Anime, Hentai, Manga, Bishoujo Games, Live Action Films, Music, Art, and Erotic Doujinshi Discussion Forum

It is currently December 12th, 2017, 4:59 pm


All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Anime in HD
PostPosted: July 11th, 2007, 3:43 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Since many series have recently been fansubbed in HD (i.e. 720p, etc) and look so damn nice on my LCD TV, I've been craving for anime releases in HD format (i.e. Blu-ray, HDVD).

For instance, at this rate, fansubs and HD raws will be of higher quality than the actual DVD releases since the DVD versions will be limited to 480 while the raws and fansubs can be anywhere from 480p to 1080p (as was the case with Chevalier D'On)

And no where else is the difference between SD and HD more apparent than with anime. I've been comparing the SD and HD versions of (for instance) Gurren Lagann and the difference is night and day. The added detail and crispness of HD is very obvious with animated content since everything is so sharp to begin with (unlike live action film which tends to be "softer")

What do you guys think?

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: July 11th, 2007, 4:47 am 
Offline
Regular

Joined: March 26th, 2007, 4:09 am
Posts: 556
Location: The Bastion of Imagination
I don't have a HD TV, so frankly I have no idea why people are going crazy over HD. :? Is it really THAT much better?

_________________
In the end, all we have are the stories we can tell. And, if we are fortunate, somebody who will listen. - sylara{Z}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Anime in HD
PostPosted: July 11th, 2007, 5:44 am 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
spazmaster666 wrote:
fansubs and HD raws will be of higher quality than the actual DVD releases since the DVD versions will be limited to 480 while the raws and fansubs can be anywhere from 480p to 1080p

Wait a minute, those raws, ain't these recordings (via computer) from television (usually)?
In case the Anime is not produced in such pixel size you can boost it of course, but how can it then be better then the original data?

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: July 11th, 2007, 1:41 pm 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 18th, 2007, 6:40 pm
Posts: 375
Location: vancouver, canada
^ the tv signal is broadcasted in HD. i am not in the industry, but i would think that production is done in a very high quality then down sampled.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Anime in HD
PostPosted: July 11th, 2007, 3:40 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
42317 wrote:
Wait a minute, those raws, ain't these recordings (via computer) from television (usually)?
In case the Anime is not produced in such pixel size you can boost it of course, but how can it then be better then the original data?


Well the original data, especially for shows which will be given an HD broadcast, is in high resolution. Now older anime shows were probably shot in 35mm film, which is an analog format. More recent anime shows are shot with digital film. However, even with the older 35mm format, it's more or less comparable to around 20 million or so pixels of data in a digital transfer. (i.e. 20 megapixels) Though a "typical" film shot would usually range more in the 9 to 15 megapixel range.

To put it in perspective, a quality 35mm camera can produce prints that are about equivalent to shots from a 20 megapixel digital camera. Or for instance a resolution of 5300 x 4000 resolution for standard 4:3 aspect ratio or roughly 6352 x 3440 in 16:9 aspect ratio.

So really, even 1080p, which is 1920x1080 or roughly 2 megapixels, is actually still a pretty low resolution compared to quality 35mm film transfers.

Even a typical digital camera these days can dish out 8 to 10 megapixels, which is still a much higher resolution than full HD res.

Zaxares wrote:
I don't have a HD TV, so frankly I have no idea why people are going crazy over HD. :? Is it really THAT much better?


Well watching anime in HD on an decent HD set is really quite an impressive experience. Since I watch most of my videos from my PC outputted to my HDTV (via DVI), and comparing standard SD content to HD content, especially anime is quite astounding. The image is simply must sharper and crisper. Not to mention that if you get the raws, which in general are encoded at 60 to 120 fps, the action is much smoother as well.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: July 12th, 2007, 9:42 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 15th, 2007, 11:57 pm
Posts: 755
To me its just.... well sure it looks nicer but I really couldn't care less. Its not that big of a deal in my opinion. Although well, if theres higher quality available... hell why not?

_________________
Image
http://depleted.wordpress.com/
The contents of a deranged mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: July 12th, 2007, 1:59 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 12th, 2007, 9:22 pm
Posts: 119
Location: Dallas
You can really see the difference in HD and standard signals while watching any sports game, live events, or something about nature. Spaz is right that HD gives out a clean and crisper image, and because most of the animation nowadays is CGI, or at least uses some CGI, you can tell a big difference in quality.

Everything is going digital anyways, so I'm all up for Anime in HD =) They are starting to do it in Japan, and hopefully more releases in HD will come to the U.S

_________________
I'm back!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: July 12th, 2007, 4:57 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Animedude35 wrote:
You can really see the difference in HD and standard signals while watching any sports game, live events, or something about nature. Spaz is right that HD gives out a clean and crisper image, and because most of the animation nowadays is CGI, or at least uses some CGI, you can tell a big difference in quality.

Everything is going digital anyways, so I'm all up for Anime in HD =) They are starting to do it in Japan, and hopefully more releases in HD will come to the U.S


Well even traditional cell animation tooks a lot better in HD. It doesn't make a difference with a regular SD television, but when watching on a nice big HD monitor or event a good computer LCD monitor, the difference is rather astounding the first time you make the jump.

Strange thing is with HD broadcasts in Japan is that sometimes the episodes are broadcast in SD before they are broadcast in HD which doesn't seem to make much sense as TV stations here in the US broadcast HD and SD content simultaneously. (hence why the SD raws come out some time before the HD raws come out)

I guess the main issue here is the fact that we probably won't see Blu-Ray or HDDVD releases for anime series (except for many really big ones such as Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence which has already gotten a BD release) for a least a little while longer. I don't blame the studios though since most consumers at this point probably still don't care so much for HD disc formats or releases. But for a series like Ergo Proxy, seeing an inferior DVD release (as compared to the HD fansubs) to me would seem a little disappointing (even if understandable)

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Anime in HD
PostPosted: July 13th, 2007, 11:27 am 
Offline
Resident Scholar
User avatar

Joined: May 13th, 2007, 7:57 am
Posts: 4121
Location: Trier, Germany
spazmaster666 wrote:
Even a typical digital camera these days can dish out 8 to 10 megapixels, which is still a much higher resolution than full HD res.

Interesting to hear.
Hm... How many Watts does one of those TV sets burn per hour by the way?

_________________
42317
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: October 9th, 2007, 12:50 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Gundam 00 1080i shots:

Spoiler
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: October 9th, 2007, 2:19 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 15th, 2007, 11:57 pm
Posts: 755
Huge..... I'd stick with 720p since that 1080 is simply bigger than my screen resolution...

_________________
Image
http://depleted.wordpress.com/
The contents of a deranged mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: October 9th, 2007, 9:58 am 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, 2007, 2:23 pm
Posts: 430
Location: Brazil
About the HD thing, my only grip is this: Why some fansubs release a .mkv HD file with 720p H264/AAC with 300Mb (ok, nothing against it), and than they release a .avi with some lame 400p XVID/MP3? I mean, the fansubs started releasing mkv and avi because they were aware some people (like me) liked avi and would never switch to mkv, and also because mkv was heavy on some machines, but what's with the resolution drop anyway?

There is no noticiable CPU usage change in a 400p and 720p Xvid file. What crunches the CPU is the MKV + Softsub + ACC combo, not the resolution T_T

I find myself still downloading the mkv just to convert to softsub avi because of that T_T

BTW I work with graphics so I can't have a LCD =p Though the contrast drop would stop me from buying one anyway

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: October 16th, 2007, 7:34 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Caiobrz wrote:
There is no noticiable CPU usage change in a 400p and 720p Xvid file. What crunches the CPU is the MKV + Softsub + ACC combo, not the resolution T_T


Well Xvid and x264 are quite different in terms of complexity. Very complex, high-bitrate 264 files can use up a lot of CPU power. A 1000kps Xvid file may not use up much less CPU than a 4000kbps xvid file. But a 4000kbps x264 file can use up significantly more CPU than a 1000kps x264 file. So you're right its not the resolution, its the bitrate that matters. As for softsubs or AAC, neither of those use up significant CPU, especially if you have a fast dual-core proc. On my PC (Core 2 Duo 3.2 GHz), a 4000-5000kps x264 file (with all features of the codec maxed out) will use up about 25-40% of CPU on average, and that's without any sound or subs. Total CPU usage remains about the same when soft-subs and AAC is added.

Caiobrz wrote:
BTW I work with graphics so I can't have a LCD =p Though the contrast drop would stop me from buying one anyway


Well high-quality S-IPS or even a select few MVA panels have color reproduction and contrast levels comparable to a good quality CRT monitor. Monitors such as the NEC MultiSync LCD2490WUXi 24.1" or the BenQ FP241W 24" are examples of 24" LCDs that are suitable for professional graphics design/photoediting work, given the correct color calibration (i.e. with a colorimeter)

Not to mention CRTs will tend to get fuzzy at any resolution above 1600x1200 (a symptom of the VGA interface) and simply won't give the crystal clear and crisp picture a large LCD monitor displays.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: October 16th, 2007, 10:55 am 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, 2007, 2:23 pm
Posts: 430
Location: Brazil
Quote:
simply won't give the crystal clear and crisp picture a large LCD monitor displays.


Agreed, except that anything larger than 19" for a computer CPU is overkill. I mean, with a 19" I find myself more often than not moving my head rather than my eyes =p that's why I don't see much use for something larger. I don't even use 1600x1200 yet (all displays at work are 17" and at home they are still old 17" LG ones T_T)

I guess that, in time, LCD will catch up to CRT quality. Until than, as I see it, the suitable LCD's are still somewhat pricy. I think that if I have to replace my old CRT's in one or two years I will still get a CRT. Perhaps when THAT burns up I will go to LCD ;)

You mentioned dual cores ... do any player/codec actually distribute audio/video decoding among the cores? The main problem with multi-core these days is that there are still so few softwares that make use of them. Take a look at games, almost no PC titles take full advantage of them. Actually I think none prior to ones released this year ever did. =/ I guess it's something similar to the LCD issue being new and still not perfected, it will grow into things with time (people at work for instance just bought a 8-dual core (total 16 cores) server instead of going for the new quad-cores because they said it's a "new" technology and they want stability and don't trust something as new as quad-core. Although I think it's over protective policy, I see where they get their fears from new stuff xD~)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: October 16th, 2007, 10:41 pm 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 18th, 2007, 6:40 pm
Posts: 375
Location: vancouver, canada
Caiobrz wrote:
Agreed, except that anything larger than 19" for a computer CPU is overkill. I mean, with a 19" I find myself more often than not moving my head rather than my eyes =p that's why I don't see much use for something larger. I don't even use 1600x1200 yet (all displays at work are 17" and at home they are still old 17" LG ones T_T)

perhaps you are too close? i use 1920x1200 and i see it all with eye movement. though i must admit i use mainly the center area and all the sides are background programs. i prefer a large screen so i do not have to alt-tab to see anything. browser windows are usually only 1024 wide. with the exception of spaz's images! ;) i needed fullscreen for those...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group