----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Interesting article...would love to hear some comments.
http://videosystems.com/e-newsletters/H ... DVD102605/
High Definition DVD: Who Needs It?
Barry Braverman
Oct 26, 2005 3:45 PM
We've all heard it a hundred times: I just bought a new super-size
LCD-DLP-plasma -LCoS flat screen and it's just fantastic being finally able
to see my DVDs in HD. Huh? What's this? Absurd, you say? Never mind the
currently raging high-definition format war, the fact is there are a great
many folks out there who think DVD is already a high-definition format.
After all, if it looks like HD and sounds like HD, it must be HD, right?
For some reason, this point tends to be overlooked in the current HD-DVD
versus Blu-ray discussion. Truth is, most viewers at a normal viewing
distance from their TV can't distinguish between HD and SD resolution
images. Even at a relatively huge 62-inches, today's displays are invariably
too small for most Americans to see any difference, sitting on average about
9-10 feet from their screens. It is a different story in Japan of course
where living rooms and family rooms are substantially smaller.
Ditto for the viewing distance in your local mega electronics store where
gawking customers in the aisles routinely pass within inches of the mammoth
TVs. You'd have to be blind to miss HD's superior resolution under these
conditions. All of which supports my point: under typical television viewing
conditions especially in the U.S., the actual resolution of DVD images above
a certain point is moot. From every indication, standard definition in the
home environment is good enough if viewers can't tell what is HD resolution
and what (like DVD) is not.
There are other factors as well that may contribute to viewers'
misperception of standard definition DVD. The brighter plasma and flat panel
displays are certainly a major factor with measured contrast ratios in some
sets up to 3000:1. The heightened brightness along with the improved
contrast helps explain the public's erroneous perception of standard DVD as
an HD resolution medium.
HD cameras fitted with 1440 x 1080 imagers make a related point as contrast
falls off sharply approaching the 1440 horizontal pixel resolution. Destined
for ultimate 1920 X 1080 display, the diminished contrast at the 1440
cut-off obviates the need to capture additional detail up to 1920 because
viewers are unlikely to perceive any additional detail beyond 1440
horizontal resolution anyway.
If the industry can accept limits on viewer's perception of resolution in HD
cameras, why can't it accept comparable viewer limits in perception of
resolution in the DVD context? Aren't viewer's perceptions or misperceptions
regarding "high definition" DVD just as valid?
The public's apparent confusion over DVD's presumed resolution can be
attributed also to the consumer format's 16 x 9 aspect ratio, which many
viewers associate automatically with high definition. This is made a bit
more understandable if one looks at the history of 16 x 9. Raphael's School
of Athens in the 16th century recognized the seductive power of the "Golden
Rectangle".
Centuries later in 1958, American Express arrived at the same realization,
adopting the "widescreen" format for its newly introduced credit card.
Widescreen 16 x 9 in whatever context, be it in the arts, personal finance
or television, has always been a hot seller, its appeal synonymous with the
cutting edge and most recently at least, in the public's perception, with
high definition.
And then there is the sound issue. In the last few years, DVD viewers in
increasing numbers have abandoned the tiny single speaker in the TV cabinet
that used to be good enough. Today, with the proliferation of elaborate home
theatres, audio reproduction has achieved astounding fidelity and clarity,
with potent 5.1 playback systems linked to larger and more competent speaker
arrays approaching in many ways the auditory experience of commercial
cinemas.
It's no secret that improved audio can elevate the perceived quality and
resolution of the associated images. Perhaps this is what is happening here
to some degree as audiences feeling more immersed in the audio experience,
extend that intensity to DVD's visual experience as well.
The bottom line is, for a variety of reasons, much of the public believes
they are already watching high-definition DVDs. The industry can try to
convince them otherwise, but it's going to take some doing and massive
marketing.
Powerful interests on both sides of the HD-DVD/Blu-ray divide are currently
engaged in a rough-and-tough epic struggle. But if consumers can't perceive
any difference or advantage in a true HD-resolution DVD, will they actually
spring for the new players and discs of whatever format prevails and
ultimately becomes available?
Jason
To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]
Interesting article...would love to hear some comments.
http://videosystems.com/e-newsletters/H ... DVD102605/
High Definition DVD: Who Needs It?
Barry Braverman
Oct 26, 2005 3:45 PM
We've all heard it a hundred times: I just bought a new super-size
LCD-DLP-plasma -LCoS flat screen and it's just fantastic being finally able
to see my DVDs in HD. Huh? What's this? Absurd, you say? Never mind the
currently raging high-definition format war, the fact is there are a great
many folks out there who think DVD is already a high-definition format.
After all, if it looks like HD and sounds like HD, it must be HD, right?
For some reason, this point tends to be overlooked in the current HD-DVD
versus Blu-ray discussion. Truth is, most viewers at a normal viewing
distance from their TV can't distinguish between HD and SD resolution
images. Even at a relatively huge 62-inches, today's displays are invariably
too small for most Americans to see any difference, sitting on average about
9-10 feet from their screens. It is a different story in Japan of course
where living rooms and family rooms are substantially smaller.
Ditto for the viewing distance in your local mega electronics store where
gawking customers in the aisles routinely pass within inches of the mammoth
TVs. You'd have to be blind to miss HD's superior resolution under these
conditions. All of which supports my point: under typical television viewing
conditions especially in the U.S., the actual resolution of DVD images above
a certain point is moot. From every indication, standard definition in the
home environment is good enough if viewers can't tell what is HD resolution
and what (like DVD) is not.
There are other factors as well that may contribute to viewers'
misperception of standard definition DVD. The brighter plasma and flat panel
displays are certainly a major factor with measured contrast ratios in some
sets up to 3000:1. The heightened brightness along with the improved
contrast helps explain the public's erroneous perception of standard DVD as
an HD resolution medium.
HD cameras fitted with 1440 x 1080 imagers make a related point as contrast
falls off sharply approaching the 1440 horizontal pixel resolution. Destined
for ultimate 1920 X 1080 display, the diminished contrast at the 1440
cut-off obviates the need to capture additional detail up to 1920 because
viewers are unlikely to perceive any additional detail beyond 1440
horizontal resolution anyway.
If the industry can accept limits on viewer's perception of resolution in HD
cameras, why can't it accept comparable viewer limits in perception of
resolution in the DVD context? Aren't viewer's perceptions or misperceptions
regarding "high definition" DVD just as valid?
The public's apparent confusion over DVD's presumed resolution can be
attributed also to the consumer format's 16 x 9 aspect ratio, which many
viewers associate automatically with high definition. This is made a bit
more understandable if one looks at the history of 16 x 9. Raphael's School
of Athens in the 16th century recognized the seductive power of the "Golden
Rectangle".
Centuries later in 1958, American Express arrived at the same realization,
adopting the "widescreen" format for its newly introduced credit card.
Widescreen 16 x 9 in whatever context, be it in the arts, personal finance
or television, has always been a hot seller, its appeal synonymous with the
cutting edge and most recently at least, in the public's perception, with
high definition.
And then there is the sound issue. In the last few years, DVD viewers in
increasing numbers have abandoned the tiny single speaker in the TV cabinet
that used to be good enough. Today, with the proliferation of elaborate home
theatres, audio reproduction has achieved astounding fidelity and clarity,
with potent 5.1 playback systems linked to larger and more competent speaker
arrays approaching in many ways the auditory experience of commercial
cinemas.
It's no secret that improved audio can elevate the perceived quality and
resolution of the associated images. Perhaps this is what is happening here
to some degree as audiences feeling more immersed in the audio experience,
extend that intensity to DVD's visual experience as well.
The bottom line is, for a variety of reasons, much of the public believes
they are already watching high-definition DVDs. The industry can try to
convince them otherwise, but it's going to take some doing and massive
marketing.
Powerful interests on both sides of the HD-DVD/Blu-ray divide are currently
engaged in a rough-and-tough epic struggle. But if consumers can't perceive
any difference or advantage in a true HD-resolution DVD, will they actually
spring for the new players and discs of whatever format prevails and
ultimately becomes available?
Jason
To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]