In an earlier post I said
I also question what is gained here...
1st case: Feed 1080p to the new JVC's - they in turn upscale this to 4K, then down sample that into two 1080p sub frames.
2nd case: Feed 1080p upscaled to 4K to the JVC....they in turn downsample this into two 1080p sub frames.
The only apparent difference is what device is doing the upscaling from 1080p to 4K. So, what differences might we see? I guess this remains to be seen but I remain doubtful that there will be any meaningful differences (I do think in the case of a real 4K machines (the Sony's) any upscaling differences would be more apparent compared to the JVC 4k eshifted image).
Then I started thinking about this chart:
I believe the new JVC's HDMI chips are limited to 10.2GB.
My question above should not have asked what is gained, it should have asked what is lost. Right now the general recommendation is to feed JVC's with 4:2:2 but the chart shows upscaling to 4K60p forces 4:2:0 which is not my first choice. Too much is lost.
Fortunately upscaling 1080/24p still allows 4:2:2 but then I keep asking myself how much does the internal JVC downsampling of 4K into two 1080p sub-frames mask any 2K to 4K scaling artifacts and does it really matter if the upscaling of 2K to 4K is done internally or externally? Thoughts?Edited by Geof - 10/5/13 at 6:07pm