DVI player at 1080/720 vs RP82/Xp50 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 101 Old 05-27-2003, 10:04 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
uzun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,853
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Considering the resolution of the source material is 480i, on most DVD's that is, what are the benefits of using a DVI player to scale the low resolution image to something like 720p or 1080i. Won't scaling a NON-SQUARE pixel source image (480i/p) to a format that has square pixels (720p/1080i) create more artifacts, by far, and not give you any REAL increase in resolution, since the source material is low res in any case.

What are the benefits of scaling the image from a typical DVD to 1080i? I have never seen any DVI players in action, but thinking about it logically it seems that it would be undesireable overall. Wouldn't it be better to just output the image using the DVI connection at 480p? That way pixels are as they should be, no distortion or artifacting is introduced, assuming the DVD's de-interlacer is a good one.
uzun is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 101 Old 05-27-2003, 11:06 AM
Senior Member
 
Mark@Ct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SE CT
Posts: 382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
uzum,
I have 3 engineering degrees and read this forum every night. Other than the DVI connection (staying in the digital domain) I also do not understand how 480i source material can look "better " when scaled up to 720p/1080i when you consider that the DVD source has a native resolution of 480i. The bravo D1 owners are swearing by them, and I am considering getting on the wait list.... but I don't understand...I don't understand.....
BTW: mine HLM507: XP30

Best regards to all,
Mark

" Before enlightenment chop wood and carry water, after enlightenment chop wood and carry water"
Mark@Ct is offline  
post #3 of 101 Old 05-27-2003, 11:13 AM
Senior Member
 
yojimbo75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
uzun,
Scaling will always soften picture quality, but it can aid in the reduction of other problems such as in the reduction of visible scan lines on larger displays. For most of the displays utilized by posters here, 480p is sufficient at correcting this.
yojimbo75 is offline  
post #4 of 101 Old 05-27-2003, 03:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dmunsil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Kirkland, WA, USA
Posts: 1,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 27
There are two resolutions that matter in this analysis: the native resolution of the source (which for DVD is 480i) and the optimum resolution of the display (which could be anything).

The logic of making a DVD player that scales to, say, 1080i is that some RPTVs have a "sweet spot" at 1080i, because the circuitry is optimized to work best at that resolution. Things like electronic focus come into play here, because it's important to adjust the width of the scan lines so they just barely touch. In general you can only get that right at one scan rate.

Some TVs are set from the factory so the "optimum" scan rate is 480p, which then causes overlapping scan lines with any higher resolution. Some are set so the optimum resolution is 1080i, which then causes dark gaps between the scan lines when viewing 480p. Some take a happy medium approach by splitting the difference. Based on what I've seen of recent RPTVs, the most common approach is to overlap the scan lines so much that vertical resolution is badly blurred no matter what resolution you choose. In such cases, you might as well stick with 480p.

In any event, it's certainly possible for a CRT projector to look best at a specific resolution, so it makes sense to scale the image to that resolution. You lose a teeny bit of image quality because scaling is never perfectly transparent, but the final image looks better because the projector is operating at its best resolution.

On a fixed-panel projector or panel, all inputs must be scaled to the native resolution of the projector no matter what, so unless the DVD player has a better scaler internally than the display, and the player has an output resolution that perfectly matches the display, there's no real advantage to scaling in the player.

Overall, I think most people are not going to get a ton of benefit from a scaling DVD player, especially with the annoying quirks associated with them like lack of appropriate aspect ratio controls. But there are certainly exceptions.

Don
dmunsil is offline  
post #5 of 101 Old 05-27-2003, 04:21 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
uzun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,853
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
dmunsil, is the focus issue less critical for direct view CRTS, than for RPTV's? I have a sony 40XBR700, soon to be replaced by a 40XBR800. I currently use a Panasonic Xp50 dvd player. Would I likely get better image quality using a DVI player like the bravo with the 40XBR700 direct view CRT?
uzun is offline  
post #6 of 101 Old 05-27-2003, 05:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dmunsil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Kirkland, WA, USA
Posts: 1,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 27
I really don't know whether your image quality will be better or worse in the best case, though I know the Bravo has pretty bare-bones deinterlacing, so the worst case will be substantially worse with the Bravo.

There are so many factors that affect picture quality, and the analog-digital conversion is just one. Overall, no, I wouldn't expect the quality to get better with the DVI connection. If it did get better, it wouldn't be a massive difference. You should be able to get stellar image quality with an analog connection.

Don
dmunsil is offline  
post #7 of 101 Old 05-27-2003, 07:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jim Noyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 1,873
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally posted by dmunsil
I really don't know whether your image quality will be better or worse in the best case, though I know the Bravo has pretty bare-bones deinterlacing, so the worst case will be substantially worse with the Bravo.

There are so many factors that affect picture quality, and the analog-digital conversion is just one. Overall, no, I wouldn't expect the quality to get better with the DVI connection. If it did get better, it wouldn't be a massive difference. You should be able to get stellar image quality with an analog connection.

Don
Don-
The Bravo D1 is a flag reading deinterlacer, just like HTPCs, so I guess you can you can find fault with many improperly coded DVDs from early releases and smaller studios. What bigger and better displays with direct digital DVD input will do is make these improper transfers even more apparent in the future.

But almost everyone that has done an A/B test of the Bravo D1's DVI output, compared to the current best of breed analog DVD players that are at the top of your Secrets list, have seen SIGNIFICANT improvement with digital fixed pixel displays. Especially DLP and LCD projectors that can provide 1:1 pixel mapping at 720p. In fact Joe Kane will be using a Bravo D1 at his Samsung HD2 DLP PJ presentations at INFOCOMM instead of his Secrets #1 ranked RP-82. The dual D/A - A/D conversions for these displays is quite apparent, not minor.

Evan Powell of ProjectorCentral.com fame put it this way in his review, "We put the Bravo D1 up against the Denon DVD-3800 we have on hand. (Noteworthy detail: retail price of the Denon is $1199, or six times that of the Bravo D1). The result? When using the native 480p output, the Bravo D1 delivered an image that was very subtly sharper than the Denon. But more importantly it was noticeably more stable with fewer artifacts and less jitter. No surprise however. These are precisely the benefits you would expect to get from the elimination of the D/A conversions." The Denon 3800 is Secrets 4th ranked DVD player.

What would be interesting though would be to compare a properly flagged Bravo DVI DVD output to the best $10,000+ DACs instead of those in $1,000 home DVD players on a 1280 x 720 native display.

Here's how Stacey Spears described the PQ of DVI vs. high end DACs, http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...04#post2174504

"A 100-bit 2 GHz DAC cannot match the quality of DVI. The Bravo D1 proves that. It is stunning when all is well. The Avia sharpness pattern is virtually perfect. The only thing that looks better is the original image prior to MPEG encode."

-Jim Noyd
Noyd Communications Inc.
Representing VIZIO, DVDO,
Luxury Technology Show,
Kimber Kable, Krell
Jim Noyd is offline  
post #8 of 101 Old 05-27-2003, 09:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dmunsil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Kirkland, WA, USA
Posts: 1,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Jim,

I'm not disagreeing with you. Note that I was responding to Uzun's question about his direct-view CRT. DVI is great for digital displays. For CRTs, however, it's a mixed bag. It may make a discernible difference, or it may not.

And I still wouldn't personally swap out a player with excellent deinterlacing for a Bravo (or an HTPC for that matter). I happen to think deinterlacing is important, as does Stacey. If I could get DVI *and* great deinterlacing then I'd swap in a New York minute.

On the other hand, if you care primarily about the performance on the best discs (and I'm not saying that's wrong - it's a personal decision), and you have a DVI-enabled fixed-pixel display, the Bravo is an amazingly good deal. We found some annoying interface quirks and bugs in our testing, but the image quality was excellent through DVI.

Look, I like DVI in theory, but I'm not going to advise anyone to run out and buy a player that has mediocre deinterlacing, and that may not really look discernibly better on the guy's CRT TV, especially to replace a player that I know is excellent.

Actually I do mildly disagree with this statement:

Quote:
I guess you can you can find fault with many improperly coded DVDs from early releases and smaller studios. What bigger and better displays with direct digital DVD input will do is make these improper transfers even more apparent in the future.
The DVDs that flag-readers don't do well on are generally not improperly coded and they aren't just early releases. We're seeing nonstandard coding on about the same percentage of releases as we did three years ago when we started tracking flags on DVD releases. Non-standard flags are usually not improper, illegal, or out of spec, and there are no indications that they are going away. People need to get it out of their head that it's an encoding problem. It's a player problem. The releases are perfectly legal DVDs that flag-reading players can't handle as well as cadence-reading deinterlacers.

For most people, they'll get much better performance on those discs switching to the interlaced output and using the deinterlacing on the display. But how do they know to do that? They don't their player is screwing up the image. They just think the transfer is soft. It's a freaking disaster. They're paying a premium for a "progressive" player that looks worse than an interlaced player.

Just to take one example, do you know what percentage of PAL releases are flagged as video? About 85% in our sample, and we have reason to believe that's a low figure. These are major film releases from all the big studios. Because they're flagged as video, on a flag-reading DVD player they look lousy. That's a big problem, IMO, and it's why we consistently give flag-reading DVD players bad scores. The Bravo is no exception.

Don
dmunsil is offline  
post #9 of 101 Old 05-27-2003, 09:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jim Noyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 1,873
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally posted by dmunsil
Jim,

I'm not disagreeing with you. Note that I was responding to Uzun's question about his direct-view CRT. DVI is great for digital displays. For CRTs, however, it's a mixed bag. It may make a discernible difference, or it may not.
Point well taken in the case of analog CRTs.

-Jim Noyd
Noyd Communications Inc.
Representing VIZIO, DVDO,
Luxury Technology Show,
Kimber Kable, Krell
Jim Noyd is offline  
post #10 of 101 Old 05-28-2003, 11:48 AM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,461
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Quote:
Other than the DVI connection (staying in the digital domain) I also do not understand how 480i source material can look "better " when scaled up to 720p/1080i when you consider that the DVD source has a native resolution of 480i.
In addition to dmunsil's point about matching the optimum scan rates of the display, there are many different methods of scaling digital imagery. The simplest methods (e.g. Nearest Neighbor) do not perform any resampling and result in blocky artifacts. More sophisticated methods (e.g. Bicubic) can resample (interpolate and antialias) the visual information as it's scaled, resulting in a smoother better-looking image.

Since film material can be reverse-telecined into progressive 480p24/3:2 frames, even fairly simple resampling can be applied with much better results than traditional line-doubling on field-based material. The resampling may not add any additional visual info, but the resulting high-rez images better match the display's resolution with minimal loss (dmunsil's point).

On some HDTVs (CRTs?), it may even be beneficial to exceed the dot resolution of the display. In printing, for example, there's a rule of thumb that the resolution of a digital image should be at least several times the density of the dot screen used to print it for the best results. Unpleasant artifacts (moire patterns, rough edges, etc.) can be introduced by using using lower resolutions. A similar philosophy may apply when displaying digital content on some HDTVs as well with regard to dot pitch.... perhaps.

ADU
ADU is offline  
post #11 of 101 Old 05-28-2003, 01:10 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,461
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Quote:
analog CRTs
If a CRT is fundamentally an (analog) RGB device (red, green and blue guns), then I think it's still in doubt which may work better in digital TVs: DVI Digital RGB->CRT Analog RGB or the more tradititional Analog YUV->CRT Analog RGB. My bet is on the digital RGB though.

I'm no expert on this, but it seems to me that even with the best analog DVD players, the process of delivering an image to a CRT still goes something like this:

Digital MPEG->AnalogYUV(in the player)->CRT Analog RGB

The signal seems to go through at least two steps of analog conversion at a minimum. Some players will undoubtedly do a much better job at this than others. While a DVI player potentially goes thus:

Digital MPEG->DVI Digital RGB->CRT Analog RGB.

If the TV was intended primarily for YUV sources, and the implementation of the DVI port was an afterthought, then it's possible this simple process could be undermined by add'l YUV->RGB D/A/A conversion inside the TV itself, degrading PQ when using the DVI input. I sincerely hope that's not the case with the Sony XBRs though.

ADU
ADU is offline  
post #12 of 101 Old 05-28-2003, 01:20 PM
Senior Member
 
Mark@Ct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SE CT
Posts: 382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by ADU


Since film material can be reverse-telecined into progressive 480p24/3:2 frames, even fairly simple resampling can be applied with much better results than traditional line-doubling on field-based material. The resampling may not add any additional visual info, but the resulting high-rez images better match the display's resolution with minimal loss (dmunsil's point).

Thanks for responding to my quesion ADU. Is there any way you can simplify you answer? It's over my head. How much of the discussion above pertains to DLPs (other than DVI)?

Mark

" Before enlightenment chop wood and carry water, after enlightenment chop wood and carry water"
Mark@Ct is offline  
post #13 of 101 Old 05-28-2003, 01:47 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,461
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 173
I gotta bow out now for awhile, Mark. I think there's a bit more on this subject in this thread though. Back later.

ADU
ADU is offline  
post #14 of 101 Old 05-28-2003, 05:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Mark@Ct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SE CT
Posts: 382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
ADU,
That link was exactly what I needed. Thanks!

Mark

" Before enlightenment chop wood and carry water, after enlightenment chop wood and carry water"
Mark@Ct is offline  
post #15 of 101 Old 05-28-2003, 09:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dmunsil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Kirkland, WA, USA
Posts: 1,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally posted by ADU
I'm no expert on this, but it seems to me that even with the best analog DVD players, the process of delivering an image to a CRT still goes something like this:

Digital MPEG->AnalogYUV(in the player)->CRT Analog RGB

The signal seems to go through at least two steps of analog conversion at a minimum. Some players will undoubtedly do a much better job at this than others. While a DVI player potentially goes thus:

Digital MPEG->DVI Digital RGB->CRT Analog RGB.
Since MPEG is inherently YUV, the diagrams might be better like this:

Analog connection:

MPEG (digital YUV) -> Analog YUV -> (analog cable) -> Analog RGB -> CRT guns

Note that only the first link involves a D/A conversion. The signal can stay analog all the way to the CRT guns.

DVI connection:

MPEG (digital YUV) -> Digital RGB -> (DVI cable) -> Analog RGB -> CRT guns

In this case, the third link is the D/A conversion. The only significant difference in the abstract is that in the first case the signal is converted from YUV to RGB in the digital domain instead of the analog domain. They're both perfectly fine. In fact, I could make the case that the conversion is probably better handled in the analog domain, but it's really splitting hairs.

In practice, a TV may digitize the signal to do some kind of signal processing on it, and in such cases a DVI connection could avoid one D/A conversion. But will you notice the difference? It almost certainly varies from TV to TV, but I'm skeptical that you'd ever see a really huge difference. I'm happy to be proven wrong, though.

I continue to believe that the big win for DVI is in situations where the signal can be kept digital all the way to the display panels.

Don
dmunsil is offline  
post #16 of 101 Old 05-29-2003, 04:52 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,461
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 173
I can't argue with much that you've said. However, when viewing digital content, I still feel there's a strong case to made for preserving the integrity of the digital pathways as long as possible, rather than performing the D/A conversion up front. Whether or not the XBR CRTs can take full advantage of this is another matter though. As you say, the quality and design of the components involved surely has alot to do with which approach may work best.

ADU
ADU is offline  
post #17 of 101 Old 05-29-2003, 06:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dmunsil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Kirkland, WA, USA
Posts: 1,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 27
I don't know what "preserving the integrity of the digital pathways" means. To be shown on an analog display device, the signal has to be converted to analog at some point. Where it gets converted is pretty much unimportant in this particular case. Or rather, there's no obvious choice in the abstract case - it just depends on the particular combination of devices and which one does the best job of D/A conversion, YUV->RGB conversion, etc.

Don
dmunsil is offline  
post #18 of 101 Old 05-29-2003, 08:17 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,461
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Quote:
"preserving the integrity of the digital pathways"
My apologies if that remark came across poorly. All I was really trying to say is this: if the original source is digital (as with DVDs), it may be better to keep it that way as long as possible as it's transmitted/converted from one place/form to another, regardless of it's final destination (an analog CRT). If you disagree, that's cool. But then what's the point in making TVs "digital" to begin with?

ADU
ADU is offline  
post #19 of 101 Old 05-29-2003, 09:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jim Noyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 1,873
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally posted by ADU
My apologies if that remark came across poorly. All I was really trying to say is this: if the original source is digital (as with DVDs), it may be better to keep it that way as long as possible as it's transmitted/converted from one place/form to another, regardless of it's final destination (an analog CRT). If you disagree, that's cool. But then what's the point in making TVs "digital" to begin with?
You guys do disagree, agreed?

ADU-
Sony and others put digital inputs on analog CRTs so they could accept digital signals that could only be available via DVI or HDMI in the future.

Don-
Why don't we get a test together? Stacey Spears has a Bravo D1, maybe we can get a Sony XBR with DVI in and do some a/b testing of some properly flagged DVD content on component video from a Panny 82 or another top-ranked analog player? Nice to see a high end DAC vs. DVI to digital and analog displays.

-Jim Noyd
Noyd Communications Inc.
Representing VIZIO, DVDO,
Luxury Technology Show,
Kimber Kable, Krell
Jim Noyd is offline  
post #20 of 101 Old 05-29-2003, 10:29 PM
Member
 
piney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: San Francisco, California
Posts: 168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 10
All things being equal, the best image is obtained with the shortest analog path regardless of the final output device, because each analog hop adds noise to the signal.

If the noise in the projectors' DACs was much less than the noise in the analog cables, the difference would probably be perceptible.
piney is offline  
post #21 of 101 Old 05-30-2003, 12:30 AM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,461
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 173
I do agree with you Don on this: if the digital player is not as versatile as the analog player or the display at de-interlacing/scaling different kinds of DVD content, then the analog player may be advantageous.

I've asked a couple times on this forum how the scaling of video-based DVDs compares to film-based DVDs on the new DVI players, but I don't think anyone's commented on that so far. This may be less relevant to others than to me though, so no biggee.

IAC, a shoot-out on a 34XBR800 sounds like a great idea. Maybe we could all meet at Circuit City or Fry's in Manhattan Beach? :)

ADU
ADU is offline  
post #22 of 101 Old 05-30-2003, 08:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jim Noyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 1,873
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
ADU-
I'd love to get it set up an A/B. The Good Guys store on Hawthorne Blvd. may be a better environment.

As far as video on the Bravo D1, ask over on this thread as MrWiggles is having great success with this new HD2 PJ from Immersive.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9&goto=newpost

-Jim Noyd
Noyd Communications Inc.
Representing VIZIO, DVDO,
Luxury Technology Show,
Kimber Kable, Krell
Jim Noyd is offline  
post #23 of 101 Old 05-30-2003, 10:57 AM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,461
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Thanks for the link, Jim.

I was sort of half-joking with that suggestion, but if you're serious about some kinda demo at Good Guys, I'd love to tag along. If it would help, I could bring a few DVDs and a Sony 715P to compare too.

A weekday, especially Mon, Wed, Fri evening would be best for me, but I could probably play hooky and make some other time as well. Sometimes traffic on the 405 South can be pretty nasty on a Friday night, but whatever works...

ADU
ADU is offline  
post #24 of 101 Old 05-30-2003, 01:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dmunsil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Kirkland, WA, USA
Posts: 1,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 27
I'm not sure we really disagree in any substantive way. I just am trying to set expectations low for someone who has a CRT TV and is wondering if DVI is going to improve the picture. My suspicion is that it won't in any discernible way. But it might.

The big promise of DVI is to keep the picture digital all the way to the display panels. If the signal gets converted to analog at all, anywhere in the chain, the benefits of DVI are largely gone. That's why you don't typically see DVI connections on CRT computer monitors, but they're very common on LCD monitors.

Yes, I think the idea that you should keep the signal digital as long as possible is a good rule of thumb, but in this particular case I don't see any big wins. The amount of noise that is going to be introduced into the system by doing the D/A conversion one hop earlier is negligible.

Quote:
I've asked a couple times on this forum how the scaling of video-based DVDs compares to film-based DVDs on the new DVI players, but I don't think anyone's commented on that so far. This may be less relevant to others than to me though, so no biggee.
It depends on the deinterlacing. Scaling works the same way whether the source is video or film. Deinterlacing is the only thing that changes. So for example, the Bravo looks very soft on video-format DVDs because its deinterlacer is pretty simple. The Samsung looks better, because it uses a very good deinterlacer. The difference is especially strong when the DVD was actually sourced from film but flagged as video. A flag-based deinterlacer will treat it as video and lose resolution, but a cadence-based deinterlacer will treat it as film and recover all the original resolution.

But in either case, by the time the image reaches the scaling algorithms it's been converted to 480p, and the scaler doesn't care what it was originally.

Don
dmunsil is offline  
post #25 of 101 Old 05-30-2003, 02:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jim Noyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 1,873
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally posted by dmunsil
But in either case, by the same the image reaches the scaling algorithms it's been converted to 480p, and the scaler doesn't care what it was originally.
Don
Don-
Could you explain this statement in a different way?

-Jim Noyd
Noyd Communications Inc.
Representing VIZIO, DVDO,
Luxury Technology Show,
Kimber Kable, Krell
Jim Noyd is offline  
post #26 of 101 Old 05-30-2003, 04:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dmunsil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Kirkland, WA, USA
Posts: 1,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Sorry - typing too fast. Should have said "By the TIME the image reaches the scaling algorithms..." But here's a longer explanation:

The pipeline for conversion of any 480i signal to a higher resolution looks like this:

480i -> (deinterlacer) -> 480p -> (scaler) -> 720p,1080i, et.

Sometimes the deinterlacer and the scaler are in the same chip, but it's still two separable transformations. The deinterlacer takes an interlaced input (480i) and converts it to progressive (480p), and the scaler always takes a progressive input (in this case 480p), and converts it to a higher resolution progressive or interlaced output. Scaling cannot be done on interlaced signals (if a scaler accepts interlaced input, it has a deinterlacer inside), and deinterlacing cannot be done on progressive signals.

So the scaling doesn't vary based on the kind of source. The scaler doesn't know or care that the source was film or video. By the time the video reaches the scaler it's 480p and that's all it needs to know.

The deinterlacer, on the other hand, cares quite a bit what kind of source its dealing with, because film-sourced 480i can be deinterlaced simply and cheaply via the inverse-telecine algorithm. With video-sourced 480i, the deinterlacer either must apply much more complex and subtle algorithms to maintain as much resolution as possible, or just use something simple and cheap that loses about half of the original 480i resolution.

The original question was "how the scaling of video-based DVDs compares to film-based DVDs on the new DVI players" and the answer is that it's a non-issue. Scaling is scaling. It's the deinterlacing that changes between video-based and film-based DVDs. And the deinterlacing has nothing to do with the scaling or the DVI output.

Now, it would be theoretically possible to combine the scaling and deinterlacing in certain ways to save a few cycles here and there, but again that's an implementation detail. For example, the simplest video deinterlacing is just taking a 240-line field and scaling it to 480 lines, so if your deinterlacer and scaler are integrated, it would be possible to just feed the 240-line field into the scaler and let it scale the field all the way up to the target resolution in one pass. Does this change or improve the output? Not significantly.

One mildly related factor is that chips that have built-in scaling usually do excellent upsampling, and (relatively) excellent bob-style deinterlacing because if you're going to build in all the silicon necessary to do quality scaling, quality video upsampling of all kinds becomes cheap.

So to return to the original question, the variations in handling of video-sourced vs. film-sourced DVDs is entirely related to the quality of the deinterlacer. The quality of the scaler and the fact that the player uses DVI affect the output quality, but they affect all kinds of DVDs equally.

Is that clearer?

Don
dmunsil is offline  
post #27 of 101 Old 05-30-2003, 05:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jim Noyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 1,873
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Agreed Don.

Is there any content currently from major studios that offer 480p content on their DVD releases?

That way we could just strip off the 2-3 flags and scale or output without deinterlacing.

-Jim Noyd
Noyd Communications Inc.
Representing VIZIO, DVDO,
Luxury Technology Show,
Kimber Kable, Krell
Jim Noyd is offline  
post #28 of 101 Old 05-30-2003, 07:10 PM
Senior Member
 
ugabuga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well i have botht he Rp82 and CP72 and took the plunge and ordered the Bravo. I will compare them on my Hitachi 65 rptv eventually when the Bravo ships.
ugabuga is offline  
post #29 of 101 Old 05-31-2003, 04:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dmunsil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Kirkland, WA, USA
Posts: 1,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Jim,

That's a complicated question. No major studio that I know of ships actual 480p content (i.e. marked as 30 fps progressive). Avia contains sequences that are progressive, as do a few other discs from the same company. However, most of the major studios ship film discs that are ostensibly interlaced, but in which all or most of the MPEG pictures on the disc are progressive, and can thus be output without any real extra processing to speak of.

So the sequences are marked "interlaced" and the defined output as per the MPEG-2 spec is an interlaced, 60-field sequence. But by using the flags as a guide, the decoder is just taking the MPEG pictures as-is and outputting them as frames. The 3-2 pulldown pattern is used to determine how many times to output each frame. Doing this is slightly outside the spec, but the people that designed MPEG-2 assumed that players might use the flags in this fashion. It's not wrong, in other words, but it's sort of a nifty hack that doesn't always work.

The most common problem is that even on major releases, some of the pictures are not progressive. Sometimes that only happens for a second or two, and sometimes longer. When it happens, the MPEG decoder has to fall back on video deinterlacing, and in most cases it uses very simple algorithms that lead to an over-soft picture. We have scanned the flags on many top releases and found that the majority have some number of pictures that aren't progressive during the movie's running time. Sometimes there's a good reason, like subtitles that were added after the video transfer. Other times, there's no reason at all that we can see.

And of course there are worse situations, like entire films that are not transferred with any progressive pictures at all. The flags look like video, and the player treats the disc as video. This is more common than you'd think, though mainly with 2nd and 3rd-tier titles.

If you turn all that around and look at it more positively, it means that most major Hollywood releases are flagged normally and progressively for most of their running time, and thus a very simple chip can output perfect frames without doing any real work at all. Thus even cheap progressive players can produce excellent video in these cases, assuming they have good analog circuitry (or a DVI output, like the Bravo).

Personally, I watch too many obscure films and non-film material to be satisfied with a progressive player that only works well on big releases, and then only most of the time. I prefer players that work well all the time. There was a time when it looked like quality deinterlacing was going to filter down into the bargain progressive players, but it looks like that didn't work out. So now there's a big divide - you can buy a cheap progressive player that works well on a lot of stuff but not all, or you can spend more money to get one that works well on just about everything.

You pays your money and you takes your choice. :)

Don
dmunsil is offline  
post #30 of 101 Old 05-31-2003, 04:57 PM
ADU
AVS Special Member
 
ADU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,461
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 173
The distinction you draw between scaling and de-interlacing is an interesting one, Don. My concerns are more related to home-authored video-based material than improperly flagged film content. But I guess some similar issues apply.

Since my current player doesn't do progressive well, at the moment I'm pretty dependant on my 34XBR800 display to perform whatever de-interlacing is needed. If I switched to a player like the Bravo though, to gain the benefits of digital RGB and scaling, it sounds as though I'd have to be entirely reliant upon the player's de-interlacing.

If, or when I get a digital player, I'd like to feel as though it'll be able handle whatever's thrown at it with superior results, whether that be 24fps correctly flagged or not, field-based, or 30fps frame-based material. Ideally I'd want the player to be able to distinquish between each of these different types of streams and apply the best de-interlacing for each situation.

This may be setting the bar a bit too high for a low-cost first-run DVI player though. It's kind of hard to judge until more competing products come out.

ADU
ADU is offline  
Closed Thread DVD Players (Standard Def)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off