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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray? (Page 22)

This topic comprises 105 pages: 1  2  3  ...  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  ...  103  104  105

Author Topic: Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray? Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-12-2007 08:49 PM                     Scott, Just because it is in print doesn't make it right...the person that wrote that article, is dead wrong. 1080i has half the information of 1080p, period. There is quite literally a doubling of picture quality to be had by using a 1080p source on a 1080p device. Can a 1080i device deinterlace? You bet...as ONLY CRTs can properly display interlaced signals...digital displays are inherently progressive...as the article states. What the author clearly misses is that the interlaced signal has half the data and what it has is displaced over time. Horizontal and vertical pans can almost always show the deinterlacing artifacts. Anyone that knows about the internal working of scalers knows THE hardest task a scaler must do is deinterlace. Interpolating one size to another is relatively easy...but taking two parts of an image that are displaced in time...that is damn near impossible to overcome...you have to look ahead, see where the image is going and then recreate the half of the picture that was missing a moment ago....good luck...and then what happens if the picture stops (still image) but then starts again?...that is another tell in a deinterlacer. Futhermore, deinterlacing adds to video latency which will get your audio out of sync with the picture...depening on how fast the various bits of video processing take) They get better all of the time (technology will do that for you) but there is no substitute for having all of the information (progressive) to begin with. So if you are looking for the best video image, you want progressive...accept no substitutes. Compare the two (any progressive to interlace) and see if you don't come away impressed with the progressive. Note, the source material must be progressive from start to finish...if there is any interlacing along the way, half the information got thrown out and somewhere someone to some varying degree of failure, has to try and put it back. It reminds me of one of my DVDs...Rolling Stones AT THE MAX....I have a component output DVD player (who doesn't nowadays...but it wasn't as common when I bought the DVD) and hooked it up to my digital projector component. Not only was it interlaced but the damn thing had chroma crawl! The source of that DVD was COMPOSITE! The worst video transmission method next to RF. Once the color components are combined to composite, not amount of decoding is going to properly separate them again...the information was lost. So be wary of what people print...they too can be wrong. 1080p is better than 1080i...by 2:1, all else being equal. Steve  |  IP: Logged Frank Dubrois Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 896 From: Cleveland, OH Registered: Mar 2005 posted 11-13-2007 12:55 AM                    I think what he was trying to say was maybe 1080i and 1080p are pretty similar to naked eye and there isn't any reason to go 1080p and spend a fortune when 1080i will make most people just as happy. Can the average citizen tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p side by side without being told what their looking at? I would guess no. Based on that, the article suggests that you not spend the extra cash for 1080p devices at this time.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-13-2007 02:44 AM                     Frank, that is precisely where the artical gives the misinformation. Yes, the typical person WOULD see a difference...believe it or not, the 1080p would look notably sharper than the 1080i version of the same image. Certainly, the smaller your screen and the greater your distance of viewing, the less the difference. 8mm film looks pretty good a long distance or small enough image too. It seems the author of the article confuses 24->30 fps conversion (3:2 pull-down) with interlacing/deinterlacing....they are totally different things. You really do have half the resolution with an interlaced signal (if it is interlaced anywhere in the chain from start to finish) and again, interlacing introduces a timing artifact that is near impossible to overcome. CRTs worked with it due to persistence of vision combined with how the phosphors glowed...no so on digital displays. 3:2 conversion merely gets the frame rates in sync with each other...all of the information is passed through the conversion. Our persistance of vision allows for this to work the same way it works in film except without the interruption that a shutter causes. And yes a 72Hz refresh can make for the best film to video transfer as each frame is shown 3-times rather than the 2, 3 alternation. But that has nothing to do with interlacing. Why they are mixing the two things up is beyond me as it does a diservice to the consumer by giving out false information. Now if the image was static, well there may be some arguement there that there can be no difference since the effects of the time displacement aren't going to be there. This actually gives a good arguement for having digital displays natively run at 72Hz...at that point one could make make a 24p to 72p deinterlacer that kept all of the original info. But 24 to 60Hz will always have time artifacts in it. It wouldn't help you for stuff shot 60i but we are movie guys and getting 24fps stuff to look good is what counts. Then again, the Dcinema dudes could start shooting 30p and give up on the 24fps BS and improve things for everyone.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-13-2007 03:02 AM                        quote: Steve Guttag at that point one could make make a 24p to 72p deinterlacer that kept all of the original info. Can you tell me what is wrong with this sentence? Hint: Can you close a closed door?  |  IP: Logged Frank Dubrois Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 896 From: Cleveland, OH Registered: Mar 2005 posted 11-13-2007 08:46 AM                    quote: Steve Guttag Yes, the typical person WOULD see a difference I'm not so sure. These are the same people that say standard definition TV is "good enough". I don't think the average person could tell the difference between 720p and 1080i. My guess is, they would all look "good enough". Remember, the typical person typically believes what the kids at the big box stores tell them. It would be interesting to set up a 1080i and 1080p demo and see if people really could tell the difference.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-13-2007 08:46 AM                     Okay shoot me Joe...I was tired when I wrote that...yes progressive to progressive remains progressive...what I meant to say was one could go from a 24p source, interlace it for some horrible reason and transform it to a 72Hz version and get a lossless recreation since each frame will be shown 3-times rather than the 3:2 where there is a point where you have half a frame from one and half a frame from the next frame upon deinterlacing as you go from the double shown frame to the triple shown frame.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-13-2007 10:43 AM                     OMG, did someone just find an error in something Steve said??? Let's start the tally. That's now TWO things Steve has been wrong about!  |  IP: Logged Frank Dubrois Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 896 From: Cleveland, OH Registered: Mar 2005 posted 11-13-2007 07:42 PM                    Apparently this weird TV thing at BB I saw was a Samsung LNT4671 w/120hz refresh and 1080p/24. In that mode, it makes movies look like sitcoms. It's a sharp picture, but I don't really know if its better. I can tell you that the credits scroll nice and smooth.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-13-2007 09:15 PM                        I'll really have to check it out. I am not a big fan of interpolation in any form, especially framerates! But then again we have to remember that this is Samsung. What the hell do they know about aesthetics? By the way, what movie was it?  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 11-13-2007 10:01 PM                     He said it was one of the Johnny Depp Pirates movies. Don't know which one exactly. Since this was a Samsung monitor, I cannot help but wonder if this was one of those faux-1080p TVs where a cheapo DLP chip with half the pixels of 1080p is being used in conjunction with a "wobbulation" filter to fake a 1080p image. I'm wondering if the effect of "wobbulation" in conjunction with a Hallmark™ Rainbow Brite® color wheel is helping to cause that video-ish look. I know there are some proponents of "wobbulation" but it still is FAKE FAKE FAKE. That is NOT true 1080p. The wobble bobble bull crap defeats the principal of having a progressive image in the first place. You're trading an interlaced scan image for a wobbulated scan image that really does nothing better. It's still only showing you half the pixels at any given time instead of all the pixels all the time. Real 1080p should not have to rely on any bullshit like wobbulation and a half-rez chip to pretend to be 1080p. Put a damned real 1920 X 1080 native resolution imaging system in there. Not anything half-rez. On top of that, the native 1920 X 1080 pixel system should be able to deliver 24fps, 30fps and 60fps progressive at a bare minimum. IMHO, those monitors should be able to deliver at even faster frame rates to accommodate other devices (such as computer systems) that are able to deliver much faster frame rates than any video format. Samsung's TVs are dead to me as long as they want to rely on cost cutting bullshit like half-rez half-baked DLP chips. They need to get 100% 1920 X 1080 all the time native and get rid of the half rez shit.  |  IP: Logged Frank Dubrois Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 896 From: Cleveland, OH Registered: Mar 2005 posted 11-13-2007 10:12 PM                    quote: Bobby Henderson faux-1080p TVs where a cheapo DLP chip ...It's a LCD. The picture was really nice. I've been checking aorund and that TV is getting rave reviews. 25000:1 contrast ratio reported...not sure if thats accurate, but I can tell you that it was the blackest blacks I've seen on ANY TV.... CRT-Plasma-DLP ...very nice. They have a 40" version and a 52" version. A local store is having a sale...regular price for a 46" was $3200, pricey. On sale this week for $2499. It may be at the price point to snag it up.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-13-2007 11:30 PM                        In your search for reviews, has anyone else noted the video-ish motion?  |  IP: Logged Frank Dubrois Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 896 From: Cleveland, OH Registered: Mar 2005 posted 11-13-2007 11:52 PM                    I think I remember one review (non-professional) referring to the video as being compared to watching a soap opera on TV. The BB salesperson said it was more like watching a live performance or watching a video screen as the movie is being filmed. He also referred to it as a 3d effect. The "feature" can be turned off so it moves like any other LCD TV (at 120Hz)would.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-14-2007 02:20 AM                        Did you ask him to turn it off? I wonder how it would look. That'd be very important to me. I bet most people who buy the TV turn it on just because it's there, kind of like those "surround" modes for stereo TV speakers.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-14-2007 09:25 AM                     quote: I am not a big fan of interpolation in any form, especially framerates! While this is understandable, a 24fps to 72p conversion is no different than a 3-wing shutter running in a film projector (except the light is not interrupted like in a film projector). You are shown each image for 3 cycles and at no time is their part of one image mixed with part of another image as is the case in a 24->30 or 24->60 conversion with interlace. If you think about it 24fps would flicker very badly if shown on film...thus the 2-wing shutter (or double rotation single blade shutter) to interpolate 24fps to 48Hz. However, be wary of projectors that can merely handle 72Hz...I've tried upconversion to 72Hz...the projector recognized it took the signal. It then clearly converted it back to its native 60Hz and the jutter was worse than a straight 24->60 conversion. For those not used to looking for artifacts, jutter normally shows itself on any horizontal movement...it looks like a discontinutity. Those looking for de-interlacing artifacts can not only use horiztonal movement but vertical camera tilts...signals that have gone through interlacing will tend to show themselves on such camera motions. Steve  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 105 pages: 1  2  3  ...  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  ...  103  104  105

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.