Provocative comment by Id member about PS2 (and Gamecube)!

[randycat99]

The best way to fix the setback is at the source rather than outside intervention. Take DVD's for example... their format is interlaced to allow them to fit on today's DVD sizes. In order to get movies back as close as possible to their original source they must be converted to progressive scan (line-doubling/3:2 pulldown/4:4:4 processing, etc). However, this setback is being fixed at the source with newer DVD technology, ie. high-definition DVD.

I don't think this is correct. DVD movies are encoded as full frames and natively decoded as a progressive format. Interlacing is a process that is "added" to allow compatibility with "legacy" TV systems. 3:2 pulldown is done to convert a 24 fps movie source to a 30 fps TV format. So there is no "setback" to speak of (other than the advent of digital artifacts), as you have described.

My guess is that Hi-def DVD will be similarly progressive native with the functional improvement coming primarily from an even higher-resolution encoding and further adaptive refinements to the digital compression format.

 

[Reznor007]

So the FaraWHAT(!?) is just some fancy deinterlacer? pfft.

The said company is the technology leader in the consumer video processing market.

You wouldn't even want to buy the lowest end product which is still around US$3000, unless your pocket is very deep.

Not an usual gamer (not even most hardcore gamers) will want to buy such a device.

lowest end 3000USD!!!! oh my...why was this product even brought up.

I had thought faraWHAT is sorta like dobly prologic2 technological format, you know, an intermediate stopgap for digital TVs, something to keep analog TVs going for awhile. Something that is built into upcoming TVs. But a break out box and one hellavu EXPENSIVE one....

What are you talking about? DPL2 takes a stereo source and upconverts it to 5.1. The deinterlacer takes an interlaced source and upconverts it to progressive. The goal of both is to take OLD material and use it on NEW devices...they are not stopgap measures.

 

[randycat99]

Yep and I'm really confused as to why somebody would bring this expensive deinterlacer up as an argument in the first place.

It is a critical part to a "proper" large-screen presentation setup. "Progressive" as it comes out of your Xbox, is an inadequate measure for this scenario, if we are talking about a truly premo experience.

Seems like the PS2's limited progressive scan games are forcing some people to go to extremes to get progressive video AKA a very expensive bandaid

The large-screen experience has ramifications on all 3 consoles. Simple progressive output is inadequate.

 

[DeathKnight]

I don't think this is correct. DVD movies are encoded as full frames and natively decoded as a progressive format. Interlacing is a process that is "added" to allow compatibility with "legacy" TV systems. 3:2 pulldown is done to convert a 24 fps movie source to a 30 fps TV format. So there is no "setback" to speak of (other than the advent of digital artifacts), as you have described.

Incorrect. Most all movies are stored on DVD in an interlaced format, ie. NTSC (very rare that you'll find a native progressive movie DVD). That's why there are progressive scan DVD players in the first place. They have chips in them that perform the conversion from an interlaced picture to a progressive picture (which is why I said line-doubling/3:2 pulldown in the first place).

Native progressive DVD's and high-defintion DVD's are a step in the right direction.

 

[DeathKnight]

Simple progressive output is inadequate.

Not really for the most part. I think you're trying to reach a bit too far with your excuse by bringing up the use of 480p on huge displays that are large enough to fully resolve a high-defintion resolution.

In other words you're getting a bit carried away and trying to dodge the underlying issues brought up in the thread

 

[maskrider]

I don't think this is correct. DVD movies are encoded as full frames and natively decoded as a progressive format. Interlacing is a process that is "added" to allow compatibility with "legacy" TV systems. 3:2 pulldown is done to convert a 24 fps movie source to a 30 fps TV format. So there is no "setback" to speak of (other than the advent of digital artifacts), as you have described.

Incorrect. Most all movies are stored on DVD in an interlaced format, ie. NTSC (very rare that you'll find a native progressive movie DVD). That's why there are progressive scan DVD players in the first place. They have chips in them that perform the conversion from an interlaced picture to a progressive picture (which is why I said line-doubling/3:2 pulldown in the first place).

Native progressive DVD's and high-defintion DVD's are a step in the right direction.

Depends on what "DVD movies" are you talking about, most films DVD are 24fps progressive, some Japanese music video DVDs are 30fps progressive. The DVD stores only that much frames (e.g. 24 frames) and the MPEG-2 decoder sees the flag and output a 60 fields per second NTSC signal by 3:2 pulldown (for 24fps DVDs with NTSC TVs).

TV shows, sports and others may be 60 fields per second interlaced. If you count films DVD as most of them, then most DVDs are progressive.

 

[randycat99]

Incorrect. Most all movies are stored on DVD in an interlaced format, ie. NTSC (very rare that you'll find a native progressive movie DVD). That's why there are progressive scan DVD players in the first place.

Contrary to popular belief, the advent of the progressive scan DVD player didn't come about with the addition of hardware. They essentially put jacks on the back where you could output direct from the buffer (so-to-speak). Aside from the availability of progressive scan display equipment, the appearance of progressive output DVD players was more of a marketing feature evolution than a technical evolution. It works essentially the same way as when a PS2 outputs a native progressive image, and then a VDU chip chops it up into an interlaced output.

There is no such thing as an "interlaced DVD format". It's all progressive- more accurately, a full frame image. They are all encoded the same way.

From an implementation standpoint, it would make absolutely no sense to apply compression to interlaced fields in an MPEG2 format, in the first place. That would destroy vertical spatial continuity of the image to enable the necessary opportunities for data simplification/reduction.

 

[DeathKnight]

Actually, to be a tad more accurate, DVD's (MPEG-2 format) must have two separate fields. They're effectively not-interlaced when a progressive scan DVD player outputs these two fields at the exact same time.

Getting quite off-topic though :?

 

[maskrider]

Actually, to be a tad more accurate, DVD's (MPEG-2 format) must have two separate fields. They're effectively not-interlaced when a progressive scan DVD player outputs these two fields at the exact same time.

Getting quite off-topic though :?

Heh ! Whatever you think it is more accurate to you then, MPEG-2 can be progressive and interlaced, the flags determine their modes during encoding.

I rest my comment.

edit: my last comment in this thread for MPEG2, no matter how it is stored (separate "even and odd lines"/fields or not), 24fps progressive stream is 24fps progressive stream and only 24 frames were stored per second, storing it separately or not doesn't make it an interlaced stream. It is that most domestic MPEG-2 decoder that uses 3:2 pulldown whenever it sees the 24fps progressive flag to output 60 fields per second, deinterlacing is not done by the MPEG-2 decoder, but by another chip for non-single chipped machines.

 

[DeathKnight]

Heh ! Whatever you think it is more accurate to you then, MPEG-2 can be progressive and interlaced, the flags determine their modes during encoding.

I rest my comment.

Sure, MPEG-2 itself can be progressive or interlaced. However, video that is from a progressive source like film is usually encoded on DVD's in pairs of interlaced fields that can be de-interlaced (or put back together) by a progressive scan DVD player and output as one complete field. Most DVD's are still designed to cater toward interlaced displays which still make up the vast majority of television sets.

 

[Josiah]

off topic much?

 

[cthellis42]

Topics are so over-rated.

'sides, this one has shifted a number of times. At least it's covering new and interesting material.

 

[marconelly!]

Pretty much all DVDs I have are progressive encoded (and that's regular releases like Matrix, Fight Club, etc). It's easy to distinguish those that are interlace encoded using the PC as a DVD player because you can disable deinterlacing and then it becomes obvious which discs are interlaced. I must say that outside of few odd magazine DVD releases, I haven't encountered any major film DVD that was interlace encoded.

 

[Grall]

Sure, MPEG-2 itself can be progressive or interlaced. However, video that is from a progressive source like film is usually encoded on DVD's in pairs of interlaced fields that can be de-interlaced (or put back together) by a progressive scan DVD player and output as one complete field. Most DVD's are still designed to cater toward interlaced displays which still make up the vast majority of television sets.

This is NOT true.

If you watch DVDs regularly on a computer (as I do) you easily spot DVDs that are progressive vs. DVDs that are interlaced in origin. Of the 100+ titles I own, NONE (zero, zip, nada) are interlaced. Only a few discs have bonus segments that are interlaced (like some of the documentary work on the special edition of The Abyss for example). It's extremely easy to spot the difference.

Maybe you mainly own pr0n movies which have been recorded on video rather than film which gives you this oddball impression DVDs are interlaced. They are not. Well, more precisely, DVDs encoded from film stock aren't. DVDs from videotape may or may not be.


*G*

 

[Fafalada]

Doesn't framerate fluctuations cause motion sickness?

The people I know that suffer from motion sickness all get it from being exposed to 3d animation, most often if it's 1st person camera. And usually the more constant the framerate, the worse the effects they suffer - I don't really know why though, my field isn't medicine
To best of my knowledge though, it has something to do with lack of other sensory feedback (screen is only audio/visual).

 

[Josiah]

AFAIK that's it, your eyes tell you you're moving and your inner ear tells you you're sitting still. funny, the only time i've got motion sickness is when I was actually in motion :|

 

[jvd]

Doesn't framerate fluctuations cause motion sickness?

it can cause other much more series things

Woah, what kind of more serious things? I could understand a low refresh rate causing problems, but the TV or monitor should remain at the same hertz no matter the framerate, shouldn't it?

It can cause seizers(sp? cause i know i spelt that wrong) My friend jeremy used to get them from strobe lights and some video games so now he doesn't play video games

 

[jvd]

Yep and I'm really confused as to why somebody would bring this expensive deinterlacer up as an argument in the first place.

It is a critical part to a "proper" large-screen presentation setup. "Progressive" as it comes out of your Xbox, is an inadequate measure for this scenario, if we are talking about a truly premo experience.

Seems like the PS2's limited progressive scan games are forcing some people to go to extremes to get progressive video AKA a very expensive bandaid

The large-screen experience has ramifications on all 3 consoles. Simple progressive output is inadequate.

I don't know what your talking about but my dreamcast and vga out looks perfect on my 50 inch plasma and my xbox with component out looks good too . The only console that looks bad is the ps2. Heck the n64 quality looks better on the large screen than a smaller screen .

 

[DeathKnight]

Sure, MPEG-2 itself can be progressive or interlaced. However, video that is from a progressive source like film is usually encoded on DVD's in pairs of interlaced fields that can be de-interlaced (or put back together) by a progressive scan DVD player and output as one complete field. Most DVD's are still designed to cater toward interlaced displays which still make up the vast majority of television sets.

This is NOT true.

If you watch DVDs regularly on a computer (as I do) you easily spot DVDs that are progressive vs. DVDs that are interlaced in origin. Of the 100+ titles I own, NONE (zero, zip, nada) are interlaced. Only a few discs have bonus segments that are interlaced (like some of the documentary work on the special edition of The Abyss for example). It's extremely easy to spot the difference.

Maybe you mainly own pr0n movies which have been recorded on video rather than film which gives you this oddball impression DVDs are interlaced. They are not. Well, more precisely, DVDs encoded from film stock aren't. DVDs from videotape may or may not be.


*G*

Wrong again. How about you read up on DVD's in the DVD FAQ (up to date as of Sept. 22, 2003)... specifically under [1.40] What's a progressive DVD player? and [3.8] What's the difference between interlaced and progressive video?

Think it may surprise you what little you know

 

[marconelly!]

don't know what your talking about but my dreamcast and vga out looks perfect on my 50 inch plasma and my xbox with component out looks good too . The only console that looks bad is the ps2. Heck the n64 quality looks better on the large screen than a smaller screen .

My experience is that every video output looks better on the small screen. You have the same resolution, but the pixels are much smaller so you can't see them independently. To me, it's pretty obvious in the TV store when you look at a small, high quality TV, vs the large, high quality TV, both playing the same DVD.