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

[cthellis42]

You just have to sit further away.

 

[jvd]

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.

Perhaps you should judge the tv when someone actually sets it up right. A huge plasma tv looks fine. Projection tvs look like crap as they go higher up

 

[marconelly!]

Perhaps you should judge the tv when someone actually sets it up right. A huge plasma tv looks fine. Projection tvs look like crap as they go higher up

Just couple of days ago I was comparing several plasma TVs sitting next to each other in the store. I guess your have to sit further away so it evens out, though


As far as DVD enconding goes, from what I understand on that site, most theatrical releases are encoded as pairs of interlaced fields that player simply puts together and makes a complete progressive frame out of them (weave method). I kinda forgot what the original discussion was about, but this is effectively the same thing as having frames encoded progressively, as there is no picture loss involved (progressive frame is fully reconstructed by merging two fields before displaying it)

 

[gurgi]

concerning the talk of framerate before (60 with dip vs 30)

I'd rather not have the graphical features that are making you dip in the first place. If you think you cant have fun games without the latest and greatest in graphics whorism I would like to refer you to the playstation 1. 60fps should be a given on any hardware this gen.

</rant>

 

[jvd]

Perhaps you should judge the tv when someone actually sets it up right. A huge plasma tv looks fine. Projection tvs look like crap as they go higher up

Just couple of days ago I was comparing several plasma TVs sitting next to each other in the store. I guess your have to sit further away so it evens out, though


As far as DVD enconding goes, from what I understand on that site, most theatrical releases are encoded as paris of interlaced fields that player simply puts together and makes a completel progressive frame out of the (weave method). I kinda forgot what the original discussion was about, but this is effectively the same thing as having frames encoed progressively, as there is no picture loss involved (progressive frame is fully reconstructed by merging two fields before displaying it)

I dunno I' m normaly at least 10 feet away from my plasma . My friends 27 inch tv we are about the same distance.

 

[cthellis42]

You can have good TVs and poor TVs of whatever sort, but it doesn't change the fact that pixels WILL get bigger, and image quality will have differences even if all else is the same. Noticably so? Likely. Even remotely bothersome? <shrugs> Depends entirely on the individual.

Keep in mind we have a ton of picky people on here.

 

[PC-Engine]

You can have good TVs and poor TVs of whatever sort, but it doesn't change the fact that pixels WILL get bigger

Actually for DLPs, the pixels are getting smaller as DLPs are getting closer and closer to the film projectors used in cinemas.

 

[DeathKnight]

I was going to mention DLP's as well for their higher quality projection capabilities.

 

[randycat99]

You can have good TVs and poor TVs of whatever sort, but it doesn't change the fact that pixels WILL get bigger

Actually for DLPs, the pixels are getting smaller as DLPs are getting closer and closer to the film projectors used in cinemas.

That is irrelevant if the source has a fixed amount of pixels and scanlines which are inadequate for a given screen size. It only means the DLP will be capable of higher performance if fed with appropriate source material, and you won't be getting that from DVD or some simple 640x480 progressive feed.

It's also ironic that you would complain about someone bringing up a $3000 Faroudja, but then turn around and bring up DLP's. They aren't exactly cheap equipment, either.

 

[randycat99]

Perhaps you should judge the tv when someone actually sets it up right. A huge plasma tv looks fine. Projection tvs look like crap as they go higher up

What you are not accounting for is the internal processing done in a particular TV. W/o the image processing, a huge plasma TV would look just as crappy as a crappy projection TV wrt discrete scanline or pixel artifacts introduced by the source player.

The processing is the "key", and it happens to benefit interlaced as well as progressive sources in a surprisingly competitive manner.

 

[PC-Engine]

You can have good TVs and poor TVs of whatever sort, but it doesn't change the fact that pixels WILL get bigger

Actually for DLPs, the pixels are getting smaller as DLPs are getting closer and closer to the film projectors used in cinemas.

That is irrelevant if the source has a fixed amount of pixels and scanlines which are inadequate for a given screen size. It only means the DLP will be capable of higher performance if fed with appropriate source material, and you won't be getting that from DVD or some simple 640x480 progressive feed.

It's also ironic that would complain about someone bringing up a $3000 Faroudja, but then turn around and bring up DLP's. They aren't exactly cheap equipment, either.

Actually it IS relevant contrary to YOUR belief as in practice it's certainly relevant as anyone who has seen a high resolution DLP in action using only a normal DVD source will agree...you don't see pixels sitting at the correct distance. Not only that but you can similarly get a nice DLP for about the same cost of an much smaller screen sized HDTV and have true progressive scan projected to a 90" screen. Even on a 90" screen you don't see any pixels using a normal DVD source and that's in practice not theory.

BTW I didn't bring it up to support your image quality analogy of PS2 + expensive Faroudja deinterlacer = Xbox + progressive HDTV

 

[cthellis42]

Actually for DLPs, the pixels are getting smaller as DLPs are getting closer and closer to the film projectors used in cinemas.

Obviously different technologies present different advantages... and very different price scales.

But again, this is "comparing apples to oranges" if you're talking about DLP pixel size versus other methods. If you compare DLP to DLP, however, the pixel size still has to increase if the screens are getting larger, with "all else being the same." Big I figure for those, there's a chance they're feeding more micro-mirrors onto a larger screen anyway, ne? (I haven't opened up any lately to count. )

Does every method increase resolution by exact proportions to compensate for screen size? Can they compensate for whatever the input stream imperceptibly? Or, as usual, are there visual trade-offs to be made?

The ultimate trade-off, of course, being many $$$$'s for the best methods/devices out there, no matter what type we're talking about? Heh...

 

[PC-Engine]

Actually DLPs are cheaper than HDTVs

For example NEC HT1000 can be had for less than $3000 with a nice anamorphic lense thrown in for free and a nice 90" effective projected screen.

How much does a 90" plasma or HDTV cost if they actually were available? I know a highend 65" Mitsubishi Diamond series RPHDTV cost over $4000.

The point I was making is that screen size doesn't increase forever so unless you own a full size 50+ seats theater therefore pixel size is irrelevant if you can't see each individual pixel.

 

[randycat99]

Actually it IS relevant contrary to YOUR belief as in practice it's certainly relevant as anyone who has seen a high resolution DLP in action using only a normal DVD source will agree...

Again, you completely ignore the internal video processing that is occuring to give the result you see shot out of that DLP. You think it just ends up looking that way after blowing it up to 60"? Dream on.

In fact, my original comment describing my demo of a DLP was Faroudja's DLP. By all means, it looked great, and that is no doubt in part due to the video processing.

What you need to acknowledge is that not only are the pixels in the DLP getting smaller as technology evolves, but the native pixels in a fixed source format must get larger in order for the image to cover larger screen presentations. So you may have a block of pixels in the DLP that represent sub-pixels of a single pixel of the source. Blown up to 60" screen sizes, the resulting blocky image will reflect the native resolution of the source, not the projection device. The only way out of this is to use some manner of video processing to do blending, hi-quality scaling, and refinement. By doing this, the resulting feed to the DLP chip can then be more commensurate (but not necessarily perfect) to the native resolution of the device. That is why good performances are remotely possible on a DLP or any other device that creates large screen images from existing consumer playback sources.

 

[randycat99]

Actually DLPs are cheaper than HDTVs

This is hardly a universal comparison. You can find examples of either that will outstep the other in cost. When it comes to home theater video hardware, there isn't really a ceiling. It's how good do ya want it, and how much do you want to spend. You may find a $3000 DLP, but that doesn't mean that there aren't $16,000 DLP's out there. I'm not going to say that it must then be $13,000 better, but the generality that better comes for higher cost still follows.

 

[PC-Engine]

When the screen gets bigger you have to sit farther from the screen so the pixel size of the source video does not effectively increase in size with respect to the viewer.

Also I never doubted that video processing can have a tremendous impact on image quality. I just don't see the point of having an expensive deinterlacer for an interlaced source when the source should have progressive output in the first place. For example I'd rather buy a progressive scan DVD player than a cheaper interlaced DVD player + expensive deinterlacer.

This is hardly a universal comparison. You can find examples of either that will outstep the other in cost. When it comes to home theater video hardware, there isn't really a ceiling. It's how good do ya want it, and how much do you want to spend. You may find a $3000 DLP, but that doesn't mean that there aren't $16,000 DLP's out there. I'm not going to say that it must then be $13,000 better, but the generality that better comes for higher cost still follows.

That's obviously true, however, I wanted to make the point that good quality DLPs are getting cheaper very quickly while increasing resolution and brightness at the same time. Can't say the same about Plasmas and HDTVs.

 

[cthellis42]

I can rather see some advantages with having a device to make every interlaced source in the whole history of interlaced sources look better, can't you?

 

[DeathKnight]

For example I'd rather buy a progressive scan DVD player

No doubt, especially considering that Panasonic progressive scan DVD players with DCDi de-interlacing by Faroudja can be had for less than $200.

The availability of expensive high quality de-interlacers from Faroudja and/or higher end televisions with the Faroudja de-interlacers built in is not a plausible excuse for abundant interlaced rendering and lower quality output on the PS2.

 

[PC-Engine]

I can rather see some advantages with having a device to make every interlaced source in the whole history of interlaced sources look better, can't you?

I assume you're talking about TV broadcasts? Well that's moving towards HDTV too

 

[randycat99]

When the screen gets bigger you have to sit farther from the screen so the pixel size of the source video does not effectively increase in size with respect to the viewer.

Can't argue that is the general thought on the subject. It seems a bit pointless, IMO, to even bother with getting bigger and bigger screens just so you can sit proportionally farther away and the screen becomes perceptibly the same size (the one exception being that you move into a bigger place). When I shop for a bigger screen, I am more than likely planning to view it at nearly the same distance I am currently so the screen is that much more immersive. That's why I'm paying for it- to see a bigger image.

Also I never doubted that video processing can have a tremendous impact on image quality. I just don't see the point of having an expensive deinterlacer for an interlaced source when the source should have progressive output in the first place.

You should note that my most recent comment made absolutely no mention of deinterlacing. It spoke of blending, hi-quality scaling, and refinement which your progressive source will most certainly benefit from when blowing up the screen size. Deinterlacing is simply an additional process that can happen in the midst of that when an interlaced source is in use. So the theme remains the same, you need the processing whether from a progressive or interlaced source. Given the potential end results, it matters little which it is.