-

Jump to content



Photo

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


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
6 replies to this topic

#1 of 7 Gregg Hart

Gregg Hart

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 170 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 1999

Posted October 21 2001 - 12:14 PM

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
My Home Theater

#2 of 7 Gregg Loewen

Gregg Loewen

    Producer

  • 6,323 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 09 1999
  • Real Name:Gregg Loewen
  • LocationNew England

Posted October 21 2001 - 12:26 PM

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]

The Sonodome - circa 2001
The Newest Sonotube - circa 2001
Gregg's DVDs updated...sometimes
Lion Audio Video Consultants usually current


#3 of 7 Gregg Hart

Gregg Hart

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 170 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 1999

Posted October 21 2001 - 04:16 PM

Thanks Gregg. I guess I am trying to justify spending $450 for an increase in video quality from what I already have.

Gregg
My Home Theater

#4 of 7 Scott Merryfield

Scott Merryfield

    Executive Producer

  • 10,456 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 1998
  • LocationMichigan

Posted October 22 2001 - 01:35 AM

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 of 7 Gregg Hart

Gregg Hart

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 170 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 1999

Posted October 22 2001 - 04:24 AM

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



My Home Theater

#6 of 7 Scott Merryfield

Scott Merryfield

    Executive Producer

  • 10,456 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 1998
  • LocationMichigan

Posted October 22 2001 - 05:44 AM

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 of 7 Allan Jayne

Allan Jayne

    Screenwriter

  • 2,406 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 1998

Posted October 22 2001 - 07:27 AM

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.c...ynejr/video.htm



.