I'm not sure whether this is the right thread, but it's not about HD-DVD players or Blu-ray players or Dual Format.

If you are watching a standard definition disc on a high def player which player/video processor provides the best up-conversion and why?

Why is it that some players of certain formats that cost hundreds of pounds (say Sharp?) are said to have lower quality up-conversion than other players costing less (do all Toshiba's give about the best up-conversion except the PS3?)

How exactly/approx does up-conversion technology work?

Why can one player do a much better job than than another (I'm assuming it's the chip but I'm wondering what the chip does differently in one player than another to make one better).

Do any cheap players/processors have a motion interpolation option for 24p->60p HD as well as good up-conversion of SD?

I'm not sure whether this is the right thread, but it's not about HD-DVD players or Blu-ray players or Dual Format.

If you are watching a standard definition disc on a high def player which player/video processor provides the best up-conversion and why?

Why is it that some players of certain formats that cost hundreds of pounds (say Sharp?) are said to have lower quality up-conversion than other players costing less (do all Toshiba's give about the best up-conversion except the PS3?)

How exactly/approx does up-conversion technology work?

Why can one player do a much better job than than another (I'm assuming it's the chip but I'm wondering what the chip does differently in one player than another to make one better).

Do any cheap players/processors have a motion interpolation option for 24p->60p HD as well as good up-conversion of SD?Many people believe the best chips for upconversion is the Silicon Optix, used in both the Samsung Blu-Ray player and the Toshiba XA2 and A35 (maybe A30 but I don't know that). Gennum is also considered one of the best, used in many scalar boxes.

It's very good to have great unpconversion, but it pales in comparison to a true high def transfer.

Many people believe the best chips for upconversion is the Silicon Optix, used in both the Samsung Blu-Ray player and the Toshiba XA2 and A35 (maybe A30 but I don't know that). Gennum is also considered one of the best, used in many scalar boxes.

It's very good to have great unpconversion, but it pales in comparison to a true high def transfer.

So do the Toshiba HD-E1 and Samsung BD-P1400 players both have the same chip for up-conversion? (the Samsung has problems playing SD discs as it stops for no reason when playing them).

How much worse is the upconversion in the Sharp players - is it only slightly worse?
Any cheap players/processors that do motion interpolation of 24p to a higher rate?

A30 and A35 have an Anchor Bay chip.

on HD DVD side only the XA2 has the Reon. A30 and A35 have had deinterlacing problems.

Why is it that some players of certain formats that cost hundreds of pounds (say Sharp?) are said to have lower quality up-conversion than other players costing less (do all Toshiba's give about the best up-conversion except the PS3?)

Before SD-DVD video can be scaled it has to be deinterlaced. This is surprisingly difficult to do well and the different solutions give different results. See this article and the associated test reports: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/primers/the-dvd-benchmark/dvd-benchmark---part-5---progressive-scan-dvd.html

While there are objective tests for deinterlacing performance, scaling seems more subjective, a matter of personal preference.

With SD-DVD we must be reaching the limits of what is possible. The better quality players and displays are more alike than different in their scaling abilities. You can generally discount comments like "I just pulled the trigger on this bad boy that blows everything else of the water and scales better than anything else out there!!! LOL! OMG!!"

-Bill

A30 and A35 have an Anchor Bay chip.

on HD DVD side only the XA2 has the Reon. A30 and A35 have had deinterlacing problems.

Is the de-interlacing problem still apparent in 1080p/60 output?

If you are watching a standard definition disc on a high def player which player/video processor provides the best up-conversion and why?In my case, a old SD DVD player is used. My video projector has a very good/excellent scaler built in. As long as your display device does proper 2:3 cadence and deinterlacing (many/most do not) then there is no need for a up-scaler player.

Is the de-interlacing problem still apparent in 1080p/60 output?

Yes, deinterlacing is only NOT needed with a 1080p 24Hz output (or some multiple of).

Yes, deinterlacing is only NOT needed with a 1080p 24Hz output (or some multiple of).

That's sad.
I really want to get a HD-A30 for upconversion purposes only, and this de-interlacing problem kind a scares me.
I know that 1080p/24p works fine with DVDs (except menus), but I have video based material that won't look good with 24p output.

As far as I am concerned, upconversion is the biggest scam Hollywood has introduced in a long time. I have seen old and new movies upconverted on upconversion players, HD DVD players, and the PS3. They don't look anywhere near the worst Hi Def movies. Anybody who claims that upconversion is good enough is not really a fan of Hi Def.

I understand it is necessary for now as there are only a small percentage of films released as of yet.

Can someone please explain fully, Super Upconversion.

I heard that Toshiba has a process that integrates 480i/60 and converts it to 960p/30.

In other words, it pulls two frames together and mixes them, INSTEAD of just filling in lines.

The result is supposedly a TRUE 960p picture, and it is supposed to look fantastic.

Any truth to this??????

If Super Upconversion can be worked out, to produce a true 960p picture, then basically, we don't need High Def Media at all.

As far as I am concerned, upconversion is the biggest scam Hollywood has introduced in a long time. I have seen old and new movies upconverted on upconversion players, HD DVD players, and the PS3. They don't look anywhere near the worst Hi Def movies. Anybody who claims that upconversion is good enough is not really a fan of Hi Def.

I don't think it's a scam Hollywood has introduced. Hollywood would like you to buy every one of their movies all over again as many times as possible on as many formats as possible, even if the transfer is bad, there's no extras, the content has no real resolution above 720p for the highest price possible.

I understand it is necessary for now as there are only a small percentage of films released as of yet.
Living in the UK especially, there aren't that many titles available, but mostly there's the very high price, the limited extras etc. and uncertainty with format wars etc. Should people have to instantly throw out all their standard definition DVDs just because there's a high definition player available with only a tiny amount of content for it, and what is available in their country is very expensive and may be soon be worth less if one of the formats failes or becomes superseded by another higher definition format etc? Even though we like our high def stuff, we should still be allowed to watch the standard def stuff we have.

As far as I am concerned, upconversion is the biggest scam Hollywood has introduced in a long time. I have seen old and new movies upconverted on upconversion players, HD DVD players, and the PS3. They don't look anywhere near the worst Hi Def movies. Anybody who claims that upconversion is good enough is not really a fan of Hi Def.

I understand it is necessary for now as there are only a small percentage of films released as of yet.

And since it may still be necessary to watch SD content not yet on HDM, we are attempting to answer the OPs question.

Can someone please explain fully, Super Upconversion.

I heard that Toshiba has a process that integrates 480i/60 and converts it to 960p/30.

In other words, it pulls two frames together and mixes them, INSTEAD of just filling in lines.

The result is supposedly a TRUE 960p picture, and it is supposed to look fantastic.

Any truth to this??????

If Super Upconversion can be worked out, to produce a true 960p picture, then basically, we don't need High Def Media at all.

If the original source material is 480p then at most it will ever be is 480p no matter what fancy interpolation or reassembling of the signal you do to it. yes it will look better than standard DVD not upconverted, but still will be well below what a true high def signal can look like.

That's sad.
I really want to get a HD-A30 for upconversion purposes only, and this de-interlacing problem kind a scares me.
I know that 1080p/24p works fine with DVDs (except menus), but I have video based material that won't look good with 24p output.

I would think if you are looking for upconversion then the XA2 would be the choice. It has been favorably compared to the higher end Denons by even the "Secrets" staff - and it doesn't get better than that

If the original source material is 480p then at most it will ever be is 480p no matter what fancy interpolation or reassembling of the signal you do to it. yes it will look better than standard DVD not upconverted, but still will be well below what a true high def signal can look like.
I thought all standard def DVDs were recorded at 480i (US) or 576i (UK) even for stuff that was originally 24 frames per second (and unlike HDM the sources would be filtered a bit to reduce any interlacing flicker?)

PS: I haven't read much on this super upconversion tech yet,
but if they could intelligently look at more than one field/frame (or even track objects between many frames) you could output more resolution than was in any one frame/field and it should look good generally (though it may introduce it's own artefacts).

You could also have a motion interpolation option (do any current players have this?) similar to those in some of the new US 120hz LCD HDTVs.

DVD can be encoded at 480P and 576P aswell.

DVD can be encoded at 480P and 576P aswell.
Are there examples of DVD discs that are encoded at 480p or 576p?
Wouldn't it look too "jagged edges" on an interlaced display when played with a normal interlaced DVD player?

The Toshiba Super-Resolution thing does seem to have more detail than standard def. see:
http://www.audioholics.com/education/display-formats-technology/toshiba-cell-broadband-video-processor
But if it only appears in 2009 that's too long to wait

I would think if you are looking for upconversion then the XA2 would be the choice. It has been favorably compared to the higher end Denons by even the "Secrets" staff - and it doesn't get better than that

We actually did get a HD-XA2 last month when prices came down (Not so many deals here like US).
But I want a good DVD upconversion unit for the living room for a good price and that's why I'm thinking of HD-A30. HD DVD playback could be considered a bonus feature.

Are there examples of DVD discs that are encoded at 480p or 576p?
Wouldn't it look too "jagged edges" on an interlaced display when played with a normal interlaced DVD player?

Well I would guess amost every DVD is encoded progressive. Its really help compression.

If they not, so have I encoded material shoot and edited with 576/25P

And I havnt found any issues with them (Of course 25P converts very well to 50i)

Well I would guess amost every DVD is encoded progressive. Its really help compression.

If they not, so have I encoded material shoot and edited with 576/25P

And I havnt found any issues with them (Of course 25P converts very well to 50i)

Unless you can find one that is, I would assume that they aren't.
I thought they were generally encoded to be played back on a standard interlaced dvd player and a standard interlaced TV

Well I suppose 'PAL' (576i) are more 'progressive' than NTSC standard def discs when it has normal feature film content (originally at 24 fps) as films get sped up from 24p to 25p whereas with NTSC they are converted to 60i with 3:2 pulldown. But I thought they both had filtering applied to reduce interlace artefacts?? And I thought they were both encoded in interlaced mode in mpeg2??

Unless you can find one that is, I would assume that they aren't.
I thought they were generally encoded to be played back on a standard interlaced dvd player and a standard interlaced TV

Well I suppose 'PAL' (576i) are more 'progressive' than NTSC standard def discs when it has normal feature film content (originally at 24 fps) as films get sped up from 24p to 25p whereas with NTSC they are converted to 60i with 3:2 pulldown. But I thought they both had filtering applied to reduce interlace artefacts?? And I thought they were both encoded in interlaced mode in mpeg2??

Well since DVD supports progressive encoding, it would be really stupid to encode a movie at 50i/60i since it would consume more bandwith.

In the early days of DVD most players (that i heard of) didnt support progressive out, but thats a player limitation not format.

http://www.videohelp.com/dvd

Ps3!?

Well since DVD supports progressive encoding, it would be really stupid to encode a movie at 50i/60i since it would consume more bandwith.

In the early days of DVD most players (that i heard of) didnt support progressive out, but thats a player limitation not format.

http://www.videohelp.com/dvd

Do any insiders know whether feature film standard definition DVDs are encoded in MPEG2 using progressive or interlaced encoding? Surely they are interlaced and filtered to reduce interlace flicker? What about the bonus features that might have been recorded on video - they'd mostly be interlaced mpeg2 as well?

Do any insiders know whether feature film standard definition DVDs are encoded in MPEG2 using progressive or interlaced encoding? Surely they are interlaced and filtered to reduce interlace flicker? What about the bonus features that might have been recorded on video - they'd mostly be interlaced mpeg2 as well?

They are interlaced ( I just had to explain this on the HTPC forum). You will likely not find any that are encoded with a 24fps progressive sequence on the disc although the dvd spec supports it. Think about why good deinterlacers are relatively thin on the ground if sd dvds are 24p native?


3:2 pulldown is actually easier to detect than 2:2 pulldown (PAL) for cadence detecting deinterlacers as in signal terms the 3:2 pulldown cadence is very obvious whereas 2:2 pulldown isn't that easy to distinguish from 50i : certainly not in terms of field dominance etc.

Bad edits break the cadence and cause the deinterlacer to reset and "seek" the cadence again. Although I personally think bad edits are far less common than a lot of people make out. If a deinterlacer cannot detect the cadence it will usually default to a deinterlace technique that minimises mismatched field artifacts: bob.

If its motion adaptive it will switch deinterlace type based on movement (weave on small motion , bob on motion). If its motion compensated it will vary on what is sometimes meaninglessly coined as a per pixel basis. This just means it segments the frame and varies the deinterlace method on and by detecting motion on a block by block basis although many motion compensated deinterlacers are really nothing of the sort.

Ideally if its possible the video footage should be cadence detected and reconstructed as "real" frames. Then if a a truly interlaced sequence is detected some sort of motion compensated or motion adaptive technique should be applied. Most deinterlacers fall back to a bob deinterlace if they fail to detect a telecine cadence.

As for scaling , it would take too long to go into . You are essentially creating pixels for two reasons: to mitigate aliasing and minimise softening. Its really a compromise between the two I usually find even with fairly sophisticated scaling I have to compromise one way or the other ( softer than I'd like or sharp looking but with aliasing and ringing).

Thanks.

As far as I am concerned, upconversion is the biggest scam Hollywood has introduced in a long time.

Upconversion is not a scam introduced by Hollywood. Fact is, new TVs have a resolution of 768 lines or even 1080 lines, but movies on DVDs only have 480 or 576 lines. So if you want to watch DVDs on your new flatscreen tv, you can either have huge black bars on all sides, or you can upscale. Of course you want to upscale, and in fact I don't know of any tv that will not upscale (or that has an option not to upscale). The problem is that the scalers in the tv sets are not the best. So there are upscaling dvd players that have better scalers than the tv sets. So the movie looks better if you have a good upscaling dvd player. it can also look worse if your $30 upscaling dvd player has a crappy scaler.

The real scam is that some manufacturers (or distributors, or dealers) advertise those dvd players as "Full 1080p" or even "HD DVD". And the poor consumers don't know that this is not "true hd".

My dvd player does a better job upscaling than my tv (it was also more expensive, so that was to be expected), so the picture is better thanks to upscaling in the player. but it still looks like a dvd, not like HD DVD or blu-ray.

A30 and A35 have an Anchor Bay chip.

on HD DVD side only the XA2 has the Reon. A30 and A35 have had deinterlacing problems.

Is this Anchor Bay chip on the A30 and 35 a weaker chip than their ABT102? I read on the XA2 sticky that the ABT102 and VP50s perform slightly better than the XA2.

If the XA2 performs about as well as the ABT102 card (which looks noticeably better compared to my A1) I will definitely say that this is well worth the price even if you don't invest in HD-DVDs.

I have been surprised with the unconverting ability of the XA2. There are several options for adjustment and I feel as others do that the Reon chip does a great job. It will not make SD HD but I still find the picture quality amazing using this player.

Just to be clear as there is an awful lot of misinformation being spread about this....

None of the Toshibas offer ABT deinterlacing. They use ABT for scaling only.

Just to be clear as there is an awful lot of misinformation being spread about this....

None of the Toshibas offer ABT deinterlacing. They use ABT for scaling only.Then what DO they use for deinterlacing? :)

For those of you who don't think upconversion can ever be as good as HD, go to HQV.com and learn about the Reon/Realta engines. I am not going to say they yet do full SD to HD conversion but as you read from XA2 owners - it's only about one beer away.

Think about this, if a SD frame was printed out in a still, and an artist was to touch it up, could it become equivalent to HD?? If so then I will suggest that we will see computing power (either custom chip or cell processor) that can get (almost) there.

I happen to think that is what Sony is advertising so fiercely against - Upconversion. Cheaper and easier to deal with by the J6P customers. To them it's just a fresh "new and improved" DVD. Easy to swallow. (and at least some of us will have that beer or wine with our movies and not give a rat's behind about the details). If BR loses to that, then Sony loses on the royalties and sales sides.

(btw, I am up to my neck in HDM so I am a believer in the best.)

Think about this, if a SD frame was printed out in a still, and an artist was to touch it up, could it become equivalent to HD?? If so then I will suggest that we will see computing power (either custom chip or cell processor) that can get (almost) there.



Not really . There are instances when with certain camera moves ( a zoom or push in for example: where you can use the extra resolution in some parts of the shot to bolster the resolution in others. However this doesn't work very well on moving material and is really only effective for creating a highish resolution still from moving material. Painting extra detail in by hand : again it can work but you are essentially left with an image vastly different from the original: you've just used the original image as part of a matte painting in effect.

Its certainly not something that can be down in real-time and its unlikely an automated system would be consistenly good enough with changin imagery to warrant it.