 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: InFocus X1 - worthwhile to get progressive scan DVD ? posted by edhsu on May 01, 2003 at 05:35:37:
You probably won't notice much difference between interlaced and progressive scan through any projector as all projectors are progressive scan only. Since they don't have to rely upon a gun to draw the odd & even fields, all projectors include line doublers and means to convert the interlaced signal into a progressive scan picture anyway. I'm fairly certain that this applies to both LCP and DLP pictures.Since the projector has to do this conversion with everything that goes into it, they probably already have decent convertors; however, some DVD players are bound to have better convertors that will do a better job. That's right, folks... the video on the DVD player is actually an interlaced image. We have to keep with the NTSC format, of course. Basically, you'd do best to check out a few DVD players to see which had the best picture at your budget, but I don't think there's a generic answer as to whether a progressive scan DVD player will be better than any projector.
What I would like to see when HDDVD comes out is one format in progressive digital for ALL HDDVDs so we don't need to worry about this silly region garbage. Let the player handle the conversion to the local system... Will that happen? Of course not... it makes too much sense.
Follow Ups:
1. it depends on which device has the better deinterlacer. If the DVD is better, output 480P, if the Projector is better . . . use 480i and let the projector do it. . . but there are even some issues here.
1a. If the deinterlacers are about the same, theoretically the DVD would be better, provided it follows the usual convention of processing entirely in the digital domain before outputting 480P. Otherwise, the the signal in converted to analogue, sent to the projector and (assuming a digital projector [sorry Mr. Kloss]) doubled and reconverted (actually reverse that, but the steps are the same). This used to be a greater problem than it is now, but many people can still see the difference.
1b. On many projectors, either VGA in or DVI in will bypass the doubler. And the advice is, if you got either of those inputs and your DVD player has the output, use it!2. Most people change players more often than projectors. The player is, therefore, likely (not certain, just likely) to have the better deinterlacer.
Basically, 480p on a player is not an horrendous expense item. And it is switchable. Try it both ways and stick with what is the better image. Once again, projector central has an excellent article on the subject. Just in the interest of full disclosure, in my case, the player trumps the projector cleanly, but I have VGA out.
Oh, as an aside, all projectors were NOT built with deinterlacers. I refer you to the afore mentioned Henry Kloss and the Novabeam (ancient history, I know, but there are others, much more recent).
Oh, as an aside, all projectors were NOT built with deinterlacers.Oops... true. I was excluding CRT projectors from that... my bad. I'm fairly certain that all digital projectors (LCD, DLP, etc) are set up for progressive, though.
shame though (in a way) as big a pain in the arse as they are, a properly set up CRT projector (Zentith Pro 900, for example) is the most film-like image one is likely to see in the home in the near future.Given the weight ( a medium sized calf), size (asmall sized calf) and cost (I could sell my body on street corners for years and not come close) of a good CRT . . . I am digital my own self!
We should be a little careful about announcing CRT's death, however. Digital has distinct drawbacks for those with unlimited money to spend and the willingness to do so. This situation has some of the elements that have lead to the resurgence (against all odds and predictions) of vinyl, especially high quality reissues. I think it is less likely here because one is trying to recreate an artificial environment (24 well OK 48 frams per second is digital/sampled, whether the individual frame in analogue or not!) and the sound systems in theatres are EXACTLY why outer space is a vacuum.
en fin, I go to the concert hall often, to the cinema virtually never (only to see something in 70mm or from a theatre digital projector). Unfortunately, neet does not repel rug rats or vacuous teenagers.
Cheers for now
We should be a little careful about announcing CRT's death, however. Digital has distinct drawbacks for those with unlimited money to spend and the willingness to do so.Oh, I hope CRT holds on kicking and screaming! I still GREATLY prefer a CRT for use on my computer. Flat panels look cool and all, but their refresh is terrible and you can only really do one resolution on them properly (their max). My Samsung CRT is a flat screen, has a far sharper picture than my LCD at work, is brighter, and has a killer refresh.
Digital has always been about convenience to me. The reason CDs are so popular is because of that: convenience. Analog sounds better only after you've researched and bought gear that works well together and then spent the time to set it all up properly. The effort pays off in dividends, though. Digital sounds better right out of the box, but there isn't that much you can do to improve it past what it already is.
But back to CRTs - I still maintain the best picture I've ever seen on a TV was an early HDTV prototype I saw in 1997. It was maybe a 32-38 inch 16:9 tube screen showing an HD production of an outdoor concert. To this day I have yet to see that picture matched... you could read the t-shirts of the audience members on the wide shots from 200-300 feet away. You also had to creep up to about 6-8 inches on the screen to see any lines... from a distance of more than a foot, it was a moving photograph. I looked around for a tube HDTV, but nothing on the domestic market came close to that. Now it's hard to find anything HD in a tube.
en fin, I go to the concert hall often, to the cinema virtually never
I still go to concerts and films simply because that's the baseline that we're trying to emulate in our home theaters. Yes, being at home and enjoying the equipment our hard-earned dough has bought us is fun, but it's never the same as going out and seeing it in the real environment. That and their screens are always going to be bigger!
Well, yeah, but mine is 92x52, always in focus and my sound system is better.The comments about rug rats is also operative here, there are none at the Metropolitan Opera and BILLIONS at the Loew's Cineplex.
I agree with you on the CRT's as you may have perceived. But for projection, the cost, weight and size are just ludicrous.
If I had abundant funds and a light-controlled room, I wouldn't hesitate to go CRT. Digital projectors are both more convient and affordable, but there are certainly concessions to be made.Ah... but it's just video, right? What's the big deal? It's not like we're talking about something truly important, like music!
-Frank
I would hesitate to say that "Ivan the Terrible", or Abel Gance's "Napoleon" (or more than a few others) aren't deserving of mention in the same breath. Even in popular genre, there are films that evoke almost universal response, debate introspection and development of thought.Music, well . . . that's whence I come. I do share your bias but poetry, sound and transforming experience can come by sight, as well.
Cheers
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
