Are DVDs really 480p? 480p vs. 720p question. - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 20Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 145 Old 01-28-2009, 05:11 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
SpeksETC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 46
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I always thought DVDs were 480p, which is considered SD and thats why 720p material looked so much better.

Yesterday I went to www.apple.com/trailers and saw that not only do they categorize their 480p trailers as HD, but when I watched a 480p trailer on my Panny 50PV80, it looked pretty damn good, and definitely better than a standard DVD.
What is going on here?

Try it for yourself:

http://movies.apple.com/movies/unive...tlr2_h480p.mov

http://movies.apple.com/movies/unive...tlr2_h720p.mov
SpeksETC is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 145 Old 01-28-2009, 05:15 AM
Senior Member
 
dyates69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Did you watch it in full screen mode or a window? It's a newer compression codec than DVD but likely a lower bitrate. I had a look and don't believe it looks better than a well mastered DVD. The mastering quality does vary substantially however between DVD's.
dyates69 is offline  
post #3 of 145 Old 01-28-2009, 06:10 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
SpeksETC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 46
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I watched it full screen on my 50" plasma.
720p version looked better, but I was really impressed by the 480p version - so much so that I thought I was watching the 720p one first....
SpeksETC is offline  
post #4 of 145 Old 01-28-2009, 10:04 AM
Advanced Member
 
dovercat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I think DVDs are Interlaced not Progressive, hence the need for deinterlacers, a good deinterlacer with a film sourced DVD should give more picture detail equal to Progressive most of the time. While a video sourced DVD deinterlaced relys on bobbing and weaving all the time. A dvd player with a poor de-interlacer may bob and weave film sources reducing the visible fine detail.

A 480p source may have color encoded at the same resolution as the black and white image. Color resolution on DVDs is normally half the vertical and half the horizontal resolution of the black and white image. The dvd player interpolats this up to the black and white images resolution. Not all dvd players are good at doing this interpolation.

Film and video is sampled then filtered at half the frequency of the sampling to prevent aliasing effects. So detail resolution maybe less than detail resolution of computer graphics, or film/video from sources that have been downscaled to the same resolution.

On DVDs pre-smoothing - reducing the fine detail, is often done before encoding to reduce the mpeg bit rate. Too low a bit rate for too much information leads to mosquito noise and blocking noise. Noise reduction in the dvd player may automatically reduce mosquito and blocking noise, but on discs that are properly encoded this is not needed and when done reduces image detail.

In the UK PAL dvds are often claimed to be 576p, if NTSC dvd claims are like PALs then NTSC is probably not equivelent to 480p.

PAL DVD claim equivelent to 576 progressive x 720 and calibration - reference dvds are that good but in reality most dvds were designed for CRT displays on which they typically give 500+ (very rarely 540) interlaced x 711 resolution so are usually not mastered better than this.

Dvd is mastered up to 6.75MHz the higher the MHz the finer the details - more lines of resolution. To retain this detail they must have a flat response all the way up to 6.75MHz. However I believe to save bit rate, frequency response is usually tailed off before 6.75MHz. All dvds are filtered vertically to reduce flickering. Superbit dvds are not filtered horizontally.

DVD was developed when CRT was the main type of display and was over spec for it.

On a 4:3 tv a dvd has at most 540 lines of resolution because in this case each MHz = 80 lines of resolution. So I believe most dvds are mastered with less than this, very few with more.

The 720 lines of resolution comes from the sampling rate. But CRT has at best 711 pixels of resolution, it does not have time for more. it takes 52.65 µs (microseconds) to draw a scan line and aprox 0.07407 µs per pixel.

PAL Dvd players typically claim 500+ lines of resolution which is more accurate to DVDs in reality than the maximum DVD spec 576. It is unfortunate that the DVD specs do not include a minimum quality - resolution of discs.

You then get to reduce the resolution of the display by the Kell factor.
dovercat is online now  
post #5 of 145 Old 01-28-2009, 11:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Carled's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2,965
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by dovercat View Post

I think DVDs are Interlaced not Progressive

The video is meerly stored on the disc in interlaced format. The content itself can be either.
Carled is offline  
post #6 of 145 Old 01-28-2009, 01:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 43
The standard DVD resolution is 480i. What that means is there are two "fields" of 240 lines by 720 pixels stored on the disk in digital format. A standard DVD player will output these frames unchanged in a 480i format, via "composite video", S-Video, or "component video". A 480p DVD player will first "de-interlace" or recombine the two "odd" and "even" fields into a single 480p frame, and output this as a "480p frame" (resolution 480 lines X 720 pixels), via "component video". This output requires a high definition display - either an HDTV or a computer type display, or there will be no video quality difference from the standard 480i TV. The 480p display requires THREE seperate video cables, a "component video" display.

The ultimate way to display a standard DVD on an HD display is via an "upscaling DVD player", which reads the 480i signal, converts to 480p, then "scales" the 480p output to 720p, 1080i, or 1080p. However, due to the copy protection rules, the upscaling DVD player must use an HDMI interface.

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #7 of 145 Old 01-28-2009, 11:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gus738's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Watsonville, CA
Posts: 2,776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 24
gary has a great post, but in short i woud like to say, dvds are SD l and so therefore as the screen size gets bigger the worse dvds are to look, with HD being 720p you have more lines more resolution to work with therefore doesnt look as bad as 480 i/p

so say a 480i/p video on a small screen then watch it on a bigger screen it will look diffrent.

Keep in mind of the resolution/spec numbers are like 720x480 i think, so therefore put a screen of that size and thats the best it will look, think for a moment how small is the amount of pixels of a screen of 720x480.

darn i made this complicated,

HD is better then SD so higher resolution better

Pioneer Elite PRO-111
Samsung 60PnF5300 af
panasonic px75u

XBL x117x831
PS4 gusx831
gus738 is offline  
post #8 of 145 Old 01-29-2009, 08:56 AM
Advanced Member
 
dovercat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 13
"The video is meerly stored on the disc in interlaced format. The content itself can be either"

Thats why I said film sources can be de-interlaced to be as good as progressive. Players with progressive output also benefit from having faster DACs with more oversampling. But the player needs to correctly detect the film source and switch between methods of de-interlacing. Often dvds have incorrect flags as to how they should be de-ineterlaced and films often have poor edits which need to be de-interlaced with bob and weaving. The player may also have the color upsampling bug where it is assigning color incorrectly.
dovercat is online now  
post #9 of 145 Old 01-30-2009, 04:56 AM
Member
 
Daviii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
DVDs are recorded in MPEG2 at 5mbps while Apple encodes all the trailers carefully at H.264 which is a MUCH more advanced codec and retains MUCH more detail at lower bitrates. The loss of quality over the master is much higher on the DVD. That's the reason.

It's like comparing a 1080p BD picture with a 1080i TV broadcast. It simply has better encoding.
Daviii is offline  
post #10 of 145 Old 01-03-2014, 12:43 AM
Member
 
markfilipak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 11

-withdrawn-

markfilipak is offline  
post #11 of 145 Old 01-03-2014, 01:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pokekevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 5,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by markfilipak View Post

Wow! What an incredible amount of disinformation is here. ...Far too much to comment on. Sad. I guess some people feel to be respected they must take their half-baked notions and present them as truths.

Calling out people and not telling them why they are wrong is another thing too lol
rickumali likes this.

No subwoofer I've heard has been able to produce the bass I've experienced in the Corps!

Must..stop...buying...every bluray release...
pokekevin is offline  
post #12 of 145 Old 01-03-2014, 03:07 AM
Member
 
markfilipak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 11

-withdrawn-

markfilipak is offline  
post #13 of 145 Old 01-03-2014, 04:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by markfilipak View Post

Wow! What an incredible amount of disinformation is here. ...Far too much to comment on. Sad. I guess some people feel to be respected they must take their half-baked notions and present them as truths.
When you resurrect a thread that was last active in 2009, you must expect it is full of all kind of info that is no more applicable.
There is a reason the activity in this thread stopped in January 2009. rolleyes.gif

A lot of things have changed in five years. cool.gif

So why resurrect it? tongue.gif
coolscan is offline  
post #14 of 145 Old 01-03-2014, 01:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,151
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markfilipak View Post

Wow! What an incredible amount of disinformation is here. ...Far too much to comment on. Sad. I guess some people feel to be respected they must take their half-baked notions and present them as truths.
When you resurrect a thread that was last active in 2009, you must expect it is full of all kind of info that is no more applicable.
There is a reason the activity in this thread stopped in January 2009. rolleyes.gif

A lot of things have changed in five years. cool.gif

So why resurrect it? tongue.gif

 

Because he likely wanted to sound off as if he was one of the experienced crowd.  Or some other such thing.  There is  no other reason to go out of your way to dig up something that old just to bash folks for technical mistakes which stand a good chance of merely being more dated than incorrect.


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #15 of 145 Old 01-03-2014, 01:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 239
With only 3 or 4 posts he apparently hasn't learned the cardinal rule for newbies. However, he's new so a little slack may be in order wink.gif
Otto Pylot is online now  
post #16 of 145 Old 01-03-2014, 01:30 PM
Member
 
markfilipak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 11

-withdrawn-

markfilipak is offline  
post #17 of 145 Old 01-03-2014, 02:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,858
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 219 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by markfilipak 
Actually,

1, Someone in an Internet Movie Database (imdb.com) forum implied that 720p DVDs existed
yes, it is called HD DVD tongue.gif
8mile13 is offline  
post #18 of 145 Old 01-03-2014, 02:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,151
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by markfilipak View Post

3, I didn't mean to "bash" anyone. Settle down, eh?

 

BS!  Yes you did.  Or was this little tidbit of yours supposed to be supportive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by markfilipak

Sad. I guess some people feel to be respected they must take their half-baked notions and present them as truths.

WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #19 of 145 Old 01-03-2014, 02:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,151
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markfilipak 
Actually,

1, Someone in an Internet Movie Database (imdb.com) forum implied that 720p DVDs existed
yes, it is called HD DVD tongue.gif

 

LOL.....since we're in 2009, BD has only recently won the format war.  You suppose it has any staying power?


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #20 of 145 Old 01-03-2014, 02:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Otto Pylot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 7,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 239
This is going to be a bumpy ride if he stays the course rolleyes.gif
Otto Pylot is online now  
post #21 of 145 Old 06-28-2014, 12:08 AM
Member
 
markfilipak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carled View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dovercat View Post
I think DVDs are Interlaced not Progressive
The video is meerly stored on the disc in interlaced format. The content itself can be either.
I don't understand, Carled. Help me out, would you?

If DVD content is interlaced, how can it be progressive?

Suppose the odd field (240 odd lines) begins at t=0. The even field (240 even lines) will begin at t=1/60 seconds.

Scenario #1 : If the odd field was captured 1/60 second ahead, then the interlace is temporal and rather than a frame, the video consists of 2 fields that are separated in time by 1/60 second. I would think that, because they are separated in time, the 2 fields cannot be deinterlaced.

Scenario #2 : If on the other hand the odd & even fields were captured at the same time (for example, from a film telecine), then the capture was progressive, but the 2 fields are still separated in time by 1/60 second. I would think that by delaying the 1st field by 1/60 second, the 2 fields could be combined into a single deinterlaced frame (at 1/30 second frame rate).

Which is interlaced, Scenerio #1 or Scenerio #2 ?

Which is progressive, Scenerio #1 or Scenerio #2 ?

If Scenerio #1 is interlaced, then I would think the proper designation should actually be "60 fields/sec", not "interlaced".

If Scenerio #2 is progressive, then I would think the proper designation should actually be "30 frames/sec", not "progressive".

What say you?
markfilipak is offline  
post #22 of 145 Old 06-28-2014, 01:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Carled's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2,965
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by markfilipak View Post
What say you?
You actually necroed a thread from half a decade ago to start an internet argument? Seriously? Sometimes members of my species scare me.

As for that antique storage medium known as the DVD, it stores things as sixty interlaced fields per second (fifty in PAL format), and someone storing a film on it could choose between taking 24/25/30 frames and breaking it up into fields (telecine), or storing something that's shot in interlaced format if for some reason they wanted temporal resolution more than spatial resolution. It sure sounds like a whacky way of doing things now, but DVD was designed back in the dark ages of the early 90s when most of the world was using CRTs (kids: ask your parents) and the engineers clearly didn't forsee the signal processing revolution of the late 90s and 00s.

But all of this is moot now, we now live in a brave new future where things are actually stored progressively on the disc in the first place. I'm still waiting for my flying car, though.
Carled is offline  
post #23 of 145 Old 06-28-2014, 05:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by markfilipak View Post
Scenario #1 : If the odd field was captured 1/60 second ahead, then the interlace is temporal and rather than a frame, the video consists of 2 fields that are separated in time by 1/60 second. I would think that, because they are separated in time, the 2 fields cannot be deinterlaced.
De-interlaced means converting interlaced to progressive/a progressive signal. De-interlacing interlaced (as in scenario 1) video is complex (see de-interlacing in Wiki), one simple (but low resolution) method for scenario 1 is line doubling (you'd end up with 60 different progressive pictures per second) but these days they'd normally do something better (such as using only doing that for the moving parts of the picture - see wiki).

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 06-28-2014 at 05:49 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #24 of 145 Old 06-28-2014, 09:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,151
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
De-interlaced means converting interlaced to progressive/a progressive signal. De-interlacing interlaced (as in scenario 1) video is complex (see de-interlacing in Wiki), one simple (but low resolution) method for scenario 1 is line doubling (you'd end up with 60 different progressive pictures per second) but these days they'd normally do something better (such as using only doing that for the moving parts of the picture - see wiki).
Wikipedia? (groan)

WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #25 of 145 Old 06-28-2014, 10:03 AM
Member
 
markfilipak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Dear Carled & Joe Bloggs,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carled View Post
You actually necroed a thread from half a decade ago to start an internet argument? Seriously? Sometimes members of my species scare me.
I'm not trying to start an argument at all, Carled -- honest! I'm trying to understand DVD. I'm also trying to understand how DVD relates to the HDMI specification (which details several dozen formats ranging from 288x480i/60 (DAR=4:3, VIC=10, PR=9) to 2880x480p/60 (DAR=16:9, VIC=36) to 1920x1080p/120 (DAR=16:9, VIC=63)).

On a more mundane note, I have a DVD that appears to be deinterlacing incorrectly and I'm attempting to determine whether I should finger Panasonic (home theater) or Sony Pictures (DVD). I'm a little suspicious of Sony Pictures because, though at least one other person sent their DVD to Sony and Sony claims there was nothing wrong with it, Sony released a completely new Region 1 DVD (new telecine?) only one year later -- the film: "Enigma", wasn't exactly a big seller and so, a new telecine seems suspicious. Unfortunately, I don't have any tools to read low-level stuff on DVDs, and that hinders me. What I do have gives conflicting results (like whether a DVD is 24fps or 30fps). So you see, I have good reason to bring this back up. Or would you prefer a new thread starter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carled View Post
I'm still waiting for my flying car, though.
Hahaha, I think Elon Musk recently said he's going to build that.

So, Carled, let me directly ask you 2 questions, please.

1, Considering a truely NTSC-compatible, 480i telecine that's temporally interlaced, is it actually possible to deinterlace that stream into temporally & spacially progressive keyframes without performing interframe interpolation (which isn't going to happen in a real DVD player)?

And 2, Do you know of a free & accurate source of information on the DVD specification -- I'm an electronics engineer & digital architect, but I'm retired and can't afford to buy the DVD spec.

Believe me: I'm not trying to argue. I'm trying to learn. I need answers, not clues or vague hints. There's so much bogus information out on the net...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
De-interlaced means converting interlaced to progressive/a progressive signal. De-interlacing interlaced (as in scenario 1) video is complex (see de-interlacing in Wiki), one simple (but low resolution) method for scenario 1 is line doubling (you'd end up with 60 different progressive pictures per second) but these days they'd normally do something better (such as using only doing that for the moving parts of the picture - see wiki).
I'm glad you bring up line doubling. So I take it that you claim that temporally interlaced 480i cannot be deinterlaced to 480p, but can only be deinterlaced to 240p-doubled -- is there a name or designation for that... maybe 240(x2)p or some such thing?

Thanks guys!
markfilipak is offline  
post #26 of 145 Old 06-28-2014, 10:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
Wikipedia? (groan)
edit: De-interlaced means converting interlaced to progressive/a progressive signal. De-interlacing interlaced (as in scenario 1) video is complex (see de-interlacing in Wiki please see chapter 35 of Charles Poynton's book entitled "Digital Video and HD (algorithms and interfaces), second edition", one simple (but low resolution) method for scenario 1 is line doubling...
tgm1024 likes this.

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 06-28-2014 at 10:42 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #27 of 145 Old 06-28-2014, 10:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by markfilipak View Post
I'm glad you bring up line doubling. So I take it that you claim that temporally interlaced 480i cannot be deinterlaced to 480p, but can only be deinterlaced to 240p-doubled -- is there a name or designation for that... maybe 240(x2)p or some such thing?
No, it was still be de-interlaced to what they call 480p. But with scenario 1 (where it was shot interlaced, where each 1/60th of a second of the source is a different point in time), if they used just line doubling the effective resolution would be no more than half what 480p is capable of. But using line doubling alone was just an example of how it (scenario 1) could be de-interlaced, and is not/not normally the best way. The other ways (including only using line doubling for the moving parts of the picture, so the stationary parts get full resoloution - or close to it), can give better resolution.

It's a bit like how 1080p video is still normally referred to as 1080p even if the effective resolution is less (such as if the 1080p video had been created from upscaled 720p video).

But I still think interlacing isn't a good format and we should have higher progressive frame rates .

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 06-28-2014 at 10:37 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #28 of 145 Old 06-28-2014, 11:05 AM
Member
 
markfilipak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Thank you, Joe,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
No, it was still be de-interlaced to what they call 480p. But with scenario 1 (where it was shot interlaced...
"Shot interlaced"? OH! The video was interlaced (i.e., NTSC).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
...where each 1/60th of a second of the source is a different point in time), if they used just line doubling the effective resolution would be no more than half what 480p is capable of. But using line doubling alone was just an example of how it (scenario 1) could be de-interlaced, and is not/not normally the best way...
Come on, now. Do DVD players actually have the time to (bother to) do interframe interpolation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
It's a bit like how 1080p video is still normally referred to as 1080p even if the effective resolution is less (such as if the 1080p video had been created from upscaled 720p video).
Well, you see, Joe, that kind of 'sloppy' nomenclature is part of what confuses me and others. I would think that such a stream should be termed "720(x1.5)p" or "720(x3:2)p" or some such notation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
But I still think interlacing isn't a good format and we should have higher progressive frame rates .
Can you give me the names (links to) some tools that will help me to determine what is actually wrong with my Sony Pictures DVD of "Enigma", if anything is wrong with it? Assume I have no tools now -- well, I have a Tektronix 2465 oscilloscope, but no DVD software tools. Thanks!
markfilipak is offline  
post #29 of 145 Old 06-28-2014, 11:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 9,907
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 494 Post(s)
Liked: 531
Most recent DVDs of movies that were shot on "film" are actually encoded at 720x480p @23.976FPS and have a soft pulldown applied to them. Basically the MPEG-2 stream tells the MPEG-2 decoder to apply a telecine to the footage during playback. A progressive DVD player can decided to not honor the flag and pass the 480p23.976 stream out the HDMI port (or to the internal video processor), or it can apply the telecine as flagged and then apply an inverse telecine in the player's video processor to remove the telecine getting back the same 480p23.976 video stream. If your DVD player doesn't support progressive playback you're going to get the telecined 480i59.97 output.
Stereodude is online now  
post #30 of 145 Old 06-28-2014, 12:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by markfilipak View Post
Come on, now. Do DVD players actually have the time to (bother to) do interframe interpolation?
They probably don't do it (motion compensation frame interpolation) - though mpeg itself sort of uses it - kind of. But TVs do have MCFI, so there's no reason, a DVD/Blu-ray player shouldn't be able to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markfilipak View Post
Well, you see, Joe, that kind of 'sloppy' nomenclature is part of what confuses me and others. I would think that such a stream should be termed "720(x1.5)p" or "720(x3:2)p" or some such notation.
Yes but the video stream itself is actually in the full progressive format. eg. a 1920x1080p24 video is made up of 1920x1080 pixels, even if someone had encoded that 1920x1080 video from a 720x576 or 1280x720p source (even though the effective/resolvable resolution is less). But I do think that when there is a Blu-ray like this it should be made very clear that the original source was 576i or 720p or whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markfilipak View Post
Can you give me the names (links to) some tools that will help me to determine what is actually wrong with my Sony Pictures DVD of "Enigma", if anything is wrong with it? Assume I have no tools now -- well, I have a Tektronix 2465 oscilloscope, but no DVD software tools. Thanks!
I don't really know. I've seen something like that for one of the extras on a discs. I suppose you could look at it field by field in pause mode on a player (eg. Panasonic BD80) to see what it's doing (if things are stepping backwards then going forward again - but that might depend on the mode (eg. film/video/auto?)). Or it could be the player is detecting it incorrectly (it might ignore any flags in the video). My player has options for Film/video/auto (auto=automatically detects format).

edit: This is dated but might be worth a read:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...e-10-2000.html

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 06-28-2014 at 01:00 PM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

User Tag List

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