What's new

Is there an advantage to HD displays for SD DVDs? (1 Viewer)

Jeff Gatie

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
6,531

Add the caveat that the source material is relatively free of any analog type noise that may be exacerbated by the upscaling and I agree with you. Your interpretation of my statement quoted in post #47 was typical of most of your interpretations - it did not take into account that I was speaking of the type of noise found in analog content. Maybe it was a mistunderstanding, but stilll it is a far stretch from that quote to me saying there is no purpose or benefit in upscaling, especially when I praise it in many posts. Perhaps you were just being defensive, but it is ironic that someone who displays such disdain for the (apparent) peons who dare question your sweeping generalizations would also be on the defensive regarding those very same generalizations.

I have the Poynton book on 2-day shipping from Amazon. Hopefully he delves into the actual algorithms. It'll be an interesting exercise to plot the output of an analog noise ridden picture.
 

ChrisWiggles

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
4,791

As I've said many times before, anytime you better resolve content, that includes everything in the content. If that means resolving noise in the content, then you're also better resolving noise. If that means fine detail in the content, then you're also better resolving fine detail. Either way it's more accurate. And as I've said before, I'm interested in image accuracy. Not everyone is always interested in image accuracy, which I am aware of.
 

David_p_S

Grip
Joined
Sep 8, 2002
Messages
16

Your argument is that going from 480 display lines to 1080 lines makes a big difference when viewing 480 line source material - but the images you've posted as examples do not differ in resolution (display lines). The group of pics in each example are exactly the same resolution and dpi; the difference between them is only upscaling algorithm, and of course the better algorithm's tend to look better (at the same resolution as their counterparts).

To me, it looks like you've proven that better upscaler's will produce a better picture.

I'd also like to say that this thread was really interesting before it became a personal bickering match between Jeff Gatie and Chris... I stopped reading most of it after the bickering started.
 

ChrisWiggles

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
4,791

I am saying that reconstructing using a box-filter is among the least desireable options. The images I posted illustrated different reconstruction techniques, but not resolution (as I have stated multiple times). Better reconstruction yields a better image. If you are not upscaling to a higher resolution, you are very limited in the reconstruction techniques available to you, essentially you can only blur which basically is a low-pass filter and can obscure detail. In other words, if you are displaying on an unblurred digital display at the native resolution, you are using one of the poorer reconstruction filters (or as the MS document called it "the worst case"). The images I posted directly have bearing on the issue of upscaling and the benefits it can provide, assuming you're not doing something silly like using a box-filter even when upscaling in which case you end up right where you were before.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,821
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top