Interesting image quality comparison - 700mb XVid, DVD, 720p & 1080p

[Neil]

The following image gives four image comparisons, showing a 700mb XVid vs DVD (576p) vs 720p vs 1080p - http://plastik.hu/media/irobot-4fele.jpg Interesting how:- - The Xvid isn't much worse than the DVD. - There is little difference between 720p and 1080p.

[MinionZombie]

Interesting. Although I've never watched a DVD that looks that shitty, nor an Xvid that looks that shitty - both look better when I watch them, especially DVD which is far better than that by a long shot. Xvid's used for DVD rips mostly though, so it makes sense that they're pretty similar.

[Neil]

Interesting. Although I've never watched a DVD that looks that shitty, nor an Xvid that looks that shitty - both look better when I watch them, especially DVD which is far better than that by a long shot. - Don't forget all those images are magnified up to 1920x1080, so issues on the poorer quality images are more obvious. - Static images always seem to look worse than moving ones. Xvid's used for DVD rips mostly though, so it makes sense that they're pretty similar. Yes, but the Xvid is only 20% of the size. That's quite impressive compression!

[MinionZombie]

Aye, fair play on both counts - I figured the image was blown up, but couldn't be arsed to mention it. And aye, good point about Xvid too. Spiffing compression.

[axlish]

The following image gives four image comparisons, showing a 700mb XVid vs DVD (576p) vs 720p vs 1080p - http://plastik.hu/media/irobot-4fele.jpg Interesting how:- - The Xvid isn't much worse than the DVD. - There is little difference between 720p and 1080p. The images need to be in motion to see the real difference. It'd be like looking at a soundwave graph and being amazed at the similarities between 64kbps audio and WAV audio.

[kidgloves]

There's a massive difference between 720p & 1080p or even 1080i. You only notice it when viewing it on bigger screen. It also depends on how close you're sat near the screen. It's not something you can judge on a monitor/tv

[Neil]

There's a massive difference between 720p & 1080p or even 1080i. You only notice it when viewing it on bigger screen. It also depends on how close you're sat near the screen. It's not something you can judge on a monitor/tv I can fully understand that. But in my case I have a 37" TV and sit 6ft away, so I doubt very much if I could notice the difference between 720 & 1080p... But I'm sure I would notice the difference between DVD and 720p...

[DjfunkmasterG]

When you get above 50" there is a noticable difference between 720P and 1080P, but anything under that is hard to really see a difference.

[Neil]

When you get above 50" there is a noticable difference between 720P and 1080P, but anything under that is hard to really see a difference. I suspect on smaller TVs, if you're close you might, but as you say I bet it's subtle...

[PJoseph]

What's really crazy about this is that I Robot still looks like crap in all resolutions. pJ

[DjfunkmasterG]

Gotta agree, I,ROBOT is one of the worst HD transfers out there, however The Perfect Storm takes the cake. Most people usually grab from Transformers, King Kong or.. Shooter to show off great HD work.

[axlish]

The best HD demo disc I have bought so far is Hellboy 2. I wasn't wild about the flick, but the a/v kept me entertained.

[CoinReturn]

Romero's Dawn of the Dead looks phenomenal on BluRay. Day of the Dead...not so much

[SymphonicX]

Guys I think you may be missing a trick here. (not talking about Xvid here really) The images are all the same aspect ratio and size (H and W), on that webpage. Meaning that there is no possible way that the first image and the last image would come out the same on your screen, the 1080p image should be traversing off your internet explorer window and need to be scrolled to view it, if it was a 1080 image, whilst the 576 image would be sizably smaller. As it stands one of the ratios of the jpeg equals 1920 - meaning that the HD image is probably true assuming that the 1080 lines are still in tact - which means that the SD image has been stretched out to match the HD one, invalidating the comparison. HD isn't about "better quality" per se, it's about a higher resolution which leads to better image quality because there are more pixels in the picture (ie: a BIGGER picture)- the images you've got there are simply all of the same pixel ratio therefore not an indication of what you'd experience whilst actually watching these things in their native formats. The only way to do a true SD HD comparison is to have an SD TV and a HD TV synchronised and playing the same thing. Even in Tescos the Sky HD and SD comparison is actually far better in terms of SD image quality than you'd get in a normal domestic environment because all the footage was ingested as up-res'd SD and laid off to tape as up-res'd SD and true HD. (I know, because I helped make them) Did that make sense? I guess in a nutshell I'm saying - the only way you're going to see a true comparison is in a room with those machines playing them natively - as soon as you put it into a computer environment ie: the internet, it loses the point entirely - think of it as though someone is photographing their brand new HD TV to prove to a web forum how great the picture quality is...lol

[Neil]

Guys I think you may be missing a trick here. (not talking about Xvid here really) The images are all the same aspect ratio and size (H and W), on that webpage. Meaning that there is no possible way that the first image and the last image would come out the same on your screen, the 1080p image should be traversing off your internet explorer window and need to be scrolled to view it, if it was a 1080 image, whilst the 576 image would be sizably smaller. As it stands one of the ratios of the jpeg equals 1920 - meaning that the HD image is probably true assuming that the 1080 lines are still in tact - which means that the SD image has been stretched out to match the HD one, invalidating the comparison. HD isn't about "better quality" per se, it's about a higher resolution which leads to better image quality because there are more pixels in the picture (ie: a BIGGER picture)- the images you've got there are simply all of the same pixel ratio therefore not an indication of what you'd experience whilst actually watching these things in their native formats. The only way to do a true SD HD comparison is to have an SD TV and a HD TV synchronised and playing the same thing. Even in Tescos the Sky HD and SD comparison is actually far better in terms of SD image quality than you'd get in a normal domestic environment because all the footage was ingested as up-res'd SD and laid off to tape as up-res'd SD and true HD. (I know, because I helped make them) Did that make sense? I guess in a nutshell I'm saying - the only way you're going to see a true comparison is in a room with those machines playing them natively - as soon as you put it into a computer environment ie: the internet, it loses the point entirely - think of it as though someone is photographing their brand new HD TV to prove to a web forum how great the picture quality is...lol No, what the image it trying to convey is the different image quality in the four different formats. The image is trying to show if you showed all four formats on a 1080p TV roughly what you'd get. The DVD for example would pushed into the TV (most likely) at 576p, and the TV would magnify it up to 1080p. Now of course the TV may do some trickery (anti-aliasing?) to make the lower resolution image looked better/smoother on the high resolution that just a dumb magnification, but the basic effect is that those four images give a relatively good indication of the quality of the source being supplied by those four sources...