Diff between today's progressive scan players vs. the first ones (5109)?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Gregg Hart, Oct 21, 2001.

  1. Gregg Hart

    Gregg Hart Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 1999
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a Toshiba 5109 that I think looks killer on my 16X9 TV. I was wondering how much better the technology has gotten in 2 years since their debut. I am considering the Panny RP91. Is the progressive scan technology in that piece really going to make much a diff than the 5109? Thanks for your thoughts.
    Gregg
     
  2. Gregg Loewen

    Gregg Loewen Video Standards Instructor, THX Ltd.
    Insider

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 1999
    Messages:
    6,379
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    New England
    Real Name:
    Gregg Loewen
    HI!
    IMHO, not much difference between the 5109 and the 6200 and the Panny 91 when talking about image quality. I have never used a 5109 but I have been told the 5109= the 6200 which I did own up to few weeks ago.
    The Panny give you DVD-A capability and it also has the auto zoom feature for non anamorphic material. It is for these 2 reasons that the RP-91 is such a hot seller. I got mine at etronics.com for $419 plus $21 to ship.
    FWIW,
    Gregg
    ------------------
    The Sonodome
    The Newest Sonotube
    Gregg's DVDs
    The Family Units
    [Edited last by Gregg Loewen on October 21, 2001 at 07:39 PM]
     
  3. Gregg Hart

    Gregg Hart Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 1999
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Gregg. I guess I am trying to justify spending $450 for an increase in video quality from what I already have.
    Gregg
     
  4. Scott Merryfield

    Scott Merryfield Executive Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 1998
    Messages:
    11,691
    Likes Received:
    763
    Location:
    Michigan
    I upgraded from the Toshiba 6200 to the RP-91, and am very happy with the results. I still own over 80 non-anamorphic widescreen DVD's, and the RP-91 provides a vastly superior picture for this type of material. Also, the 6200 had problems playing a few titles (T2:UE and Rocky:SE, to name two). The Panny has yet to have any problems.
    Picture quality on anamorphic or full frame material is a slight improvement, IMO, but nothing earth shattering. If you are bothered by the chroma bug, though, the RP-91 does not have this problem (I rarely noticed it on the Toshiba 6200 attached to a Toshiba 56H80 monitor, though).
    ------------------
    My DVD Collection
    AFI 100 Films to watch: 40 -> 4
     
  5. Gregg Hart

    Gregg Hart Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 1999
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am unfamiliar with the Chroma Bug. Ignorance is bliss. Since I don't have any complaints about my picture quality I don't think fixing the Chroma bug would matter to me.
    ------------------
    My Home Theater
     
  6. Scott Merryfield

    Scott Merryfield Executive Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 1998
    Messages:
    11,691
    Likes Received:
    763
    Location:
    Michigan
    The chroma bug was not a driving force in my decision to upgrade to the RP-91, either. The scaling feature was my main reason. Not only does this improve the picture quality of non-anamorphic widescreen material, but it is also a great convenience when viewing supplemental material on discs. I did not enjoy constantly changing my monitor's viewing mode as the supplements would change between full frame, anamorphic and non-anamorphic widescreen. Now, I simply leave my TV in FULL mode and let the RP-91 automatically handle the format changes.
    ------------------
    My DVD Collection
    AFI 100 Films to watch: 40 -> 4
     
  7. Allan Jayne

    Allan Jayne Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 1998
    Messages:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    0
    Over the years improvements to progressive scan players have been in the area of dealing with video that is not 24 fps film with 3-2 pulldown. Still, some players de-interlace it much better than others.
    A progressive player that de-interlaces first and then does the conversion for 4:3 TV sets is capable of better downconversion quality, but only on the progressive output (unless it re-derives the interlaced output from the progressive frames). Not to say all the modern players do it that well.
    Other video hints: http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/video.htm
     

Share This Page