View Full Version : HD content - Important or Not Important ?
The-Boxhead
2009-04-15, 00:05
There is alotta discussion about performance for 720 and 1080 HD content
video. But i can't stop wondering if HD is something users of XBMC is using
or if the main part just uses regular SD video content ?
I cant currently watch HD on my linux based XBMC due to hardware problems, but even if i could i really dont think that its important to me. regular SD divx/xvid files ripped from DVD releases is more than good enough for my needs.
It would be fun to see a poll in this forum about this topic ;)
I dont say that HD is a hype in itself, HD is the future no doubt. But i more think about here and now... Like first of all HD movies does take alott more time to download/encode and more space pr file so on. Is it only me that finds regular SD movies good enough at the time beeing ? :)
theophile
2009-04-15, 00:12
I always opt for HD content whenever it's available. Always.
HD is the whole reason I'm using XBMC on my HTPC.
joebrady
2009-04-15, 00:32
Agree. The same reason I haven't built and HTPC.:rofl:
Needed maybe not but desired totally if you have a HDTV the quality difference is huge to have a native 1080p video that upscaling a scene release 640x228 movie to that size
midgetspy
2009-04-15, 00:41
The only time I ever watch something in SD is if it is a TV show that doesn't air on an HD channel. If I feel like watching a movie but it isn't out in HD I usually just watch something else, heh.
PainToad
2009-04-15, 00:45
Its hard to go with HD stuff here in AU with our pathetic download limits (90gig month for me). But I like having the option if something special and worthy comes out.
HD is the whole reason I'm using XBMC on my HTPC.
I 100% agree
the xbox with xbmc was fine for sd content (have 4 of them network around the house... but times have changed.. All of my currently obtained media is 720p/1080p HD
I built two window's based XBMC boxes just for easy playback of this HD content.
I am looking forward to nvidia's ion platform as the perfect companion to the VDPAU linux branch of XBMC.
Heck I'd love if XBMC would sell there own set-top box for 1080p playback
rausch101
2009-04-15, 03:13
1080p/720p was initially the only reason I switched from the xbox. I think now with all of the HDTV price drops happening, HD content will become more and more important to people and so will the support from xbmc.
100% HD content and only HD content (movies)!
I have a HD DVR from my cable provider that allows me to record to its integrated hard drive so it doesnt have to be included in my XBMC setup but it's all HD.
I have even downloaded all 2 seasons of the tv show Pushing Daisies and that's 720P HD as well, lol.
Freakin Samsung HDTV is one of the best things I have ever bought myself.
TC
Nazgulled
2009-04-15, 03:28
Of course, HD content all the way...
I opt for HD content whenever possible, it makes ALL the difference if you have an HD TV set... When I watch a standard SD movie, it just doesn't feel the same, it just doesn't feel normal. You know what it feels like? It feels like I'm watching a movie from TS or CAM source... I'm so used to HD and ll the detail, that a dvdrip feels that way to me...
ethan_9219
2009-04-15, 04:21
I have a 42" LCD HDTV (Yeah...not that big, i know), yet ALL but one of my movies in XBMC is SD. In terms of visual appeal, i say HD all the way, i much prefer it over SD content.
That being said, i have many Blu-Ray discs of movies and TV Shows that i have bought and watch. But, at this point in time i am fine with them on disc. I don't need to take up copious amounts of storage space with them.
So, i do watch a lot of SD content, simply because i have a lot of it.
When HD becomes cheaper and more available, then that will be all i buy. But for now, my DVD purchases are much higher than my Blu-ray ones.
gurkburk
2009-04-15, 12:28
Movies about 95% HD.
TV-shows about 70% HD.
If I have the option I always choose HD.
Ninjamawwe
2009-04-15, 14:39
HD whenever possible.
The-Boxhead
2009-04-15, 16:59
Well this seems to be pretty much a one way HD street :)
Maybe i need to get my ass around and investe in a computer that can run hd content and smoothvideo. Since i allready have a 40" LCD HD tv
i guess i need to watch more HD content :)
rwparris2
2009-04-15, 17:28
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
Discaciate
2009-04-15, 18:14
HD all the way for me too.
joebrady
2009-04-15, 18:22
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
????????????
midgetspy
2009-04-15, 21:54
????????????
I dunno man I re-read that sentence 5+ times before I gave up...
TomJensen
2009-04-15, 22:01
It depends on where I watch it, and how good the movie is. Run-of-the-mill stuff is fine on SD, since they're small and faster to get. If it's good enough to play on the big LCD, then 720p, as I don't have a 50"+ screen to do 1080p justice.
Seeing that even the lowly Atom can handle 720p w/o GPU, a follow-up question would be: Which is more important for you, 720p or 1080p?
i dunno man i re-read that sentence 5+ times before i gave up...
same!
Arvinine
2009-04-15, 22:30
I would love to have all my movies in HD, but only 20% is HD at the moment, because I don't have enough disk space :rolleyes:
Which is more important for you, 720p or 1080p?
720p, because it consumes much less space on my hdd.
joe_user
2009-04-16, 12:55
Sure, it is important. As most of the others: If I have the choice between HD and SD I do not see a single reason why I should pick the SD one.
If you can choose between driving a Tata Nano and a Ferarri, which one would you pick?
joebrady
2009-04-16, 17:44
AH, but you are assuming that everyone is made of money and can go right out and buy a nice HTPC to setup to run HD content and also buy the storage space to keep all these nice HD files.
smcnally75
2009-04-16, 18:01
AH, but you are assuming that everyone is made of money and can go right out and buy a nice HTPC to setup to run HD content and also buy the storage space to keep all these nice HD files.
If the progression of technology was related to the size of most peoples bank accounts then we wouldn't have progressed like we have. The people that can't afford it now will be able to eventually, and I'm sure they would like it ready when they can. It is silly to hamper progression because the majority can't afford it. Just a few years ago 1TB of storage was over $1,000. Now you can get it for $150.
Nazgulled
2009-04-16, 18:03
I'm not joe_user and I can't speak for himself, but I don't think that's what he meant.
If you had the option to pick one over the other you would pick the best and probably most expensive, no? Of course, if you can't afford to buy a Ferrari, you simply don't have the option to choose between it and the Tata Nano. If you have the option, you can afford both and you wouldn't pick a lower poduct would you?
joebrady
2009-04-16, 18:40
Of course, I'm just saying that's probably what keeps a lot of users in SD. :cool:
rausch101
2009-04-17, 07:21
I'm not joe_user and I can't speak for himself, but I don't think that's what he meant.
If you had the option to pick one over the other you would pick the best and probably most expensive, no? Of course, if you can't afford to buy a Ferrari, you simply don't have the option to choose between it and the Tata Nano. If you have the option, you can afford both and you wouldn't pick a lower poduct would you?
I see one blaring flaw in your argument.
Sure the Ferrari is much more luxurious than a Tata Nano and definitely more expensive. However, a Ferrari can hold only 2 people, while the Tata Nano can "hold" 4. This discredits your HD/SD analogy for the following reason, assuming that the potential consumer holds the size variable constant in his quest for a TV:
As everyone knows, it's borderline impossible to fit more than 2 people on top of an HDTV or an SDTV.
TomJensen
2009-04-17, 09:08
Well, one argument against HD is its size vs ISPs' usage cap (I'm assuming here that most peeps don't rip&convert the content themselves). Here's my true-life example: My Dad likes to watch online videos. Lo-res Youtube stuff (320p FLV). His usage is 1-1.5GB a day, or about 40GB a month. Once I have my Mom hooked up online proper, she'll want to watch as well, so call it 80GB for two non-tech people a month. For lo-res stuff. If the vids were to be HD, they'll easily max the 250GB Comcast limit I have, and that's not including my own considerable use.
So I'm wondering if any of you HD-or-bust advocates have to deal with your ISP's caps (if any), and how many people in your households are or will be watching videos online? What's your usage situation like?
rwparris2
2009-04-17, 09:11
your dad watches a gig of youtube videos every day? geez
zitroneneis
2009-04-17, 09:14
seems like I'm part of a real minority around here.
For me a the resolution of a DVD (or of a good rip) is more than enough.
Even on my projector screen (which is 2m*1,5m) they look sharp.
So whenever possible I -download / rip / buy- SD Movies or TV-Shows.
And it's just great to see how many of those SD files fit upon a 1tb HDD
(Please don't think I don't care about the quality - last year I sorted out about 500 VCDs and low quality Rips from my early days of collecting movies - and it hurt a lot, but it just was very annoying to watch them)
I play nothing but HD content, 720p and 1080p. SD content just looks ugly on a 50" plasma.
If the progression of technology was related to the size of most peoples bank accounts then we wouldn't have progressed like we have. The people that can't afford it now will be able to eventually, and I'm sure they would like it ready when they can. It is silly to hamper progression because the majority can't afford it. Just a few years ago 1TB of storage was over $1,000. Now you can get it for $150.
WTF :)
1TB samsung spinpoint is about $90 (77 Euros).
For the rest I agree! :)
Nazgulled
2009-04-17, 22:07
Sure the Ferrari is much more luxurious than a Tata Nano and definitely more expensive. However, a Ferrari can hold only 2 people, while the Tata Nano can "hold" 4. This discredits your HD/SD analogy for the following reason, assuming that the potential consumer holds the size variable constant in his quest for a TV:
As everyone knows, it's borderline impossible to fit more than 2 people on top of an HDTV or an SDTV.
Sorry, but I don't get what you mean...
Well, one argument against HD is its size vs ISPs' usage cap (I'm assuming here that most peeps don't rip&convert the content themselves). Here's my true-life example: My Dad likes to watch online videos. Lo-res Youtube stuff (320p FLV). His usage is 1-1.5GB a day, or about 40GB a month. Once I have my Mom hooked up online proper, she'll want to watch as well, so call it 80GB for two non-tech people a month. For lo-res stuff. If the vids were to be HD, they'll easily max the 250GB Comcast limit I have, and that's not including my own considerable use.
So I'm wondering if any of you HD-or-bust advocates have to deal with your ISP's caps (if any), and how many people in your households are or will be watching videos online? What's your usage situation like?
That's the same thing as above... If your ISP caps your connection (speed or bandwidth wise), than you don't have much of a choice.
That's the point here, I guess... If you have money and can afford a decent TV Set or projector, have enough hard drive space, a fast connection with no caps, more money to buy blu-rays, whatever, this list is endless, if you had the choice to watch and appreciate HD in all it's glory, why would you choose SD?
For me a the resolution of a DVD (or of a good rip) is more than enough.
Even on my projector screen (which is 2m*1,5m) they look sharp.
I'm sorry to say but, I can think of 3 good reasons for that:
1) You never truly experienced a Full HD movie (1080p). If you projector has good image quality (I know nothing about projectors) and with that size, trust me, a DVD is nothing compared to 1080p video.
2) Maybe your projector sucks enough to make it impossible (or hard) to tell the difference between a DVD and 1080p video.
3) You have really poor eyesight. I'm not joking, I read a recent study that half of the people in UK buy HD sets and they don't have proper eyesight to take full advantage of such TVs.
rausch101
2009-04-17, 22:29
Sorry, but I don't get what you mean...
It was just a joke. I was being sarcastic...it wasn't supposed to actually discredit anything you said. People sitting on top of a TV is ridiculous.
In seriousness, I think it pretty much comes down to how much each individual values a clear picture over a not-as-clear picture. Some people get a glimpse of 1080p on a top-end huge TV and say to themselves that they need it (like me). Plenty of other people will see the same thing and say that, yes it looks great, but that they can't possibly justify spending money just to make a movie look a little crisper. It just depends on how much enjoyment you get from looking at a pretty HD screen. If you don't get much, then it's not worth it.
However, I say everyone should go out get an amazing HD setup and stimulate the economy.
Nazgulled
2009-04-17, 22:37
Some people get a glimpse of 1080p on a top-end huge TV and say to themselves that they need it (like me). Plenty of other people will see the same thing and say that, yes it looks great, but that they can't possibly justify spending money just to make a movie look a little crisper. It just depends on how much enjoyment you get from looking at a pretty HD screen. If you don't get much, then it's not worth it.
I see what you mean but I think that there's a difference between actually noticing that the picture quality is much better on a nice HD TV with a 1080p movie playing and not noticing and saying it's the same thing as a DVD. It clearly isn't...
rausch101
2009-04-17, 22:42
I see what you mean but I think that there's a difference between actually noticing that the picture quality is much better on a nice HD TV with a 1080p movie playing and not noticing and saying it's the same thing as a DVD. It clearly isn't...
Completely agree.
I think that the people who honestly don't notice a difference between 1080p content on a 50+" 1080 TV and SD content on a 50" TV either have a severe lack of attention to detail or don't actually know what picture quality is. I also think these people have no reason to buy an HDTV setup.
I definitely "prefer" HD content, but since I actually rip my own stuff (call me old fashioned... or picky), a proper DVD rip I make with full 5.1 DD or DTS is superior to most of the crap HD encodes I've attempted to download. A good DVD rip at full res with full sound looks great and sounds fantastic on my 55" 1080p 120hz set with my decent surround sound setup.
If I had a machine capable of ripping and encoding blu-ray discs I'd probably feel differently. I just haven't had any luck with other encodes and find doing DVDs myself gives better results than what I can find.
Now to compare NTSC 480i 4:3 SD content to 720p or 1080i HD it's not even a comparison... the SD looks like junk, and the sound is even worse. I don't consider a full anamorphic 24fps DVD to be "SD" content in the TV sense.
midgetspy
2009-04-18, 00:16
I definitely "prefer" HD content, but since I actually rip my own stuff (call me old fashioned... or picky), a proper DVD rip I make with full 5.1 DD or DTS is superior to most of the crap HD encodes I've attempted to download. A good DVD rip at full res with full sound looks great and sounds fantastic on my 55" 1080p 120hz set with my decent surround sound setup.
If I had a machine capable of ripping and encoding blu-ray discs I'd probably feel differently. I just haven't had any luck with other encodes and find doing DVDs myself gives better results than what I can find.
Now to compare NTSC 480i 4:3 SD content to 720p or 1080i HD it's not even a comparison... the SD looks like junk, and the sound is even worse. I don't consider a full anamorphic 24fps DVD to be "SD" content in the TV sense.
I have played Blurays and 1080P scene rips side by side and not been able to tell a difference in most scenes - I dunno what you downloaded but they should definitely look better than a DVD (rip or disc). Also most HD rips simply contains the unaltered audio from the original so audio shouldn't be an issue at all. Maybe give it another shot :0)
Nazgulled
2009-04-18, 01:31
@dan1son (http://xbmc.org/forum/member.php?u=39930)
Than you are downloading stuff wrongly labeled as HD content.
This, SD vs HD, is not a matter of opinion or taste, this is not subjective. HD is far superior than SD, that's a fact. If you can't tell them apart, than, there's something wrong with you, your display or your content.
There's no way an image 720px wide (DVD/NTSC/PAL) can be compared to a another with 1920px wide (Blu-Ray/1080p source).
TomJensen
2009-04-18, 09:28
@rwparris2
My Dad watches this site http://noiket.com . It's mostly lo-res warez vids that have been dub/subbed into Vietnamese. Asian soaps tend to run for tens of DVDs, so yeah, you can burn a lot of time watching this stuff.
@Nazgulled
>This, SD vs HD, is not a matter of opinion or taste, this is not subjective. HD is far superior than SD, that's a fact. If you can't tell them apart, than, there's something wrong with you, your display or your content.
This is so much bullshit. What's "superior" is purely in the eye of the beholder. For you, it's the technical specs. For others, the emphasis is on the content. Tell me, would oldie classics like Casablanca be any better in 1080p, or colorized? Yes, high action flicks with glorious explosions would look better in hi-res, preferably on a 100" wall-to-wall display and with a 500W sound system. But for many movies, where the appeal is in the pathos and relationships expressed between the characters, hi-res isn't necessary, not unless you want to count their facial pores and blemishes.
rwparris2
2009-04-18, 10:15
I thought you meant actual youtube.com ... watching that amount of TV shows isn't so outstanding then.
collect 1080p mostly even though my tv is only 1366x768. I rather downscaling from 1080p to 1366x768 than upscaling from 720p to 1366x768 even though it's only a minor upscaling. Plus in the future when I get a real HDTV (1080p) I won't have to deal with upgrading the collection.
Nazgulled
2009-04-18, 17:37
This is so much bullshit. What's "superior" is purely in the eye of the beholder.
Yes, you're right... I'm sorry, but you have poor eyesight. There's no way around it...
For you, it's the technical specs. For others, the emphasis is on the content.
This has nothing to with technical specs or content, nothing at all...
Tell me, would oldie classics like Casablanca be any better in 1080p, or colorized?
Yes, they actually have much better image quality in 1080p if the "conversion" is done right. Your comment just proves everything me and others have said.
Here's something for you to read and reflect:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/how_to/4258801.html
But for many movies, where the appeal is in the pathos and relationships expressed between the characters, hi-res isn't necessary, not unless you want to count their facial pores and blemishes.
This just proves another thing I've said, you are one of those persons that don't know how to appreciate good picture quality, PERIOD.
My uncle is photographer and once said to me, "photography now days is to common, people just don't know how to appreciate a good photo anymore". The same thing applies here.
TomJensen
2009-04-19, 01:17
@Nazgulled
>I'm sorry, but you have poor eyesight. There's no way around it...
Typical twit response. When you can't answer the argument, sling mud.
Hopefully, one of these days you will grow up to realize that the world extends to more than your basement, and your narrowminded definition of what's good--that a "good" movie depends on more than its pixel count, but more on how it resonates with the viewer. Then again, judging from the your feeble mindset, most likely not.
rwparris2
2009-04-19, 01:28
@TomJensen, Nazgulled: Both of you grow up, and stop now.
Nazgulled
2009-04-19, 03:47
Hopefully, one of these days you will grow up to realize that the world extends to more than your basement, and your narrowminded definition of what's good--that a "good" movie depends on more than its pixel count, but more on how it resonates with the viewer. Then again, judging from the your feeble mindset, most likely not.
OMG, what does that got to do with anything? Well, let me answer that for you, NOTHING! Nobody is talking about a "good" or "bad" movie, I honestly don't know where you got that from. No matter the movie you watch, picture quality wise, HD will always be superior...
If you can't look at a movie, doesn't matter which, in both Blu-Ray 1080p and DVD PAL/NTSC and tell the difference between them in picture quality, you have poor eyesight, your TV sucks or you don't know how to appreciate picture quality. This has always been my argument and it's strong enough.
And I don't understand why you're so offended by this, but I couldn't care less...
althekiller
2009-04-19, 03:57
I dunno how this thread has lasted this long...