|
|
DVD Upconversion:Noticeable difference in picture? or sellinggimmick?
the dog from that film you saw wrote:
wrote in message ... Wrong buddy- Thr conventional dvd player is only sending 480 to tv. The upconverted is sending 1080. Which has more detail- the 1080 of course. We're not talking "scaling" there is a noticeable increase in picture quality if the dvd is only storing 480 lines of info how do you think the dvd player is turning that into 1080 ? - where exactly is this 'extra detail' coming from? There is no "extra detail" added. We're getting into semantics here, but claiming interpolation adds detail raises the pucker factor in me. However, this link explains a benefit to having the DVD player do the upconversion instead of the HDTV set. http://askville.amazon.com/upconvert...uestId=5434097 [quote] Here’s why upconverting is better than letting your TV do it: a standard DVD stores a digital file, compressed, but it knows what color every pixel should be in every frame. Therefore, you want to keep that data digital if you can. I’m simplifying a bit in the following. With a standard DVD player outputting an analog signal, you’re taking the pixel data and converting it to an analog signal on a composite, s-video, or component cable. Your HDTV then reads the analog signal from its analog inputs, digitizes it (assigning chunks of the continuously varying signal to pixels), and then applies its own upconversion circuitry to "fill in" pixels to go from 480i to the native resolution of the display (that is, the number of pixels your TV has). [end quote] - Winfield |
DVD Upconversion:Noticeable difference in picture? or sellinggimmick?
Jan B wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:28:56 -0700, Winfield wrote: lbbss wrote: I have a 42 plasma, so I was wondering if I should buy a upconversion DVD player. Will I actually notice the difference or is it just a selling gimmick. Chances are you will notice a difference. Whether or not that difference is really better and worth spending money on is anyone's guess. Welcome to the HD/SD-dvd roulette wheel (see below). Any samples on the web showing the difference, or would that not be possible to do, we all have different type of monitors/ lcd. Thanks. We all have different monitors and dvd players, but you seem interested in just getting a "feel" for the kind of effect upconversion can produce given a standard 480i dvd source. The only setup I saw trying to show this difference was at my local Best Buy. They had a hdtv showing a split-screen movie. One side was upconverted, the other was not. The upconverted side (of the same movie) had a bland smoothness to it. "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" captures this effect rather nicely. It sounds like you are describing one of those demonstrations that aim to show the increased clarity with HD vs SD. The original source is in high resolution. This does not show what difference an external upscaling (in the DVD player) would give on DVD material comparing to let the TV do the upscaling. Differences from these two scenarios can not be desplayed on a split screen. You need two identical TV:s (to show it side by side). /Jan I'm in agreement with you Jan. I thought about this after posting my message and realized it's impossible to have a split-screen demo with true upconversion on one side and 480i/hdtv processing on the other. However, this demo was not HD vs SD. It was a demonstration trying to show benefits of doing upconversion on the DVD player side. winf |
DVD Upconversion:Noticeable difference in picture? or sellinggimmick?
the dog from that film you saw wrote:
"Jer" wrote in message ... the dog from that film you saw wrote: wrote in message ... Wrong buddy- Thr conventional dvd player is only sending 480 to tv. The upconverted is sending 1080. Which has more detail- the 1080 of course. We're not talking "scaling" there is a noticeable increase in picture quality if the dvd is only storing 480 lines of info how do you think the dvd player is turning that into 1080 ? - where exactly is this 'extra detail' coming from? It's coming from interpolating the adjacent pixel information, and using that to fill things in. This is clearly explained in a number of places. Google for "pixel interpolation upconvert" and learn grasshopper. the end result though is there's no extra picture info - which is what the original poster was claiming. That's not how I understand it. Additional new pixels are inserted into the bit stream for each frame, "interpolated" from the adjacent pixels in the original bit stream. An upconverted 1080 signal contains more data than an original 480 signal, so it sounds to me like additional data is being added from somewhere. -- jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' |
DVD Upconversion:Noticeable difference in picture? or selling gimmick?
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:43:50 -0600, Jer wrote:
the dog from that film you saw wrote: "Jer" wrote in message ... the dog from that film you saw wrote: wrote in message ... Wrong buddy- Thr conventional dvd player is only sending 480 to tv. The upconverted is sending 1080. Which has more detail- the 1080 of course. We're not talking "scaling" there is a noticeable increase in picture quality {someone else clearified, altough the quating is messed up} if the dvd is only storing 480 lines of info how do you think the dvd player is turning that into 1080 ? - where exactly is this 'extra detail' coming from? It's coming from interpolating the adjacent pixel information, and using that to fill things in. This is clearly explained in a number of places. Google for "pixel interpolation upconvert" and learn grasshopper. the end result though is there's no extra picture info - which is what the original poster was claiming. That's not how I understand it. Additional new pixels are inserted into the bit stream for each frame, "interpolated" from the adjacent pixels in the original bit stream. An upconverted 1080 signal contains more data than an original 480 signal, so it sounds to me like additional data is being added from somewhere. More pixels are created. The upsampling (to smaller pixels) can be done differently in different units and give better or worse results and allow a closer viewing distance with less stair casing in edges etc. (but of course it can not really create details from nowhere). However, the argument was about the fact that this is also performed by an HDTV when fed the original DVD data. No difference IN PRINCIPLE when performed in the DVD player. (Well field sequence information from the disc could make a difference, but I hear that such info is often wrong anyway.) See also older posts about scaling twice ... /Jan |
DVD Upconversion:Noticeable difference in picture? or selling gimmick?
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 10:16:30 -0700, Winfield
wrote: [quote] Here’s why upconverting is better than letting your TV do it: a standard DVD stores a digital file, compressed, but it knows what color every pixel should be in every frame. Therefore, you want to keep that data digital if you can. I’m simplifying a bit in the following. With a standard DVD player outputting an analog signal, you’re taking the pixel data and converting it to an analog signal on a composite, s-video, or component cable. Your HDTV then reads the analog signal from its analog inputs, digitizes it (assigning chunks of the continuously varying signal to pixels), and then applies its own upconversion circuitry to "fill in" pixels to go from 480i to the native resolution of the display (that is, the number of pixels your TV has). [end quote] I've seen this type of argument, over and over, for both audio and video, but it doesn't prove that in practice, most people can honestly tell the difference. Here is a reasonable way to find out. These are the large TVs (and I assume the difference will be most noticeable for larger screens) that Consumer Reports gives the highest rating for picture quality derived from the 480p output from a progressive scan DVD player attached to the component video inputs of the TV. Has anybody tested any of these TVs with both a DVD player, like the one Consumer Reports used, and one of the best upconverting players? LCDs: Sony KDL-52XBR4, Sharp LC-52D64U, Samsung LN-T5281F Plasmas: Panasonic TH58P2750U, LG 60PY3D |
DVD Upconversion:Noticeable difference in picture? or selling gimmick?
|
DVD Upconversion:Noticeable difference in picture? or selling gimmick?
In article Jer writes:
g2000hsw.googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: Lines: 43 Xref: shelby.stanford.edu alt.tv.tech.hdtv:174043 the dog from that film you saw wrote: "Jer" wrote in message ... the dog from that film you saw wrote: if the dvd is only storing 480 lines of info how do you think the dvd player is turning that into 1080 ? - where exactly is this 'extra detail' coming from? It's coming from interpolating the adjacent pixel information, and using that to fill things in. This is clearly explained in a number of places. Google for "pixel interpolation upconvert" and learn grasshopper. the end result though is there's no extra picture info - which is what the original poster was claiming. That's not how I understand it. Additional new pixels are inserted into the bit stream for each frame, "interpolated" from the adjacent pixels in the original bit stream. An upconverted 1080 signal contains more data than an original 480 signal, so it sounds to me like additional data is being added from somewhere. It may be more data, but it is not more *information*. The question was is it better to do this in the DVD player, or in the TV set. Alan |
DVD Upconversion:Noticeable difference in picture? or selling gimmick?
In article Sam writes:
I've seen this type of argument, over and over, for both audio and video, but it doesn't prove that in practice, most people can honestly tell the difference. Here is a reasonable way to find out. These are the large TVs (and I assume the difference will be most noticeable for larger screens) that Consumer Reports gives the highest rating for picture quality derived from the 480p output from a progressive scan DVD player attached to the component video inputs of the TV. Has anybody tested any of these TVs with both a DVD player, like the one Consumer Reports used, and one of the best upconverting players? LCDs: Sony KDL-52XBR4, Sharp LC-52D64U, Samsung LN-T5281F Plasmas: Panasonic TH58P2750U, LG 60PY3D Yes. However I used an old Panasonic player with 480i output, and a Toshiba with 1080i output. The pictures are slightly different, but it is difficult to say which is better most of the time. Alan |
DVD Upconversion:Noticeable difference in picture? or sellinggimmick?
Alan wrote:
In article Jer writes: g2000hsw.googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: Lines: 43 Xref: shelby.stanford.edu alt.tv.tech.hdtv:174043 the dog from that film you saw wrote: "Jer" wrote in message ... the dog from that film you saw wrote: if the dvd is only storing 480 lines of info how do you think the dvd player is turning that into 1080 ? - where exactly is this 'extra detail' coming from? It's coming from interpolating the adjacent pixel information, and using that to fill things in. This is clearly explained in a number of places. Google for "pixel interpolation upconvert" and learn grasshopper. the end result though is there's no extra picture info - which is what the original poster was claiming. That's not how I understand it. Additional new pixels are inserted into the bit stream for each frame, "interpolated" from the adjacent pixels in the original bit stream. An upconverted 1080 signal contains more data than an original 480 signal, so it sounds to me like additional data is being added from somewhere. It may be more data, but it is not more *information*. The question was is it better to do this in the DVD player, or in the TV set. Alan Would a 480 native image look the same as a 480 upconverted image on the same TV? -- jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' |
DVD Upconversion:Noticeable difference in picture? or selling gimmick?
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 10:16:30 -0700, Winfield
wrote: the dog from that film you saw wrote: wrote in message ... Wrong buddy- Thr conventional dvd player is only sending 480 to tv. The upconverted is sending 1080. Which has more detail- the 1080 of course. We're not talking "scaling" there is a noticeable increase in picture quality if the dvd is only storing 480 lines of info how do you think the dvd player is turning that into 1080 ? - where exactly is this 'extra detail' coming from? There is no "extra detail" added. We're getting into semantics here, but claiming interpolation adds detail raises the pucker factor in me. However, this link explains a benefit to having the DVD player do the upconversion instead of the HDTV set. http://askville.amazon.com/upconvert...uestId=5434097 [quote] Here’s why upconverting is better than letting your TV do it: a standard DVD stores a digital file, compressed, but it knows what color every pixel should be in every frame. Therefore, you want to keep that data digital if you can. I’m simplifying a bit in the following. With a standard DVD player outputting an analog signal, you’re taking the pixel data and converting it to an analog signal on a composite, s-video, or component cable. Your HDTV then reads the analog signal from its analog inputs, digitizes it (assigning chunks of the continuously varying signal to pixels), and then applies its own upconversion circuitry to "fill in" pixels to go from 480i to the native resolution of the display (that is, the number of pixels your TV has). [end quote] - Winfield The FACT is that it looks just as good letting my tv do it. Thumper |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com