The Blu-ray is a superb 1080p format with 570 línes of chroma.
Digital 480/576p projection can be good but not from a DVD

Im sure the Akira CAV 6 LDs release look better on projection than the Akira DVD

16mm film can be pretty impressive as well. Attending screenings of a 16mm film collector friend is something else, with the cinemascope widescreen performing well at expanding a big 2.35:1 or so frame with the appropriate scope lens on the PJ. The IB Techicolor prints are particularly treasured for not succumbing to the red color fade of stocks like Eastmancolor. This is not a cheap hobby, later prints can go into the thousands.

And of course 35 is the reference. I have a few 16mm projectors, but finding a 35mm unit that isn't huge is tricky (but prints are generally less than 16mm, and you get surround stereo sound and of course the huge resolution).

The studios still strike 35mm prints of even the latest cgi fest blockbusters for long term archival storage in salt mine vaults. You can't really toss a hard drive in the corner and expect to return to it in 50+ years and have it both function and not have issues of nonexistent legacy hardware/software needed in the distant future.

Absolutely agree

Update according to forum members ; UMD and Mini-DVD
"Nintendo Gamecube Optical Disc" is also a Mini DVD variation.
"Sega Dreamcast" GD-rom is a Yamaha high density CD-Rom , so its vídeo quality is limited.

VCD
S-VCD
UMD
DVD
MiniDVD
Betacam SX
D-2
D1
Digibeta
D-VHS
D-5
HD-DVD
Blu-ray
HDCAM
Blu-ray 4K HDR (best)

The Dreamcast GD-ROM was never intended for video storage and its capacity was only 1.2GB. I think even Sony's UMD beats that.

And most of the FMV featured on the Dreamcast used Sofdec which was basically a version of MPEG-2 compression (same as on DVD and early blu-rays.)

Yeah UMD is 1.8GB. Video discs in that format use H.264/MPEG-4 AVC video (720×480) and ATRAC3plus audio.

Gamecube discs are the same capacity as mini DVD-R used in older camcorders but obviously they're pressed discs. Some GC games had bonus discs with videos, but afaik those are designed to be used on the console they aren't like larger retail DVD's.

Thank you guys...so you think that UMD picture is "potentially" better than DVD and should be ahead on the list?

Released movies on UMD used only one disc with a reduced vídeo bitrate, two or three disc movie could be made on UMD with a higher bitrate?

I doubt UMD was any better than DVD. I have to imagine they used the same transfers from DVD that they used on UMD.

And since a lot of early blu-ray releases used MPEG-2 compression before H.264 and H.265 were widely used, I can't imagine Sony would use another compression scheme besides MPEG-2 (same as DVD) for UMD.

You shouldn't really go by "potential"

DVD potentially could have done HD video. And there was a push, especially by the some of the editors at Widescreen Review magazine) to make a 720p format DVD using a different compression from MPEG-2 at a moderately high bitrate to properly take advantage of the HDTVs of the late 90s and early 2000s. Never happened because the industry wasn't too keen on destroying the fast growing DVD format after only a few years and then went forward with HD-DVD and blu-ray by the mid 2000s.

And "potentially" D-VHS, since it's just a means of data storage, could do 4K if they just upped the bitrate and changed the compression from MPEG-2 to H.265. Just means they'd have make a faster tape speed, thicker tape and whatnot.

So don't compare by "potential" as that's just another whole can of worms

UMD Video does use H.264/MPEG-4 AVC video, as I already said.
It doesn't use MPEG-2.

Correct, the system could even play h.264 encoded MP4 video files from the memory card. I think it was kind of a one trick pony in that regard as it was the only video format it natively supported playing.

Wait a minute, im not using the word potentially to mix everything, a 720p DVD would be a variation of the format and not the "capabilities" of the actual format! Even with that we have the HD-DVD far superior on mpeg-2.
But the UMD case is not the same cause H.264/Mpg-4 can do better motion without pixelation than DVD for example, so thats why my questión about UMD bitrates

But UMD Video total capacity is only 1.8GB (dual layer), so even though the compression type is superior over DVD standard the capacity is far far less than DVD9.
UMD Video, afaik, never has any extras besides some included subs. So there really shouldn't be a massive difference in quality.

Superbit DVD would look far better than UMD Video (probably a better comparison as both have stripped extras).

Well a 720p DVD would still be a DVD-9 in all respects. Just the compression codec would be different. They were saying it was possible for some DVD players to be upgradeable to playing 720p DVD with just a firmware update (those that could be updated anyway.)

Just like with Laserdisc and all its upgrades (digital tracks, AC-3, etc.) while some older players couldn't properly play those upgrades--you'd need a new player to play them--the format is still LD.

Which HD-DVDs were MPEG-2? From what I've remember the majority of early HD-DVDs were VC-1, not MPEG-2 before they went with h.264/5 before folding.

Thanks for the correction!

thanks, didnt know that info...so anyway UMD stay behind a good DVD9 in picture quality and a supposed 720p DVD would be surpassed by the Betacam SX and MPEG IMX tapes on sd resolution and the D-VHS on HD.

What a spectacular design was a simple VHS tape for analog and 1080 digital video

I think just go by what what the format actually does in practice rather than what it can potentially do.

We never actually saw what a 720p DVD could produce because the parameters were never actually set (what codec to use, what bitrate, what possible extra soundtracks to use, what bitrate for the soundtracks, etc.) So we can't make a true comparison.