Originally posted by: Peter
Irregardless is not a word
Regardless is.
Let's not start the debate /again/ about the mathematical /fact/ that you can't generate /new/ data out of thin air in any data processing procedure, OK?
Scaling will never make images /better/, just /bigger/, interpolating the extra pixels from the /existing/ data of the original pixels. The scaled image does not contain any extra data at all, it is just an inflated representation of the same input data ... or worse.
You're right, scaling can't make an image better than the original (well, perceptually it could, just like maxing out sharpness could), but it's likely an external scaler will do a better job at it than the internal one in the tv. There are far far better scaling algorithms than merely pixel doubling.
For instance, my TV outputs a far better picture when using a dvd player upscaling to 1080i than setting the dvd player to 480p and letting the tv upscale it. The image is very crisp and sharp with the upscaling dvd player, yet very blurry when the TV upscales it.
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
For an example of what superior upscaling/deinterlacing algorithms can do, look at this
http://deinterlace.sourceforge.net/screenshots/IQ_screenshots.htm
The first screenshot is very similar to what my tv looks like when handling a 480p image, whereas the last is what it looks like handling a prescaled (to 1080i) image.
Additionally, it is possible to add false information into an upscaled image and make it look better.
Look at this emulated game:
http://www.somebits.com/~nelson/weblog-files/centerimages/hq3x.png
You could argue that you prefer the original version better, but I think most people would go for the non-pixelated version even if it's less accurate to the source material.
Now then, an external scaler will only provide better quality if it is...well better than the internal scaler in the tv. (most internal scalers in a tv are crap unless it's a high end tv)
However, you might be better off just getting a new TV or living with it. Most scalers are way too expensive, according to (you all knew it was coming) avsforum you need to get at least a $1000 scaler to get a good quality one. There are some scalers that are only a few hundred dollars (check ebay) and maybe they'll suffice if you're only interested in upscaling 480i and maybe 480p content.
You can also try using a PC to upscale and deinterlace content, but I haven't had good experiences with that.
Or you could just pick up a $50 upscaling dvd player and then live with the low quality of standard television content. (make sure you get a digital television service if you don't have it, or get an antenna to view free ota digital content)
Facebook
Twitter