|
Upconverting Vs. HD-DVD
|
|
|
robtwilk
Member
|
14. December 2006 @ 12:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks for the quick response. I am out of town and won't have access to my laptop until tomorrow evening. I will check the display settings then.
I am sure I tried the highest setting, but I thought it just increased the resolution with little effect on "filling the screen". I will try again when I get home. My guess is that I don't have the 1920 x 1080 option.
Still open for other ideas... Maybe the docking station has limitations??
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
rageouss
Newbie
|
16. December 2006 @ 14:44 |
Link to this message
|
Three questions...Thanks in advance
1) I have my PC connected to my 32in LCD HDTV via DVI and my screen resolution is 1920x1080. Is my PC upconverting when I watch DVD with PowerDVD or should I buy an upconverting DVD player?
2) I only have one DVI port so is there much difference if I use my DVI port for a DVD player and my PC on VGA?
3) Also when I play action intense scenes It looks a little jerky...is that my graphics card or just because I am using my PC as a DVD player?
Thank you
Trey
|
|
D1CK1E
Junior Member
|
27. January 2007 @ 16:22 |
Link to this message
|
I have a 56" 1080p Samsung DLP. Is that $230 Oppo upconverting DVD player really worth getting and how much better is it than just a normal DVD player for playing on a DLP?
Samsung DLP 56" 1080p | XBOX 360 | PS2 v14 Matrix Infinity | Sony DRU-810a Burner
|
|
aabbccdd
Suspended permanently
|
27. January 2007 @ 16:33 |
Link to this message
|
D1CK1E , take my word for it the Oppo is def. worth getting i have one with my Sony SXRD 60" and was amazed how much better the picture quality was. get it from amazon.com and get free shipping thats what i did
http://www.oppodigital.com/products.asp
|
|
robtwilk
Member
|
6. February 2007 @ 16:52 |
Link to this message
|
Up-Converting
Either my two up-converting players suck, or the difference is so slight my crappy eyes can't tell the difference (which is very possible these days).
My players were not cheap, they are connected to a really decent 62" 1080p DLP, and the cables are Monster (please don't anyone start a string about digital is digital) I'm just saying the cables/connections don't suck.
PC on 1080p TV
My laptop video card can't handle 1920 x 1080, but turns out my Mits TV can't fill the screen no matter what (via the HDMI PC input). I read the manual and it has pictures (diagrams) in the back that show how the different PC resolutions and TV format settings would fill the screen. None show more than 75% filled.
Damn my need to be an early adopter - I'll bet the very next version of this TV does it all...
|
|
DonGio
Newbie
|
6. February 2007 @ 22:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
It?s probably not that your up-converting player sucks. The difference is slight, and in my opinion negligible. Think about it you are trying to produce data that just isn?t there, more fine detail from something that is less detailed. A chip can only do so much with processing technology. An example, take a small jpeg image and stretch it, blow it up?looks like crap doesn?t it? Why? The detail just isn?t there. I know this isn?t the same thing; just trying to use some kind of analogy.
It?s my belief that most people who are seeing huge differences with their upconverting players probably had a DVD player that didn?t produce that great of an image in the first place or they are just telling themselves they see it because that?s what they have been told. Up-conversion is just a gimmick IMO; something to keep people buying. For now stick with your current DVD players and wait a year or so for HD/Bluray prices to start coming down if cost is a big concern.
|
|
eatsushi
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
7. February 2007 @ 07:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think best upconverting players right now are those based on the Silicon Optix Reon VX chip. Examples are the Denon DVD-2930CI and the Toshiba HD-AX2 (which also plays HD-DVD's).
"The emergence of a single, high-definition format is cause for consumers, as well as the entire entertainment industry, to celebrate."
-Craig Kornblau, president of Universal Home Entertainment Feb 19, 2008
|
|
D1CK1E
Junior Member
|
7. February 2007 @ 07:44 |
Link to this message
|
The reason why I'm interested in upconverting instead of HD-DVD is that the media is cheap and I already have a very large collection of DVD backups. Does anyone actually have a 1080p Oppo upconverting player that thinks it ISN'T worth the money?
Samsung DLP 56" 1080p | XBOX 360 | PS2 v14 Matrix Infinity | Sony DRU-810a Burner
|
|
aabbccdd
Suspended permanently
|
7. February 2007 @ 08:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
D1CK1E, i can tell you right now its the best upcoverting dvd player on the market for the money. it equal to the Denon thats costs 850.00.
if you don't like it you can get an refund. but you WILL like it
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
7. February 2007 @ 15:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
why not get and a1 or a2 for 350 to 400 bucks cheaper that will upconvert better?
|
|
error5
Senior Member
|
7. February 2007 @ 16:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by plutonash:
why not get and a1 or a2 for 350 to 400 bucks cheaper that will upconvert better?
Originally posted by eatsushi:
I think best upconverting players right now are those based on the Silicon Optix Reon VX chip. Examples are the Denon DVD-2930CI and the Toshiba HD-XA2 (which also plays HD-DVD's).
I agree with both of you. My A1 outperforms the Oppos by a mile. Also, I've seen the second gen A2 and the very impressive XA2 in action and these will knock your socks off when it comes to upconversion. The Reon chip in the XA2 is nothing short of a miracle worker. No wonder the high-end makers like Denon, Marantz and Onkyo have abandoned Faroudja.
Panasonic PT-AE3000 1080p Projector//Carada 110" Criterion High Contrast Grey 16:9 Screen//Oppo BDP-83SE//Toshiba HD-XA2
Classe SSP800 Processor//Classe CA-5200 5 Channel Amplifier//Classe CA-2200 2 Channel Amplifier
Bowers & Wilkins 802D L-R/HTM 1D Center/SCMS Surrounds/JL Audio Fathom f113 x 2
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. February 2007 @ 16:51
|
|
eatsushi
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
8. February 2007 @ 08:41 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
The Reon chip in the XA2 is nothing short of a miracle worker. No wonder the high-end makers like Denon, Marantz and Onkyo have abandoned Faroudja.
The Faroudja chip on the Oppo exaggerates the macroblocking bug on some displays. I've also heard of complaints regarding vertical edge enhancement - also display dependent.
"The emergence of a single, high-definition format is cause for consumers, as well as the entire entertainment industry, to celebrate."
-Craig Kornblau, president of Universal Home Entertainment Feb 19, 2008
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
8. February 2007 @ 11:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have an a1 and smokes my 2 other upscaling players and a semi calibrated htpc. The reports tha I have read said the a2 is even better
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. February 2007 @ 12:49
|
|
Dinobot
Junior Member
|
8. February 2007 @ 19:33 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by HD_nut:
But I would not spend money on an up converter with a CRT... My opinion.
It's not as if there's much of a real price difference between regular DVD players and upconverters these days, anyway. However, do upconverting players only send the upconverted signal through the HDMI connection... or do they also send it though component cables as well? Because I'm not sure I know of any CRT HDTV that even has HDMI input.
That said, I personally feel that CRT is still the only way to go for real quality at this point. Flat-panel displays still have far too many drawbacks, and they're too expensive relative to their CRT equivalents. The only real advantages they have are lower energy consumption and taking up less space (if space is even at a premium in most peoples homes; it isn't in mine). And I suppose they're flashier, and give suburban guys with oversized egos a bigger boost, proving "oh, I have so much case I can afford to waste five or six grand on a massive TV that we barely ever watch!"
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. February 2007 @ 19:36
|
|
D1CK1E
Junior Member
|
11. February 2007 @ 09:49 |
Link to this message
|
A 56" 1080p DLP costs less than 2 grand now, my friend.
Samsung DLP 56" 1080p | XBOX 360 | PS2 v14 Matrix Infinity | Sony DRU-810a Burner
|
|
Dinobot
Junior Member
|
11. February 2007 @ 14:29 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by D1CK1E:
A 56" 1080p DLP costs less than 2 grand now, my friend.
As bad as the quality is on an LCD, a rear projection is that much worse... and I'd never want to own one, personally; even if they were under $500. What I look for in TVs is image quality, exclusively... I don't care how thin the form-factor may be, or how light the TV is; I can't say space is at a premium in my house, nor am I interested in moving the TV around frequently. As of now, CRT is still the best choice for superior picture quality... end of story, as far as I'm concerned. I'd consider a true 1080p plasma or LCD, but the prices for a high-end model are ridiculous. Yeah, you can large a large screen for $2000 or less, but the picture is awful... which makes the whole "HD" thing kinda useless. Personally I feel the point of HD is improved image quality, but for most people it seems to be going out and buying the biggest TV they can afford, and then boasting about it... and these kind of people usually couldn't care less about actual picture quality as long as its MASSIVE.
And 56" is excessively large... too large for home use, IMO. I'm almost tempted to call it decadent.
|
|
aabbccdd
Suspended permanently
|
11. February 2007 @ 15:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
Dinobot my Sony SXRD 60" in high def is better than any crt picture
|
|
Dinobot
Junior Member
|
12. February 2007 @ 09:11 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by aabbccdd:
Dinobot my Sony SXRD 60" in high def is better than any crt picture
If you had that side-by-side with a 1080 HD CRT, there'd be no comparison in quality; but I'm sure on its own it looks perfectly good, of course. There's no doubt it's miles behind the archaic large-screen TV of the 90s... but it still hasn't reached the actual image-quality potential of a good, HD CRT. Maybe in 6 or 7 years flat-panel technology will be more mature, but it was never really ready to bring to market at such large sizes. I know that for me, personally, the thought of a 60" display with a resolution of only 1920x1080 is terrifying; even 40" is pushing it if you're not sitting well back. For me, the pixels are just too noticeable. I've spent too long getting accustomed to high-resolution computer displays. 1920x1200 seems perfectly fine on my 24" LCD monitor, but I don't understand the point of a display nearly 3x the size with a lower resolution.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. February 2007 @ 09:18
|
|
Dinobot
Junior Member
|
12. February 2007 @ 09:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
double post
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. February 2007 @ 09:18
|
|
D1CK1E
Junior Member
|
12. February 2007 @ 13:34 |
Link to this message
|
Have you actually seen a 50"+ 1080p with a real 1080p source (ie: xbox360 dashboard is an easy test)... something tells me you haven't.
Samsung DLP 56" 1080p | XBOX 360 | PS2 v14 Matrix Infinity | Sony DRU-810a Burner
|
|
Dinobot
Junior Member
|
12. February 2007 @ 14:02 |
Link to this message
|
Yes, I have (various models and brands of TV, in fact), and for now I ultimate prefer a CRT with 1080p capability to any LCD, plasma or rear-projection display also capable of 1080p. Have you actually seen an 1080p capable CRT display with a 1080p source? You may have, but I assume not, as it isn't that common a setup; and certainly wouldn't be on display in any electronics store. Any CRT HDTV has to be special ordered these days, although they're all considerbably cheaper than flat-panels.
I'm not saying they don't look good in general, but they're not quite there when compared to a CRT with the same resolution capability. LCDs are the worst, but all flat-panel technologies are still to relatively new, IMO. I'd never own an LCD as a television... the contrast, colour reproduction are too poor, and the pixels are too large on screens higher than the mid 30" range. On top of that, they're all just too expensive for what you're getting. Most HDTVs being sold today aren't 1080p... which is inexcusable. 1366x768 doesn't even make sense, as the TV would need to scale ANY video signal it receives, causing a quality degradation right off the bat. All non-1080 HD sets should've just been 720p native. The extremely expensive 1080 flat-panels are watchable, and quite nice when there's no CRT sitting beside it with the same source to compare it to.
Personally, I just feel that it's a better idea sticking to the more refined technology while it's still available. Also, not everything I watch is HD... in fact, the majority isn't. My cable service isn't HD (I only watch 6 or 7 hours of broadcast TV a week, so it's not really worth doubling my bill to subscribe to the 8 or 9 channels that are sending in HD). In that respect as well, a CRT HD set is the better choice. Regular broadcast looks terrible on any flat-panel, no matter how good it is. In fact, the better it is at HD the worse SD or ED look. At least a CRT is capable of changing its resolution to match the signal, as opposed to scaling the signal and causing quality loss.
I have no doubt I'll pick up a flat-panel TV in 4 or 5 years, but even then it won't be any larger than 40". I'm not the type of person who needs a massive TV to show off to my neighbours, or family. I'd rather watch a higher-quality image on a 34" TV than a lower-qualilty image on a 60".
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. February 2007 @ 14:04
|
|
D1CK1E
Junior Member
|
12. February 2007 @ 18:40 |
Link to this message
|
Actually, I have only seen a 1080i CRT HDTV. I assumed the only CRT that could do Progressive scan were computer monitors.
Samsung DLP 56" 1080p | XBOX 360 | PS2 v14 Matrix Infinity | Sony DRU-810a Burner
|
|
Dinobot
Junior Member
|
12. February 2007 @ 19:52 |
Link to this message
|
No consumer level displays, no; unfortunately, IMO. Generally, if I want to watch something in HD I do use my CRT computer display, which except for the size (although size isn't that important to me, personally) is worlds ahead of any flat-panel (particularly LCD) TV I've ever watched. However, I'd still rather watch one of the various 1080i CRT HD models available than the vast majority of flat-panels currently being sold... especially considering 90% of them are probably still only 1366x768. Even the 1080 models still share the same disadvantages; poor response time relative to CRT, etc. I suppose people are working to minimize those disadvantages, and they've come a ways so far, but it's by no means perfect... and the flaws are still pretty noticeable.
I've seen a couple 1080p-capable CRT displays in professional use, though, and I very much regret the electronics industry decided to push flat-panel displays before the technology was matured. As for myself, the only LCD I intend on owning for a while yet is my 24" secondary computer display, which is capable of 1920x1200 (which seems about perfect pixel-size for a 24")... that will do will enough as an HDTV if I need one full-time in the future.
You're entitled to think what you want, of course, but personally I just can't justify spending the amount of money it would take to get a flat-panel 1080p display when it will become obselete so fast, yet the damn thing will last so long. If I could get one for $1000-$1500 and only keep it around 3 or 4 years, I probably would go for it. As it stands, I'd rather wait until more advanced flat-panel technology is on the market... I've heard that FED displays come closer to matching the advantages CRT has over current flat-panels. Until then, my computer monitors will do... both are a bit larger than average, anyway; and I suppose the resolutions I've used them at has spoiled me to the idea of only 1920x1080 pixels on such larger panels.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. February 2007 @ 19:56
|
|
G1nger
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. February 2007 @ 04:01 |
Link to this message
|
Hi Dinobot,
I've been observing your exchanges with D1CK1E regarding CRT vs. Flat Panel technology HD. I have a 1080i CRT HD set and am very pleased with the PQ when viewing HD programming. I also have an upconverting DVD player hooked up via HDMI to DVI. The PQ with the upconverter is also fabulous. Other memebers of the forum have weighed into this discussion regarding upconverting and CRT HD sets indicating minimal improvements over a standard Progressive scan player. All I can speak to is my own personal experience and the results for me have been excellent. Hopefully in a few years the cost of either BR or HD-DVD players will drop enough for me to add one to the stable. I have no plans to buy a flat panel at this time and am very happy with my setup. I suspect a lot of the newer buyers never had a chance to see HD on a CRT set as they are pretty much extinct at the big box electronic stores these days. Perhaps if they did have a chance to see and compare they would feel as we do.
G.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
ricogirly
Newbie
|
13. February 2007 @ 08:29 |
Link to this message
|
I have a quick question if any of you guys can help me out. I was planning on getting the xbox 360 HD-DVD. does anyone know if that upconverts regular dvd's? ... i've been searchin the web and cant find any info...
|
