AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
how are they differnce in picture qaulity?

when interlace The LT-150 scale the signal into XGA

when progressive The LT-150 scale the signal into XGA too.

how are they differnce in picture qaulity?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,099 Posts
Night and day. It goes from awesome to barely adequate.


Note: When I was talking about interlaced, I meant NTSC signals. There is a huge difference when going from NTSC to a progressive scan DVD signal. Feeding a DVD interlaced or a DVD progressive scan is much smaller difference. Sorry if I didn't make that clear orignially.


[This message has been edited by Jonmx (edited 09-06-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
915 Posts
I've tried interlaced vs progressive scan from an HTPC, and I wouldn't describe the difference as being from "Awesome" to "Barely Adequate". It's not nearly that different.


The interlaced S-video DVD image is definitely softer and not as vibrant, and there are definitely more artifacts. But really, these flaws are relatively minor. I had a complete newbie to front projection look at the two images, and he couldn't tell me the difference until I pointed it out to him. He was so overwhelmed by seeing a bright 8' movie-like screen that all other flaws were completely lost to him. On the other hand, my wife immediately said the progressive scan was nicer, and I saw the difference immediately as well.


There seems to be a trend on this board of describing relatively minor picture differences as if they earth-shaking, obvious, glaring differences. To the point where I simply can't trust any of these reviews and am starting to find the information I get here of relatively low value (the subjective picture descriptions, that is - the technical information is awesome). For example, I'm currently torn between setting up an HTPC or just getting a progressive-scan DVD player. The HTPC is a lot more hassle and not nearly as convenient, especially for my wife.


Until I had a chance to use my own projector and see for myself the differences that others were saying were startling, I thought I HAD to have an HTPC. Because on that forum, they talk about the difference between HTPC and a good progressive-scan DVD player as being like night and day. But now that I've seen some of these other differences for myself, I'm starting to think that these night-and-day differences will be barely noticeable, if at all.


Back to the Progressive vs S-Video issue. I think a better description between the two would be like the difference between a cheap TV and a Sony Wega. Side by side, you'd definitely see that the Wega is much nicer. But if all you owned was the cheaper set, you'd be quite happy with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,014 Posts
When I first received my LT150 I had a little Sharp portable DVD player. I took the little projector and DVD player along with a 70" wide tripod screen to a couple of friend's homes to show movies. I thought (and everyone else thought) it performed remarkably well. IMO it makes a better picture than my LP340 did with video sources (and that was the LP340's claim to fame). At home I use an HTPC but I agree with dhanson. It can (at 70" anyway) make a respectable picture with a DVD player.


Bob Wood


------------------

~ The Sultan of Cheap ~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
846 Posts
I have never tried interlaced vs progressive from an HTPC. Maybe I'll do this when I get my HTPC done.


However, on interlaced vs. progressive from my DVD player, the different is earth shaking, obvious, glaring and in no way minor.


As far as HTPC is concerned...I was predisposed to believe there was no or very little difference. When I saw it versus my progressive player however...WOWWOWOWOWOWOW!


--Les
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
873 Posts
dhanson - do you have an lt150?


i'm currently stuck using an older pioneer dvd player w/ non-progressive outputs. going from composite to svideo was a big change. when i tried my laptop, i was nothing as good as what people have reported on this forum. however, the same is true on my 17" flat pannel monitor. that is, the video capabilities of this laptop are pretty poor.


you can take a look for yourself. the pictures are primitive, but you can see the improvement in the following post:
http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/008220.html


please note that this is simply projected onto the wall. with a screen and a better room, i assume the differences would be more pronounced.


kelly
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
915 Posts
Yep. I've got an LT-150.


Note that I'm not talking about the composite input. I'm talking about interlaced via S-Video vs Progressive Scan through the RGB port. I would expect there to be a dramatic difference between composite and S-video.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,749 Posts
I agree with dhanson. I have trouble telling whether my DVD player or the HTPC has the better picture. I've used both the ATI player & the WinDVD player. I have a Radeon 64meg card. I also have trouble seeing the chroma bug with a badly infected player. I have also related this many times in the past on this board. I think you have to read all the info here and try to make an informed decision, but don't believe everything you read. It may be true for the one who wrote it and not true for you. Overall I believe this forum has been an invaluable source of information for me and also for most other members. You pay your money and take your chance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
I have an LT-150. I was originally feeding it with compenent from an interlaced DVD Player (panny A310). I just purchased an RP-91 progressive player. With a good anamorphic transfer, I have trouble noticing any difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
915 Posts
Arrow: See, I have a hard time describing just about any screen defect as being 'Earth Shaking'. And when terms like that are applied to subtle differences in crispness, or a lack of tiny jaggies, then I think it does a disservice to those new users who think "Earth Shaking" means that their jaws will hit the floor and they will have a religious experience of some sort. Then they run out and spend an extra $5000 on things they didn't really need in the first place, and would never have purchased if they had a more reasonable idea of the value their extra money was bringing.


My first FPTV experience was with an NEC LT-81 that I borrowed from work. I brought it home, plugged in an S-video cable from my cheap $199 Sony DVD player, aimed it at my off-white dirty wall, and just LOVED it.


Now that I have an LT-150 and HTPC, I can definitely see the improvement, and I'm very happy with the picture. But I wouldn't even describe the difference between an XGA LT-150 with HTPC vs. an SVGA LT-81 with interlaced video as being 'earth shaking', despite the fact that the LT-81 is not a recommended HT projector and apparently has a really poor scaler.


I'm going to bring my digital camera home this weekend and try to take pictures of the same scene on my LT-150 with all three options (HTPC, S-video, Composite) and post them. My guess is that you'll have to zoom in quite closely on the pictures and examine them carefully to spot any differences at all, with the possible exception of composite input, which I expect to suck. Anyway, if I can manage to get some good shots, I'll post them on my web page and put a link here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Well, just to throw in my two bits as a home theater newbie... I'm still working on the room. The LT150 is currently sitting on a cardboard speaker box in the middle of the room aimed at an off-white textured wall. While I wouldn't describe the difference between my HTPC and low-end Sony DVD player as "earth shaking" either, it was certainly quite noticeable. Any scene with lots of nearly horizontal moving lines exhibited a horde of crawling jaggies (or whatever the correct term for this is) in the interlaced version and almost none in the HTPC output. I cobbled the PC together from a spare motherboard, chip, and DVD drive plus about $500 in new parts. There are progressive scan DVD players that cost less.


--

Dave E.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
733 Posts
I got a surprise when I hooked the RP91 into the LT150 and switched back and forth between component interlaced and component progressive via a button on the RP91. Component interlaced was much better than what I remember s-video to be. I thought this was an acceptable image.


The difference is highly subjective. If image quality is a priority in your LIFE then I am in complete agreement with Les - the differences are earth shaking. If it's not an all consuming passion, then who cares? Here's the test - get the best source you can and use it exclusively and get "used" to it. After a couple of weeks go back to s-video or component interlaced and you will see a bigger difference than what you thought was originally there. Why? Well, you are now spoiled and it's tough to go back. Your eyes are now more sensitive to a "lesser" picture. For me anything less than a good progressive source looks somewhat "out of focus". I suspect if I were to get used to HDTV then my progressive DVD source would look this way.


Small incremental differences seem less than important to some and huge to others - depends on your priorities.


For me the LT150 + a good progressive scan player (not necessarily expensive) + a good white screen (not expensive) = the best buy in projectordom. The law of diminishing returns kicks in as you move up to a good dedicated HTPC, but for some it is worth it! Any sane audiophile (oxymoron) will tell you the same.


Cheers,


Grant
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,639 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Grant Smyth:



For me the LT150 + a good progressive scan player (not necessarily expensive) + a good white screen (not expensive) = the best buy in projectordom. The law of diminishing returns kicks in as you move up to a good dedicated HTPC, but for some it is worth it! Any sane audiophile (oxymoron) will tell you the same.


Cheers,


Grant
well put.

going to a progressive dvd player from interlaced s-video i've noticed, in general:

truer colors

significantly less interlaced jaggies

a bit more resolution and a bit more 'stability' to the image


but this is generalizing.


always remember-crappy sources will always look bad and exceptional sources/discs will almost always be at least watchable no matter which way your set-up.

some of the bigger exceptions have been

Planet of the Apes.

mediocre when run thru s-video vs. very, very fine when run thru progressive

i also put in Liscence to Kill this morning and the experience was quite watchable, but i can still tell this wasn't a very well mastered disc on MGM's part. but the flaws i see with a progressive player are diminshed a good deal over watching it with just an s-video connection.

before it was just watchable and quite often disappointing.

now it is quite watchable, and infrequently disappointing.

however, if there weren't so many other discs that were simply 'breath-taking' i would have nothing to grade these against and that would probably make them fare a bit differently.

sheer size, and lets not forget the actual movie/storytelling still go a long way in the total movie watching experience.

i'm quite satisfied with just a progressive player for now, and if i can score a good deal on one of these new Kenwoods, and they are as good as we all hope, that should do me, and i expect a lot of other people, just fine for quite a while.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
873 Posts
I installed my high-gian screen this afternoon, and was really surprised what a difference this makes. In some ways, the daylight sceens from 'The Spy Who Shagged Me' provided a similar experience to leaving a dimly lit room to the exterior on a clear day.


In general, the colors were much more intense. I did not, repeat did not, notice a loss in blacks. But the whites were so much whiter that I could have missed anything. It doesn't make sense to me, but there seemed to be more contrast.


I also had to reset the projector with AVIA. While projecting on the wall the settings were slightly different from those I selected for projection on the screen.


Seems to me that, unfortunately, each source must be optimized for playback and compared as such. ABX comparisons would be very hard to perform. You cannot simply leave the projector settings the same for DVD, Dish, and HDTV, over the variety of possible connections.


Kelly
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top