AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,064 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I posted this in the Rear Projection Forum, but didn't get any responses and realized I probably should've posted it here instead. Sorry for the double post. Anyway, have a Samsung 1080p DLP TV and my understanding is that DVD players using a Faroudja chip cause macroblocking in these sets (I have seen that first hand). As a result, many have recommended DVD players that do not use this chip when pairing it with this DLP set. I've also read a number of posts that recommend setting the DVD resolution at 480i and then letting the TV do all the upscaling. However, I believe that this Samsung TV also uses the Faroudja chip and therefore wouldn't this type of setup be likely to cause more macroblocking than setting the DVD player at 1080i and then just let the TV bring that to 1080p?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,717 Posts
No, even though it's most likely the same chip the macroblocking only occurs if the deinterlacing takes place inside the player. Also, I have found even a decent 480p player will look better than feeding your display 480i, even though it has a great scaler inside.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,064 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Quote:
Originally Posted by nothru22
Also, I have found even a decent 480p player will look better than feeding your display 480i, even though it has a great scaler inside.
Are you saying it's better to set the DVD resolution at 480p than 480i even if the TV has a great scaler? If so, do you think it would also be better to set the DVD player at 1080i (I have an upscaling DVD player that connects via HDMI)?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
23,005 Posts
I don't know for sure, but I don't believe the Faroudja 2310 (deinterlacer/scaler) used in today's DVD players can scale to 1080p. If that's the case, then the new Sammy won't have the chip. I don't know if the older Sammys have the 2310 chip, all that Samsung says is DNIe for old and new. Has anybody verified the actual chip(s) used in the older and new TVs? Why do you believe the "Faroudja chip" is in the new Sammy? Will the new Sammy accept 480i via HDMI?


larry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,064 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper
I don't know for sure, but I don't believe the Faroudja 2310 (deinterlacer/scaler) used in today's DVD players can scale to 1080p. If that's the case, then the new Sammy won't have the chip. I don't know if the older Sammys have the 2310 chip, all that Samsung says is DNIe for old and new. Has anybody verified the actual chip(s) used in the older and new TVs? Why do you believe the "Faroudja chip" is in the new Sammy? Will the new Sammy accept 480i via HDMI?


larry
I am actually not certain that my Sammy TV uses the Faroudja - I just assumed (I know what they say) that since the 720p sets did, the new ones do. Anyway, any thoughts on whether I should have my (Sony) DVD player output at 480i, 480p or 1080i? The new Sammy does accept 480i via HDMI (unlike the older models). Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,287 Posts
1080i is probably the correct signal to send to the DLP, but you should try 480i, 480p, and 1080i to see which you prefer (once you get your player). Note that some players don't send 480i over HDMI. As I wrote in your other thread, go with a non-Faroudja player, such as Sony S975 at the lower end or Pioneer 59ai or Onkyo SP1000 at the higher end (they will not give you any MB).
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
23,005 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMSko
I am actually not certain that my Sammy TV uses the Faroudja - I just assumed (I know what they say) that since the 720p sets did, the new ones do. Anyway, any thoughts on whether I should have my (Sony) DVD player output at 480i, 480p or 1080i? The new Sammy does accept 480i via HDMI (unlike the older models). Thanks.
If the older Sammy's have the same Faroudja chip as today's DVD players, do the Sammy owners complain about excessive macroblocking? I would hope, but it depends on the chips used, that if you fed 480i to the new Sammy, it would deinterlace to 480p and scale to 1080p - no fuss and no muss having to deinterlace a second time at 1080i. So, picking up the Sony or Pio 59avi would be your best bet either way the scaling works. 480i via HDMI and no MB if you decide to let the player scale.


larry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,717 Posts
If you send that TV 1080i then the DVD signal will go 480i -> 480p -> 1080i -> 1080p as it's commonly believed that the signal is deinterlaced first before scaled to 1080i. It's good to send the TV it's native resolution, but i -> p -> i -> p can't be good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,942 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nothru22
If you send that TV 1080i then the DVD signal will go 480i -> 480p -> 1080i -> 1080p as it's commonly believed that the signal is deinterlaced first before scaled to 1080i. It's good to send the TV it's native resolution, but i -> p -> i -> p can't be good.
Obviously the solution in this case would be to go 480i->480p->1080p (missing out the 1080i step)


However as 1080p output isn't available, I think that if you want to convert 480i to 1080i you have to go via progressive for best quality.


If you wish to convert a 480i image to 1080i you have two options AIUI.


1. De-interlace 480i to 480p, scale to 1080p and interlace.

2. Treat the 480i as 240p and the 1080i as 540p and scale the fields as if they were frames. This means that the two fields are treated entirely separately, and is not a recipe for high-quality, as fine static detail won't be interpolated properly?


The former should deliver BETTER quality than the latter, as the scaling in 1. will exploit the full vertical resolution present in the source?


What you can't do is take a 480i FRAME (i.e. both fields without de-interlacing) and scale this to a 1080i FRAME - as the scaling will mix fields between input and output, and you get horrible tearing effects - with wobbly edges on movement etc. (You often see this on poor quality PC non-linear editors being used incorrectly)


Conversion from 480/60i to 480/60p and then back to 480/60i (or 576i to 576p back to 576i) is now quite common within broadcast digital video effects units (the boxes that scale, rotate, zoom, page-peel etc. video in TV shows) as the quality is better if you process frames rather than fields, allowing smoother edges, clearer movement etc. (This is the Frame-based vs Field-based DVE argument for those that know)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,951 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000
2. Treat the 480i as 240p and the 1080i as 540p and scale the fields as if they were frames. This means that the two fields are treated entirely separately, and is not a recipe for high-quality, as fine static detail won't be interpolated properly?
DCDi is very good at hiding the ill effects of doing this though.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
23,005 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nothru22
No, the chip in almost all current faroudja based players (2310) is the same chip is most faroudja based scaling TVs.
Given the price points the manufacturers are trying to meet, I can easliy believe this. Too bad you have to go the full monty to get to 1080p from 480i, the extra processing can't help. Well, maybe the -next- generation of chips will do the "correct" thing or the -next- generation of TVs will accept 1080p, or both. :)


larry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,951 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nothru22
No, the chip in almost all current faroudja based players (2310) is the same chip is most faroudja based scaling TVs.
I thought they used the FLI2300 not the FLI2310. Prehaps not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,539 Posts
Quote:
No, even though it's most likely the same chip the macroblocking only occurs if the deinterlacing takes place inside the player.
That doesn't make sense to me. Why would the same chip act differently depending on where it's placed? Am I missing something here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,951 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin_HT
That doesn't make sense to me. Why would the same chip act differently depending on where it's placed? Am I missing something here?
No idea either, other than the fact that the bug's effect decreases significantly as the number of bits used by the display's internal processing increases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,064 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
I now have the Sony S975 and it would appear to me that it would be best for me to send either a 480i or 480p directly to my Sammy. If I send a 480i to my Sammy, I believe it would likely go 480i > 480p > 1080p (completely skipping 1080i). Similarly, if I send 480p to my Sammy, it would likely go 480i > 480p at the DVD player and then 480p > 1080p at the TV (again skipping 1080i). It would appear that both of those setups would provide a better result than letting the DVD player upscale to 1080i and then sending that to my Sammy since that would likely go 480i > 480p > 1080i > 1080p. Anyone disagree?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
23,005 Posts
Rich,

If the new Sammy can do 480p ->1080p, then yes. However, try all combinations and use what looks best to you.


larry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMSko
Similarly, if I send 480p to my Sammy, it would likely go 480i > 480p at the DVD player and then 480p > 1080p at the TV (again skipping 1080i).
I agree with Larry that this seems the cleanest route if the Sammy can go straight from 480p > 1080p. Two questions:


1) To BillP's point earlier, does the S975 even output 480i over HDMI?


2) Have you had any chance to test the S975 on your Sammy yet? IIRC, you also have (had?) the Sammy HD950 upscaling player. If so, any initial comparative thoughts? I currently have a defective HD950 paired with my Sammy 1080p set and have had some extra time to think about whether I really want a replacement 950 or if I want to pick up the Sony ... hence my question.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top