. Of course the 30" Dell will suffice provided hte viewer is sitting @ the monitors standard viewing distance. But once you treat the monitor like a TV and sit as far back as you would if it were a 30" TV, u will not notice as much differnece. Perceived resolution is determined by display resolution, screen size, and viewing distance. For regular TV displays where you are required to sit a reasonable distance from the TV set itself, you will need as large as possible display to fully see and appreciate the brilliance of 1080p (WUXGA). I never understand why anyone would actually pay an extra 1/3 of the price for a 32/37" or even a 42" 1080p tv when to the average viewer, itll be impossible to tell the differnce between the 720p version. Sure it is double the resolution on paper, but considering the size of the screen and the viewing distance there is no percerived resolution difference whatsoever. On a computer display capable of WUXGA 1080p native resolution, i think the minimum size is 24" right now. Now at the standard 2 feet viewing distance looking @ a 1080p 24" monitor or perhaps Patricks 30" monitor (I think its 2k rez/WQXGA) there is a HUGE difference difference between my 1080i hdv work vs my downsized anamorphic widescreen 720x480 dvds. In this case the display size and the viewing distance allows the viewer to see the detail in HD. Mind you the DVD does look good, but just cannot compare to the MPEG2 HDV. If your screen is large enuf considering the viewing distance, and the material is properly encoded, there is a significant difference between HDV vs SD. Once you skew any of the above factors then you'll have a harder time tellign the differnece. I notice this all the time @ the Sony stores. I stand far away and watch some HD demo on a 50-60 inch tv and it looks fantastic. Once I move close enuf I realize its a SD DVD demo, with the material shot in HD. But from far away enuf, you can never tell the difference. Also Patrick, I would recommend that when showingcasing to clients SD vs HD, I'd say your best bet is to pop in a regular DVD for your SD stuff, then just stickign with playing a de-interlaced MPEG2 HDV .m2t for the HD stuffs. IMO BD & HD DVD are still in its infancy to get a workflow good enuf for us videographers to get pristine output with minimal signal loss and so forth; even with dvds being around for so long I am shocked at some of the crappy DVD output ive seen some videographers present even today. (a little off topic i know) __________________ dreaming hobbyist + storyteller www.michaelywong.com

April 19th, 2007, 10:57 AM	#16
Patrick Moreau Still Motion Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,186	My HD LCD will play back 1080i or 1080 p but its resolution is 1366x768 so there is not enough pixels there to properly show HD, unless I'm missing something. When it comes to my 30" Dell, the resolution is 2560x1600 so there is no more than enough pixels to properly show HD. That is what I am attributing the difference to. Patrick

April 19th, 2007, 11:43 AM	#17
Jason Bowers Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Thunder Bay, ON. Canada Posts: 374	Hype!!! Having worked for Sony Canada, there is alot of hype on HD, but the upgrade is not as significant as you would think. They bill it as the greatest thing to happen to television but in reality when we were to setup the showroom we were to make the SD sets look so so and were given a disc to setup the HD sets. We in the business call it the bait and switch. Show them the crappy picture with a good price point and dazzle them with the HD picture and upsell them instantly. I think that neither format will win and both may just fade away, as people can't seem to really see the difference.

April 19th, 2007, 11:49 AM	#18
Patrick Moreau Still Motion Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,186	With a proper comparision, I find it impossible not to see the difference.

April 19th, 2007, 12:30 PM	#19
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	Update: I just ran a demo on my 1080p display in which the difference between SD and HD was more noticeable than an earlier demo I'd created. The main distinction between the two demos was that the first one was split-screen while the later one switched back and forth between SD and HD versions of the same shot. Surprisingly (for me), I'm finding it easier to see the difference in the full-screen version than the split-screen one, perhaps because I can focus on the same object at the same place on the screen in each scene. Below is a link to the file I created for demonstrating this, for those who want to see it. The first section of the clip is HDV footage downsampled to DV and then uprezzed back to HDV; second section is a full-quality HDV version of the same thing. http://www.videomem.com/hdv/HDvSD.m2t

April 19th, 2007, 12:33 PM	#20
Jon Omiatek Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Columbus, Ohio Posts: 755	I disagree with the bait and switch comparison between SD and HD. I can only campare my sony SD and HD cameras but there is a definate difference between the two formats.

April 19th, 2007, 03:41 PM	#22
Jason Bowers Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Thunder Bay, ON. Canada Posts: 374	There is a visible difference between the two there is no doubt about that. However, it is not as significant as the hype dictates. The future of tv and video is HD there is no doubt about that as well. The reason most people are buying HD ready tv's is because we are being sold on the promising future ahead of us. Also, a key selling feature is 16:9 format as most DVD's are widescreen and look alot better than 4:3. For the average consumer they might not really care about HD yet but the promise of a better video in the future might be enough to entice them. As with anything we are selling if you pitch it right they will gobble it up even if the picture difference is minimal on your LCD screen. If you talk like the difference is great they will see it. It is all a mind game. The 16:9 video also looks better because it gives you a more cinematic feel as opposed to plain video which seperates us from the uncle Bob can do that mentality. We constantly use the term movie as opposed to video and cinematography to videography because it plants that message that it is a quality product and seperates us from our competition. Also Patrick how big is your studio? And how many staff are working for you? Have you been doing this long?

April 19th, 2007, 04:56 PM	#23
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	I'd agree to some extent with what Jason said, but add that with HD it's arguably easier to deliver a clean image than with SD. When I play a finished HDV clip at full bandwidth on my HDTV there's no question it looks good, whereas with regular DVDs it's a struggle to squeeze adequate quality out of so few pixels at such low data rates. So even if average viewers don't notice whether HD looks significantly better than SD, at least they'll think the HD looks good. Making SD look that good is hard work and costs movie companies a lot of money for encoding equipment; we can match or exceed that level of quality now with a few thousand dollars in production gear.

April 19th, 2007, 05:10 PM	#25
Giroud Francois Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: switzerland Posts: 2,133	now it is properly admitted that in regular situation, you would be not able to find a great difference between a good SD and HDV or between an 1366x768 or full HD. by regular situation , i mean the use of LCD screen at any size (usually between 32-42") viewed at at least 6 feet. the fault is due to the high quality of commercial DVD and the (relative) low quality of HDV (it is a different story with movies shot with real HD cams). Additionally most of players are not properly connected to the screen (using HDMi or components at minimum) For sure, if you play a commercial blu-ray/HD-DVD movie on a 60" 1080 screen, you will see a difference, as well on big screen from projector.