Should I really get an up-converting DVD player?

[fbrdphreak]

So upon first hooking everything up, I was doubting the decision to move to HD. Got a Vizio 47" 1080p and hooked up our plain jane $49 Phillips DVD player (the model that does Divx) via component.

Of course non-HD TV looks kinda crappy, HD TV looks awesome, but DVD's disappointed me at first. Then I figured out how to turn my DVD player to display 16:9. Much better, but there were still some jaggies in the picture. Sitting on our couch ~8 feet from the TV, I noticed them a lot. Sitting maybe double that distance back at the table, couldn't notice them. THEN I turned on Progressive Scan - ALL BETTER!

I'm watching my first movie with Progressive Scan on and I'm very happy. I could see where there is some room for improvement in IQ, but coming from ~20-30" tube TV's run with RF modulators, I'm SUPER HAPPY.

Anyway - the question is, should I spend the $65 on a Philips upconverting DVD player (does Divx too, which would be nice)? Will I see the difference in upconverting? And more importantly, is it worth the money?

The other thought is, as one HD format comes out on top (I'm leaning towards Blu-ray right now, as I have Blockbuster Online), it seems like it would be better to wait a few months and pick up a decent HD player and call it a day - versus stopgapping with the upconversion.

Thoughts?

 

[DBL]

I'd say no. Others will disagree. Realize that the fixes you made before were substantial. Defining the correct aspect ratio on your DVD player is vital as is displaying a progressive picture when using a progressive TV. Those differences are clearly noticeable.

However, an upconverting DVD player will essentially perform the same upconversion that your TV is already doing (by using a slightly different method though). Perhaps this will make a difference if you TV is doing a really crappy job but in most cases, you are probably not going to see a difference when sitting at normal viewing distances. Also, if you plan to purchase Blu-ray shortly, you might as well wait since those players will all upconvert your old DVD's anyway.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: DBL
I'd say no. Others will disagree. Realize that the fixes you made before were substantial. Defining the correct aspect ratio on your DVD player is vital as is displaying a progressive picture when using a progressive TV. Those differences are clearly noticeable.

However, an upconverting DVD player will essentially perform the same upconversion that your TV is already doing (by using a slightly different method though). Perhaps this will make a difference if you TV is doing a really crappy job but in most cases, you are probably not going to see a difference when sitting at normal viewing distances. Also, if you plan to purchase Blu-ray shortly, you might as well wait since those players will all upconvert your old DVD's anyway.

I disagree, except with the last sentence. Ultimately, I think your best bet is to wait and get an HD player, since some of them are among the very top at upconverting as well.

DBL is not wrong per se, but I believe his generalization does not apply to most people. If you have a high end display with an outstanding scaler, you might see little to no difference. But on the average consumer level display, you most certainly see a difference with upconversion. It is nowhere near the difference between 480i and 480p, as you see with progressive scan, but it can certainly make a picture look better.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
DBL is not wrong per se, but I believe his generalization does not apply to most people. If you have a high end display with an outstanding scaler, you might see little to no difference. But on the average consumer level display, you most certainly see a difference with upconversion. It is nowhere near the difference between 480i and 480p, as you see with progressive scan, but it can certainly make a picture look better.

So is that the difference between 480i and 480p, progressive scan? Before I turned on Progressive Scan, I'm pretty sure my TV said that the component input was 480i. Now it says 480p - does looks amazing I must say.

I think holding out for an HD player (once the format winner is clear) is the right answer.

EDIT And the display certainly isn't high end (IMO). 47" Vizio 1080p, less than $1600. I'm sure I would see an IQ increase with upconverting, but I'm pretty damn happy as-is.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I disagree, except with the last sentence. Ultimately, I think your best bet is to wait and get an HD player, since some of them are among the very top at upconverting as well.

DBL is not wrong per se, but I believe his generalization does not apply to most people. If you have a high end display with an outstanding scaler, you might see little to no difference. But on the average consumer level display, you most certainly see a difference with upconversion. It is nowhere near the difference between 480i and 480p, as you see with progressive scan, but it can certainly make a picture look better.

Your entitled to your opinion but I think it's important to point out that DVDs are already upconverted on a 1080p display. A lot of people think that an upconversion DVD player is giving them some additional capability, which they do not have. If you believe that the scaler in your DVD player is better than the one icluded with your TV, that is fine but I think its important to understand that you are just using a different processor to do the upconverting.

 

[erwos]

I agree with the "wait for an HD disc player" option, too, unless the output of your current player plus your TV's scaler is so terrible that it's unwatchable. That doesn't sound like your particular case, so I wouldn't sweat it.

As for BR vs HD-DVD, I thought Blockbuster Online rented both?

 

[Rio Rebel]

DBL,

You are absolutely correct on that last statement. I not only respect your opinion, I was convinced of it for a long time. But after seeing further results, I have changed my opinion. In many cases, the difference is significant.

I held your opinion because in theory, it should not make a significant difference. As you said, the only difference is one scaler over another. But I don't know if it's because most tv's spend so little on the scaler, or if it's easier/more efficient to do it in the player - I just know that I've seen quite a few displays which upconvert much less effectively than an upconverting player.

In fact, I even own an iScan ultra line doubler, which should make 480p look about as good as it possibly can (short of $$$$$ high end solutions) going into the display. I still slightly preferred the picture of my upconverting Sony player, than the same player sending it through the iScan and letting the projector bring it up to 720p. The picture is a little softer when upconverted, but the added resolution - yes, it's interpolated but it still adds detail - was a little better to me.

 

[Rio Rebel]

fbrdphreak,

I have a Daewoo plasma in the family room, and if I tried to run standard cable into it the picture is almost unwatchable.

BUT...when I let all my sources do the conversions, and feed in at 480p, the picture is on par with the better name brands. My internal de-interlacer SUCKS. But that's not an issue for me, because I just let the cable box and dvd players do the de-interlacing. And I saved a lot of money at the time (about 3-4 years ago).

 

[fbrdphreak]

Rio Rebel - I see your points, all good ones. The whole "where does real HD quality come from" issue is clearer to me now. I think we'll be happy for a while on this setup, and move up to a better player when the HD format war dies down. We will also be going to a better TV provider (on regular cable now, either go digital HD on cable or satellite, gotta research that now). Thanks for the input everyone

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
DBL,

You are absolutely correct on that last statement. I not only respect your opinion, I was convinced of it for a long time. But after seeing further results, I have changed my opinion. In many cases, the difference is significant.

I held your opinion because in theory, it should not make a significant difference. As you said, the only difference is one scaler over another. But I don't know if it's because most tv's spend so little on the scaler, or if it's easier/more efficient to do it in the player - I just know that I've seen quite a few displays which upconvert much less effectively than an upconverting player.

In fact, I even own an iScan ultra line doubler, which should make 480p look about as good as it possibly can (short of $$$$$ high end solutions) going into the display. I still slightly preferred the picture of my upconverting Sony player, than the same player sending it through the iScan and letting the projector bring it up to 720p. The picture is a little softer when upconverted, but the added resolution - yes, it's interpolated but it still adds detail - was a little better to me.

Fair enough. Do you have any links which might show these dramatic differences? All I ever see is technical data which while likely true, does not necessarly traslate into a visible difference.

I can't buy the "added resolution" statement. How can you add resolution which does not exist? You can decrease the aliasing, sharpen the image and maybe provide a better interpolation algorithm but there is really no way to actually increase the resolution.

Also, I would expect that a projector would be different experience then a smaller display since you are often maximising the size of your image with a projector. I'd imagine small details would become more noticable with a projector.

 

[Rio Rebel]

I don't believe I used the word "dramatic", because I don't believe it is dramatic. I sometimes use the word "significant", and by that I simply mean that it is noticeable and not trivial - that it is worth going to a modest effort or expense for the benefit.

To your last point, of course you are correct. The larger the image, the more this conversation has merit. If we're talking 37" or smaller, it's probably all moot.

Now to the middle part - I call it resolution because that is how I understand it to work. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when we talk about interpolation, aren't we talking about an approximation of what the *extra* data should be, and then delivering that in an increased resolution? We clearly can't invent more data, but isn't the point of upconversion this whole process where new data is approximated and delivered in a higher resolution?

 

[DBL]

You're right. I should have said significant.

I guess I meant "actual resolution" meaning that a 1MP image upconverted to 2MP does not actually contain any more real (resolvable) resolution, even though it contains 2x as many pixels. But, my other point is that you were never really looking at an image with less resolution (using your definition) since your TV still does the upconversion. The difference is only in the method used.

In the end, all that matters is that you see a difference. However, I think we can all agree that if you are looking to purchase and HD or Blu-ray player shortly, it does not make a whole lot of sense to also purchase an upconverting DVD player.

 

[fbrdphreak]

The question is: when will the players become reasonable in price?

BBY lists the cheapest Blu-ray player as $500.

You can get an Xbox360 for what, $300 now? +$100 for HD-DVD.

PS3 is what, $500 still? That has Blu-ray.

Is the industry predicting major price drops by X-mas? I'm not paying $500 for a player. Altho I could be convinced to use a game console as a player

 

[Rio Rebel]

In the end, all that matters is that you see a difference. However, I think we can all agree that if you are looking to purchase and HD or Blu-ray player shortly, it does not make a whole lot of sense to also purchase an upconverting DVD player.

Agreed.

The question is: when will the players become reasonable in price?

I think we'll continue to see price drops. Both camps have fans that predict everything under the sun, and every time the least little event happens, it means the other side is "dead".

That being said, I can tell you that I was waiting for HD-DVD to fall below $500 and was going to pounce. I was hearing about the weak quality on some of the originalk Blu-ray discs (like 5th Element), and coupled with my dislike of Sony and the higher cost of Blu, I was ready to go with HD-DVD.

Then things changed.

Blu-ray started releasing considerably more content, and the problems were corrected. I started wavering, and as the PS3 impact began to take effect, Blu-ray started really taking off. Ultimately, I found a like new Panasonic BD10 for a little over $500, and I've been enjoying Blu-ray movies for several months.

I don't like to give advice on the two formats, and I'm not going to start now (especially since it would just turn the thread into another flame war). But I can tell you that I'm very happy with my decision, that I've never even once experienced a skip, stall, or freeze, and that there continues to be more content that I want than I'm willing to pay for.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Yeah it seems like Blu-ray is picking up. Personally I would rather HD-DVD come out on top. I don't think the technical differences are big enough to lose sleep over, it's just which one catches on. I'd rather see HD-DVD, being that it's not Sony and that the Xbox360 has a cheap HD-DVD add-on. I'd buy it for that.

But anyway, to avoid format wars, thanks for the info everyone. Question answered

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
The question is: when will the players become reasonable in price?

BBY lists the cheapest Blu-ray player as $500.

You can get an Xbox360 for what, $300 now? +$100 for HD-DVD.

PS3 is what, $500 still? That has Blu-ray.

Is the industry predicting major price drops by X-mas? I'm not paying $500 for a player. Altho I could be convinced to use a game console as a player

I got the Toshiba HD-A2 HD DVD player for $199.99. If you can wait I'm sure there will be more deals like this one.

 

[luigionlsd]

Toshiba HD-A2 = $300
Toshiba HD-A20 (1080p) = $400

Sony BDP-S300 = $500

It's beyond me why the BDP-S1 ("last year's model") hasn't dropped below the BDP-S300's pricing, but that's how it goes. You could definitely get a PS3 and kill two birds with one stone, which itself is the most advanced BD player right now (and most future proof it seems like). It's really your call, but I have an HD-A1 and a 20gb PS3, and couldn't be happier. Being able to watch The Matrix *and* Pirates of the Caribbean on 5/22 in 1080i was bliss.

 

[Jaxidian]

I thought I would chime in here. I'm quite noob to the HT arena but here are my observations with:

1. A generic DVD player that doesn't up-convert to my 40" Sony Bravia
2. A Samsung up-converting DVD player to my 40" Sony Bravia
3. My HTPC "up-converting" (i.e. playing a DVD on a PC at full-screen) to my 40" Sony Bravia

Given all three, I must say that I didn't see much difference between 1 and 2 but I saw a huge improvement when using #3. I don't know what it is but playing DVDs on my PC made a HUGE difference for some reason! I suspect (pure guess) that the upscaling processors on both my Samsung DVD player and my tv are just not that good (this is the 720p Bravia, now the newer models) whereas the HTPC has an entire PC that can be dedicated to upscaling the video so it can be quite good.

Just my experience in case it's useful to somebody.

-Jax