Very cool. I think that the best things to look at to really see the differences are teh parts taht are washed out in the DVD samples. For example, the lanterns on the right side of Shot 3, the lighter colored tree at the bottom toward the left of Shot 5, the largest building in the canyon in Shot 6 and the white tree in the background of Shot 9.
These shots really remind me of the differences that I used to show people between VHS and Laserdisc 15 years ago. The biggest difference is that back then I was showing a comparison betweeen bad & good. Now it's a comparison between good and excellent. I can't wait for 1080p to become the norm. At that point, the comparison will reach "incredible".
Well I thought it was interesting , so that must just make the two of us Bill ! I've been on the look out for something like this for a while so it was a surprise when it finally showed up .
Not sure if you worked it out (it took me a second time to figure) but if you click on the images you get a larger full page spread . Click once more any you get the HD version full page sized . Then the browser arrows come in handy for zipping back and forth . That's how I get my kicks , anyway !
I think the DVD images were f'd up a bit though, they shouldn't have been that fuzzy.
I can't wait for 1080p displays to become available, the HD DVD standard to be finalized and players and media become available and affordable. 5 years at least?
Many areas can receive HD TV content right now. I think all of my local TV stations broadcast HD, although the cable TV is not carrying digital signals as-is.
It may be a long time before true HDTV 1080i (108 hex 1920) displays become available in sizes suitable for the living room. I'm told it's just a very hard problem to get that kind of resolution. Almost all HD TVs sold today can't do it: they can decode it and project it, but the phosphor can't resolve it (much the way that few 160 hex 1200 CRTs can actually resolve that when you look at the dot-pitch specs and such – the 160 hex 1200 mostly refers to what the electronics can handle). Other display technologies may have a few full-resolution examples, but with the trade-offs those other technologies have.
HD 1080i camcorders are available at “consumer” price-points now, but note that HDCAM's 1080i is not the same as an HD TV's 1080i: HDCAM is only 108 hex 1440. Still more than most HDTV's can actually display, but HDCAM is different and inferior (and has other drawbacks too).
As an aside I saw a post by Van Styles on a videocam geek board that he bought a Sony HDR-FX1 HDCAM. He may not know yet how or when his footage will be released, but at least he'll have HD material when the time arrives. And in the meantime he can do some cool slow-motion effects by converting HD fields to half-HD frames if his budget ever allows...
PS. From memory I think 1080p goes no higher than 30 frames-per-second so 1080i is likely to look better in all cases. 720p does go to 60 frames-per-second and may look better than 1080i in some cases.
Nope , 1080p looks better than 1080i with equivalent source material . Incidentally have you seen the post on AVS that Sony are upgrading their Qualia projector to 1080p60 (for $3000 mind you!) . Not sure if the 60 refers to frames per second or fields .
I can't remember where I read it , otherwise I'd post a link , but a firm (possibly LG) is set to release 1080 plasmas 3rd quarter this year in the US , and for a very competitive price . Around $3500 for 42 inch if I remember right .
It is nice to see HD resolutions finally becoming common. However, there are a few problems though, despite the promising development. Problems in the sense that some "bad" things still stick to this new standard, which could easily have been avoided.
1) Interlacing. The big studios are fighting 1080p because it would be "too good" of a source for piracy to release to the public. So HD-DVDs will likely be 1080i or 720p, which is still way better than DVD, but unfortunate for us buyers. Interlacing is not useful anymore, it was invented to save bandwidth 50 years ago, but now it is only a drawback for quality.
2) FPS. NTSC has been stuck at 30 (or 60 fields interlaced) for 50 years. Film is 24fps. With new technology it is time to move on higher fps which will give smoother movements and a vastly higher sense of realism. There was a webpage with 30p and 60p samples a while back, but unfortunately I dont have the url. Some people like the 24fps which gives a certain "film feeling", but the thing I'm protesting is the lack of an option in anything except today's 720p broadcast standard. There is no indication that movies or HD-DVD is pushing this.
Of course, both higher resolution, and better fps would add greatly to the realism in porn. Imagine cumshots in high resolution and 60fps :D