Revenge of the Sith in HD

[RoboDad]

It looks truelly amazing. I'm also waiting a couple of years before upgrading my system. With HD in the child stage now it still needs a lot of development.

I don't know about you, but for me HD is at least a bit beyond the child stage. All of the major kinks have been worked out, and the new HD devices "just work" together. I have a nice HD display, plus even in the middle of nowhere where I live (Boise Idaho), I can get all of my local TV channels in crystal clear HD with a cheap over-the-air antenna. That, along with a Dish Network HD DVR and my new HD DVD player, make for some great viewing in HD.

Sure, many of the cable networks that have yet to migrate to HD (and some may never go to full HD), and we do still need to settle the silly format war, but as far as the technology goes, it's ready for prime time, and the choices just keep getting better and better.

Oh, and BTW, great screencap!

 

[sideshowtob]

Thank you.

Interesting enough I have used sideshowtob for years, even before I knew about SSC. It was a play on the Simpson’s character when I picked it!

welcome SStob and Melvin, great Pic!

 

[dunedain]

I believen that HD television can get better (at least here in the Netherlands) I've seen only one television which I believed to be true HD and that was a Philips Television (€8000,-) And that is the only one I could say yes this is HD the other televisions here are just getting better and better but I just can't say that is looks great sorry.

 

[Michael Crawford]

HD dvd is in 'child' stage, but HD itself is certainly not. I've been watching HD television and movies for five years now, and the quality and selection of programming just continues to improve every day.

 

[DCFett]

Can someone explain:

HD DVD (I thought all DVD was digital, but I guess you can have digital, but not high definition digital???)

Blu Ray (I remember Lucas talking about this tech when it was being developed. How does it fair next to HD? Is it more dense and more defined than HD?

With a HD TV, you get super clear DVD presentation. Do you get superer clear display with a HD DVD player?

Thx

 

[RoboDad]

I believen that HD television can get better (at least here in the Netherlands) I've seen only one television which I believed to be true HD and that was a Philips Television (€8000,-) And that is the only one I could say yes this is HD the other televisions here are just getting better and better but I just can't say that is looks great sorry.

Ah, I understand. It is a shame that there are still some areas where the development is lagging behind, especially when you know the technology is out there, just not well established in your area. Keep hoping!

 

[Michael Crawford]

Can someone explain:

HD DVD (I thought all DVD was digital, but I guess you can have digital, but not high definition digital???)

Blu Ray (I remember Lucas talking about this tech when it was being developed. How does it fair next to HD? Is it more dense and more defined than HD?

With a HD TV, you get super clear DVD presentation. Do you get superer clear display with a HD DVD player?

Thx

You can have Digital without HD, but you can't have HD without Digital. Rather than being analog, a digital signal is all 1's and 0's.

HD is all about the resolution. Most people accept that anything 1280 x 768 and above is HD. That allows for a 720 progressive scan image. There are also 1080 interlaced and 1080 progressive standards. All the major broadcast stations - ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, UPN, WB and PBS - broadcast the majority of their prime time shows in some version of HD.

You only get improved resolution with a regular DVD on an HD set if something - either the set or the dvd player - is upconverting that signal. Otherwise, you're seeing a 480p picture.

HD-DVD and Blu ray are the two competing high definition dvd standards. Similar to VHS and Beta, the wars have begun. Most folks will be waiting to see which one 'wins'.

 

[RoboDad]

Can someone explain:

HD DVD (I thought all DVD was digital, but I guess you can have digital, but not high definition digital???)

Blu Ray (I remember Lucas talking about this tech when it was being developed. How does it fair next to HD? Is it more dense and more defined than HD?

With a HD TV, you get super clear DVD presentation. Do you get superer clear display with a HD DVD player?

Thx

It's really quite simple, especially if you use PC video card and monitor resolutions as an analogy.

Yes, all standard DVDs are 100% digital, but at nowhere near the resolution of HD. They have a fixed resolution of 720x480 pixels, which was a good match for even high-end analog television sets. Consider that the basic equivalent of an old VGA-equipped PC. Or, using a digital camera analogy, DVD would be the equivalent of a 0.35 megapixel camera.

HD, on the other hand, can have up to 1920x1080 pixels of resolution. By way of comparison with standard DVD, that would be the equivalent of today's state of the art video cards for the PC, or a 2 megapixel digital camera (six times the resolution of standard DVD).

Both HD DVD and Blu-ray are designed to store movies on DVD-sized discs at full 1920x1080 resolution (I won't go into the differences between 1080p, or progressive, versus 1080i, or interlaced, since that is a whole other discussion, and it doesn't have any real bearing to this topic). The key here, though, is that neither HD DVD nor Blu-ray have any advantage over each other in terms of resolution or overall picture quality. They are basically identical.

To be able to store that much data, both HD DVD and Blu-ray use more advanced technology to increase a disc's storage capacity. A standard single-sided, dual-layer DVD has a maximum capacity of just over 9 GB. For HD DVD, that capacity has been increased to 30 GB, and for Blu-ray, 50 GB. They can also use newer, more efficient compression technology to store their movies, making the effective capacity of each disc even greater.

Both HD DVD (I have one) and Blu-ray do look noticably sharper and more "film-like" than DVD, but I won't go so far as to say that it will be as striking a difference for most people than it was when we moved from VHS to DVD. That is something you'll have to judge for yourself. As far as I'm concerned, though, there is no comparison.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

It's really quite simple, especially if you use PC video card and monitor resolutions as an analogy.

Yes, all standard DVDs are 100% digital, but at nowhere near the resolution of HD. They have a fixed resolution of 720x480 pixels, which was a good match for even high-end analog television sets. Consider that the basic equivalent of an old VGA-equipped PC. Or, using a digital camera analogy, DVD would be the equivalent of a 0.35 megapixel camera.

HD, on the other hand, can have up to 1920x1080 pixels of resolution. By way of comparison with standard DVD, that would be the equivalent of today's state of the art video cards for the PC, or a 2 megapixel digital camera (six times the resolution of standard DVD).

Both HD DVD and Blu-ray are designed to store movies on DVD-sized discs at full 1920x1080 resolution (I won't go into the differences between 1080p, or progressive, versus 1080i, or interlaced, since that is a whole other discussion, and it doesn't have any real bearing to this topic). The key here, though, is that neither HD DVD nor Blu-ray have any advantage over each other in terms of resolution or overall picture quality. They are basically identical.

To be able to store that much data, both HD DVD and Blu-ray use more advanced technology to increase a disc's storage capacity. A standard single-sided, dual-layer DVD has a maximum capacity of just over 9 GB. For HD DVD, that capacity has been increased to 30 GB, and for Blu-ray, 50 GB. They can also use newer, more efficient compression technology to store their movies, making the effective capacity of each disc even greater.

Both HD DVD (I have one) and Blu-ray do look noticably sharper and more "film-like" than DVD, but I won't go so far as to say that it will be as striking a difference for most people than it was when we moved from VHS to DVD. That is something you'll have to judge for yourself. As far as I'm concerned, though, there is no comparison.

thanks for the explanation Robodad. i also heard that you pretty much need a HDTV to get the full benefits of the new players. which not everyone, including myself, has just yet. im probably gonna jump up the big screen after
1. they decide which HD format is the "ONE"
2. i get the car paid off (next year)
3. and three-- Star Wars and LOTR is announced for the HD player.

 

[Michael Crawford]

Well, if you had a HD set, you could have already watched all of Star Wars and LOTR in HD. And recorded it on a DVR in same said HD.

 

[Customikey]

I'm getting a PS3, so I suppose I'll end up getting the kind of DVDs it supports.

 

[carbo-fation]

I am definetely upgrading to Blu Ray because I am getting a PS3. By the way, great pic Melvin.

 

[Wor-Gar]

I have an MX-1 HD-V QuadPort 6.1 with high variance technology.

What -- you don't have this?

 

[Gruson]

I watched some of Ep3 in HD on my home theater earlier this week (119" screen, native 720p FP). Seeing it in HD really shows how poor a lot of the CGI work is. It really looks very cartoonish at times (backgrounds and CGI characters' movements especially)

Regardless, it looked very nice for a DirecTV presentation (which I use).

If you did not know, DirecTV compresses the HD signal. Most people call any HD material on DirecTV, HD Lite. Yes, it is aired in HD but it's so compressed that you're not seeing true HD.

What was really cool is that HBO actually aired something in it's OAR!!! They usually crop 2.35:1 movies.

With HD DVD players and Blu-Ray, you get true HD material that is not compressed and always in OAR. I have an HD DVD player and will also buy BD when it arrives. In the end, I don't care who wins. The more HD material, the better.

Anyone interested in audio/video should read www.avsforum.com

Great stuff there.

Anyway, back on topic, it did look very nice in terms of resolution. Much better than the DVD.

The LOTR trilogy looked AMAZING in HD as well. Simply breathtaking on a big screen.

 

[darthviper107]

Wait, is this released on HD Dvd or on a TV channel, I know it's on TV but I don't think you can just buy it yet.

 

[tomandshell]

I recently picked up an Xbox 360, so I guess that places me in the HD-DVD camp by default, since they are releasing an HD-DVD drive upgrade later this year. Which means, according to my luck, that Blu Ray will win the format war...

 

[Gruson]

Wait, is this released on HD Dvd or on a TV channel, I know it's on TV but I don't think you can just buy it yet.

Ep3 was just aired on HBO HD. It is *not* out on BD or HD DVD.

However, it is out on the Internet.

 

[gdb]

Anyone else have the opportunity to see ROTS projected digitally in a THEATER? Talk about an awesome experience!

I found it to be too, too dark for some reason. I saw it at two different digital theatres in the Chicago area and they were both too dark and the visual story-telling really suffered, I was very dissapointed. The film version prints I saw (and I saw it at 5 different theatres) were each actually much better than the digital.

It was a different story for AOTC which was so much brighter and cleaner than the film version -- which was grainy. I only saw TPM once digitally (Burbank amc) and that seemed an improvement as well.

 

[Khev]

I found it to be too, too dark for some reason. I saw it at two different digital theatres in the Chicago area and they were both too dark and the visual story-telling really suffered, I was very dissapointed. The film version prints I saw (and I saw it at 5 different theatres) were each actually much better than the digital.

It was a different story for AOTC which was so much brighter and cleaner than the film version -- which was grainy. I only saw TPM once digitally (Burbank amc) and that seemed an improvement as well.

Interesting. I saw it projected digitally at Cinetopia in Vancouver, WA. Amazingly awesome. The film version of ROTS was surprisingly good in and of itself but the only flaw I saw in the digital release was some minor pixelization during a couple establishing shots on Mustafar.

The CGI looked particularly fantastic (as did the CGI when I saw AOTC projected digitally at Mann's Chinese Theater in L.A.) so any "cartoonization" on TV is a fault of the broadcasting signal, not the movie (unless you're talking about the clones on Kashyyyk, which look cartoony no matter what format you're watching it on. Pity they didn't go with real actors in suits.)

 

[pixletwin]

Pity they didn't go with real actors in suits.)

Amen to that.