lordzeppelin

I think the difference really boils down to the quality of the discs...I was happy with the SD version of, say, Brotherhood of the Wolf. But the HD Disc is just such an improvement, it's hard not to notice the difference. Things that have a very high quality transfer in SD will look great upconverted, not quite up to par with the HD disc (if there is one). I noticed an immediate difference on some films, thus far, and not so much on others. I saw Cars on Blu-Ray in BB the other day, and it looks phenomenal. However, the SD disc was pretty damn nice looking too, and it's closer than I thought it would be, upconverted.

RichC2 said earlier in the thread that current HDTVs are much better looking than something bought, say, 4 years ago. I dont' totally agree, even though it's true to an extent. I think that it's not that much of a difference. I didn't notice much of a shift in 1080i to p, but definitely from, say, 720p to 1080i. Now, my 5 year old sony RPTV needs calibrated (and possibly a new convergence board, as I'm having the 'red array' problem), but the 1080i pic is still damn nice, and rivals that of what I see in the stores. Sure, the new 120hz LCDs with Tru-black and 1080p are great, but old reliable here is still kicking strong, you know?

Michael Corvin

Really? I was blown away. I watched it last week and it was phenomenal. I'm on a 4+ year old, 1080i over component HD set and I noticed the difference immediately.

bahgee

Owning both the SD and Blu-ray CARS, I though the SD version looked good upconverted on the PS3, but definately not as good as the HD version.

LivingINClip

Just a food for thought part.

I own a 4 year old 1080i set thru DVI. My wife can't notice the difference in the HD DVD or Blu Ray films over the standard DVDs.

I can on the other hand.

So, either one of the two things are happening.

1: Noticing HD content is almost totally subjetive to the person.

2: I am looking for the difference and that is the only reason I can notice it.

hermes10

I think it's both. Do you suggest to your wife that she is stupid or blind because she can't tell much difference --like a lot of the posters here suggest about those of us who don't toe the HD is "night and day" line? I suspect not. There is no "night and day" difference on my equipment. The difference is there, but you have to look for it.

I'm not seeing HD on the displays of those claiming the difference is "night and day"; and while I suspect these claims are hyperbole, I also accept the possibility that it may be true on their particular equipment --though I also suspect the meaning of "night and day" is vastly different for them than it is for me. I saw Star Wars playing on a wide screen TV the other day and it looked far inferior to the 10 foot wide image on my projector. I also check out the wide screen TV's when I walk through someplace like Best Buy, and I'm generally unimpressed with their images, SD or HD, in comparison to the much larger image I'm used to seeing from my projector --so maybe the difference is more apparent on a television set.

RockyMtnBri

I have to agree with Hermes.

I asked my wife if there have been any high def DVDs (both Blu-ray and HD DVD) that have seemed so superior to regular DVDs and she said no. I honestly do LOOK for the difference and I can name a few discs that do look better than their DVD counterparts (Road Warrior BD is a major one - never saw green grass in that movie before).

Then there's the whole debate on whether hi-def sources are a significant jump over each other (1080i vs 720p vs 1080p). I have a 1080i 34 inch CRT and a 720p 52 inch rear projector. The high def pictures on those are phenomenal compared to standard def (using DirecTV HD as an example), but is one significantly better than the other? I am getting a 1080p projector in March and the size of the display will zoom up to 92 inches diagonally. Once that happens, we should see that HD really makes a difference.

Eye acuity also comes into this. I wear glasses for nearsightedness and am 42 years old. If my father, who's 72 years old and does not wear glasses, can see the difference between standard and high def, then we have a jump. I doubt if he would see the difference between 1080i and 1080p - again just going by eye acuity. I'm not even sure I will, but again I will be looking for it. Can I see more stubble on a chin? Do grains of sand pop out? Is there less or no color banding?

hermes10

Well, it is sort of insulting, for someone to tell you how their vision of the world is superior to yours, and how they feel sorry for you and all. I shake my head when I read posts like that.

Here's a possibility you might consider: that the difference you see between SD and HD on your display isn't on the same order as the difference between this material on some other displays.

The general wisdom here seems to be the larger the display the more difference you will see, and while that is probably true within certain limits and under certain conditions, my experience suggests it may not be always be true. I don't have a way of making an objective comparison, but where I have been able to see SD versus HD on a widescreen television, it seems that the difference is greater than what I observe on my projector.

On the other hand, I have been unimpressed with the image quality of widescreen TVs when compared to the much larger images I view with my projector. In fact, I had a widescreen TV and assumed that the image quality would be degraded by enlargement and projection, until I saw a huge DLP projected image at my son's dorm.

Some of this is perhaps explained by the differences in viewing distances between observers. My projected image does not become clearer and more detailed as I get closer to it, like the image on your television does: it becomes pixelated and impressionistic. However, at my normal viewing distance of about 15' the image is quite detailed, even spectacular in some cases; and I have many SD movies that look spectacular.

I'd like to have some better physical or objective explanation of these differences between observers, but I don't. However, it seems possible that the differences you see on your particular display are different than what some others, with different kinds of displays are seeing, and that perhaps, those who have different impressions than you are not just blind or stupid.

lewisb73

That was my OLD tv... my advice is to get a NEW tv... you WILL notice a difference

LivingINClip

Another thing, just throwing this out. For a living, I print magazines and match the color and image to what the customer sends (magazines such as The New Yorker, Vanity Fair and what not) and the one thing you'll come across is the fact that no one see's the exact same thing. What I think looks great, may look a tad off to someone else. This carries over into the HD realm, when what you may say is a DRASTIC difference, I may not find to be a difference. It is further complicated with variables such as equipment, ISF calibration, viewing distance and other things. This is the reason I think HD discs may remain a niche' market for quite sometime. Until every single person can see a drastic difference, there just isn't enough motivation for people to adopt the technology.

You may come over to my house, look at my TV and it's current settings and think that my color is off or contrast. However, to me, it looks exactly like I want it to. -shrugs-

It all comes down to what you, the viewer see's and that is completely subjective.

Vipper II

"South to drop off, moron!"

dharding

You completely and utterly missed the point of my entire post, inferred insult where absolutely none was intended, and put words in my mouth.

Congratulations.

ThriceDamned

I'm one of those for whom the difference is "night and day". I'm projecting a 1080p picture (Mitsubishi HC5000) on about 100¨diagonal in a dedicated theater, and there is never any doubt that a DVD could ever come close to what I'm seeing (and switching between the HD source and the SD source as I enjoy doing compounds that clearly). In the vast majority of cases I feel like I'm seeing the movie for the first time when I see it in 1080p.

I've said this in many forums and places and almost always am accused to being either a shill or totally hyperbolic. I'm neither. That's really what I'm seeing, the difference between night and day. Your mileage may wary of course.

hermes10

I also work with photographs and printing and I agree completely.

hermes10

I can only read your words --I'm not seeing your face or hearing your tone of voice-- so they are all I have to judge your intentions. Your words were:

In reply to my previous post --"I shake my head when I read posts like this." Sounds insulting to me. It reads as a smug assertion of superiority.

You also said: "If you have the right display, the right connections, and the right calibration, the difference *IS* night and day. As stark as one could ever imagine." A little less insulting and snarky, but the suggestion here is that anyone who doesn't see a difference that is "night and day" --as "stark" as it is even possible to "imagine"-- is either too ignorant to properly set up his equipment, or too dumb to know his display is insufficient to show a difference.

Finally, you say: "... but rather I feel sorry for those that, for whatever reason, can't see the difference..." Yeah, you preface this remark with "I say this not to be critical or insulting," but that is sort of like saying to someone, you're an idiot, but I mean no disrespect. The fact that you preface such a remark with a claim that you don't intend to be insulting does not transform the smug and condescending reality of its language.

In essence, your closing remark amounts to you feeling sorry for those pathetic creatures who must miss out on those worldly pleasures that are accessible to you because of your superior discernment. Yeah, nothing insulting about condescension like that.

Finally, the "blind or stupid" remark of mine that you boldfaced begins with an attribution to "some others." I clearly addressed your snarky comment about shaking your head in my first sentence and then moved on to speak of other posters, and only in generalities, so your assertion that I put words into YOUR mouth is simply untrue.

You're right about one thing though, if the point of your post was something other than to express your superior discernment and intelligence, then I missed it.

hermes10

This is the first such comment I recall seeing by someone projecting an image under similar conditions to my own --but at 1080p. Another poster in this thread has a 720p projector like me, and didn't see much difference, again, like me. Perhaps when I upgrade from a 720p to a 1080p projector the difference will be more apparent. Have you an assessment of the difference between SD and HD at 720p?

exm

Let me throw in my $0.02: I just bought a Epson 1080UB 1080p as an upgrade to my Panasonic AE900 720p. Although I expect to see a difference in quality between 720p and 1080p/24, the main difference will be the improved quality of the projector itself. So it is not a question if this projector is better, but how much better. Does 1080p have anything to do with it? Probably; but I don't expect it to be a MAJOR factor.

mugwump

I just got a PS3 yesterday and since it came with Spider-Man 3 Blu-Ray I compared it to the DVD version upconverted using my Oppo. I can certainly see the difference (finer detail like individual bricks on buildings, no jaggies, far better black levels, etc.) especially when the disc is paused but I wouldn't say it's a night and day improvement. Standard def broadcast TV vs. HDTV is certainly night and day but a recent DVD done properly is still very good looking on an HD set. From now on I'll rent and buy Blu-Ray discs but I'm not going to run out and declare that all of my DVDs are suddenly obsolete.

12cm

Wow, I feel really lucky that I went from a 20-year-old 19" analog TV with color problems to a 26" 720p LCD so I could really see a difference, else be called a blind idiot. For my part, I do see an ever-so-slight difference between well-encoded SD DVDs (upconverted) and Blu-ray. Having 500 regular DVDs and a "wish list" of only about 25 Blu-ray titles (including the 5 I currently own), the most important thing for me is how fantastic my DVDs look on this new setup. It's still nice to know I have 1080p on a disc just waiting to be discovered if I can ever afford a 50" 1080p display.