NikPreviousAcct
No Lifer
It was the other way around. Forget it :laugh:
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
POLL: Good sound, small screen or good screen, crappy sound?
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
It was the other way around. Forget it :laugh:
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
So I was supposed to give you $50? :Q
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
I'm going to hunt around for some credible info to reassure myself and give to you guys.
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5107912-1.html
Sent it to you Jello but theirs CNet saying its 480p....honestly I am surprised as I have never heard all DVD's being 480i...
Sent it to you Jello but theirs CNet saying its 480p....honestly I am surprised as I have never heard all DVD's being 480i...
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
ThisIsMatt
Banned
I'm all about the sound. I watch widescreen movies currently on my 19" LCD even though there's a 27" wega in the other room.
(Dayton 8" MTM's + Adire Audio Tumult + old school amplification + hodge podge rears & center channel) > screen size
(Dayton 8" MTM's + Adire Audio Tumult + old school amplification + hodge podge rears & center channel) > screen size
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
🙂
I was trying to look through threads waiting for someone to "pwn" the 480p or 480i guys with a link to a credible source, but the dozen or so I looked at were all just people shouting at each other like the one I PM-ed to you.
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
http://www.projectorcentral.com/480i_vs_480p.htm
"Now, if you have a DVD player that outputs both interlaced 480i and progressive scan 480p, do you end up with the same result either way? The answer is...it depends. Frequently, as you've probably heard, the 480p signal from the DVD player is better.
Why? A DVD is encoded in digital component interlaced format. Frames must be assembled into sequential progressive scan format within the DVD player for it to output a 480p signal."
"Now, if you have a DVD player that outputs both interlaced 480i and progressive scan 480p, do you end up with the same result either way? The answer is...it depends. Frequently, as you've probably heard, the 480p signal from the DVD player is better.
Why? A DVD is encoded in digital component interlaced format. Frames must be assembled into sequential progressive scan format within the DVD player for it to output a 480p signal."
Wow, this forum is bass-ackwards in regards to knowing anything about AV.
Ask the same question on AVSForum, HTForum, or HTSpot and the poll would be lopsided for option B.
When budgeting a home theater, the big dogs always spend 2-3x more on audio than video.
Sound also plays a much bigger part in how immersed you are in a movie.
Easily option B. Just lower your viewing distance and crank up the Promedias. Besides, a 19" CRT will resolve more detail than your Wega anyway.
Sin City is a aural feast, you are sh1tting on the movie by playing it through stereo TV speakers.
Ask the same question on AVSForum, HTForum, or HTSpot and the poll would be lopsided for option B.
When budgeting a home theater, the big dogs always spend 2-3x more on audio than video.
Sound also plays a much bigger part in how immersed you are in a movie.
Easily option B. Just lower your viewing distance and crank up the Promedias. Besides, a 19" CRT will resolve more detail than your Wega anyway.
Sin City is a aural feast, you are sh1tting on the movie by playing it through stereo TV speakers.
ThisIsMatt
Banned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD
The video resolution on NTSC discs is 720 × 480 and on PAL discs is 720 × 576. A high number of audio tracks and/or lots of extra material on the disc will often result in a lower bit rate (and image quality) for the main feature.
The video resolution on NTSC discs is 720 × 480 and on PAL discs is 720 × 576. A high number of audio tracks and/or lots of extra material on the disc will often result in a lower bit rate (and image quality) for the main feature.
NikPreviousAcct
No Lifer
K well I'll watch it again tomorrow on the 'puter then 😛 😀
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
It doesn't really specify interlaced or progressive though... I looked there already.
ThisIsMatt
Banned
:thumbsup: It really kills the fun for me to watch a movie on just a TV alone.
ThisIsMatt
Banned
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7...chmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html
But sources which are truly progressive in nature are hard to come by right now. Movies on DVD are decoded by the player as interlaced fields. All of the film's original frames are there, but they are just divided into "halves". What we're going to talk about next is how we take the interlaced content of DVD and recreate the full film frames so we can display them progressively. The term commonly used to restore the progressive image is deinterlacing, though we think it is more correct to call it re-interleaving, which is a subset of deinterlacing.
But sources which are truly progressive in nature are hard to come by right now. Movies on DVD are decoded by the player as interlaced fields. All of the film's original frames are there, but they are just divided into "halves". What we're going to talk about next is how we take the interlaced content of DVD and recreate the full film frames so we can display them progressively. The term commonly used to restore the progressive image is deinterlacing, though we think it is more correct to call it re-interleaving, which is a subset of deinterlacing.
ThisIsMatt
Banned
Further down:
It?s important to understand at the outset that DVDs are designed for interlaced displays. There?s a persistent myth that DVDs are inherently progressive, and all a DVD player needs to do to display a progressive signal is to grab the progressive frames off the disc and show them. This is not exactly true. First of all, a significant amount of DVD content was never progressive to begin with. Anything shot with a typical video camera, which includes many concerts, most supplementary documentaries, and many TV shows, is inherently interlaced. (Some consumer digital video cameras can shoot in progressive mode, and a handful of TV programs are shot in progressive, particularly sports events.) By comparison, content that was originally shot on film, or with a progressive TV camera, or created in a computer, is progressive from the get-go. But even for such content, there is no requirement that it be stored on the DVD progressively.
DVDs are based on MPEG-2 encoding, which allows for either progressive or interlaced sequences. However, very few discs use progressive sequences, because the players are specifically designed for interlaced output. Interestingly, while the sequences (i.e., the films and videos) are seldom stored progressive, there's nothing wrong with using individual progressive frames in an interlaced sequence. This may sound like a semantic distinction, but it?s not. If the sequence is progressive, then all sorts of rules kick into place which ensure that the material stays progressive from start to finish. Whereas if the sequence is interlaced, then there are fewer rules and no requirement to use progressive frames. The encoder can mix and match interlaced fields and progressive frames as long as each second of MPEG-2 data contains 60 fields, no more, no less (or 50 fields per second for PAL discs). The progressive frames, when they are used, are purely for compression efficiency, but the video is still interlaced as far as the MPEG decoder is concerned.
The input to a DVD encoder (the instrumentation that is used to author a DVD) is almost always an interlaced digital master tape, even if the original material was shot on film. The video transfer is typically done at a different facility, and the output of the transfer is interlaced. Since the DVD encoding software doesn't even have access to a progressive master, it must rely on the same kinds of algorithms that a deinterlacer uses to put the proper fields together. Since there is essentially no requirement that it actually always put the proper fields together, other than compression efficiency, many encoders are conservative about using progressive frames. If the encoder cannot be sure that a frame is progressive, it will typically mark it interlaced, because the only real loss is a few bits of disc space.
When the mastering engineers view the disc for quality control, they view it on an interlaced monitor. They don't necessarily care how well it deinterlaces, because that's not part of the DVD spec. Some mastering houses do pay attention to the flags produced by their encoder, and some do view the disc on progressive players just for quality control, but that's not at all required.
In short, the content on a DVD is interlaced conceptually, and is stored in interlaced sequences. Frames can be marked "progressive" to help compression, but are not always marked that way, even when it would be correct to do so. In interlaced sequences, the encoder can either keep the fields separate, or combine them together into one frame, whichever is best for compression purposes. There is a flag on each image stored in the MPEG-2 stream called ?picture_structure? that can be either ?frame? for a full 720x480 pixel frame, or ?top field? or ?bottom field? for a single 720x240 field. (We?ll learn about top and bottom fields later.) And it is allowed, but again not required, to set a flag called ?progressive_frame? as a hint to the decoder that the fields in that frame were taken from the same frame of film. This allows for better pause and slow motion modes, and better down-conversion of 16x9 images for 4x3 displays. But this is again, purely optional. The content will play fine whether the data is structured as fields or frames, and whether the flag is present or not.
It?s important to understand at the outset that DVDs are designed for interlaced displays. There?s a persistent myth that DVDs are inherently progressive, and all a DVD player needs to do to display a progressive signal is to grab the progressive frames off the disc and show them. This is not exactly true. First of all, a significant amount of DVD content was never progressive to begin with. Anything shot with a typical video camera, which includes many concerts, most supplementary documentaries, and many TV shows, is inherently interlaced. (Some consumer digital video cameras can shoot in progressive mode, and a handful of TV programs are shot in progressive, particularly sports events.) By comparison, content that was originally shot on film, or with a progressive TV camera, or created in a computer, is progressive from the get-go. But even for such content, there is no requirement that it be stored on the DVD progressively.
DVDs are based on MPEG-2 encoding, which allows for either progressive or interlaced sequences. However, very few discs use progressive sequences, because the players are specifically designed for interlaced output. Interestingly, while the sequences (i.e., the films and videos) are seldom stored progressive, there's nothing wrong with using individual progressive frames in an interlaced sequence. This may sound like a semantic distinction, but it?s not. If the sequence is progressive, then all sorts of rules kick into place which ensure that the material stays progressive from start to finish. Whereas if the sequence is interlaced, then there are fewer rules and no requirement to use progressive frames. The encoder can mix and match interlaced fields and progressive frames as long as each second of MPEG-2 data contains 60 fields, no more, no less (or 50 fields per second for PAL discs). The progressive frames, when they are used, are purely for compression efficiency, but the video is still interlaced as far as the MPEG decoder is concerned.
The input to a DVD encoder (the instrumentation that is used to author a DVD) is almost always an interlaced digital master tape, even if the original material was shot on film. The video transfer is typically done at a different facility, and the output of the transfer is interlaced. Since the DVD encoding software doesn't even have access to a progressive master, it must rely on the same kinds of algorithms that a deinterlacer uses to put the proper fields together. Since there is essentially no requirement that it actually always put the proper fields together, other than compression efficiency, many encoders are conservative about using progressive frames. If the encoder cannot be sure that a frame is progressive, it will typically mark it interlaced, because the only real loss is a few bits of disc space.
When the mastering engineers view the disc for quality control, they view it on an interlaced monitor. They don't necessarily care how well it deinterlaces, because that's not part of the DVD spec. Some mastering houses do pay attention to the flags produced by their encoder, and some do view the disc on progressive players just for quality control, but that's not at all required.
In short, the content on a DVD is interlaced conceptually, and is stored in interlaced sequences. Frames can be marked "progressive" to help compression, but are not always marked that way, even when it would be correct to do so. In interlaced sequences, the encoder can either keep the fields separate, or combine them together into one frame, whichever is best for compression purposes. There is a flag on each image stored in the MPEG-2 stream called ?picture_structure? that can be either ?frame? for a full 720x480 pixel frame, or ?top field? or ?bottom field? for a single 720x240 field. (We?ll learn about top and bottom fields later.) And it is allowed, but again not required, to set a flag called ?progressive_frame? as a hint to the decoder that the fields in that frame were taken from the same frame of film. This allows for better pause and slow motion modes, and better down-conversion of 16x9 images for 4x3 displays. But this is again, purely optional. The content will play fine whether the data is structured as fields or frames, and whether the flag is present or not.
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
Thanks for the info.
JME Fidelity
Banned
Well both the sound systems suck, unless the stereo speakers are actually nice. Either way, A.
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
I was under the impression that the stereo speakers were the integrated tv speakers
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
