PDA

View Full Version : DVD vs HDTV comparison

KafesneBikaina
19th March 2006, 19:14
I had made a DVD vs HDTV comparison with the Return Of The King PAL DVD (extended edition) and a high cuality 1080i capture of the film. It's in spanish but images talk by themselves :)
You can see it there:
http://usuarios.lycos.es/jfksmeagol/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=17
smok3
19th March 2006, 19:21
how was the film captured?
MrTroy
29th March 2006, 11:32
Hmm, that 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th shot still aren't very sharp in HD. I guess you need 1080p for real sharpness.

That 6th frame looks pretty good in normal PAL by the way.
Kika
29th March 2006, 11:59
I guess you need 1080p for real sharpness.

What are you talking about? The Picture IS progressive ...
denise
29th March 2006, 12:07
KafesneBikaina, thanks for good comparission :)
MrTroy
29th March 2006, 15:55
What are you talking about? The Picture IS progressive ...
Uhm...
I had made a DVD vs HDTV comparison with the Return Of The King PAL DVD (extended edition) and a high cuality 1080i capture of the film.
Kika
29th March 2006, 16:14
@MrTroy

1080i does not mean you have interlacing in any case.
xyloy
29th March 2006, 17:48
OMG, HD is awesome!

Thanks, now I've to wait for LOTR extended versions in High Def! :P
MrTroy
29th March 2006, 22:24
@MrTroy

1080i does not mean you have interlacing in any case.
That 'i' isn't added for fun. It stands for interlaced. This LOTR HD was captured from an American tv station. At the moment there are 0 stations in the US broadcasting at 1080p.

It's definitely interlaced.
SeeMoreDigital
30th March 2006, 09:37
That 'i' isn't added for fun. It stands for interlaced. This LOTR HD was captured from an American tv station. At the moment there are 0 stations in the US broadcasting at 1080p.

It's definitely interlaced.Actually, the 29.970fps "movie" source most probably contains "progressive" frames at 23.976fps (using the same process as NTSC movie DVD's).

Once the interlaced frames are dumped, you are left with the progressive ones. I have many 1080i "movie" samples here which contain progressive frames. And many "video" samples which are pure interlaced....

Unlike over here in the UK, where everything broadcast is interlaced :scared:
MrTroy
30th March 2006, 09:44
Actually, the 29.970fps "movie" source most probably contains "progressive" frames at 23.976fps (using the same process as NTSC movie DVD's).

Once the interlaced frames are dumped, you are left with the progressive ones!
Actually most of the 1080i HD channels broadcast in 1080i60, which is truely interlaced. 1080i30 would indeed be a telecine.
Kika
30th March 2006, 10:36
It's definitely interlaced.

It isn't. ;)
It's encoded in interlaced mode and it is broadcasted in interlaced Mode, but the pictures are definatly progressive (or from progressive source)
"I" doesn't mean you MUST use interlaced video, it means you CAN use interlaced video.
SeeMoreDigital
30th March 2006, 11:02
Actually most of the 1080i HD channels broadcast in 1080i60, which is truely interlaced. 1080i30 would indeed be a telecine.If your are watching/capturing something that's broadcast from a TV studio, outside broadcast van, news feed etc then yes it will be interlaced... But if it's a "movie" the chances are it will contain progressive and interlaced frames!

If you have access to an HDTV NTSC "movie" (not video) source you'll be able to see this for yourself by loading it into DGIndex and stepping thru it one-frame-at-a-time.


Cheers
woah!
3rd April 2006, 04:03
lets remember this HD is not a HD-DVD or blueray version. this version has a max of about 17-18mbps bitrate if you are lucky and the tv station has that much bandwidth to allow it. most are about 9 to 14mbps.

i capture OTA signals and they are about 19mbps and thats about as good as it gets over the air.

maybe a recap of this is needed when you have a hd-dvd version to compare :)

still better than dvd tho i agree.