I keep seeing the arguement from HD fanboys that "my XA1 upconverts great" if that's the case, why are do we need HD or BD? Seems a little silly to me.

I keep seeing the arguement from HD fanboys that "my XA1 upconverts great" if that's the case, why are do we need HD or BD? Seems a little silly to me.

A better question is why do we still need our DVDs? The answer is that at this rate we will all be dead before some content makes it to high-def disk. Undoubtedly some never will make it to HD as there is still plenty of content that never made it to DVD.

Why isn't it a no-brainer that some also want to maximize what they have, rather than just throw the baby out with the bathwater?

I keep seeing the arguement from HD fanboys that "my XA1 upconverts great" if that's the case, why are do we need HD or BD? Seems a little silly to me.

What's silly, is people who think I'm going to suddenly forget my 800+ DVD collection. There is so little content out on both formats combined, that it doesn't really pay a movie lover to stop watching DVDs. I'm still buying DVDs, at a rate of a couple per week, at least, and considering that they are putting out almost 400s SD DVD per week, I don't see that changing anytime soon. I'm not going to claim, that upscaling is as good as good HD, but it can be quite good nonetheless. Since I'm content driven, I'm going to continue to watch DVDs, becasue its about the movies, not the medium.
J

unless they (including you) can provide an instant HD replacement of my 1,700+ SD DVD, then your comment regarding the silliness of upconverting is silly.

I keep seeing the arguement from HD fanboys that "my XA1 upconverts great" if that's the case, why are do we need HD or BD? Seems a little silly to me.

Great... another uninformed NEWBIE coming on here with smear tactics and insulting HD-DVD owners en masse. How's that Sony paycheck spending?

Why do people care whether a given HD player also upconverts well? Because not EVERY movie is going to be released on an HD format (or at the very least will take years). In the interim, we want the best quality possible for DVDs without having to keep an additional player in the system.

I have hundreds of music DVDs, some of the artists are very obscure/niche, and on independent labels, so are unlikely to be going HD any time soon. So yes, DVD upconversion is a major issue.

P.S. It's not only HD-DVD owners that are concerned with upconversion. Spend some time doing some reading here before you spew more garbage.

If upconverters didn't exist people would jump on HD DVD or Blu-Ray much quicker.

Great... another uninformed NEWBIE coming on here with smear tactics and insulting HD-DVD owners en masse. How's that Sony paycheck spending?

Why do people care whether a given HD player also upconverts well? Because not EVERY movie is going to be released on an HD format (or at the very least will take years). In the interim, we want the best quality possible for DVDs without having to keep an additional player in the system.

I have hundreds of music DVDs, some of the artists are very obscure/niche, and on independent labels, so are unlikely to be going HD any time soon. So yes, DVD upconversion is a major issue.

P.S. It's not only HD-DVD owners that are concerned with upconversion. Spend some time doing some reading here before you spew more garbage.


Hey, Genius--before you start asking about Sony paychecks, why don't you notice that he included BD in his original comment?

A bit quick on the defensive, don't ya think? :rolleyes:

The notion that upconversion gives you *insert hyperbolic made-up percentage here* of HD is indefensible.

Case in point: Casino

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/4199/casino1tk6.jpg
SD DVD upscaled with Photoshop

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/4848/casino2kp3.jpg
HD DVD

Complete frame capture here:

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/300/casino02hm8.th.jpg (http://img256.imageshack.us/my.php?image=casino02hm8.jpg)

Grubert, what upconversion system do you use? BD player? HD DVD player or a standalone scaler? Just curious.

PS: not ALL movies work well with upconversion. With some movies, upconversion will actually make it look worse. :)

Grubert, what upconversion system do you use? BD player? HD DVD player or a standalone scaler? Just curious.


The example above was posted by a Spanish fellow forum member. I guess the HD DVD grab probably involved a DMCA violation of some sort ;)

Personally, I use the HD-A1 and a Pioneer 59AVi.

To OP.

Most here would like the best possible picture and sound in our movies.

The issue is that a lot of hd-dvd owners feel that blu-ray is currently a waste of money. Too little gain for too much money.

My personal opinion is that my hd-dvd player upconverts good enough that I'm willing to wait until blu-ray only studios release on both formats OR there is a blu-ray player that is fully functional for the same price as hd-dvd. I might be willing to get a PS3 if they come down in price AND give a free USB add-on for IR remotes. It's just that I don't like the idea of having a gaming device for a movie player.

If upconverters didn't exist people would jump on HD DVD or Blu-Ray much quicker.

Makes sense.. I almost wish that HD players only output DVDs and 480i/p.

Almost

The only time it's silly is when people try to imply that the the upconverted quality is just as good as HD (usually said when referring to SD DVDs from Blu-ray studios).

The only time it's silly is when people try to imply that the the upconverted quality is just as good as HD (usually said when referring to SD DVDs from Blu-ray studios).

well, those people just need to be shot! :p They shouldn't call themselves videophiles if they can't distinguish the difference between true-HD vs upconverted SD.

If upconverters didn't exist people would jump on HD DVD or Blu-Ray much quicker.

Sorry, but I don't buy this at all. I would see the deliberate suppression of upconverting as a highly aggressive and consumer-unfriendly tactic, and I would have not yet bought HD because of it. It's bad enough 1080 upconversion isn't allowed on component cables through HD players.

I have 1000's of movies, if I had to pick 30 favorites, I promise you not one is yet on HD, nor will be in the foreseeable future.

Five years down the road if there were an innovation to roll the appearance %15 more definition out of existing HD, would you recommend implementing it, or launching another format?

This is just another thread designed to pooh-pooh HD DVDs features and present them as weaknesses. Thank you Karl Rove. :rolleyes:

I have a few friends with upconverting SD DVD players, and I still don't see what the big deal is. The picture is not noticeably better on with a upscaled player versus a high quality progressive scan unit. Now, I will say that I haven't been able to watch something on my display with an upconverting DVD player. If that capability is added to my current HD unit, then I might try some side by side comparisons.

I have a few friends with upconverting SD DVD players, and I still don't see what the big deal is. The picture is not noticeably better on with a upscaled player versus a high quality progressive scan unit. Now, I will say that I haven't been able to watch something on my display with an upconverting DVD player. If that capability is added to my current HD unit, then I might try some side by side comparisons.

It's a big deal on my LCD projector, it has virtually eliminated scalloped diagonal edges. It has moved me a step closer to the appearance of projected film as opposed to projected video.

Great... another uninformed NEWBIE coming on here with smear tactics and insulting HD-DVD owners en masse. How's that Sony paycheck spending?

Why do people care whether a given HD player also upconverts well? Because not EVERY movie is going to be released on an HD format (or at the very least will take years). In the interim, we want the best quality possible for DVDs without having to keep an additional player in the system.

I have hundreds of music DVDs, some of the artists are very obscure/niche, and on independent labels, so are unlikely to be going HD any time soon. So yes, DVD upconversion is a major issue.

P.S. It's not only HD-DVD owners that are concerned with upconversion. Spend some time doing some reading here before you spew more garbage.
Well I already have a great upconverting player...so why do I need HD or BD then if SD-DVD have all the movies?

I have a few friends with upconverting SD DVD players, and I still don't see what the big deal is. The picture is not noticeably better on with a upscaled player versus a high quality progressive scan unit. Now, I will say that I haven't been able to watch something on my display with an upconverting DVD player. If that capability is added to my current HD unit, then I might try some side by side comparisons.
What players are they using? What display devices?
Alot will depend on what display you are watching. I'm watching on a 60" Sony SXRD (1080p), and the difference between upscaled DVD and not upscaled is quite noticable. In fact, even the difference between different upscalers is quite noticable. Hell, even my wife, who can't work a remote to save her life, has commented how much better the A1 upscales than our Oppo.
Its not HD, but it is an improvement.
J

Well I already have a great upconverting player...so why do I need HD or BD then if SD-DVD have all the movies?

You don't.

What players are they using? What display devices?
Alot will depend on what display you are watching. I'm watching on a 60" Sony SXRD (1080p), and the difference between upscaled DVD and not upscaled is quite noticable. In fact, even the difference between different upscalers is quite noticable. Hell, even my wife, who can't work a remote to save her life, has commented how much better the A1 upscales than our Oppo.
Its not HD, but it is an improvement.
J
Most of them are on sets smaller than that (plasma and LCD) with a 1080i resolution. We did not compare upconverted and not on the same set, but rather I wasn't impressed with the picture quality compared to my 40" tube at home running 480p from a very nice DVD player.

Most of them are on sets smaller than that (plasma and LCD) with a 1080i resolution. We did not compare upconverted and not on the same set, but rather I wasn't impressed with the picture quality compared to my 40" tube at home running 480p from a very nice DVD player.
Not really much of a comparison then is it?
Neither plasma or LCD have 1080i resolution. Did you mean 720p?
Perhaps you didn't like their TVs, or their DVD players.
perhaps you should do more research.
J

I just purchased a new 50" plasma and installed it yesterday. Can anyone recommend a good up converting DVD player that does not have an obscene price tag?

I just purchased a new 50" plasma and installed it yesterday. Can anyone recommend a good up converting DVD player that does not have an obscene price tag?
Your display.

Most of them are on sets smaller than that (plasma and LCD) with a 1080i resolution. We did not compare upconverted and not on the same set, but rather I wasn't impressed with the picture quality compared to my 40" tube at home running 480p from a very nice DVD player.
This is plain unfair ;) I have a 38" widescreen CRT and have gotten the best picture from both my current HD-XA2 or my previous Denon DVD-2930CI with 480p. DVD displays quite well with a good DVD player and competent 480p input display device. DVD is highly underated. There is a significant difference in detail resolution between DVD and either HD formats, but many who criticize "DVD upscaling" have no idea of the true potential of this legacy format.

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/4199/casino1tk6.jpg
SD DVD upscaled with Photoshop
Sorry Grubert, but I've never seen an SD-DVD look that bad, upscaled or not.

well, those people just need to be shot! They shouldn't call themselves videophiles if they can't distinguish the difference between true-HD vs upconverted SD.

Tell that to Denon and their claims with The Fith Element DVD vs BD.

But i agree HD does show a marked improvement over SD in all cases i have expereinced.

Sorry Grubert, but I've never seen an SD-DVD look that bad, upscaled or not.

Sure you have, if you've ever seen the demo discs (HD DVD or BD) which do a side-by-side comparison of HD vs. SD DVD ... :)

Sorry Grubert, but I've never seen an SD-DVD look that bad, upscaled or not.

That is a part of the frame (the complete frame is in the third, thumbnailed image).

Neither plasma or LCD have 1080i resolution. Did you mean 720p?


WTF are you talking about? There are DOZENS, if not hundreds, of plasmas and LCDs that support 1080. I'm typing this on one now (a Westinghouse 37" LCD).

WTF are you talking about? There are DOZENS, if not hundreds, of plasmas and LCDs that support 1080. I'm typing this on one now (a Westinghouse 37" LCD).
They have 1080p, not 1080i. Yes, technically the same resolution, but progressive, not interlaced.
J

And your point is......? Does 1080i video not show up properly on a 1080p display or something?

What about the sets that only accept a 1080i input? For all practical purposes, with a 1080i signal from a progressive source (ala HD DVD), there is no appreciable difference between 1080i and 1080p, unless the deinterlacer is horribly broken. Really all this discussion was about is whether the display was capable of displaying a 1920x1080 image. How the display device actually accomplishes that is irrelevant in this case.

My point was in relation to this
Most of them are on sets smaller than that (plasma and LCD) with a 1080i resolution.
I intepreted this as him saying the plasmas and LCDs were 1080i.
J

Well I already have a great upconverting player...so why do I need HD or BD then if SD-DVD have all the movies?

If you want to watch them in HD rather than SD, then you'd want an HD source.

I don't understand why this is confusing.

They have 1080p, not 1080i. Yes, technically the same resolution, but progressive, not interlaced.
J


What is the visual flaw most commonly associated with interlaced output? My LCD projector, I believe will only do 1080I so I've not had the chance to see 1080P.

Your display.


What do you mean "my display"? Go easy on me, VERY new to this stuff Slim... :)

What do you mean "my display"? Go easy on me, VERY new to this stuff Slim... :)

He was saying that if your TV has a good scaler, then a nice regular dvd player with component out to your tv, then scaled to your tv's native resolution by your tv, will look just as good as an upconverted dvd.

It is important for me for BD movies to be better looking than upconverted SD, some do (Ice Age the Meltdown comes to mind, there is a pic thread), some basically don't (imho) like the Fifth Element.

As we move forward and we get more content, I will only be buying movies that look noticeably better than the SD version I already own, or are movies that I want to get but don't own on SD.

That is why the work done by all the people here reviewing them and putting them in the Tier system is important to me, thanks for all the work from those who have been working on that.

If you want to watch them in HD rather than SD, then you'd want an HD source.

I don't understand why this is confusing.
well because HD fanboys claim that the upconversion is so good on their XA1 that there is all most no difference between upcoverted and BR.

Well that's ridiculous.

well because HD fanboys claim that the upconversion is so good on their XA1 that there is all most no difference between upcoverted and BR.
Can you point me to a post where an HD Fanboy said that? Or are you just making things up to pose and arguement?

Can you point me to a post where an HD Fanboy said that? Or are you just making things up to pose and arguement?Not sure if he would count as an HD Fanboy, but Robert posted about challenging anybody to come in the store and tell the difference between upscaled DVD and BR. This was after previously pushing HD DVD players as all-in-one-solutions for this since DVDs look excellent with them. But in this case he later posted that he had been drinking a little and upon reflection decided that there was more difference between upscaled DVD and BR. I've seen more than one post from HD DVD supporters claiming that DVDs of animation look good enough and so they don't care that much about not having HD of those, but then I've also seen at least one post from a person who then did a comparison with "Ice Age 2" and was surprised about how much improvement there was. But that isn't exactly the same as saying there is almost no difference. I do think the idea that upconverted DVDs are good enough and so people shouldn't worry about not having access to Blu-ray content, while also pushing HD DVD, is more common around here than I ever would have thought. That isn't to say that most HD DVD supporters feel that way, but it is just rather surprising that even a small number of people would push that position, IMO. If upconverted DVDs are good enough for a person, they should be able to save money by skipping HD altogether.

--Darin

That isn't to say that most HD DVD supporters feel that way, but it is just rather surprising that even a small number of people would push that position, IMO. If upconverted DVDs are good enough for a person, they should be able to save money by skipping HD altogether.

--Darin

I think either HD format is capable of delivering as much PQ as our current displays will allow, and that's not so of up-conversion. However, all it takes is a lukewarm mastering to look = to or worse. HD can't polish a turd.

Obviously it's certainly possible for HD content to look worse than SD content, but that is content-specific. Clearly HD provides significantly increased capabilities as far as comparable content goes. Just because you have an old lady going 25 mph in a ferrari doesn't mean that a ford festiva is better because you're driving it 35mph.

All I know after looking back over this thread is that Nismo keeps coming back and posting the exact same sentence. I should have recognized it as a troll earlier. Let me just say this; The reason good upconversion is important is because of all the people who already have enourmous DVD libraries and exclusives never to be released in HD.

It's also nice to fall back on if you can only afford to support one format at current time and you would like to watch the releases from the exclusive studios and still feel good about the quality. These things hold true no matter which camp you back.

The reason good upconversion is important is because of all the people who already have enourmous DVD libraries and exclusives never to be released in HD.

Well, the real reason it's important is because it is the best way to reconstruct a sampled image. This is true even for HD content. The ideal way to reconstruct any such image is to scale it with quality scaling (ideally sinc filtering) up to an infinite resolution to a display with an infinite resolution.

It's not as if upconversion suddenly became advantageous given the advent of HD content. It has always been advantageous, and continues to be so, and that includes HD content.

He was saying that if your TV has a good scaler, then a nice regular dvd player with component out to your tv, then scaled to your tv's native resolution by your tv, will look just as good as an upconverted dvd.

It is important for me for BD movies to be better looking than upconverted SD, some do (Ice Age the Meltdown comes to mind, there is a pic thread), some basically don't (imho) like the Fifth Element.

As we move forward and we get more content, I will only be buying movies that look noticeably better than the SD version I already own, or are movies that I want to get but don't own on SD.

That is why the work done by all the people here reviewing them and putting them in the Tier system is important to me, thanks for all the work from those who have been working on that.


I have the TH-50PX600U. Do I have to make any adjustments while the DVD is on or does the TV scale the signal up automatically?

I'am sorry but DVD upscaled don't look any better than 480p source, that if you're display is doing a descent job at upscaling, that's all.

It don't look bad, but it's look so much out of focus that going from BluRay or HDDVD back to DVD hurt my eyes..

I'am sorry but DVD upscaled don't look any better than 480p source, that if you're display is doing a descent job at upscaling, that's all.Ummm.... DVD is 480i.

Not sure if he would count as an HD Fanboy, but Robert posted about challenging anybody to come in the store and tell the difference between upscaled DVD and BR. This was after previously pushing HD DVD players as all-in-one-solutions for this since DVDs look excellent with them. But in this case he later posted that he had been drinking a little and upon reflection decided that there was more difference between upscaled DVD and BR. I've seen more than one post from HD DVD supporters claiming that DVDs of animation look good enough and so they don't care that much about not having HD of those, but then I've also seen at least one post from a person who then did a comparison with "Ice Age 2" and was surprised about how much improvement there was. But that isn't exactly the same as saying there is almost no difference. I do think the idea that upconverted DVDs are good enough and so people shouldn't worry about not having access to Blu-ray content, while also pushing HD DVD, is more common around here than I ever would have thought. That isn't to say that most HD DVD supporters feel that way, but it is just rather surprising that even a small number of people would push that position, IMO. If upconverted DVDs are good enough for a person, they should be able to save money by skipping HD altogether.

--Darin

Too funny! I had read several posts that inferred such an event occurred (the claim that an up-scaled DVD is equivalent to a BD), but this is the first concrete description of the *event*. One shouldn't drink and post (or bake ... :) ).

Although I do not have the proper equipment to verify the claim with my own eyes (I clearly/consistently see a difference with a PS3 and Sony 70" 1080p SXRD), I find it hard to believe that with ~16% of the information, that the high-frequency data can somehow be generated.

Ummm.... DVD is 480i.

The content for film-based material is 480p.

The content for film-based material is 480p.
This is interesting. Is this because with film the 480i can be de-interlaced to get back to the 480p source that the DVD was created without any loss?

This is interesting. Is this because with film the 480i can be de-interlaced to get back to the 480p source that the DVD was created without any loss?

Yup.

Aren't most films filmed at 1080i 24fps?

To me it would just make sense that the native signal would look better than something converted down to 4080p and then scaled to 1080.

A scaled DVD is definitely not crisp. I have lots of DVDs I watch scaled to 720 on my tv and they look like DVDs look, nice but blurry.

I always make this comparison

Hi-def > DVD = HDTV > Regular TV

To me it's that big of a difference, and anyone who has gone from watching the regular broadcast to Hi-def channels knows how great a difference the picture is.

Aren't most films filmed at 1080i 24fps?

No. Most films are filmed on film.

No. Most films are filmed on film.

Otherwise they're called 'videos'. ;)

Sorry Grubert, but I've never seen an SD-DVD look that bad, upscaled or not.

Okay, here's the exact frame from the SD (captured from PowerDVD at its 720x576 native resolution):

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/6491/casinosdpalts5.jpg

TC is 28:07 for PAL, so about 29:23 for NTSC.

And the detail view from the upscaled frame:

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/5190/casinosdpalup1080crnj5.jpg

PowerDVD crushes highlights, I know. But that's beside the point.

Okay, here's the exact frame from the SD (captured from PowerDVD at its 720x576 native resolution):

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/6491/casinosdpalts5.jpg
Aren't the NTSC and PAL native "720" resolutions stretched horizontally to 853x480 (1024x576 PAL) to retain full vertical resolution if flagged as anamorphic?

853x480 NTSC playback (16:9):

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/5813/vlcsnap87215cq5.jpg

1024x576 PAL playback (16:9): (sorry, I don't have Casino in PAL)

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7027/vlcsnap108613ln3.jpg

DamnationDoormat,

- DVD picture dimensions are at maximum 720x480 (for 525/60 NTSC display) or 720x576 (for 625/50 PAL/SECAM display).

http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.4

Oh, I was going upon this. (http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/aspectratios.htm)

What has happened here? The studio has made an anamorphic widescreen transfer. It took the full frame from the camera (as shown on the left), then horizontally squeezed it to fit the resolution of the DVD (the first picture). Then they set the 16:9 DAR flag which tells the player to unsqueeze the picture again.

Mathematically seen this works as follows: We have a 720x480 MPEG-2 stream. You multiply the vertical resolution with the aspect ratio (480*16/9=853) which gives you the horizontal resolution for a properly stretched movie. So the 720x480 stream will be stretched horizontally to 853x480 during playback. This allows to use the full vertical resolution of the DVD which retains maximum quality.
What's anamorphic enhancement then? :confused:

Detail view from the capture you just posted:

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/1648/casinosdntsccrti3.jpg

Crop from HD frame:
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/923/casinosdhdcrsx2.jpg

This is interesting. Is this because with film the 480i can be de-interlaced to get back to the 480p source that the DVD was created without any loss?

Content can be stored progressively too, in which case there is no need to do any fooling around with interlacing.


What's anamorphic enhancement then? :confused:

Anamorphic enhances vertical detail for widescreen movies (less pixels wasted on black bars). During playback frames are stretched horizontally (so on a square pixel display it would be 1024x576 for example), but that doesn't increase horizontal detail.


As for upconverting: could someone explain the hype? You can't magically recover the lost detail when the master was resampled to 720x480 or 720x576. So what does it matter if the DVD player sends a 480-line signal or a 720-line signal? It will get upconverted anyway if the display's pixel count doesn't match the signal's.

You can try it yourself: find a nice, sharp, highly detailed photo on the net. That's your master frame. Make a copy of it and downsample it to 1/4th of the original. That's your high definition frame. Make another copy of the master frame and downsample it to 1/26th of the original. That's your standard definition frame. Finally, upsample the SD frame to the same size as the HD frame for easy comparison. You won't find any upsampling method (check out http://www.general-cathexis.com/interpolation.html for advanced methods) that makes the SD frame look nearly as good as the HD frame.

^ It is possible that most people have displays that are too weak, or are severely miscalibrated, or too small, or are too far away to see the full effect of the highdef pixels.

The other possibility is that if the studios are not careful with their digital master, they could have done a quick and dirty scan of the final film print using cheaper methods.

Where the original is animation or HDCAM or where a DI (pre final print) was used, the HD/BD movies will easily beat anything you can get from the most fancy upscalers.

A normal generic upscaler is basically a question of how many taps of filters you put in --- those things are so well understood that applying even the most basic information theory concepts to this will blow out the theoretical nonsense behind the possibility that it is always possible to recreate 1920x1080 frames out of 720x480.

So how about tricks in special heuristics - perhaps diagonal smoothing type things or similar black magic?

If you take a specific test image and you tailor a particular black magic voodoo upscaler, you can always create something that can fill in missing information for that specific test image, you might even expand your heuristic to cover a few test images. The problem you run into is that the heuristics will not be perfect, so it won't be a lot of test images before you start to have upscaling artifacts if you are too agressive in filling details in non standard ways.

Shannon has a lot to say about why this doesn't work.

----
Edit : I don't think there is a 2.40:1 anamorphic flag. I understood that anamorphic is only up till 16:9, meaning that the 480 --> 1080 upscale ratio is the same even for OAR 2.40:1.
---
One last bit of trickery is that some displays do not correctly weave back the 1080i signal and instead deal with 540 lines, meaning that it is only marginally better than the correctly deinterlaced 480P especially if the same crippled display is receiving 480P or 720P or 1080P out compared to 1080i...

But in that case, horizontal 1920 compared to 720 also runs against the same shannon theorems that makes this whole exercise AV voodoo , not AVscience, and the fundamental problem is with the display, not the highdef source. Which is why properly handled 1080P via HDMI is such a good thing to have on a big display.

Not really much of a comparison then is it?
Neither plasma or LCD have 1080i resolution. Did you mean 720p?
Perhaps you didn't like their TVs, or their DVD players.
perhaps you should do more research.
J
Probably 720p. I don't own a plasma or LCD, so I'm not sure what is common for them. The only one I've looked into the details of is my father-in-law's 1080p set.