RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,371
Posts: 5,504,103
Members: 25,124
Currently online: 495
Newest member: traedoril

TrekToday headlines

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

Rumor Mill: Saldana Gives Birth
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

New Line of Anovos Enterprise Uniforms
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 25 2013, 12:42 AM   #76
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Blu-Ray vs DVD

Talos wrote: View Post
I don't think he means any intrinsic incompatibility between 4/8K and smaller TVs, just that they are small enough that people won't notice much difference.
The fact that they don't have enough pixels for Ultra HD makes them incompatible with it. Watch an HD movie from a BluRay player on an old projection TV for comparison.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25 2013, 04:49 AM   #77
SpHeRe31459
Captain
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Blu-Ray vs DVD

Belz... wrote: View Post
Talos wrote: View Post
I don't think he means any intrinsic incompatibility between 4/8K and smaller TVs, just that they are small enough that people won't notice much difference.
The fact that they don't have enough pixels for Ultra HD makes them incompatible with it. Watch an HD movie from a BluRay player on an old projection TV for comparison.
Uh, sorry, no. You can watch a Blu-ray disc on a standard definition TV right now. No problem. Blu-ray players have a legacy standard definition output on them for backwards compatibility sake, it will downscale the 1080p to 480i no problem, scaling from a higher quality source down is a trivial matter. Sure you won't get much picture quality benefit from it, but it works fine.
SpHeRe31459 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25 2013, 06:00 AM   #78
Oso Blanco
Commodore
 
Oso Blanco's Avatar
 
Location: Berlin, Germany
Re: Blu-Ray vs DVD

BillJ wrote: View Post
Just depends how expensive the larger screens will cost. A couple decades ago very few people had TV's larger than 25", now I don't think I know anyone with a main set smaller than 37".
It's not just a matter of price, it's also a matter of space. I simply don't have the space for anything larger than a 37" screen. I wouldn't even want a 60" screen when I'm only sitting three metres away from it.

Belz... wrote: View Post
Oh, so you mean that people who _don't_ already have a big screen will stick to the lower resolution ? But people WITH big tvs would have to change anyway, because those are not compatible with the 4K or 8K stuff. I still don't follow.
Well, I don't know about the US ... but here in Germany only a handful of people have those huge screens. For practical and space saving reasons, most people stop at the 37" mark. The question I am raising is: Are there enough customers for the 4K/8K market? Not everyone is crazy enough to put a theatre sized screen into their living room, you know ...
__________________
Time is the fire in which we burn
Oso Blanco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25 2013, 10:37 AM   #79
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Blu-Ray vs DVD

SpHeRe31459 wrote: View Post
Uh, sorry, no. You can watch a Blu-ray disc on a standard definition TV right now. No problem. Blu-ray players have a legacy standard definition output on them for backwards compatibility sake, it will downscale the 1080p to 480i no problem, scaling from a higher quality source down is a trivial matter. Sure you won't get much picture quality benefit from it, but it works fine.
I didn't say you couldn't. I said you won't get the extra definition from it, and you'll probably even get a worse definition than what you'd get from DVD, in the case of BluRay.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25 2013, 07:24 PM   #80
Talos
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Blu-Ray vs DVD

Belz... wrote: View Post
SpHeRe31459 wrote: View Post
Uh, sorry, no. You can watch a Blu-ray disc on a standard definition TV right now. No problem. Blu-ray players have a legacy standard definition output on them for backwards compatibility sake, it will downscale the 1080p to 480i no problem, scaling from a higher quality source down is a trivial matter. Sure you won't get much picture quality benefit from it, but it works fine.
I didn't say you couldn't. I said you won't get the extra definition from it, and you'll probably even get a worse definition than what you'd get from DVD, in the case of BluRay.
It won't be any worse, it will just play at the TV's definition. My parents have a bluray player connected to an almost twenty year-old CRT (4:3 too) and they play just fine. If anything the bluray still tends to look better. Using TNG as an example, you have the much (MUCH) improved colors still, and the higher-quality compositing. That all still shows up in SD.
Talos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25 2013, 08:26 PM   #81
SpHeRe31459
Captain
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Blu-Ray vs DVD

Belz... wrote: View Post
SpHeRe31459 wrote: View Post
Uh, sorry, no. You can watch a Blu-ray disc on a standard definition TV right now. No problem. Blu-ray players have a legacy standard definition output on them for backwards compatibility sake, it will downscale the 1080p to 480i no problem, scaling from a higher quality source down is a trivial matter. Sure you won't get much picture quality benefit from it, but it works fine.
I didn't say you couldn't. I said you won't get the extra definition from it, and you'll probably even get a worse definition than what you'd get from DVD, in the case of BluRay.

No what you said is that because it's higher resolution it would somehow intrinsically be incompatible other TVs, which makes no sense. That or you are using the word incompatible incorrectly. The players of any such content would absolutely be backwards compatible.

See below:

Belz... wrote: View Post
The fact that they don't have enough pixels for Ultra HD makes them incompatible with it. Watch an HD movie from a BluRay player on an old projection TV for comparison.
SpHeRe31459 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25 2013, 08:31 PM   #82
SpHeRe31459
Captain
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Blu-Ray vs DVD

Talos wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
SpHeRe31459 wrote: View Post
Uh, sorry, no. You can watch a Blu-ray disc on a standard definition TV right now. No problem. Blu-ray players have a legacy standard definition output on them for backwards compatibility sake, it will downscale the 1080p to 480i no problem, scaling from a higher quality source down is a trivial matter. Sure you won't get much picture quality benefit from it, but it works fine.
I didn't say you couldn't. I said you won't get the extra definition from it, and you'll probably even get a worse definition than what you'd get from DVD, in the case of BluRay.
It won't be any worse, it will just play at the TV's definition. My parents have a bluray player connected to an almost twenty year-old CRT (4:3 too) and they play just fine. If anything the bluray still tends to look better. Using TNG as an example, you have the much (MUCH) improved colors still, and the higher-quality compositing. That all still shows up in SD.
Yep. Starting with a higher quality source is always a good thing.

For example: one of the easiest forms of anti-aliasing for 3D gaming is to render at a higher resolution in an off screen buffer and then output the results at the targeted lower resolution, it creates more data points to then be downsampled into a nicer looking output than compared to the same information rendered natively at that lower resolution. This is a basic rule of digital image data, still or moving images.
SpHeRe31459 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2013, 02:57 AM   #83
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Blu-Ray vs DVD

Talos wrote: View Post
It won't be any worse, it will just play at the TV's definition.
Yeah it will, but since the signal isn't designed for it, certain lines may be a bit off (the TV is trying to fit, say 1080 lines into 480), whereas on the right definition you don't have that problem. It might not be noticeable often, however.

SpHeRe31459 wrote: View Post
No what you said is that because it's higher resolution it would somehow intrinsically be incompatible other TVs, which makes no sense. That or you are using the word incompatible incorrectly. The players of any such content would absolutely be backwards compatible.
You are correct, of course. I have misused the term "incompatible". Not sure what other term I could've used, however.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2013, 03:16 AM   #84
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Blu-Ray vs DVD

The Blu-ray's are going to look a ton better than the DVD's, even at 480i. The DVD's are some of the worst transfers of a TV series I've ever seen. They were transferred straight from video-tape and it shows.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2013, 03:18 AM   #85
Lance
Commodore
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Blu-Ray vs DVD

SpHeRe31459 wrote: View Post
Talos wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
I didn't say you couldn't. I said you won't get the extra definition from it, and you'll probably even get a worse definition than what you'd get from DVD, in the case of BluRay.
It won't be any worse, it will just play at the TV's definition. My parents have a bluray player connected to an almost twenty year-old CRT (4:3 too) and they play just fine. If anything the bluray still tends to look better. Using TNG as an example, you have the much (MUCH) improved colors still, and the higher-quality compositing. That all still shows up in SD.
Yep. Starting with a higher quality source is always a good thing.

For example: one of the easiest forms of anti-aliasing for 3D gaming is to render at a higher resolution in an off screen buffer and then output the results at the targeted lower resolution, it creates more data points to then be downsampled into a nicer looking output than compared to the same information rendered natively at that lower resolution. This is a basic rule of digital image data, still or moving images.
I too am using my Blu-Ray on a standard def TV. The visual quality improvements over the DVDs in the case of TNG are still very evident even though obviously I'm not getting an output in full HD splendor. I'm probably gonna get an HD TV at some point, but I don't need it at the moment until my current one blows itself to bits.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2013, 04:35 AM   #86
SpHeRe31459
Captain
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Blu-Ray vs DVD

Belz... wrote: View Post
Talos wrote: View Post
It won't be any worse, it will just play at the TV's definition.
Yeah it will, but since the signal isn't designed for it, certain lines may be a bit off (the TV is trying to fit, say 1080 lines into 480), whereas on the right definition you don't have that problem. It might not be noticeable often, however.
You clearly have no idea how a video transmission system works. If it were as haphazard as you seem to think it is there would be no standards for displaying video, but there are. There are resolution, signal frequency and timing characteristics defined for both HDTV systems and analog TV systems like NTSC (the analog TV system used in North America).

In digital video there is no such thing as "a line being off", etc.

The image stored on a Blu-ray disc a digital presentation. There are no lines, only pixels.

From the way you are using the term "lines" it seems to refer to an analog display system which has nothing to do with digital source material such as DVDs, Blu-ray discs, Netflix streaming, etc.

In the scenario of displaying a Blu-ray on an old standard definition TV. The standard def TV is NOT trying to fit 1080 into 480, it has no idea how to display anything other than 480i (NTSC). The standard definition TV isn't doing anything but displaying a video signal it's getting from the player.

Inside the Blu-ray player is an advanced decoding and video scaling chip. It knows perfectly well how to handle different content resolutions and frame rates and how to display it. It is very easy to downscale 1080 to 480. Scaling down is a trivial matter compared to scaling up.
All of this is done in the player, it is then output in a standard NTSC 480i signal, that the old standard definition TV can accept.

As an aside, HDTVs also have scalers. The HDTV is made to handle a variety of input video signals ranging from 480i (SD TV channels, unprocessed DVDs), 720p or 1080i (HDTV channels) and 1080p sources like Blu-ray discs or high quality streaming videos from companies like VUDU. Inside an HDTV is a video processor. It will take the incoming digital video and scale it up or down appropriately to the native resolution of the TV's panel.

Last edited by SpHeRe31459; June 26 2013 at 05:50 AM.
SpHeRe31459 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26 2013, 10:50 AM   #87
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Blu-Ray vs DVD

BillJ wrote: View Post
The Blu-ray's are going to look a ton better than the DVD's, even at 480i. The DVD's are some of the worst transfers of a TV series I've ever seen. They were transferred straight from video-tape and it shows.
Yes, I hadn't considered that.

SpHeRe31459 wrote: View Post
You clearly have no idea how a video transmission system works.
Why, thank you.

In digital video there is no such thing as "a line being off", etc.
I might be wrong because projection TVs work differently than LCD ones. But have you ever used the latter at a resolution lower than its native one, say on a computer ? Horrible, horrible graphics. Without upscale, my SD tv signal looks awful on my HDTV.

But you're right. I might be talking out of my ass about higher resolutions.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29 2013, 04:41 PM   #88
ATimson
Rear Admiral
 
ATimson's Avatar
 
Location: Andrew Timson
Re: Blu-Ray vs DVD

Belz... wrote: View Post
I might be wrong because projection TVs work differently than LCD ones. But have you ever used the latter at a resolution lower than its native one, say on a computer ? Horrible, horrible graphics. Without upscale, my SD tv signal looks awful on my HDTV.
No matter what, an SD signal is going to be upscaled for display on your HDTV. It's just a question of whether it's the TV or the player that's doing it.

Belz... wrote: View Post
But you're right. I might be talking out of my ass about higher resolutions.
Downscaling is generally easier than upscaling. After all, it's always been easier to destroy than to create.
__________________
Andrew Timson
===============
"Niceness is the greatest human flaw, except for all the others." - Brendan Moody

"...don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido
ATimson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29 2013, 09:41 PM   #89
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Blu-Ray vs DVD

ATimson wrote: View Post
No matter what, an SD signal is going to be upscaled for display on your HDTV. It's just a question of whether it's the TV or the player that's doing it.
Yes, but not necessarily with good results.

Belz... wrote: View Post
Downscaling is generally easier than upscaling. After all, it's always been easier to destroy than to create.
In six minutes !
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 10:00 PM   #90
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Blu-Ray vs DVD

LOKAI of CHERON wrote: View Post
Lance wrote: View Post
I'm such an old codger though, I like owning something I can sit on a shelf and admire. Digital downloads are more convenient, but they aren't nearly as satisfying.
+1!

I'll always prefer the physical media - even though I take uncompressed rips for viewing on media players with TV box sets. I'd be OK with downloads/streaming if the quality was up to par with Blu-ray - which it most certainly isn't at this point.
^THIS.
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.