[Jim OD]

First, forgive me for posting in Projector Section, but I would like an answer and doubt if I would get one in the other Forums.


I have NEC LT150 Projector with VGA input. Am using a Quadscan Elite and RCA DTC-100 HD Satellite Rcvr. My A/V Rcvr is Onkyo DS777 with S-Video and composite switching but not component switching. Presently using a non-progressive scan Denon DVD-3000. My question is - would I have to use a component switching device to used a progressive DVD player? Am I right that I should not go through the Quadscan Elite or should I use the component inputs and let the Quadscan do the switching? With this setup is there any advantage to going to progressive DVD?

I am confused on this issue and would appreciate any answers.

 

[3.1415926 pi]

Hi, I use a CI scaler with my 150, and since my unit, as well as yours, cost serious $$$, why not let the scaler do it's magic?

I use an inexpensive interlaced DVD player, (Panny RV 31) and let the scaler do everything through component.

I'm sure your Quadscan will give you all the satisfaction you spent your $$$ on to produce the picture you want.

The chips in your QScan, are far superior to the those in a pro scan DVD player.

I wouldn't spend more $$ on a pro scan DVD player. There's really no advantage.

Of course, YMMV, and I'm sure there will be more input from more knowledgeable souls than I.

Remember, this 150 ROCKS!

HTH, VB

 

[Jeff J]

I also don't you would see any improvement in using a progressive DVD player with film based sources. Basically, there are two separate operations that need to be done to the DVD signal before it can be displayed by a digital projector: a) de-interlacing and b) scaling.


A progressive DVD player would theoretically give you better de-interlacing than the quadscan because the de-interlacing would be done in the digital domain - there is one less D/A -> A/D conversion prior to de-interlacing. I think that the de-interlacer in the quadscan is probably pretty good (it has 3:2 detection) - it should be hard to see a major difference between the two in de-interlacing for film based sources.


Either way, you would still need to scale the progressive signal to the native resolution of the DMD chip, which need to be done either by the projector itself of by the quadscan. The Quadscan will give better scaling results than the projector, which will perform the best when it has to do as little scaling as possible.


I think that any improvement in de-interlacing from a progressive DVD player would be off set by inferior scaling.


Video based sourced might be a different story - you might want to check out this post for more info.

-jeff


[This message has been edited by Jeff J (edited 10-04-2001).]