AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was wondering, when you talk about hour HTPC upconverting dvds to 1080i or 720p, I would assume that this would take most of the noise out of the picture, but exactly how much better do they look than 480p? I mean since it's not true 720p, but opconverted to that, does this mean that the HTPC is basically acting like a line doubler?

Also, is this the same as when standard-def commercials play on high-def channels? I mean that on the high-def channels, you can tell that there's a lot less noise in the picture, but it's still obvious that the commercial wasn't shot in high-def. You know what I mean?

Is it possible for dvds (as the technology stands now) to look as good as INHD, or DISCHD, which are both 720p or 1080i? Or is it somewhere in between them and regular dvds that aren't upconverted at all? Thanks and I look forward to your responses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
Personally, I think my upscaled and cleaned DVD's from the HTPC look better than the same movie in HD on the satellite. I am running DVI from the computer, and component from the sat box, but the satellite looks fantastic on it's own, so not sure if it's an issue with cables. I did an A/B comparison for a friend with and without ffdshow running with resize and limited sharpening, and the difference was very apparent. His wife even commented about how much better the picture looked. "Why does that look so much better and sharper than our DVD player?" And yes, his set up is fully calibrated and he has decent components, so I would say it comes close to, if not equal to, HD. But there are alot of variables, so YMMV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,130 Posts
A good DVD upscaled, can look about as good as poor HD. Whether it will look as good as INHD or HDnet will depend on your provider, how much they bit-groom the HD feeds, and the various HD content.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
another question about upscaling, my display is a 800x600 DLP projector, is it worth to upscale? I also wonder what desktop resolution I should choose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,732 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiLa
another question about upscaling, my display is a 800x600 DLP projector, is it worth to upscale? I also wonder what desktop resolution I should choose.
Search the forum for lower res PJ's. People swear that upscaling DVD's w/ffdshow

makes a difference. I have a HD display so I can't comment.


As for uspcaling DVD's, not all Video/Film DVD's are equal. Most newer film DVD's

upconverted do look better tha D*'s compressed HBO/Showtime non-OAR movies.

As for video DVD's, a poorly flagged DVD don't look that great but the good ones

LOOK like HD. Hard to beat HDnet though.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
With an 800x600, I would, only because it is not really a linear resize to 800x600 from 720x480, which is pretty much the case with any type of scaling, unless you have a display that has a native resolution of 720x480 or a multiple there of. A regular bilinear upscale will look worse than using some sort of better scaling algorthym like bicubic (minimum) or lancoz to go to a size above your output, doing whatever corrections you want, then using the video card to bring it back down. Alot of people will resize directly to their display's resolution. Think of it kind of like just zooming in on a bitmap or jpeg. It tends to get blocky as the pixels are just magnified. If you have photoshop and resize your image with either bicubic or lancoz, you can zoom in alot further before it starts to get blocky. Same thing. There is a difference in the different mathematical equations used to redraw the picture (or in resizing a movie, many pictures) in a larger size, and typically, the ones in displays and video cards are in the lower end as far as quality goes. That's where software like ffdshow comes in.


About resizing above and using the video card to come back down, the upscale is much more complicated than the downsize, so going smaller isn't as big of a deal. Most people who resize above their output resolution do so because they are applying additional filters like sharpening and noise reduction, and want those filter to work on as many pixels as possible. So, in my opinion, I would at a minimum use something to upscale to 800X600, rather than let the video card or projector do the work. I would still likely go to 2x input resolution, then set the desktop resolution on the projector at 800x600. This is of course a personal preference, you should do whatever looks good to you, but at least try out a few things before settling on something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
540 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by austinbharkness
I was wondering, when you talk about hour HTPC upconverting dvds to 1080i or 720p, I would assume that this would take most of the noise out of the picture, but exactly how much better do they look than 480p?
Upconversion does not remove noise.

Upconversion is a process that interpolates pixels, with frequently a sharpening algorithm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by austinbharkness
I mean since it's not true 720p, but opconverted to that, does this mean that the HTPC is basically acting like a line doubler?
Yes, you could compare it with that, but the algorithms are typically more complicated that simply doubling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatmanstan
Personally, I think my upscaled and cleaned DVD's from the HTPC look better than the same movie in HD on the satellite.
Many HD feeds by satellite are absolutely horrible. An abundance of macroblocking, mosquito noise and color banding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiLa
another question about upscaling, my display is a 800x600 DLP projector, is it worth to upscale? I also wonder what desktop resolution I should choose.
In my opinion no. Some would argue that upscaling could reduce aliasing, which might or might not be the case. But the problem is that reducing aliasing for things like text or Kandisky paintings is generally good while reducing aliasing for background objects, soft objects or layered objects in 3D perspective is bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
602 Posts
I have an x1 which is 800x600. I think that I get the best dvd image when I run it at 800x600 since there is no scaling being done which can in turn affect the image. Also when you run at 800x600 you get 1:1 pixel mapping or very close depending on the type of cables you are using.


Of course what looks good to one person doesn't look good to another.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
540 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gushy
I have an x1 which is 800x600. I think that I get the best dvd image when I run it at 800x600 since there is no scaling being done which can in turn affect the image. Also when you run at 800x600 you get 1:1 pixel mapping or very close depending on the type of cables you are using.
How do you get 1:1 pixel mapping? On what video source? :confused:

800x600 is not a standard video resolution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,130 Posts
1:1 pixel mapping (generally) has nothing to do with the source, it refers to the PC output (desktop) resolution exactly matching the video device's native resolution such that 1 pixel on the PC is displayed by 1 and only 1 pixel on the display.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Thanks for your responses. FYI, I have Cox Cable, and I referenced INHD and DISCHD because I would consider those the benchmark for PQ for my provider. They had this thing on beavers (the PG kind, not the other) and it looked ridiculously good. Anyway, I've been considering going with HTPC, but don't want to get hardware-locked with HD-DVD and Blu-Ray coming out later this year (spend 300-500 now on video card / processor and then need to upgrade). Any thoughts?
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top