Blu-ray: Do my eyes deceive me?

satnam · 03-13-2008, 05:03 PM

Hello. I'm new here. I've searched but can find no clearcut answer to my query:
I have a Samsung BD1200 and a cheap Viewsonic PJ503D projector (Resolution: 800 x 600; Image brightness: 1500 ANSI lumens; Contrast ratio: 2000:1). While obviously not an HD projector, Blu-Ray discs viewed on it look strikingly good to me thru a component adaptor and better than their SD counterparts. How can this be when presumably it is downscaling to the projector's native resolution? I'm not complaining, I'm just curious as to whether this is some sort of Hi-Def player placebo effect.
Thanks in advance for any answers.

**HTF Ads**

Paul Hillenbrand · 03-13-2008, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satnam

Hello. I'm new here. I've searched but can find no clearcut answer to my query:
I have a Samsung BD1200 and a cheap Viewsonic PJ503D projector (Resolution: 800 x 600; Image brightness: 1500 ANSI lumens; Contrast ratio: 2000:1). While obviously not an HD projector, Blu-Ray discs viewed on it look strikingly good to me thru a component adaptor and better than their SD counterparts. How can this be when presumably it is downscaling to the projector's native resolution? I'm not complaining, I'm just curious as to whether this is some sort of Hi-Def player placebo effect.
Thanks in advance for any answers.

Let me be the first to welcome you to the HTF satnam!

You've probably heard of the saying "garbage in - garbage out"? Well, the opposite would also be true for better quality sources.

i.e. Better quality in - Better quality out!

In theory at least, regarding movies made from films, blu-ray discs are usually authored with new and/or highly restored quality film elements.
The need is there because 1080P displays have a clarity and sharpness that will visibly reveal many more flaws than used to be visibly apparent to a television audience using the older technology of DVD players and NTSC television displays - much less efficient equipment.
The "flaws" of dust, dirt and "optical focus" errors, all used to be masked (were not visible to the eye) at lower NTSC 480 interlaced and/or Progressive (digital) "DVD" resolutions and even lower analog 480i NTSC from VHS (video tape) resolutions.

Paul

satnam · 03-13-2008, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Hillenbrand

Let me be the first to welcome you to the HTF satnam!

You've probably heard of the saying "garbage in - garbage out"? Well, the opposite would also be true for better quality sources.

i.e. Better quality in - Better quality out!

In theory at least, regarding movies made from films, blu-ray discs are usually authored with new and/or highly restored quality film elements.
The need is there because 1080P displays have a clarity and sharpness that will visibly reveal many more flaws than used to be visibly apparent to a television audience using the older technology of DVD players and NTSC television displays - much less efficient equipment.
The "flaws" of dust, dirt and "optical focus" errors, all used to be masked (were not visible to the eye) at lower NTSC 480 interlaced and/or Progressive (digital) "DVD" resolutions and even lower analog 480i NTSC from VHS (video tape) resolutions.

Paul

Thanks Paul.
OK, but let's look at "Deliverance" for example. The Blu-Ray came out at around the same time as the 2 disc remaster. Presumably they both used the same elements. So why when I compare does the BD look better? Is that possible?

Walter Kittel · 03-13-2008, 06:37 PM

First, welcome to the HTF.

One of the real benefits of next generation HDM is improved color space and performance. You should be seeing improvements in color saturation and subtlety of color reproduction when comparing the same title in Bd (or HD-DVD for that matter) vs. an SD version of the same title.

- Walter.

Paul Hillenbrand · 03-13-2008, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satnam

Thanks Paul.
OK, but let's look at "Deliverance" for example. The Blu-Ray came out at around the same time as the 2 disc remaster. Presumably they both used the same elements. So why when I compare does the BD look better? Is that possible?

Possibly the Blu-ray would have a more efficient codec?

Paul

Scooter · 03-13-2008, 07:02 PM

The first digital audio LD I played was Trek 3 and it was on an analog player. There was a distinctive clarity that I had not heard from an LD before. And this is before AC3. It made a difference.

Same thing when FOX went full 1080I from being ED. I saw a real sharpness to the video from the upgraded cameras and all. So that you see a difference even with your limited resolution makes sense to me.

Hartwig Hanser · 03-14-2008, 04:18 AM

I had the same experience, when I bought my BD player in December and used it for 2 weeks on my old Panasonic AE300 projector (540x960) before upgrading to the AE2000. BDs simply looked better than DVDs despite the necessary downscaling, even PAL DVDs with 576 lines of resolution.

My explanation: Most DVDs filter fine details to make encoding easier and therefore do not use all pixels effectively. Downscaled Blu-ray will offer more then SD resolution, no matter if it is filtered itself or not, so you have different picture information on every pixel, i.e. you use the pixels on the projector with maximal efficiency.

There are unfortunately only a few SD DVDs which seem to me to use the full SD resolution, e.g. the PAL versions of The Two Towers and Return of the Kind, extended editions, or Star Wars Episode III and V. Almost every other DVD loses some potential resolution.

Nick, in your case you have another factor: your projector has 600 lines resolution which is more than on NTSC DVDs (480 lines). So, while DVDs have only 480 lines resolution, your downscaled BDs use the full 600.

Joseph Bolus · 03-14-2008, 07:37 AM

I noticed this same effect when viewing (now-obsolete) HD-DVD discs on my 480p native resolution Infocus 4805 projector.

I think the reasons HD optical media looks better than SD-DVD on front projector systems is due to three factors:

The first, and most important factor, is that SD-DVD is rooted in the decade old MPEG-2 compression codec. And the more you compress video with that codec, the more artifacts will be visible, especially on a large screen. HD-DVD and Blu-ray discs are encoded with more modern VC-1 or AVC codecs for the most part. Even when MPEG-2 is used (which is rare now) it is not compressed anywhere near as much as it is with SD-DVD. We all know that HD optical discs have a huge resolution advantage over DVD, but the fact that HD-DVD/Blu-ray takes good advantage of a decade worth of refinement in video compression codecs is rarely mentioned.

The second factor is better perceived contrast ratio and better color saturation. This is probably a byproduct of the much higher video bandwidth provided by HD optical media. Modern digital projectors still struggle a little with contrast ratio, so any help provided by the source is welcomed -- and visually apparent.

The third factor is that most modern lower resolution projectors provide outstanding downscaling of a 1080i/p source to its native resolution. With my 480p native resolution projector, even 1080i highly compressed HD cable routinely looks better than upscaled SD-DVD.

So, there you have it: Three reasons why HD optical discs look better on lower resolution front projector systems than their SD-DVD counterparts.

When you think about it, it's really not all that surprising!

satnam · 03-14-2008, 04:31 PM

Thanks for the insight. You guys are great.
As a follow-up, what should I look for in a projector when I decide to upgrade? Is there anything under $1000 that would show an appreciable difference from what I already have?

Cees Alons · 03-15-2008, 09:41 AM

I had the same experience when I first received my HD-A1. My (additional

) explanation was this: current TV sets and projectors already had a better horizontal resolution than present in SD DVD and NTSC (or PAL) images. So when you feed it a much better picture, resolution-wise, it will already show it.

BTW, that's why I always advised people who weren't able to buy a HD player and a HDTV right away, to start with the player. They could benefit immediately (be it in a limited way).

The HDTV makes more sense if you really are into HDTV channels or own a HDM player (which now should be: a Blu-ray player!).

Cees

RickER · 03-15-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cees Alons

The HDTV makes more sense if you really are into HDTV channels or own a HDM player (which now should be: a Blu-ray player!).

Hey Cees, have you gone Blu yet? Or are you waiting for Profile 2.0?

Mike Frezon · 03-17-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scooter

The first digital audio LD I played was Trek 3 and it was on an analog player. There was a distinctive clarity that I had not heard from an LD before. And this is before AC3. It made a difference.

Hell, Scooter. I remember buying the album of the soundtrack of the film A Chorus Line. This was in 1985 and CDs were just breaking out. The front of the album sleeve had a sticker that the album was recorded and mastered digitally! (ooooooh!)

So, in the "language" of the day, I guess you could refer to that product as D-D-A, rather than the more common A-A-D we used to see all the time on early CDs.

Bottom line: I thought that was one of the "best sounding" albums I had ever heard. Clear, bright and dynamic. Was it? I dunno. But that was my impression at the time.