my set up is panny 58pz800u, denon 3808, ps3, tivo hd and a wii. pardon what may sound like a stupid question, but im looking to make sd cable and sd-dvd "look better" so im guessing the most important thing is the scaling... is that right? i have also read that the NR on the hdp isnt great, so i guess my question is if there is only room in the budget for one or the other, which is the best bang for the buck?

does the vrs and nr technologies in the edge make it more valuable or is the scaling in the lumagen more important to improve sd? if you had to choose only one for the budget

The Lumagen is very good for scaling and deinterlacing of SD film based content, not so much for video based sources. It therefore depends on what you watch most of the time. The DNR in the Lumagen is not adjustable but then I found out that in most cases one cannot use much more noise reduction than the Lumagen uses without getting artefacts of one sort or another so for me it would be a moot point.

Another nice thing about the Lumagen is the video calibration capability. I don't think the the Edge has such image controls in it's tool kit.

i noticed that the hdp will only accept 1080i or 1080p24, how is the deinterlacing if i send it a 1080i signal from the ps3 instead of the 1080p60 signal i normally send to the plasma?

The 1080i, 1080p24 and 1080p60 modes all contain exactly the same information arranged in a different order. The 1080i signal from a Bluray player is a very pristine signal and doesn't contain any bad cuts or bad edits. The Lumagen should do basically a perfect job deinterlacing this type of signal.

Best regards,
Randy Freeman

my set up is panny 58pz800u, denon 3808, ps3, tivo hd and a wii. pardon what may sound like a stupid question, but im looking to make sd cable and sd-dvd "look better" so im guessing the most important thing is the scaling... is that right? i have also read that the NR on the hdp isnt great, so i guess my question is if there is only room in the budget for one or the other, which is the best bang for the buck?

There's no comparison. The Edge is a current state of the art HDMI 1.3 video processor (albeit bare-bones) capable of handling 6 HDMI sources.

There is no current competition to the Edge at its price point.

thanks everyone for their replies! cpcat, i believe that was exactly my question, i dont need an hdmi switcher, i will be using the passthrough feature on my denon 3808 and was just wondering which would be best for sd. i know that edge has a lot of advantages with the hdmi switching, it can accept a 1080p60 signal, etc.
but my question that on the edge thread it seems like the biggest weakness is the scaling, which everyone says the lumagen excels in, so what matters most for getting the most out of sd, scaling or the other host of things such as deinterlacing that the edge is apparently much better at.

There are one or two fairly vocal UK posters that attribute everything bad they see from their SKY box as due to poor scaling. Lumagen does have excellent scaling no argument there and its probably the best available. However, ABT scaling is better than that of most displays and the difference even with test patterns is subtle. With regular programming, I certainly don't see any scaling problems (ringing) on a 110 inch screen.

For SD from film sclaing is the most important thing as the deinterlacing of film based sources is simple.
For video based material the deinterlacing performance IMO is more important.

Only you know what kind of programming material you watch most and what is most important for you - you got the information you need now you have to put it into perspective with your needs.

Regarding HDMI 1.3: If the scaler is fed by your receiver you need two DVI inputs at most, not even HDMI is necessary.

I've had both on my system recently, so had a good chance to compare.

For sheer picture quality, the HDP is better. It has better scaling, and also controls which will help compensate for the lack of important calibration controls on the Panasonic Viera screens (there's no white balance/greyscale user menu on the PZs for eg). So if you just want something to upscale your DVDs to look great, that's your best option.

However, the HDP does have a few limitations and cannot output a 1080p/60 signal, only a 1080p/24 output (which is still fine for DVDs). It also only has a couple DVI/HDMI connections.

EDGE is a fantastic media hub, it does all your switching for you, outputs audio only, and also copes best with mixed material... so is great for cable/satellite viewing as well. The scaling is decent for some stuff, but sub-optimal for others. If you've got a few sources, or mainly want to view television... then this is probably your best option.

However, the HDP does have a few limitations and cannot output a 1080p/60 signal, only a 1080p/24 output (which is still fine for DVDs). It also only has a couple DVI/HDMI connections.






The HDP has been capable of 1080p60 output for years. I don't know where you are getting your info. I disagree with your advice as a whole as well.

Regarding HDMI 1.3: If the scaler is fed by your receiver you need two DVI inputs at most, not even HDMI is necessary.

True, as long as your AVR has a true bypass. Many do not.

The HDP has been capable of 1080p60 output for years. I don't know where you are getting your info. I disagree with your advice as a whole as well.

Sorry I was having a big brain spazz this morning. I meant input and not output.

You cannot feed a 1080p/60 input into the HDP.

Is there any reason why you disagree with what I said?

Sorry I was having a big brain spazz this morning. I meant input and not output.

You cannot feed a 1080p/60 input into the HDP.

Is there any reason why you disagree with what I said?

I disagree with the relative importance you are placing on scaling. The HDP's scaling is better by a small margin, but this small difference in scaling performance isn't likely to produce a significant advantage to overall image quality by itself. Couple this with the fact that the HDP uses older and inferior deinterlacing technology, has two DVI vs. 6 HDMI 1.3 inputs on the Edge, and the comparison isn't really even close.

The HDP at this point is a box beneficial primarily to those with specific calibration needs (color, gamma, greyscale) that can't be accessed via the display. For most, this will also require an ISF tech to make the most of these adjustments.

I disagree with the relative importance you are placing on scaling. The HDP's scaling is better by a small margin, but this small difference in scaling performance isn't likely to produce a significant advantage to overall image quality by itself. Couple this with the fact that the HDP uses older and inferior deinterlacing technology, has two DVI vs. 6 HDMI 1.3 inputs on the Edge, and the comparison isn't really even close.

The HDP at this point is a box beneficial primarily to those with specific calibration needs (color, gamma, greyscale) that can't be accessed via the display. For most, this will also require an ISF tech to make the most of these adjustments.

I think you have made your point clear now. How much importance someone places on scaling is certainly subjective, but 1.3 HDMI in a scaler can be without any consequences when you watch normal 8bit programming and have the scaler behind the receiver.
So in such a setup it comes down to the combined picture enhancement functions of bboth solutions in combination with the receiver and scaling performance.

@savefarris:

I think your Denon uses Faroudja Deinterlacing ? That would mean your video deinterlacing through the Denon could be quite nice and if you also use the Denon as a switcher the two DVI inputs of the Lumagen would not be a limitation.

Of course with the DVDO you have more options with regard to connectivity and it has flexible deinterlacing options all by itself and without the Denon - it depends on you if you think you'll need them.

, but 1.3 HDMI in a scaler can be without any consequences when you watch normal 8bit programming and have the scaler behind the receiver.
.


Again, I agree, with the caveat that this requires a "true bypass" through the receiver.

if eiren placed too much value on the scaling, then what is the most important aspect? is it deinterlacing?

The point is that scaling is only part of it. The HDP is outdated yet costs as much or more than the Edge.


IF you primarily need the color, greyscale, etc. adjustments of the HDP and plan to hire an ISF tech or are prepared to do the adjustments yourself, then get the HDP.

Only my opinion, of course.:)

It is not accurate to call the HDP outdated.

The only thing that it cannot do is to accept a 1080p/60 input, which is irrelevant for most people. It outputs 1080p/60, and can accept and output 1080p/24, which is what is really important.

Scaling and deinterlacing are both top notch on the HDP. If you pay close attention to deinterlacing, you will find some fault with essentially every product out there.

The calibration tools of the HDP are really great, even if its gamut control is not perfect. It is really good enough. I can say that after having used both the Radiance and an HDQ.

The real drawback to the HDP, but one that most people can easily work around, is that it uses DVI connections and thus will not pass audio. This is not a real limitation for most people because you can just plan around it. You lose nothing in true performance.

If I had no need or want of the Lumagen's calibration tools, I would probably go with the EDGE. Because I think every display can benefit from these kinds of tools, I guess I think that most home theater enthusiasts would choose a Lumagen.

I own the EDGE and Lumagen HDQ. My take on it, and issues that matter to me:

Lumagen plus:
Non-ringing scaling
Calibration controls
General controls and flexibility

Lumagen minus:
very poor SD video de-interlacing (film ok)
no support for 1080p60 input
DVI only (multi issues)
4 DVI inputs

Edge plus:
supports 1080p60 inputs
6 HDMI inputs w/hbr audio
dedicated 2nd HDMI audio output
de-interlacing

Edge minus:
very limited calibration controls
some ringing on scaling

I have owned the HDQ for about 2 years, and just recently got the EDGE. My projector has all the image calibration controls that I need, so the lack of them on the EDGE is a non-issue to me. The EDGE does show ringing on test patterns, but I don't see it on real video feeds, so that does not bother me. The downside to the HDQ in my view is all related to DVI issues. Many sources don't play nice with DVI (Toshiba HD players, the PS3, and many others). Yes, you can get a picture via DVI on those devices, but it is often far from ideal (try getting 4:2:2 YCbCr with un-molested video levels out of those sources over DVI and you will see the issue). One of the big pluses of the Edge to me is the dedicated HDMI audio output. This has greatly simplified my setup. Before the EDGE I was forced to send HBR sources to my receiver first, then to the HDQ - this created a situation where I needed macros to switch sources on the receiver and choose different memory banks on the HDQ. That worked, but was a little clunky. Edge acts as a true hub, and has made things easier to work with. SD video de-interlacing is significantly better on EDGE. My 2 cents.

There is no question that having HDMI as opposed to DVI makes life easier and it is certainly more elegant. To get HDMI audio from the HDP/HDQ, you are right that you need simply place the HDP at the end of the chain. It is as easy as that. It was effortless with my Harmony remote control. That dedicated audio output on the EDGE sounds nice and the EDGE is certainly more modern. But, at the end of the day, everything will work just as it should, with no loss of quality, with the Lumagen. There are plenty of PS3 and Toshiba HD owners who have everything working properly with the HDP/HDQ.

I am not knocking the EDGE at all. Those things that it does, it seems to do well. But, most displays can benefit from the Lumagen's calibration controls. If yours can't, it makes things easier.

Lumagen minus:
very poor SD video de-interlacing (film ok)
no support for 1080p60 input
DVI only (multi issues)
4 DVI inputs

.

Add poor HD video deinterlacing to that list. The HDP/HDQ does not retain full 1080 line resolution even with a static 1080 line pattern either in VIDPP or VIDNC mode. The Reon, Gennum VXP, and ABT 2010 chips all have no problems with this and moreover also do it with superimposed movement in the frame.

So, we have poor HD and SD video deinterlacing, DVI only, and no 1080p60 input support. I'm not trying to knock anyone's processor, (I used to own an HDP), but it is what it is. I guess "outdated" is a relative term. Maybe I should have said "getting a little long in the tooth".:)

I'll agree that it is a little long in the tooth. But, for what it costs and for what it offers, it is still, I think, a great processor, especially if you are interested in calibrating your display.

I still think that there is no benefit to picture quality obtained by HDMI over DVI or in lack of a 1080p/60 input. So, what it comes down to is that the EDGE has a bit better deinterlacing, lacks calibration tools, can have a bit of ringing on its scaling, but has more flexible connectivity.

I no longer own any Lumagen, by the way. Hopefully, my yet to be received RS20 doesn't need it.

I still think that there is no benefit to picture quality obtained by HDMI over DVI or in lack of a 1080p/60 input.

Don't want to start a war here, I see where you are coming from. I would like to point out that while, in theory, HDMI = DVI on PQ, from a practical standpoint DVI often has problems. There are two different ways (at least) of communicating EDID info, and many HDMI sources don't communicate well (or at all) with DVI sinks. What this means from a practical standpoint is that you can get sub-optimal outputs from HDMI devices because they don't "speak" DVI EDID (forced RGB and PC levels for example). 1080p60 might not matter to you, but it can to those who play video games. HDMI+EDID device interaction is a train wreck by itself...throw in DVI EDID and it can get much worse.

Don't want to start a war here, I see where you are coming from. I would like to point out that while, in theory, HDMI = DVI on PQ, from a practical standpoint DVI often has problems. There are two different ways (at least) of communicating EDID info, and many HDMI sources don't communicate well (or at all) with DVI sinks. What this means from a practical standpoint is that you can get sub-optimal outputs from HDMI devices because they don't "speak" DVI EDID (forced RGB and PC levels for example). 1080p60 might not matter to you, but it can to those who play video games. HDMI+EDID device interaction is a train wreck by itself...throw in DVI EDID and it can get much worse.

No war. . .

I have not had any issues with EDID. YMMV, of course.

Even though the Xbox and PS3 can output 1080p, I am aware of no games that are actually rendered at that resolution. Most games are 720p or less and scaled up to your chosen resolution. To me, the xbox outputing 720p, but scaled up to 1080p always looked great because the Lumagen's scaling is so good and better than the 360's own scaler. YMMV, of course.

"There are two different ways (at least) of communicating EDID info, and many HDMI sources don't communicate well (or at all) with DVI sinks."

They aren't getting DVI EDID if you have the Lumagen behind a receiver, they are receiving HDMI EDID.

FWIW I think the Lumagen's EDID is actually HDMI based (no audio support of course) since it was possible to get 4:2:2 into a Lumagen which isn't a supported mode per a DVI EDID.

Shawn

This wouldn't surprise me. There are many devices out in the wild that use a SiL* device officially sanctioned for HDMI, but using DVI connectors.

They aren't getting DVI EDID if you have the Lumagen behind a receiver, they are receiving HDMI EDID.

That is not what happened in my case. My receiver (HK AVR-745) was apparently "smart enough" to pass through the "DVI-ness" of the Lumagen EDID. Lumagen between receiver output and PJ input was an issue, remove Lumagen from loop, issues gone.

FWIW I think the Lumagen's EDID is actually HDMI based (no audio support of course) since it was possible to get 4:2:2 into a Lumagen which isn't a supported mode per a DVI EDID.

I believe the Lumagen EDID is sort of "enhanced DVI". There was discussion of this long ago, and my recollection of the situation was that the Lumagen DVI was "DVI" and not HDMI, but they (Lumagen) had the ability to program the chips such that they could do non-standard things.

It is clear to me that results vary widely depending on exactly what equipment mix and firmware versions (of all devices) you are running. I have no doubt that some equipment mixes work just fine as reported by others.

"My receiver (HK AVR-745) was apparently "smart enough" to pass through the "DVI-ness" of the Lumagen EDID."

Not smart, dumb... your receive wasn't handling EDID well. For it to be able to get audio over HDMI from the source it would have had to alter any downstream EDID to add the audio modes that the receiver supported to the EDID.

Shawn

People just want their equipment to work together properly. If replacing an HDQ with an EDGE makes things that didn't work previously now work, it looks like the HDQ was to blame, even if it was not the case.

HDMI is only now reaching some level of maturity, which is kind of sad. No one ever had problems like this with component video and analog audio: plug things in and everything worked.

This is going the direction I thought it would. I stand by what I said: mix in DVI with HDMI and the problems multiply.

thanks everyone for their help! i went with the edge, it just arrived today and im still playing around with it, but i certainly like what i see

Good choice.

Stay tuned for firmware. That's all I can say.:)

Can someone explain why the 'HDP and 'HDQ would have such poor SD de-interlacing when processors with the same chip (SIL004) took the top scores not too many years ago? So-so, maybe, but poor?

Can someone explain with some technical jargon why the 'HDP and 'HDQ don't pass the static 1080 line test? I would think that anything with real "motion adaptive video de-interlacing" would pass that. Perhaps the writer did not have the latest firmware update?

That said, I have to admit that the 'HDP and 'HDQ are somewhat behind simply because the (Lumagen) Radiance exists.

Can someone explain why the 'HDP and 'HDQ would have such poor SD de-interlacing when processors with the same chip (SIL004) took the top scores not too many years ago? So-so, maybe, but poor?

Can someone explain with some technical jargon why the 'HDP and 'HDQ don't pass the static 1080 line test? I would think that anything with real "motion adaptive video de-interlacing" would pass that. Perhaps the writer did not have the latest firmware update?

That said, I have to admit that the 'HDP and 'HDQ are somewhat behind simply because the (Lumagen) Radiance exists.


Relative terms (poor, good, fair) are just that, relative. The currently available deinterlacing is better. There's a good reason Lumagen doesn't use their proprietary deinterlacing in the Radiance, don't you think?

Inability to resolve the 1080 pattern indicates the deinterlacer isn't preserving vertical resolution. This is similar behavior to what happens with straight "bob" video deinterlacing. I'm not saying it's pure bob deinterlacing, but obviously the motion adaptive algorithm ends up dropping vertical resolution along the way where other solutions (Gennum, Reon, ABT) don't.

It's been awhile (a little over a year I guess) but I had current firmware at the time. Since then, Lumagen has not done a whole lot with their proprietary deinterlacing (they use Gennum VXP in the Radiance). It's not impossible they have updated it since but I suspect not.

Lumagen traditionally used the FPGA for cadence detection, and then used the onboard processor for the actual mechanics of deinterlacing. When considering HD processing, do consider the step-jump in processing power required to effectively handle 5 - 7 times the amount of data as SD. This is before you look at incremental improvements in the algorithms themselves.

Keep in mind Cpcat is talking about interlaced 60 field video deinterlacing that isn't as good as the newer processors. The Sil504 chip works great for film based material. I don't think it's so bad for video either. My JVC RS1 with the Gennum chip actually looks softer. It has less artifacts but I thought my old ISCAN HD looked sharper which made the image look deeper. This comparison was done with my own personal video's taken with a Sony DVCAM prosumer video camera. Sure I saw some minor artifacts but it was over all sharper with the ISCAN HD. Now I have the HDQ but I haven't tried any of my own videos with it.

Ron

My JVC RS1 with the Gennum chip actually looks softer. Ron

Doesn't the RS1 employee some sort of pixel hiding loptics, like the lense attachment Panamorph used to sell?

Doesn't the RS1 employee some sort of pixel hiding loptics, like the lense attachment Panamorph used to sell?

Nope! It's an LCOS projector. Fill factor is better than LCD but up close you can still see pixels when the screen is big enough.

really??

Ok these are just some of the sorts of problems I am having with my HDQ. For one most Blu-Ray discs are 1080p24 but the menu and extras are 1080p60 and I get all kinds of screwed up trying to switch between. And you have to stop the player and go into its menu to switch to 1080i before you can even watch some stuff...not to mention the frame lock issues I have switching sources or even starting a movie.

One question will the Edge do the necessary stretch/squeeze for CIH with a Vertical Compression lens?

Nate

Never mind no RS232 control.

Nate

N8: If you send 1080i out of your BD player all the time you should be able to solve your problem quite easily. The HDQ can reconstitute the 1080P24 back from 1080i60 no problem so there should be no visible difference to sending 1080p24 to it. If you want 1080P60 output then you could just save that to another memory bank on same input and you could have one ir button or rs232 string to swap between the two memories....

I didn't think there was any 1080p/60 material on Bluray. Everything I read about it said it was either 1080p/24, 1080p/30 or 1080i/60. I haven't had any problems so far although I have not watched many extra's. What BD's did you have problems with?

Ron

Does anyone know if Lumagen has any upcoming plans to add HDMI to either the HDP or HDQ?

Lumagen HDP/HDQ and DVDO Edge might be relatively inexpensive video processor I may be buying (new or used).

My primary concern is picture quality of SD DVD(film) with two processors (Lumagen (HDP or HDQ but not Radiance) vs DVDO Edge).

Summing up most of the opinions here and there, it seems that de-interlacing of DVDO Edge ("prep") is better than Lumagen, while scaling of Lumagen("no ringing scaling") is better than Edge .

How about noise reduction between the two? Thus, all things considered, which would be better in terms of SD DVD (film) picture quality? I have Samsung 1500 blu-ray player and Pioneer 610AV DVD player connected to Mitsubishi 5500 with HDMI.

Please guide me. There is too much information which I cannot digest. Just let me know of definite answer on overall picture quality of the two processors on SD DVD(film), without regard to those function which are not relevant to picture quality. Thank you.

I prefer my Lumagen HDP over the Edge I had with my Dwin CRT. Looks more natural to me.