New DVDO EDGE !! - Page 54

I am not saying that at all. I just like sending 1080i from my SP1000 for optimal results. I will admit sending 480i yeilds just about the same results though. I am just showing that doing 1080i from a good SD dvd player will still look as good. Garyj claimed it is "magic" if it does look good...

Anyway, I picked Boat Trip since it is not one of the best looking SD dvds out there. I apologize if they are a little blurry... I did take some of The Incredibles but then I figured no matter what that will look good...

All you are saying is you like the artifacts produced by de-interlacing a scaled image. Just like you like the artifacts from PC/Video level selection (whatever that is). There is nothing wrong with that. It's like people who run Audyssey then turn up the bass because they like boomy bass rather than a flat frequency response.

Gary - the issues was the complete list of steps in going from 480i to 1080i. Unless you know the piece in question, I would give joerod some leeway in proving that it works well. I, too, am skeptical, but I'm not going to throw around a charge like "magic". Heck, before joerod gets done typing up his response, he will probably have swapped out the gear for something else, anyway, given how he goes through toys.

BTW, I suspect there may be some scaling algorithms that do have sufficient reproducability to give a decent cadence for deinterlacing, but I could be wrong (Dale knows WAY more than I do on this!).

Bill

Another way to look at this is that if all the processing steps are done well, the image will end up pretty much the same in the end. There may be some sequences which are more difficult, however, and more prone to errors and things going awry. In those cases, the most tried and trued method i.e. allowing the VP to do all or most of the processing would more likely be the best.

A 1080i upconverted DVD will never be deinterlaced any better than the original 480i->480p was done. PReP isn't active for 1080i. The testing I've done confirms this as well. 480p w/PReP makes the tests look identical to 480i straight to the Edge. 1080i upconverted however performs exactly as if Edge were out of the loop.

PReP is only active on the Edge with 480p and 576p signals and nothing else.

That's my point. The results end up nearly the same... I do not get artifacts, that is a crappy SD dvd. When I play a reference one it looks like HD material...

And for the last time, I ONLY like PC level for sports. Mainly football...

The issue is de-interlacing a scaled image in this complete list of steps. The leeway I give is he likes the artifacts produced or the artifacts are minimized. But they are necessarily there as Dale Adams explains.

Sorry, I do not know what to make of the "throw around a charge like "magic" " comment.

I use 1080i for SD broadcasts because 480i produces very large blocky pixels in the image> 1080i actually looks finer in clarity and does not show these abnormal pixel artifacts, so I sort of have no choice. As for SD DVD outputs I use 1080i from my LGbh100 since it does a marvelous job upscaling, and let the pro de-interlace, none observed issues in image at all for either HD/bluray or SD DVD material.

I don't see this with 480i into the edge.

The magic comment came from your post (1568)...

If they're the same, how is 1080i optimal? Do you mean from a configuration point of view?

So those pics are all getting the processing done in the SP1000? Have you got any with it set to 480i / 480p to compare? and was it moving or paused when you took the pics?


cpcat - obviously PREP can't be active for 1080i, it only works on prog scan signals (not including 1080p on the edge) - I know what you mean though, you're just pointing out there's no way back to the clean source for EDGE to work on once it's been up-converted by the player.

I think you've nailed it in the last part there. The reason that 480i/576i material looks great after having been upscaled would be due to the quality of the scaling pre-EDGE. I used a Lumagen unit, and the scaling doesn't get much better than that.

I am sure artefacts can creep in if the scaling process is sub-optimal... but if you do it properly, you can get excellent results. In fact the picture was considerably better than just feeding 480i into EDGE and having that upscale.

My EDGE has been out of action for a couple weeks now, and I have to say I really do miss it. Classic case of you don't know what you've got til its gone!

I know. I just don't get his snide(?) remark about it.


You are missing the point. That is only half the story. After that the image is interlaced to 1080i and input to the Edge which is now de-interlacing a signal that has been previously scaled.

I have a theory that something going on in the UK produces accentuated scaling artifacts that we don't see over here. Lumagen has certainly made its reputation with its "no-ring" scaling in the UK.

I see the differences looking at test patterns, but I just don't see differences with regular viewing that I would attribute to scaling.

I've also owned a Lumagen HDP. For me, it was nice to know the top-notch scaling was there, but again the differences weren't noticeable with regular viewing.

On a more positive note, these are pics of 1080i from a DirecTV receiver going in and then coming out at 1080p/60... I just wanted to show how good it can be for those that may have freaked out from the SD dvd pics...

Err... no. That was actually the point I was making, and stating that it still produces a fantastic picture, in fact a better picture than just passing the original signal in.

I'm in the UK and I can only see ringing on menus (the red, green, blue, yellow boxes on the Sky TV Guide being a good example) generally, when using a DVDO processor. I agree with you that for most people, it's not noticeable with normal content.

Err... yes. Read recent posts to get clued in on what is being discussed.

I can hear the sound of everything flying over your head as you type that, Gary.

The question at hand: "Will scaling first at a source/a prior VP, and then deinterlacing in EDGE cause problems in creating artefacts in the final picture"

The answer I am putting forward: "No it will not if you are using a good scaler to begin with, and you feed an interlaced signal into the EDGE (i.e. 1080i as in both mine, and Joerod's cases). In fact in some cases it actually creates a better picture in my experience".

What Dale posted is that PReP is not needed with a scaled image, as you cannot recreate the original fields as they have been either altered or lost. That doesn't mean the altered fields are rubbish... otherwise a 1080i output from a Lumagen scaler would produce a poor final image on a display that only accepts upto a 1080i input.

With us now?

Thank you JoshA for testing and confirming that you see the same thing.
So it's not just my unit. Now the question is, this is not right, correct? There is something faulty with their firmware and they should be notified? (since it only happens in Panorama).

Nobody said they were rubbish. Perhaps some remedial reading is in order.

The idea is de-interlacing a scaled image can not look as good and will probably look worse than using 480i into the VP as Josh says. Are you starting to get it now?

I will try and send the Edge 480p SD dvds and see if it looks any better. Why not?

Why would you want to try something crazy like that?



In all seriousness, it might be interesting to look at the HQV SD deinterlacing tests (if you have the disc on hand) with 480p HDMI straight from the player vs. what happens w/PReP through the Edge.

Will do...

I'll be patient...

Okay, read what you've just quoted:


Note the term 'bad deinterlacing'. Now take an example where there isn't poor deinterlacing done downstream, but in fact just good scaling.

What Dale, and Josh, are stating is that PReP cannot undo poor deinterlacing if scaling has since occurred because you cannot recreate the original fields from an upscaled input (i.e. 1080p). This was stated as a reason PReP is not enabled for 1080p inputs.

What the rest of us are talking about is that you can get a fantastic picture from a scaled interlaced input. What's required is that the source that is upscaling does not do a poor job of deinterlacing. This doesn't even involve PReP, as EDGE will be processing an interlaced input.

In my example, the source outputs 480i/576i to an HDP which upscales (fantastically) to 1080i. This interlaced output is then fed into EDGE, which then deinterlaces the signal and does all the other fancy processing. As far as EDGE is concerned it is getting a proper 1080i signal, and treating it as so.

If that isn't any clearer now, I just give up.

In that case it seems to me you'd be better off just feeding 1080p from the HDP to the Edge. I don't see any advantage of having the HDP reinterlace 1080p to 1080i then having Edge deinterlace 1080i back to 1080p.

CPCAT
Are you saying the HDP is not just scaling from 480/576i to 1080i?

Is it deinterlacing to 480/576P then scaling to 1080P then re-interlacing again to 1080i? That infers a PReP like function

I would love to know the real processing flow on the Processors.

Yes.

It goes 480i->480p->1080p->1080i

You can't scale interlaced signals, they must be deinterlaced first.

I posed this question to Patrick Harkin at Lumagen a few years ago and he confirmed.

It's not really PReP-like as you can't revert back and undo any errors which may have occurred at the first deinterlacing step. Well, maybe you could, but that would require someone to write more complicated software to do it, and I suspect it would be hard to convince an engineer why it would be worth their effort.

Exactly. Only progressive images are scaled. It makes no sense to interlace then de-interlace them again. Some people do not get it but thankfully have given up.

Thanks! I thought that was the case but was not sure. How can using 2 processors in series actually improve the picture over either one individualy then?