Upconversion - DVD vs TV - Results

wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 20:21:52 -0700 JBDragon JBDragon at someplace dot com wrote:

| Personally I think Up converting DVD players are a scam! You can't add to
| the picture what's not their to begin with. I think the whole reason for Up
| converting players was to get people to buy a NEW DVD player to replace the
| one they have that currently works just fine. To sell something to people
| buying HDTV's and want to watch their DVD's on it, and a supposedly Up
| converting DVD player would be the thing to buy. It's cheaper, they were
| out before HD DVD or Blu-Ray, they play movies you already own and again
| DVD's are cheaper. If your a DVD Manufacture, and want to sell a bunch of
| DVD players to a over saturated marketplace where DVD players are hell a
| cheap, what do you do? Personally I think it's Marketing B.S. Your HDTV
| is already Up converting that DVD to be displayed at it's Native Resolution
| anyway. It's a mute point. If it was as simple as Up converting to get a
| HD picture, their would be no need for HD DVD or Blu-Ray!

There is something there in the DVD that you can't get with a 480i output.
The DVD may be recorded as 480p24 or 480p30. Converting that first to 480i
and then up to the display size can introduce artifacts. Converting it
directly to the display native format would minimize the artifacts. If the
DVD player has an HDMI output that can feed the TV with the exact format the
DVD is recorded in, that could still be improved upon by the way the DVD
player can do its upconversion. A TV can only upconvert from the video it
gets. But the DVD player can upconvert directly during the decoding of the
MPEG blocks. For example, consider a program recorded in 640x480 (usually
it is 704x480, which would complicate the example but not void the advantage).
The compressed data would have blocks that cover an 8x8 square part of the
picture. If those blocks are decoded directly into an 18x18 pixel square,
you get a 1440x1080 picture. The advantage of the direct decoding is the
various frequency components of the DCT encoding will produce a smoother
result. It would be more complicated to do this with 704x480 data which is
not in a square aspect, but it is doable, and would have a direct widescreen
output without any intermediate letterboxing or whatever.

It won't really be a dramatic improvement unless you can see artifacts in
the playback that gets upconverted by the TV. If those artifacts are from
that upconversion from one video format to another, or are from decoding
into the lower resoltion video, then they will be reduced or eliminated in
"direct to HD decoding of an SD picture".

Whether or not any "upconverting DVD player" does this "direct to HD decoding
of an SD picture" ... I have no idea. I'm just saying the possibility to do
this exists.



I certainly don't know the whole story from a technical angle, but as
I've commented before, I'm letting the Sony BD player do the
upconversion for standard DVDs via HDMI. I am truly impressed with the
results, especially with 480p24 material.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:10:57 -0500 Jer wrote:
| wrote:
| On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 20:21:52 -0700 JBDragon JBDragon at someplace dot com wrote:
|
| | Personally I think Up converting DVD players are a scam! You can't add to
| | the picture what's not their to begin with. I think the whole reason for Up
| | converting players was to get people to buy a NEW DVD player to replace the
| | one they have that currently works just fine. To sell something to people
| | buying HDTV's and want to watch their DVD's on it, and a supposedly Up
| | converting DVD player would be the thing to buy. It's cheaper, they were
| | out before HD DVD or Blu-Ray, they play movies you already own and again
| | DVD's are cheaper. If your a DVD Manufacture, and want to sell a bunch of
| | DVD players to a over saturated marketplace where DVD players are hell a
| | cheap, what do you do? Personally I think it's Marketing B.S. Your HDTV
| | is already Up converting that DVD to be displayed at it's Native Resolution
| | anyway. It's a mute point. If it was as simple as Up converting to get a
| | HD picture, their would be no need for HD DVD or Blu-Ray!
|
| There is something there in the DVD that you can't get with a 480i output.
| The DVD may be recorded as 480p24 or 480p30. Converting that first to 480i
| and then up to the display size can introduce artifacts. Converting it
| directly to the display native format would minimize the artifacts. If the
| DVD player has an HDMI output that can feed the TV with the exact format the
| DVD is recorded in, that could still be improved upon by the way the DVD
| player can do its upconversion. A TV can only upconvert from the video it
| gets. But the DVD player can upconvert directly during the decoding of the
| MPEG blocks. For example, consider a program recorded in 640x480 (usually
| it is 704x480, which would complicate the example but not void the advantage).
| The compressed data would have blocks that cover an 8x8 square part of the
| picture. If those blocks are decoded directly into an 18x18 pixel square,
| you get a 1440x1080 picture. The advantage of the direct decoding is the
| various frequency components of the DCT encoding will produce a smoother
| result. It would be more complicated to do this with 704x480 data which is
| not in a square aspect, but it is doable, and would have a direct widescreen
| output without any intermediate letterboxing or whatever.
|
| It won't really be a dramatic improvement unless you can see artifacts in
| the playback that gets upconverted by the TV. If those artifacts are from
| that upconversion from one video format to another, or are from decoding
| into the lower resoltion video, then they will be reduced or eliminated in
| "direct to HD decoding of an SD picture".
|
| Whether or not any "upconverting DVD player" does this "direct to HD decoding
| of an SD picture" ... I have no idea. I'm just saying the possibility to do
| this exists.
|
|
|
| I certainly don't know the whole story from a technical angle, but as
| I've commented before, I'm letting the Sony BD player do the
| upconversion for standard DVDs via HDMI. I am truly impressed with the
| results, especially with 480p24 material.

If it converts to 1080p24 and the TV converts that to 1080p120 with
motion interpolation for all 4 of the added frames between each real
frame, I suspect you'd have the best of everything.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:10:57 -0500 Jer wrote:
| wrote:
| On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 20:21:52 -0700 JBDragon JBDragon at someplace dot com wrote:
|
| | Personally I think Up converting DVD players are a scam! You can't add to
| | the picture what's not their to begin with. I think the whole reason for Up
| | converting players was to get people to buy a NEW DVD player to replace the
| | one they have that currently works just fine. To sell something to people
| | buying HDTV's and want to watch their DVD's on it, and a supposedly Up
| | converting DVD player would be the thing to buy. It's cheaper, they were
| | out before HD DVD or Blu-Ray, they play movies you already own and again
| | DVD's are cheaper. If your a DVD Manufacture, and want to sell a bunch of
| | DVD players to a over saturated marketplace where DVD players are hell a
| | cheap, what do you do? Personally I think it's Marketing B.S. Your HDTV
| | is already Up converting that DVD to be displayed at it's Native Resolution
| | anyway. It's a mute point. If it was as simple as Up converting to get a
| | HD picture, their would be no need for HD DVD or Blu-Ray!
|
| There is something there in the DVD that you can't get with a 480i output.
| The DVD may be recorded as 480p24 or 480p30. Converting that first to 480i
| and then up to the display size can introduce artifacts. Converting it
| directly to the display native format would minimize the artifacts. If the
| DVD player has an HDMI output that can feed the TV with the exact format the
| DVD is recorded in, that could still be improved upon by the way the DVD
| player can do its upconversion. A TV can only upconvert from the video it
| gets. But the DVD player can upconvert directly during the decoding of the
| MPEG blocks. For example, consider a program recorded in 640x480 (usually
| it is 704x480, which would complicate the example but not void the advantage).
| The compressed data would have blocks that cover an 8x8 square part of the
| picture. If those blocks are decoded directly into an 18x18 pixel square,
| you get a 1440x1080 picture. The advantage of the direct decoding is the
| various frequency components of the DCT encoding will produce a smoother
| result. It would be more complicated to do this with 704x480 data which is
| not in a square aspect, but it is doable, and would have a direct widescreen
| output without any intermediate letterboxing or whatever.
|
| It won't really be a dramatic improvement unless you can see artifacts in
| the playback that gets upconverted by the TV. If those artifacts are from
| that upconversion from one video format to another, or are from decoding
| into the lower resoltion video, then they will be reduced or eliminated in
| "direct to HD decoding of an SD picture".
|
| Whether or not any "upconverting DVD player" does this "direct to HD decoding
| of an SD picture" ... I have no idea. I'm just saying the possibility to do
| this exists.
|
|
|
| I certainly don't know the whole story from a technical angle, but as
| I've commented before, I'm letting the Sony BD player do the
| upconversion for standard DVDs via HDMI. I am truly impressed with the
| results, especially with 480p24 material.

If it converts to 1080p24 and the TV converts that to 1080p120 with
motion interpolation for all 4 of the added frames between each real
frame, I suspect you'd have the best of everything.



Well, the TV handles 1080p24 natively, so I don't think it does much of
anything for that, but 1080p30 is a different kettle.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:21:10 -0500 Jer wrote:

| Well, the TV handles 1080p24 natively, so I don't think it does much of
| anything for that, but 1080p30 is a different kettle.

If it can handle 1080p24 it should be able to handle 1080p30. OTOH, 1080p60
might be tougher for some of the lame engineers apparently doing some of the
designs for most of the brands, or most of the designs for some of the brands.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |