Stupid Question #213: How Do I Improve DVD Playback on PC?

[Reznick]

Is this a DVD player software issue, a DVD drive issue, a video card/driver issue, or just a "quit complaining, that's just the way it is" issue?

DVD playback on PC is never that great for me. Wasn't that great on my 21" CRT, and now it isn't much better on my new LCD.

Maybe I am sitting too close, or displaying it too large. But the image is usually less than clear. With my recent purchase of the Gateway FPD2185W, which is excellent in so many ways, and widescreen to boot, I would have thought that with its HD capabilities, the playback would look quite good. Certainly the desktop and games look awesome. But how do you improve the DVD image so that it is sharper? Is there such thing as progressive scan on a PC DVD drive, or is this in the software player/decoder? Or, is the monitor's HD/TV capability only driven through its composite connectors?

Just curious, and thanks in advance for your help!

 

[Matthias99]

If you display it in a 720x480 window, does it look okay? Because scaling it up to any higher resolution than that is just going to make it bigger and blockier.

Most PC-based player software will deinterlace the video for you, giving a 720x480p output. But beyond that, you're just scaling it. You can use something like ffdshow to do better software-based video scaling, but it's never going to look as good as real HD video.

 

[Peter]

DVD media are produced with 720x480 pixels for NTSC regions, and 720x576 for PAL regions.

Yes this does look pretty miserable on good displays. You can't compute things into the image that aren't there at the source.

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: Peter
DVD media are produced with 720x480 pixels for NTSC regions, and 720x576 for PAL regions.

Yes this does look pretty miserable on good displays. You can't compute things into the image that aren't there at the source.

ehhh...wrong murph...

Guide to FFDSHOW for nubs

Comparative differences w/ and w/o FFDSHOW

 

[Peter]

You can filter and scale using better or worse algorithms - this is undisputed. But you cannot compute additional data out of thin air.

720x[480|576] is all there is. If you scale up, you can only interpolate extra pixels from this amount, and nowhere else. This should be obvious, no?

 

[Reznick]

ST, your reply is encouraging, and the links point to some great stuff. A problem I see is that the implementation of this software is really to support Home Theater PCs, which are driving TVs. Also, people using these are also using video cards like All In Wonder which support more video input/output options.

As far as the suggestion that DVDs can only display in 480i, I found this explanation of DVDs, and why they have more information than the 480i some assume:

The native format of DVD is 480i, the operational mode of traditional
televisions. 480i is also the native format of traditional video
cameras. Most DVDs, however, are sourced from film, not video. Film is
natively 24 frames per second, and not interlaced. When a film is made
into a DVD, It is converted to 480i through a technique called "3:2
pulldown": http://www.zerocut.com/tech/pulldown.html

On a "normal" TV, this is how the DVD would be displayed -- as a 480i
conversion of a 24fps source. To our eyes, this looks perfectly
acceptable.

It is not, however, an accurate representation of the film.
Fortunately, it is not difficult to reconstruct the original film
frames via a process known, not surprisingly, as "reverse 3:2
pulldown". This is why "progressive scan" is a buzzword around DVDs --
applying reverse 3:2 pulldown to a film-sourced DVD yields a
progressive image. (Ideally, it would be displayed at 24 frames per
second, or a multiple such as 48 or 72 frames per second.)

Most HDTVs are capable of performing reverse 3:2 pulldown, and perform
it automatically when film-sourced material is detected. This is one
reason why DVDs usually look better on HDTVs.

Another reason is due to the fact that HDTVs are generally far more
capable display devices than tradtional televsions. HDTVs come in many
different varieties (CRT direct-view, CRT rear projection, DLP, LCD,
LCOS, plasma, etc.), and the details vary considerably between them,
but the general idea is that they have a much higher "fill rate" than
typical televisions--more of the image is illuminated at once, at a
higher refresh rate. This provides a richer, more vivid image with
fewer temporal artifacts, such as flicker. In the CRT world, simply
providing more scan lines provides a more pleasing image, even if
there is no additional detail. This is particularly true for larger
screen sizes.

So, it would seem that one should be able to play back their DVDs to an LCD HD ready widescreen PC monitor if the DVD drive/software could perform progressive scan. I can't find one that can. Progressive scan seems to reside only within dedicated DVD players. Nowadays, these players are quite inexpensive anyway. I may just consider getting a progressive scan player and run it into the composite connectors on the monitor. Also run the audio through my PC speakers setup. Output would be better, and I could always use the monitor's PiP feature if I want to watch and work at the same time.

Thoughts on this?

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Peter
You can filter and scale using better or worse algorithms - this is undisputed. But you cannot compute additional data out of thin air.

720x[480|576] is all there is. If you scale up, you can only interpolate extra pixels from this amount, and nowhere else. This should be obvious, no?

What Peter speaks is the truth.

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: Peter
You can filter and scale using better or worse algorithms - this is undisputed. But you cannot compute additional data out of thin air.

720x[480|576] is all there is. If you scale up, you can only interpolate extra pixels from this amount, and nowhere else. This should be obvious, no?

While I agree that you are interpolating the image, the scaling is not obvious (as evident by the screen shots and the post processing technique can readily fool the eye into more detail (what the original OP wants). BTW> Those screen shots were taken on a 37" 1920x1080p set also. Nothing special other than the software.

The truth is in the pudding....try it for yourself.

You will be amazed what your $200 processor can do for you these days.

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: Reznick
ST, your reply is encouraging, and the links point to some great stuff. A problem I see is that the implementation of this software is really to support Home Theater PCs, which are driving TVs. Also, people using these are also using video cards like All In Wonder which support more video input/output options.
.......

So, it would seem that one should be able to play back their DVDs to an LCD HD ready widescreen PC monitor if the DVD drive/software could perform progressive scan. I can't find one that can. Progressive scan seems to reside only within dedicated DVD players. Nowadays, these players are quite inexpensive anyway. I may just consider getting a progressive scan player and run it into the composite connectors on the monitor. Also run the audio through my PC speakers setup. Output would be better, and I could always use the monitor's PiP feature if I want to watch and work at the same time.

The #1 thing that affects your image when going to progressive type displays is the deinterlacing. Your run of the mill processor of 2.5GHz or equivalent can do this readily with extra bandwidth for scaling, imaging enchancement processing (sharpening, deblurring, etc. You will require a more modern video card in the class of 6600GT or better, but will be able to play it on your normal CRT or LCD computer monitor readily.

Follow the guide and try it for yourself, everything there is FREE.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: Reznick
ST, your reply is encouraging, and the links point to some great stuff. A problem I see is that the implementation of this software is really to support Home Theater PCs, which are driving TVs. Also, people using these are also using video cards like All In Wonder which support more video input/output options.
.......

So, it would seem that one should be able to play back their DVDs to an LCD HD ready widescreen PC monitor if the DVD drive/software could perform progressive scan. I can't find one that can. Progressive scan seems to reside only within dedicated DVD players. Nowadays, these players are quite inexpensive anyway. I may just consider getting a progressive scan player and run it into the composite connectors on the monitor. Also run the audio through my PC speakers setup. Output would be better, and I could always use the monitor's PiP feature if I want to watch and work at the same time.

The #1 thing that affects your image when going to progressive type displays is the deinterlacing. Your run of the mill processor of 2.5GHz or equivalent can do this readily with extra bandwidth for scaling, imaging enchancement processing (sharpening, deblurring, etc. You will require a more modern video card in the class of 6600GT or better, but will be able to play it on your normal CRT or LCD computer monitor readily.

Follow the guide and try it for yourself, everything there is FREE.

Any time you're outputting to a computer monitor, you're using a progressive scan display mode (which is probably why you're not finding "progressive scan" DVD player software -- it's ALL progressive scan on a computer). The question is how the video is deinterlaced. A good software player is going to do a much better job than all but the VERY best standalone DVD players.

With upsampling -- ultimately, you're limited by the resolution of the source material. A good scaling algorithm will not degrade the image as much. Applying various filters and image processing effects to the video is of somewhat questionable value in terms of getting as accurate a picture as possible.

 

[Reznick]

Thanks to everyone for your comments. Very helpful - I certainly need to learn more about how all this works...

I took ST's advice and tried the ffdshow and Zoom Player setup. The image clarity when viewing a movie at full widescreen is quite notable. There are some color artifacts here and there, but the processing of ffdshow, at least the way mine is currently configured, enhances color saturation a bit more, and takes the edge off the blurriness.

The set up is a bit complicated, but the instructions at the site ST recommended was helpful. I still had errors, and had to visit the Zoom Player forum to find several registry tweaks and an update to a configuration file in Zoom Player to even get it to run. The results are encouraging, though, and something worth working with. The fact that Zoom Player as a trial is fully functional for a month ($19.95 for a license) should give me ample time, but the ability to use any decoder you want for playback, etc. would make this a great tool for people really into this sort of thing.

Thanks again!!

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: Reznick
Thanks to everyone for your comments. Very helpful - I certainly need to learn more about how all this works...

I took ST's advice and tried the ffdshow and Zoom Player setup. The image clarity when viewing a movie at full widescreen is quite notable. There are some color artifacts here and there, but the processing of ffdshow, at least the way mine is currently configured, enhances color saturation a bit more, and takes the edge off the blurriness.

The set up is a bit complicated, but the instructions at the site ST recommended was helpful. I still had errors, and had to visit the Zoom Player forum to find several registry tweaks and an update to a configuration file in Zoom Player to even get it to run. The results are encouraging, though, and something worth working with. The fact that Zoom Player as a trial is fully functional for a month ($19.95 for a license) should give me ample time, but the ability to use any decoder you want for playback, etc. would make this a great tool for people really into this sort of thing.

Thanks again!!

 

[SonicIce]

Originally posted by: ST

Originally posted by: Peter
DVD media are produced with 720x480 pixels for NTSC regions, and 720x576 for PAL regions.

Yes this does look pretty miserable on good displays. You can't compute things into the image that aren't there at the source.

ehhh...wrong murph...

Guide to FFDSHOW for nubs

Comparative differences w/ and w/o FFDSHOW

what an improvement! but why do we need all these filters if a dvd is supposed to be digital? and why is a dvd 720x480 when most movies are a differant aspect ratio (sometimes alot wider like 2.35:1)

edit: 2000th!

 

[Peter]

The DVD format is like that because it was originally made for viewing on 4:3 legacy TV sets, which are 480 lines for NTSC and 576 lines for PAL, with a signal bandwidth that is hardly good enough for 360 pixels across. 720 was deemed plenty of headroom.

 

[therealnickdanger]

Originally posted by: SonicIce
what an improvement! but why do we need all these filters if a dvd is supposed to be digital? and why is a dvd 720x480 when most movies are a differant aspect ratio (sometimes alot wider like 2.35:1)

720x480 is 4:3, yes, but in the case of a 2.35:1 movie, you end up with 720x306 or so. However, it's a different ballgame when you factor in anamorphic encoding. The image is squeezed to fit the wider image without losing resolution:
http://gregl.net/videophile/anamorphic.htm

 

[Peter]

Exactly. Anamorphic mastering squishes more width into the given 720 pixels, and relies on the display device to stretch it back out horizontally. (And if it doesn't, you'll get The Coneheads even if it's supposed to be Apocalypse Now )

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: SonicIce
what an improvement! but why do we need all these filters if a dvd is supposed to be digital?

It is only a digital matrix of 720x480 pixels. So to expand that matrix you need to extrapolate data.

 

[SonicIce]

Originally posted by: therealnickdanger

Originally posted by: SonicIce
what an improvement! but why do we need all these filters if a dvd is supposed to be digital? and why is a dvd 720x480 when most movies are a differant aspect ratio (sometimes alot wider like 2.35:1)

720x480 is 4:3, yes, but in the case of a 2.35:1 movie, you end up with 720x306 or so. However, it's a different ballgame when you factor in anamorphic encoding. The image is squeezed to fit the wider image without losing resolution:
http://gregl.net/videophile/anamorphic.htm

isn't 720x480 3:2? why did they pick this? 640x480 is 4:3

 

[therealnickdanger]

Originally posted by: SonicIce
isn't 720x480 3:2? why did they pick this? 640x480 is 4:3

OK, this is where I usually check out and let more informed people respond, but the "loss" of those 80 pixels (720-640) has to do with overscan compensation... I think. I've also been trying to wrap my head around square VS rectangular pixels in video and how that affects resolutions as well, so I'm a bit fuzzy in this area.