Who is to say what is truly HD?
The challenge here is that there is no HD authority with quality standards that are enforced on a recording that claims to be HD. At the most simplest of levels, High Definition TeleVision (HDTV) means "a TV that displays 1280x720 pixels or better" (see http://hdguru.com/glossary/), while SDTV (standard definition TV) is 480i, which is approximately the resolution of NTSC and DVDs. When Vudu says something is HD, that means the studio has given them a source that they (the studio) claim is High Definition content. Therefore, when Vudu digitizes and compresses this source they shoot for a file size that can be streamed at 4MB, while SD content is is compressed for playback at 2MB. Now many of these sources are originally recorded on film, which can actually contain images at much higher resolution then the limits of even the best 1080p monitor. Of course, not all films are recorded with the same quality of cameras or equipment, so the actual quality of the sources can vary drastically.
Where does this get us in regards to whether or not something is HD vs whether or not something looks great? For example, if you spend a $1.99 and watch the pilot for Arrested Development, you will see some really great looking images that are Standard Definition content. I was surprised at how much better they looked compared to my recordings of the same episodes from my cable service. The source material was really good, so the output looks really good, even though it is not considered to be HD content. On the other hand, I won't be a bit surprised if we see some titles in the future that have the HD label, but don't look as good as a great SD recording. This is because the company that produced the content did a poor job producing the content.
To me the bottom line is I don't care if the label says HD or not, I care if it looks good. With that in mind, go back and watch the Bourne HD content and ask yourself if you find it acceptable. Those movies reflect the quality of HD on the Vudu that has the potential to be streamed to users with a fast enough internet connection. I don't know what the native resolution is of those recordings, I just know they look darn good to me. If you aren't satisified with them, then the Vudu may not be right for you. It sure is right for me.
Originally posted by rstone
View Post
Where does this get us in regards to whether or not something is HD vs whether or not something looks great? For example, if you spend a $1.99 and watch the pilot for Arrested Development, you will see some really great looking images that are Standard Definition content. I was surprised at how much better they looked compared to my recordings of the same episodes from my cable service. The source material was really good, so the output looks really good, even though it is not considered to be HD content. On the other hand, I won't be a bit surprised if we see some titles in the future that have the HD label, but don't look as good as a great SD recording. This is because the company that produced the content did a poor job producing the content.
To me the bottom line is I don't care if the label says HD or not, I care if it looks good. With that in mind, go back and watch the Bourne HD content and ask yourself if you find it acceptable. Those movies reflect the quality of HD on the Vudu that has the potential to be streamed to users with a fast enough internet connection. I don't know what the native resolution is of those recordings, I just know they look darn good to me. If you aren't satisified with them, then the Vudu may not be right for you. It sure is right for me.
) of data on those discs that is not the movie itself. In fact, given that some of your discs showed upwards of 27 GB, this would indicate dual layer HD-DVD disks and since the dual layer is at most 30 GB, then the movie files would be a lot smaller since there is likely way more than 3 GB of extra stuff on the disc.
Comment