[suggestion: why not make a] New DVDO VP 10?

If you want scaling, you need deinterlacing as well.

This makes no sense. You can't scale before deinterlacing.

Question is, what makes the biggest impact on performance? great de-interlacing or great scaling?

If you had to choose between the two?

It depends. Most sports I watch are now native 720p. So I scale them to 1080p. Obviously no deinterlacing needed. Looks better on my Lumagen than on my VP50. Obviously if native 1080i sports, I deinterlace to 1080p. Obviously no scaling needed. When watching 480i sports, nothing much helps. The Lumagen doesn't deinterlace video all that well and the DVDO while better, still shows artifacts, hockey sticks (rotating vectors) break up all over the place. Tough to make 480i video look good. I suppose the best is 480i video to DVDO, out 480p in to Lumagen, scale to 1080p.

Are you saying that if you have a 480i SD DVD and want to go to 1080ioutput from a scaler, it is deinterlaced to 480p and then scaled and then interlaced back to 1080i and then output to the RS1 and then deinterlaced again to 1080 p



All that so you can get vertical stretch for the JVC Rs1

there are plenty of solutions that will work here, I don't see the point of a VP10...

Me neither .....

Yes, the scaling process is based on whole video frames, not interlaced fields. You can't scale without deinterlacing first.

So instead of outputting from the scaler to 1080i and without having the scaler or pj to test on, would it make more theoretical sense to take a SD DVD 480i, then deinterlace, then scale to 720P then output to the RS1 and let that scale again to 1080P. that would eliminate one step of interlace/deinterlace.

I don't have a scaler that would output 1080p at this time and I am trying to do vertical stretch as economically as possible

Scaling in multiple steps introduces the risk of mathematical errors. Its always best to do all your scaling in one step. In this scenario, you'd want to set the video processor for 480p output so that it just deinterlaces and then let the projector take it up to 1080p.

Yes, this would work. Be aware, however, that the HD+ does not do proper inverse telecine deinterlacing for 1080i source content. It scales each individual field to the output resolution.

raoul,

so if it comes with a great processor, why do you need an additional one?

He basically just wants something that will do aspect ratio control for 2.35:1 CIH. The projector's internal processor doesn't offer the necessary vertical stretch.

would that be for video based content...I thought the Lumagens were supposed to be great with film based material???

The HD+ isn't made by Lumagen - it's a DVDO product.

No. Once the "damage" is done in the deinterlacing stage, it is unrecoverable.

Field scaling results in a progressive image. You'd be feeding the projector 1080p.

The difference here is that instead of combining the interlaced fields into whole frames by reverse telecine, the video processor takes the first 1920x540 interlaced field and scales it to 1920x1080. Then it takes the next 1920x540 field and also scales that to 1920x1080, with a vertical position offset. The result is better than interlaced 1080i, but not as good as properly deinterlacing the fields.

I renamed the thread to prevent users from thinking this is an actual product...