Are upconverting players as good as BD?

[JoeSp]

Well, now I see most HD-DVD fans stating that upconverted players are as good as or almost as good as HDM. Let's see if that is true?

On DVD's you have the following problems:

Macro blocking, faded colour, edge enhancement, anamorphic changing of the movie to fit 16x9 screens, low bit rate audio with lossey codecs that do not accruately represent the original sound track. Oh I could go on but lets just deal with these as none of these should be or are present on a HDM product that is properly done.

When you upconvert you get rid of none of the problems, you just make them bigger. Well, that's it for me. I am sure there are others here who would be able to come in here with superior knowledge and explain the whole SD is not as good as HD even with upconverting.

 

[Peter Parker]

i already owned Spiderman 3 when i bought my PS3 which was packed with a DD version. I watched the same scene on each using the PS3. I have to say that the PS3 made it look a bit better than my old DVD recorder that upconverts but still it did not look as good as the BD version.

But right now you have some HD DVD owners that are upset. They probably sincerely believed that their fmorat was better. they also probably don't ant to buy yet another piece of electronics and replace discs(if they even can).

Give it some time. As I explained to one such HD DVD partisan in another thread I once said exactly the same thing when the quadrophonic system I bought turned out not the be the wave of the future. I swore I would not go back to the older technologies but I did.

Beta and laser disc partisans bought VHS machines (in some cases grudgingly) and most of them have stopped talking about how beta was really better.

HD DVD owners may well use their devices to upconvert SD material for awile bit eventually they will come around---and more than likely thy will pay less for their BD machines than those of us who bought recently.

It si in other words good enough for now. And to tell th truth I was in the upconvert is good enough camp until it became clear to me that BD was going to win. The only difference is that I had no investment in either format and was content to watch prices fall.

But you know upconverting is a lot better than i thought it would be.

 

[rbmjr]

I don't really have a horse in this race other than the fact that I own an HD-DVD player. I chose it simply because it was cheaper than BD and nothing else. So, now that HD-DVD has lost the battle I will switch to BD when the price comes down a bit...I told my wife that sub $300 would be good enough for me.

I will say, however, that my HD-DVD player does a great job upconverting SD discs and if all I got for my $199 is an overpriced upconverting player, well, caveat emptor. Of course, there will be plenty of HD-DVD's at the local pawn shop dirt cheap in the next few weeks so I'll have plenty to watch!

 

[diogen]

...Macro blocking, faded colour, edge enhancement...

If you ever dealt with PC playback of video (as you claimed you did), you know that the only DVD deficiency that can't be fixed is detail, the direct derivative of lower resolution.
The list above has nothing to do with DVD as technology...

Diogen.

 

[akodoreign]

No, There not as good, Some come close to 720p at least.

I really wanna see what Toshiba's Cell based Upscaler coming out can do, It may come close, We wont know though until its released though. :up

 

[allargon]

On a 32" 768p screen, upconverted SD DVD looks fine. I'm watching The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe now. When the Blu-Ray is available, I will probably compare the two.

 

[JoeSp]

If you ever dealt with PC playback of video (as you claimed you did), you know that the only DVD deficiency that can't be fixed is detail, the direct derivative of lower resolution.
The list above has nothing to do with DVD as technology...

Diogen.

You are correct but those items I listed are what the studios impose on DVD to improve the PQ at 480i and I have yet to see any upconversion thru a DVD player that does away with what the studio imposes on the DVD. As for upconversion thru a PC, you are talking about using technology that is considerably more expensive and with more options for improvement of the picture then you usually get in the upconverting DVD players today. That said, I have seen Toshiba's HD-DVD players do upcoversion and on some material it does look pretty good -- but on others it just enhances the problems with a poorly done DVD.

 

[haertig]

I have yet to see any upconversion thru a DVD player that does away with what the studio imposes on the DVD.

Same thing for a BD or HDDVD player. The edge enhancement on the HDDVD version of Tremors is terrible in many people's eyes. Nothing a player can do about it either. I assume there are good and bad BD transfers as well, just like HDDVD, just like standard DVD.

Of course it's silly to say upconversion is "as good as" real HD. Many have mentioned "it's good enough" however. That's different - it's a price vs. value judgment. Or an availability judgment. Or some different judgment other than pure quality. By all means make your own judgment to buy BR only if that's what you want.

Someone who just spent a bunch of money on a Lamborghini might feel the need to came over to my house to scoff at my present vehicles and put me down too. I'd be laughing at them at the same time, but whatever.

 

[diogen]

...those items I listed are what the studios impose on DVD to improve the PQ at 480i and I have yet to see any upconversion thru a DVD player that does away with what the studio imposes on the DVD.

Get a reference quality DVD, "I, Robot", for example. Or some of Sony superbit DVDs.
And although the DVD flavour of MPEG-2 is restrictive, it doesn't mean that what you listed has to be there.

In the end, most of the quality (loss) comes from the master used and workflow employed.
If you take the same master as is used today for HD/BD production and author a DVD from it and do a proper A/B comparison,
less than 10% of real life installations would be able to show any difference between the two, IMHO...

But I suspect studios will employ the Monster Cable approach: comparing the picture using their component cables
with another using a composite no-name cable...

Diogen.

 

[navychop]

I think the PS3 does a good job of upconverting. But it certainly is not as good as true HD. Of course, I have a 61" HDTV.

On a related note, I think the standard DVD version of "Hunt for Red October" is miserable. Indeed, my VHS copy has better PQ - especially in the first scene, before Sean C first dives the boat. "Cold indeed." My PS3 was unable to do much to help it. I eagerly await the BD release.

 

[gadgtfreek]

Nope.

 

[JoeSp]

Get a reference quality DVD, "I, Robot", for example. Or some of Sony superbit DVDs.
And although the DVD flavour of MPEG-2 is restrictive, it doesn't mean that what you listed has to be there.

In the end, most of the quality (loss) comes from the master used and workflow employed.
If you take the same master as is used today for HD/BD production and author a DVD from it and do a proper A/B comparison,
less than 10% of real life installations would be able to show any difference between the two, IMHO...

But I suspect studios will employ the Monster Cable approach: comparing the picture using their component cables
with another using a composite no-name cable...

Diogen.

If every DVD was mastered the way I,Robot or the Superbit releases were that would be a differant story but they are not. And sadly, I am afraid that the studios might try to gussy up the picture for BD too. While there might of been a need early on on DVD for edge enhancement (which I really do not like at all) there are too many DVDs released today that do not even get close to a specs of a Superbit. So while there are some DVD's that were done quite well, the bulk of them just do not hold up even with upconversion to their BD and HD-DVD versions.

 

[teachsac]

If every DVD was mastered the way I,Robot or the Superbit releases were that would be a differant story but they are not. And sadly, I am afraid that the studios might try to gussy up the picture for BD too. While there might of been a need early on on DVD for edge enhancement (which I really do not like at all) there are too many DVDs released today that do not even get close to a specs of a Superbit. So while there are some DVD's that were done quite well, the bulk of them just do not hold up even with upconversion to their BD and HD-DVD versions.

But you're talking like a videophile and not J6P. To them, on their 32"-37" Vizio and Olevia it is good enough and the benefits don't outweigh the cost. If they even see the benefit.

S~

 

[harshness]

If you ever dealt with PC playback of video (as you claimed you did), you know that the only DVD deficiency that can't be fixed is detail, the direct derivative of lower resolution.

You speak as if a loss of detail by an order of magnitude has negligible impact on program quality. Add to this the complications of 3:2 pull-down that isn't needed in the advanced formats and you've lost even more detail.

To add insult to injury, you don't contemplate high bandwidth audio that is not available in the DVD movie format.

Can one be happy with upconverted DVD? In many cases, yes.

Can one compare upconverted DVD straight across with an HD format? Hell no!

 

[diogen]

You speak as if a loss of detail by an order of magnitude has negligible impact on program quality.

Not what I meant.
The absolute majority of HDTVs in homes (95%+ would be my guess) has to scale/IVTC the HD/BD streams:
either because the TV is 720p (even worse - 768p LCD), or non-square pixel (e.g. 1024x768 plasmas), or 1080/60i-only input or simply _because_.
Scaling is hard. Especially to exotic resolutions like 768p. Most of the current players/TVs do a crappy job at it. IVTC isn't hard but is done right by few.
Therefore, unless you can get 1:1 pixel mapping from the HD/BD disc to the screen, you lose resolution. To the point there is no difference to a good DVD upconvert.

Add to this the complications of 3:2 pull-down that isn't needed in the advanced formats...

...on TVs that not only are capable of handling 1080p, not only 1080/24p (fewer than 1080/60p),
but also display the image at a multiple of 24. 1-2% of HDTVs sold would be my guess...

Diogen.

 

[jollygrunt]

But you're talking like a videophile and not J6P. To them, on their 32"-37" Vizio and Olevia it is good enough and the benefits don't outweigh the cost. If they even see the benefit.

S~

I concur. What he was saying, goes right over my head.

 

[nickg420]

Well I can attest that I own Goodfellas and Casino on HD-DVD and SD-DVD. I own a 56" Panasonic 1080P LCD. I can tell you there IS a difference between the SD upconvert and the HD-DVD version.....Is it enough to scream and shout about??? Not really....In fact now that HD-DVD is dying or DEAD as I heard today, I have no problem buying the SD version of a movie and watching it upconverted if the HD-DVD version is to pricey...

I don't think the HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray comes down to one being a better quality than the other it just came down to one being supported more than the other.....I could not care less I have roughly $250-$300 tops in my HD-DVD investment, some people have 5X that much....I'll eventually buy a PS3 and make the jump but for now there's no reason to....