Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Progressive Scam DVD Players

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » The Afterlife » Progressive Scam DVD Players (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Progressive Scam DVD Players

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 01-30-2011 04:35 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
You cannot get a BD player that doesn't feature progressive scan capability on DVDs

Are you sure?

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 01-30-2011 04:37 PM

Pretty sure. It would be a really low-end player if it didn't do that.

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 01-30-2011 04:51 PM

Joe- Why would it need to be there? Does not make sense

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 01-30-2011 06:15 PM

Why wouldn't it be there? I mean, if you're going to advertise that your device is totally backwards-compatible with playing back dvd's (and even pointing out that they'll look better with upconverting), it would seem to be best that you include support for something as basic as progressive scan support. Also, I imagine most of the blu-ray player manufacturers simply used whatever is the latest iteration of their dvd playback software and did slight changes to make it run on the newer blu-ray hardware platform, thereby giving progressive scan support on dvd automatically.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-31-2011 01:20 PM

This should be a nonissue if you are watching the picture on an LCD or plasma set or on an LCD or DLP video projector. All of these systems are progressive scan by default. Interlace scan is only supported on CRTs, and most that I have seen do not support progressive scan (except for computer monitors, of course).

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 01-31-2011 03:54 PM

No, TVs such as those don't always do reverse pulldown very well (some do, some don't), so it helps when the DVD player is properly outputting progressive scan.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-01-2011 07:02 AM

You're saying that a $50 DVD player will do a better job of deinterlacing than a $1k television set or a $5k video projector?

If you were talking about external scalers, I could understand....

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 02-01-2011 03:11 PM

It doesn't need to deinterlace if it is stored as progressive frames at 23.98fps. It just needs to "duplicate frames". It outputs at 59.97fps progressive adding the extra frames for pulldown. If you have 60i footage then your mileage will vary. Nothing will make that look good in progressive.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-01-2011 03:32 PM

But aren't all SD DVDs 59.94i or 50i? And doesn't all film material have 3:2 pulldown added when the master tape (from which the DVD is derived) is made? My understanding is that only the HD formats allow the material to be stored natively at 23.98.

(To clarify: I agree that progressive scan is a huge improvement on a CRT. It's just that most CRTs don't support it, making it a nonissue for most users. And I would be happy to hear a good explanation of why a DVD player with progressive scan would be an improvement over an interlaced signal being fed to an LCD or DLP video projector or other progressive-by-definition output device.)

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 02-01-2011 03:54 PM

My personal observations of DVDs played on typical DVD players is that one is best served by S-Video. Progressive scan seems like a mix bag on the actual results...sometimes good and sometimes worse than leaving it alone.

With component video (off of DVDs), I've yet to find anyone that could pick it off as notably better than S-Video but I HAVE seen sync issues on component, more so on 480p when bright flashes (like ones that would be present when a flash picture is taken in the movie) cause the sync to be lost. S-Video, on the other hand seems to have most of the desires of component (keep the color separated) but lack all of the sync issues. The downsides: Not progressive and, more importantly, a stupid connector that easily can fall out.

-Steve

| IP: Logged

Tom Mundell
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 120
From: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 02-01-2011 04:20 PM

quote: Scott Norwood
And I would be happy to hear a good explanation of why a DVD player with progressive scan would be an improvement over an interlaced signal being fed to an LCD or DLP video projector or other progressive-by-definition output device.

This may vary depending on your particular display. I've noted with my tv that the de-interlacing and upscaling done by my blu-ray player is much better than what my tv does. My tv doesn't de-interlace well with all discs; sometimes it completely fails to recognize whether or not the 3:2 pulldown is present leaving combing artifacts. I'm not sure if this is because the tv is now rather old and just not very good, or if it's a lot easier for the dvd/blu-ray player to do this since it isn't trying to guess based on what's in the component video signal?

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 02-01-2011 07:43 PM

Scott, I encode 23.98 fps DVDs all the time. No pull down frames are added during the encode (they are added by the player as it plays). In fact, if you take a 30fps (or 60i) piece that is exactly 20 minutes long and a 23.98 piece that is also exactly 20 minutes long and encode them both at the exact same settings, the 23.98 file will be smaller. Why? Fewer frames. It is stored on the DVD as a 23.98p file. You'll get the same result for 23.98 inside 60i with added drop frames as well (it will be as big as a 60i file). 23.98 inside of 60i is still 60i. For this reason you can raise the bitrate a little for 23.98 material when encoding DVDs without worrying about hitting the bandwidth ceiling. Granted, DVD does not play back at 23.98, it always outputs 59.9p or i even in component.

I do think that a lot of studios encode their DVDs as 23.98 inside 60i. When playing many of them in progressive scan I see the odd interlace/combing artifact at a random scene change. When I watch stuff I personally encode at 23.98, it never, ever does this.

DVD can only do 23.98p, 29.97p and 59.96i. Blu-ray can do that as well but also adds proper 24, 30 and 60fps modes.

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 02-06-2011 04:29 AM

quote: Steve Guttag
My personal observations of DVDs played on typical DVD players is that one is best served by S-Video. Progressive scan seems like a mix bag on the actual results...sometimes good and sometimes worse than leaving it alone.

With component video (off of DVDs), I've yet to find anyone that could pick it off as notably better than S-Video but I HAVE seen sync issues on component, more so on 480p when bright flashes (like ones that would be present when a flash picture is taken in the movie) cause the sync to be lost. S-Video, on the other hand seems to have most of the desires of component (keep the color separated) but lack all of the sync issues. The downsides: Not progressive and, more importantly, a stupid connector that easily can fall out.

-Steve

So what are you saying? and S-Video is better on dvd than a component?

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 02-06-2011 08:32 AM

For the most part. I don't doubt that there are some DVD players that make the most of Component and that format will deliver a notably better picture (it should)...but if you randomly pick a DVD player...without a doubt, using the S-Video output will be the best/most reliable picture. I've been burned by using component out too many times to ever trust it on DVDs again. When I switch between S and Component with people not trained to look for the differences...they DON'T see ANY...and sometimes pick S-Video as looking better. So why bother with component on DVDs? On HD stuff...Component is the way (in analog) to go beyond 480. I also have not had the problems with BluRays, cable, satellite...etc running Component in 720 or 1080.

-Steve

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 02-06-2011 01:08 PM

quote: The Guttag
The downsides: Not progressive and, more importantly, a stupid connector that easily can fall out.

Possibly the worst connector ever designed.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.