or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › If your serious about video processing you owe it to ck out Teranex. Pics added.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

If your serious about video processing you owe it to ck out Teranex. Pics added. - Page 2

post #31 of 95
But but it is from Broadcast Engineering and our new pal here fastl says it works... I want to try this before a Barco DCI.

Too bad it is not 12 bit video.
post #32 of 95
... silly marketing illustration?

I believe that what they are trying to demonstrate is that their processing maintains full resolution during motion unlike other products, where resolution drops to one-half during motion. Dynamic blurring. ... that's what they are claiming. Read the Quasar product literature. Only way to tell is to view the product in operation. So if Peter wants to see it in action, the SMPTE Tech expo would probably be a good place to visit.

Over in the video forum there are a lot of hyped-up claims about how superior Gennum processing is. Well I have Gennum processing and bought the Realta based Calibre product and it easily out-dukes the Gennum. So much for the hype. As the old saying goes .... seeing is believing. Alan's Teranex VC300 is another cut above what I've got, particularly in tweakability. The S&W appears to be the top-of-the-heap.
post #33 of 95
Cost of the new Teranex?

Mark
post #34 of 95
The problem with the commercial units is that they don't have a good solution for video based SD and HD processing, at least not the last time I checked.
post #35 of 95
Peter - the primary difference between the Ukon and Quasar is that the Ukon is classified as a universal converter whereas the Quasar is primarily a resolution converter. Since the Ukon does rate conversion, i.e. 50 -> 60 Hz, it is much more complicated and expensive. As to whether the Quasar will take 1080i in, don't know. You would have to ask S&W. Was comtemplating going to SMPTE expo, but don't think I'll make it.
post #36 of 95
... commercial units don't have a good solution for SD and HD conversion?

What they don't have is the ergonomics and switching features of the home equipment. In terms of processing capability, home equipment isn't in the same league. Don't forget that S&W at one time did make a processor oriented towards the high-end home user -- Interpolator Gold.
post #37 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastl View Post

... commercial units don't have a good solution for SD and HD conversion?

What they don't have is the ergonomics and switching features of the home equipment. In terms of processing capability, home equipment isn't in the same league. Don't forget that S&W at one time did make a processor oriented towards the high-end home user -- Interpolator Gold.

The problem is with video based, not film based sources. I am currently using a Teranex 6RU unit and have been for a very long time. The best solution for video based SD is conversion to 720p60. There is no option for 1080p60 and I don't think that any of the SW models offer it either. It's similar for video based HD and the best soution is conversion to 1080p30, which is acceptable only with some sources.
post #38 of 95
I wonder if frame interpolation would be useful with the .98 Barcos?

Since they do 3-d they probably can handle 72hz refresh [3 x24]
post #39 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

It's just a silly marketing illustration. An original and the low pass filtered version. Relevance to subject entirely unclear. There are no such differences between HD compressed with state of the art encoder A or B or C.

Mark, your point is well taken. Nevertheless, I'd rather spend my $$$ on a Teranex over a 5.1 set of Revel Ultima2 speakers.
post #40 of 95
There is no provision for 1080p60 output on the professional scalers because there is no provision for 1080p60 in the distribution/transmission chain. 1080p60 is a display format and the pro units are designed for outputting formats compatible with media storage and broadcast transmission. Similarly, they have no provision for HDCP because that it isn't a factor in the environment that the equipment if being employed in. Still, the quality and flexibility provided by their signal processing algorithms easily eclipses what we have in the consumer equipment environment.

As to the relevance of the broadcast engineering comparison image that is posted above, it most certainly is relevant to the published article and to the PhC scaling discussion. The topic of that article is asset management and repurposing - not a comparison of brands x-y-z AVC codecs. It's about maintaining a high quality signal throughput in the plant where you are dealing with various formats and resolutions that inevitably will involve signal processing before the final encoding stage.
post #41 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastl View Post

There is no provision for 1080p60 output on the professional scalers because there is no provision for 1080p60 in the distribution/transmission chain. 1080p60 is a display format and the pro units are designed for outputting formats compatible with media storage and broadcast transmission. Similarly, they have no provision for HDCP because that it isn't a factor in the environment that the equipment if being employed in. Still, the quality and flexibility provided by their signal processing algorithms easily eclipses what we have in the consumer equipment environment.

That's the problem. They are designed for a different application. Video based 1080i60 without a 3:2 cadence is a mainstay format. It requires de-interlacing to 1080p60 for display with HT projectors, except for CRT types. It's the same for video based 480i60. Processing to 720p60 requires an additional scaling to 1080p60 by 2K projectors. Scaling twice is not a good solution.

The commercial units do very well with film based SD and HD and provide very sophisticated image processing capability. Those are the reasons why I use one.
post #42 of 95
Apparently it's not a "problem" for Alan, since he's using the VC300 (which doesn't output 1080p60) and is getting satisfaction with the unit. I was merely augmenting his discussion of pro scaling equipment in general by including mention of the S&W product line.

As I stated in earlier, I spent over a year looking at a lot of products, including items in the Teranex, S&W, Barco product lines, and finally wound-up purchasing a pro VP that -does- output 1080p60.
post #43 of 95
Thread Starter 
For myself it is rare video is displayed in my theater but when the occasion arises I use a second VP wired to a second input on my projector.
fastl you've peaked my interest in the pro VP for that purpose. What are your thoughts taking the signal ( 1080i ) from the Teranex HD SDI into the VP pro letting the pro do its magic. Do you think there would be any picture degrading? Now you would have the best of everything.
fastl does the pro have chroma delay adjustment. Im asking because I did try the vantage and that feature was lacking. Thank you!
post #44 of 95
Alan

Primary reason for purchasing a Realta based processor was the superior quality of the de-interlacing. Primary reason for purchasing this particular VP was the large front panel alphanumeric display (negating need for OSD) and the comprehensive collection of input types, including HD-SDI. The SDI input is spec'd to handle SMPTE 292M thru 259M-C (up to 1.48 G/s), so it should handle a VC300 output. Incidentally, the SDI input is not an afterthought as with the other popular VPs but is actually part of the motherboard.

With respect to the chroma question, there is no manual adjustment for chroma offset that I'm aware of. They do have a CCS (chroma crawl) filter, a CUE filter and an ICP (interlace chroma) filter, all of which I normally leave ON. I don't ever recall seeing any program content where it appeared that the chroma was offset so maybe I'm just lucky or these filters automatically take care of the problem.

I might add that this VP has a very noisy fan so I installed my own, to get rid of the noise.
post #45 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Mike Ferrara View Post

Mark, your point is well taken. Nevertheless, I'd rather spend my $$$ on a Teranex over a 5.1 set of Revel Ultima2 speakers.

What are these pictures comparing? Deinterlacing of originally interlaced video? Compression quality of different encoders? The former makes a bit more sense than the latter. It looks still greatly exaggerated, though. And since it's animation, how come it's not progressive or with a simple pulldown to begin with?
post #46 of 95
confused - The jpeg image in the referenced Broadcast Engineering article is what's known as an ILLUSTRATION being used to graphically help demonstrate the following phenomena:

"Conventional HD upconverters use either linear or motion adaptive processing techniques, both of which
tend to produce visible artifacts. Linear conversion involves processing compromises that can create ringing or softness in the output. Adaptive mode switching causes intermittent loss of clarity and
definition as well as producing objectionable artifacts on all but the simplest material. With both of these approaches, the maximum vertical resolution possible with a moving video scene is half the resolution of the input. This means that the HD upconversions are always at a lower resolution than the SD video source. Quasar Ph.C on the other hand employs Ph.C and FormatFusion. This ensures that each individual element and characteristic of the picture is seamlessly processed with absolute precision, using the most appropriate conversion algorithm. The result is a dazzlingly clear and sharp HD output regardless of the nature or complexity of the source material" .... copyrighted material from Snell & Wilcox, Quasar PhC, product data sheet.

So how would one illustrate a dynamically occuring phenomena with a static image? Probably by blurring one side of the static illustration image to show what is happening with commonplace scaling equipment during (non-static) image movement. Get it?
post #47 of 95
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastl View Post

confused - The jpeg image in the referenced Broadcast Engineering article is what's known as an ILLUSTRATION being used to graphically help demonstrate the following phenomena:

"Conventional HD upconverters use either linear or motion adaptive processing techniques, both of which
tend to produce visible artifacts. Linear conversion involves processing compromises that can create ringing or softness in the output. Adaptive mode switching causes intermittent loss of clarity and
definition as well as producing objectionable artifacts on all but the simplest material. With both of these approaches, the maximum vertical resolution possible with a moving video scene is half the resolution of the input. This means that the HD upconversions are always at a lower resolution than the SD video source. Quasar Ph.C on the other hand employs Ph.C and FormatFusion. This ensures that each individual element and characteristic of the picture is seamlessly processed with absolute precision, using the most appropriate conversion algorithm. The result is a dazzlingly clear and sharp HD output regardless of the nature or complexity of the source material" .... copyrighted material from Snell & Wilcox, Quasar PhC, product data sheet.

fastl

This would only apply to interlaced material correct. If it also applies to motion and or progressive source I wonder how it compares to Sonys 120hz motion trick.
post #48 of 95
It's about deinterlacing then of temporally interlaced material, cross conversions and frame rate conversions.
post #49 of 95
Thread Starter 
Progressive information direct off the disc ( blue ray ) maintains this information correct?
post #50 of 95
You really don't really need much (if any) processing for BD material since you're typically feeding the display 1:1. No de-interlacing or scaling. Maybe a little tweak for black level or gain and that's about it.

Upscaling SD material is a whole different ball game. Particularly, when you are trying to assemble a program stream that might contain 1080p material that is being alternated/mixed with the upscaled SD material. If it isn't done properly it -will- be noticed. That's S&W's rationale for their phase correlation technique that maximes the upscaled resolution. Incidentally, they (S&W) are making the claim, not me. I was only trying to educate everyone as to what the -real- high-end in video processing is by pointing to their marketing propaganda.

The 120 Hz frame flashing technique has nothing to do with this. That's a psychovisual trick to eliminate the motion blurring effect that occurs with LCD panels that are sample-and-holding the image.
post #51 of 95
There is temporal interpolation of intermediate fields, Faroudja was working on that.
post #52 of 95
You remember Yves famous last words .... something to the effect that I've spent my whole career developing solutions to the de-interlacing problem and have finally concluded that none of them work!
post #53 of 95
To clarify 120 Hz. There are two different 120 Hz schemes out there. You can multisample 24 fps by basically repeating the frame multiple times to reduce flicker or you can modulate the frame (shut the frame off half way through period at 60 Hz) to reduce the motion blurring effect that is unique to LCD panels. Didn't mean to confuse the two.
post #54 of 95
What's the MSRP?
post #55 of 95
MSRP? You mean for the S&W Quasar? You know the old Rolls Royce saying, if you have to ask, you can't afford it. I never dared ask, but I recall seeing the Ukon quoted at somewhere around $60K and the Alchemist around $100K. They are chocked full of FPGAs. The big ones draw around 500 watts! That's a lot of juice for a VP.
post #56 of 95
What is the MSRP of Alan's unit?
post #57 of 95
Now if someone put that horsepower strictly for the benefit of hd (deinterlacing and frame accelerating of 24 x 3 with discrete before and after images, we would get somewhere.
post #58 of 95
Thread Starter 
Mark around 50k retail but it depends what platforms you choose.
post #59 of 95
Thanks. Pocket change to you I guess. Too rich for me.
post #60 of 95
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Thanks. Pocket change to you I guess.

I wish it were. Even for those with the money we all need to self justify large purchases especially when its something in an economy with fast turn around. Id rethink this if Teranex had a new model each year, thankfully this is more software platform so we do expect software upgrades . I compared this to purchasing a screen. While we may change out our projectors each year this is something that will still earn its keeps in my rack years from now. I hope
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › If your serious about video processing you owe it to ck out Teranex. Pics added.