Stupid question....

[Alaric]

I'm looking at upgrading my DVD player to a model that upconverts. My TV is RPTV with a max resolution of 1080i (no 720p). I'm very happy with my Marantz audio gear (2 ch only) and am thinking about the DV4001 and the Oppo. I need HDMI output , as my available component input lost the red.
While torturing myself as to what to buy I looked at HD DVD and BluRay and ran into a logic wall. If my max resolution is 1080i , and numerous DVD players upconvert to 1080i , why would I buy a high definition (HD or BD) player and limit my selection of DVDs? Am I likely to see a PQ difference commensurate with the investment?

[Lex]

common misconception 1, you can only play HD DVDs or BD DVDs on those players. Actually, most of the players will upconvert standard DVDs to the best format available, in your case, 1080i, but it only does so through the HDMI inputs. Of course the negative is, there are no dual format players as yet, so you have to pick a format and go with it. Certainly you will want to check by player that it will accomplish your upconversion desires.

Doug

[Alaric]

Is there a large difference in picture quality between a "hi-def" DVD player and one that upconverts? Is it a difference I'm likely to notice given my limited monitor resolution? I'd like a decent picture , but if my monitor can't tell the difference between a $500 HD DVD and a $200 Oppo I don't want to spend the money!

[peterS]

Is there a large difference in picture quality between a "hi-def" DVD player and one that upconverts? Is it a difference I'm likely to notice given my limited monitor resolution? I'd like a decent picture , but if my monitor can't tell the difference between a $500 HD DVD and a $200 Oppo I don't want to spend the money!

hd dvd is very good upconverter
as are oppo and denon in my experience (marantz should be as good as denon since they are the same in many respects)

the samsung blu ray is not a good one at all
and id be willing to bet the sony isnt too hot with dvds given there other dvd players

yes there is a noticable difference between native hddvd and an upconverted dvd- this may be attributed to superior mastering as blu-ray has proved the converse (looks worse in many cases from what i saw)
but i wouldnt blindly recomend hddvd since it may flop and there are very limited titles
the a2 (or what ever they call it) is only hdmi 1.2 and doesnt have that yet to be released combatibility standard for hdmi

so for me that is too many strikes against it

id say get the oppo and make a more informed dicision in a year or two- knowing that the dvds you buy now will look very good on the next gen players regardless

[sirbogey]

My experience tells me you won't see much of a difference in picture quality and my advice is to A/B the players before you buy them.

I had the Oppo 971 (720p) for 3 weeks or so. I A/B 'ed it with the Rotel RDV-1060, component cables and the Oppo 971 with HDMI to the Panny 900 (720p projector). I can tell you there was a difference, but the difference between the RDV-1060 in standard mode (not even progressive) vs the Oppo (720p) was really really small. Not worth the upgrade. And I'm talking about a 100"+ screen! It got me thinking that my projector must be doing a lot of high quality image processing itself. I got rid off the Oppo within 3 weeks.

I have seen however an HD player with an HD TV in Toronto last year and the picture quality looked amazing. But I believe they played a BlueRay disc. Compared to my set up, there was definitely a huge difference.


for what it's worth.. 0.02

[DrJRapp]

yes there is a noticable difference between native hddvd and an upconverted dvd- this may be attributed to superior mastering as blu-ray has proved the converse (looks worse in many cases from what i saw)
but i wouldnt blindly recomend hddvd since it may flop and there are very limited titles
the a2 (or what ever they call it) is only hdmi 1.2 and doesnt have that yet to be released combatibility standard for hdmi

so for me that is too many strikes against it

id say get the oppo and make a more informed dicision in a year or two- knowing that the dvds you buy now will look very good on the next gen players regardless

Let me speak from the position of someone who owns all 3, an Oppo 970, a Toshiba XA1 and a Phillips BRP 9000 (improved samsung clone).

The output of the 970 looks good over 1080i but lacks the sharpness and extended color palet of the other two. Upscaled SD is faux HD not true HD, the difference really is that big.

There have been some crappy early transfers in both the HD DVD camp and Bluray, however they are getting better.

Life is short, so if you can afford the minimal cost of the hardware I would get at least a HD DVD player to be able to view HD DVD and upscale standard DVDs. There are plently of HD titles to view with more being released all the time. You don't need to make the big cost investment in the discs....just join Netflix or Blockbuster.

I have not heard anyone who has an HD capable display who invested in HD say that it was a waste of money.

[Nick M]

A 480p image that is upconverted to 1080p has no more detail than the original 480p image. It simply smoothes out the image so you don't experience as much pain viewing jagged lines or blocky details. With a 720p image, there is more detail in the image because each progressive frame consists of 921,600 pixels (a 480p image contains 307,200 pixels). Likewise, a 1080p image contains even more information (2,073,600 pixels) - more than twice that of 720p. A closeup on 480p DVD will show the actors face. On a big screen you might see jagged lines where the actor's nose gives way to the background. Upconverted those lines will become smooth, but there is still no more added detail. With a Hi-Def source the image contains more resolution, so more details are picked up. Not only will lines be smooth, but you will pick up tiny details like hairs, pores, and even the strokes of the brush used to apply make-up. This is especially true for 1080i/1080p sources (1080p signals being a bit smoother fram-to-frame than 1080i).

But you still need a display that has at least the amount of pixels as the source to view that source without having the image downconverted. For this reason, people watching 1080i material at home without a 1080p display are simply viewing a downconverted image. Thats why if you watch 1080i stations on HD-TV, a 1080p display is more than worth it even if BluRay/HD-DVD kill each other off, because with a 720p display, that 1080i source is really 720i due to your equipment.

[peterS]

because with a 720p display, that 1080i source is really 720i due to your equipment.

um no

there was a time where SOME 720p sets processing turned 1080i into 540p

as for no detail added in upconversion you very much mistaken
does it have its limitations- yes
is it nothing more than smoothing? absolutely not

[Nick M]

peterS - Not sure what you were getting at with your post, it was kinda choppy. Are you saying that a person with a 1280x720p set can watch 1080i material that is not butchered down in resolution? Does the set have the capability of pixel mitosis at will or something? :lol: As far as I know most displays downconvert higher-rez sources to their native resolution, thus a source of interlaced 1920x1080 frames are reduced to interlaced frames at the resolution of your display. Please elaborate on your response if I'm somehow incorrect here...

Oh, and how can upconversion add details to a low-rez source? As far as I knew it was just a bunch of anti-aliasing and pixel-pixel interpolation. This isn't adding detail though. You would need a player that could network with Hollywood and reference the original films to actually add detail. It's basically a process of making the crap source seem less crappy by rubbing it down with buttah'. Kinda like having a few beers at the facial transplant social... :B

[peterS]

peterS - Not sure what you were getting at with your post, it was kinda choppy. Are you saying that a person with a 1280x720p set can watch 1080i material that is not butchered down in resolution? Does the set have the capability of pixel mitosis at will or something? :lol: As far as I know most displays downconvert higher-rez sources to their native resolution, thus a source of interlaced 1920x1080 frames are reduced to interlaced frames at the resolution of your display. Please elaborate on your response if I'm somehow incorrect here...

Oh, and how can upconversion add details to a low-rez source? As far as I knew it was just a bunch of anti-aliasing and pixel-pixel interpolation. This isn't adding detail though. You would need a player that could network with Hollywood and reference the original films to actually add detail. It's basically a process of making the crap source seem less crappy by rubbing it down with buttah'. Kinda like having a few beers at the facial transplant social... :B

you stated 720i.... proper processing will reduce it to 720p w/o significant degridation on a smaller screen (less than 50")
there was a time where many couldnt process properly and reduced to 540p but i believe most are up to speed now

as for detail you seem to be infering that small detail will be lost (pores, pimples and birth marks etc) which is true
the difference between a properly encoded 480i signal up converted can still look very good and doesnt leave one thinking that detail is lacking

[Nick M]

Well, the original source was interlaced, so the downconverted source is also interlaced. The processor then de-interlaces that downconverted interlaced source. You don't pick up any new material by deinterlacing the signal, it just combines the two partial frames into a solid frame and then adds filler frames in. This is why sources in true 720p seem smoother in action scenes than 1080i, but the rez is still lower. I prefer 1080i over 720p sources.

a properly encoded 480i signal up converted can still look very good and doesnt leave one thinking that detail is lacking

Yes, it definetly looks better than a 480p source displayed on a giant screen, but I'd disagree that it doesn't leave one thinking detail is lacking... not once you see a 1080i/1080p signal on a display with 1920x1080 pixels... :T

Your mileage may vary though...

[Alaric]

My TV doesn't have 720p resolution. It has 480i,480p, and 1080i. Those are my only options for input resolution. If I set my cable box to match 720p signals I lose ESPNHD. 1080p ain't happening either.
So,if I understand the situation correctly , the difference is analogous to plastic surgery vs. natural beauty? Since I am not buying a 1080p TV anytime soon , and I have a RPTV , will BluRay provide a $700 dollar difference in PQ -given the limitations of my display?
I understand all replies are subjective , but I trust you guys to know what the heck you're talking about and appreciate the time and effort you have put into your answers.Thanks. :T

[peterS]

Since I am not buying a 1080p TV anytime soon , and I have a RPTV , will BluRay provide a $700 dollar difference in PQ

no!

[Alaric]

no!

I suspected as much , but wanted to check with those far more knowledgeable than me on the subject. Any preferences between the Marantz DV4001 or the Oppo DV-970HD? I've been pretty happy with my Marantz audio gear , so I looked at them , and the Oppo seems to be very popular amongst the cognescenti. Should I be looking at Denon , Yamaha , etc.? Bearing in mind the Marantz is about the top of my "suggested retail" budget? I don't want to cheap out on PQ , but feel my display may be a more limiting factor than my budget.

[Nick M]

It would help if we knew the make & model of your TV. Then we could determine what it's capabiities are.

[peterS]

my take:
1
the oppo feels like any dvd player at $150- plastic
the video quality is all i ask for and there customer support is absolutly amaizing
secrets tested the oppos with flying colors but i have read some arnt pleased w/ them for various reasons

could sell for double and still be a valid option imo

2
the denons have an aluminum faceplate wich gives them a better look than oppo
and are on the bleading edge of technology in ther price classes and get raves from secrets (on here feelings are mixed but we know how that goes)
ive used the 29xx series and the 19xx series
but i do find the looks to be a bit tacky
very nice though- id say they are a reference in there price points
look into ebay for these because they are plentyfull and 50% off

3. marantz is probably tops in looks of any manufacturer
they seem to be less cutting edge than its sister brand denon but more "solid"
no first hand experience here

4. the cheaper yamaha stuff has realy disapointed me
they finaly released an up convert in the $150 range and it looks horrible
there are $50 players that kill it
this really really dissapointed me because i find them as such a good value in recievers
im sure there are some other good models at a higher cost but to me a companies entry product says a lot about the rest

so i think either oppo , denon or marantz will fit your bill depending on your needs

[peterS]

this is secrets if you are unfamiliar

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/masterindex_video_players.html

[Alaric]

It would help if we knew the make & model of your TV. Then we could determine what it's capabiities are.

Oops. Mitsubishi WS-48515. Even hanging around here I didn't even know what I didn't know. 8O

[peterS]

thats a very nice one not sure what more you'd want

something that didnt even occur to me is that the hddvd player upconverts well

id be very tempted to see how hddvd looks on it or mpeg4 blu ray disks

since you would probably notic nuances i cannot on my lcd

smart decision would be to wait though

let us know what you do

[Nick M]

So from what I gathered it's a CRT RPTV capable of 1080i. You said the set will not accept 720p signals? I would think that it would upconvert to 1080i, but maybe not.

Check your manual to see what conversions the Tv will do, and then check what output formats the various Blu-Ray/HD DVD players have. What inputs does your TV have?

[Alaric]

I have two component inputs , two composite , two S-video , one Firewire , and one HDMI. My HTB reciever has no HDMI in or outputs and I lost the red on one comp. input , so I was looking at DVD players that output HDMI and allow me to run a Toslink audio to the reciever( ran out of coax inputs). TV also has two coax cable inputs but I have a $9.00 rabbit ears setup , that gives me local broadcast stations in 1080i , in one of them.
I'm pretty happy with a decent 1080i picture on the TV. The 48" Mits uses the same guns as the 65" , so the picture is that much sharper. A friend of mine recently came up with a set of Mits "Diamond" series guns (and the ability to install them) and I'm considering that as well. Any day now I expect the "need" to start upgrading the HT setup..... :roll: The disease progresses....

[Lex]

Excuse me Peter while I respectfully say you just don't know what your talking about on BD and I ask that you please stop spreading incorrect information about it, I own a good many BD discs, and the 1000.00 Sony player, and except for just a few discs, quality is VERY good, Striking most of the time. So, not sure where your views were formulated, but you may need to update your experiences in this area, as what you've seen is not representative of the market IMO.

Truly, only the Mission Impossible Series has had a lot of digital noise, or artifacts, or what I refer to as dot crawl sometimes. I traded it back for HD-DVD, I've had no desire to trade any other BD disc. This is a TRANSFER issue, not a format issue. Big difference.

So far, upconverts seem pretty good with the Sony, but I won't use it for that to often with my Samsung so good at it.

[Shawn Parr]

I own a good many BD discs, and the 1000.00 Sony player, and except for just a few discs, quality is VERY good, Striking most of the time.

I'm interested to hear this, and glad to hear your experience. The only BlueRay I have seen is the BD demo that they have in the retail stores, and that disk looks horrible. It is really not a good demo to get people to buy the technology IMHO. I have seen it in two locations, both with the Sony BD player and a high end Sony flat panel, and both have been full of artifacts.

Even worse is they have a DVD vs. BD split screen demo that is insulting. What they claim to be a 'standard' DVD appearance is obviously way over-blurred, and the BD side is very strongly sharpened, and artifacty.

I was hoping it was just a calibration thing, but I wouldn't put it past Sony to make a completely junky demo disc for their technology. It seems the way of Sony to try to kill their own products.

[peterS]

Excuse me Peter while I respectfully say you just don't know what your talking about on BD and I ask that you please stop spreading incorrect information about it, I own a good many BD discs, and the 1000.00 Sony player, and except for just a few discs, quality is VERY good, Striking most of the time. So, not sure where your views were formulated, but you may need to update your experiences in this area, as what you've seen is not representative of the market IMO.

Truly, only the Mission Impossible Series has had a lot of digital noise, or artifacts, or what I refer to as dot crawl sometimes. I traded it back for HD-DVD, I've had no desire to trade any other BD disc. This is a TRANSFER issue, not a format issue. Big difference.

So far, upconverts seem pretty good with the Sony, but I won't use it for that to often with my Samsung so good at it.

but it IS representative of the product
blu ray- bad transfers no mpeg4 until reciently, expensive, doesnt play cds,
poor dvd playback (in the samsungs case)
there was a reason for a 95% return rate on these
i would only hope things have improved

hd dvd- great pq right of the bat, plays cds very well, cheaper player

[RebelMan]

but it IS representative of the product
blu ray- bad transfers no mpeg4 until reciently, expensive, doesnt play cds,
poor dvd playback (in the samsungs case)
there was a reason for a 95% return rate on these
i would only hope things have improved

hd dvd- great pq right of the bat, plays cds very well, cheaper player

Apparently you haven't seen or heard of the PS3.

1. Blu-ray transfers have improved but the choice of codec has little to do with the picture quality. Bitrate and source quality are the dominate forces. The more advanced codecs like VC-1 and MPEG4 are more efficient and make better use of the 25 GB single layer discs but they are no better than MPEG2 encoded disks using 50GB dual layer discs.

2. The $500 PS3 is not exactly cheap but it is the least expensive BD player you can buy, by a long shot, and no more expensive than the least expensive HD-DVD player.

3. The PS3 will not only play CDs it also plays SACDs!

4. DVD playback on the PS3 is not too bad but certainly not poor, especially with the newer transfers of older releases. It could be helped with better video processing but I doubt you'll pickup a BD player of any kind with the primary intent to watch DVD's. Lots of new releases are available on BD. Oh did I mention that a future firmware update will enable the PS3 to upscale DVDs? I guess that makes poor DVD quality a moot issue.

5. The PS3 is the fastest hidef player on the market. From a completely powered off state, you can insert a BD into the slot loader and the system will power-up, boot, load and start playing the disc in under 30 seconds!!! NO HD player in the world can touch this kind of performace, now nor in the forseeable future and especially none of the 2G players planned for release this year.

I am just scratching the surface on what the PS3 can/will do. Things have improved, considerably. In case you haven't figured it out I own one and you should too. LOL

[peterS]

Apparently you haven't seen or heard of the PS3.

1. Blu-ray transfers have improved but the choice of codec has little to do with the picture quality. Bitrate and source quality are the dominate forces. The more advanced codecs like VC-1 and MPEG4 are more efficient and make better use of the 25 GB single layer discs but they are no better than MPEG2 encoded disks using 50GB dual layer discs.

2. The $500 PS3 is not exactly cheap but it is the least expensive BD player you can buy, by a long shot, and no more expensive than the least expensive HD-DVD player.

3. The PS3 will not only play CDs it also plays SACDs!

4. DVD playback on the PS3 is not too bad but certainly not poor, especially with the newer transfers of older releases. It could be helped with better video processing but I doubt you'll pickup a BD player of any kind with the primary intent to watch DVD's. Lots of new releases are available on BD. Oh did I mention that a future firmware update will enable the PS3 to upscale DVDs? I guess that makes poor DVD quality a moot issue.

5. The PS3 is the fastest hidef player on the market. From a completely powered off state, you can insert a BD into the slot loader and the system will power-up, boot, load and start playing the disc in under 30 seconds!!! NO HD player in the world can touch this kind of performance, now nor in the foreseeable future and especially none of the 2G players planned for release this year.

I am just scratching the surface on what the PS3 can/will do. Things have improved, considerably. In case you haven't figured it out I own one and you should too. LOL

i did not know it played sacds!
that is definitely nice

load time are surprising

so if mpeg 2 doesn't inhibit pq what is the deal with some of the BD
is something more difficult in the transfer process?

ill personaly wait until they fix the problems with 480i and subsiquently dvd playback

looks like some BD suporters are finaly materializing