A salesman told me that progressive-scan DVD players are a scam! (1 Viewer)

[KeithH]

I was in a high-end audio store yesterday and looked and listened to the new Integra DPS-7.2 interlaced DVD-Audio player. In talking to a salesman there that I know well, I told him that I was surprised that Onkyo/Integra didn't include progressive-scan capability in the player given its $800 price. He replied, "That's because Integra knows that progressive-scan capability isn't necessary in a DVD player." He went on to say that progressive-scan capability in DVD players is one of the biggest gimmicks in home theater these days. I knew where he was going. His point was that quality HDTVs have better 3D comb filters than DVD players. In his words, "Which do you think is going to have a better comb filter? An $800 DVD player or a $4000 HDTV? Obviously the HDTV." I just nodded in agreement because I had not researched the matter on my own. However, I told him that I always come across people who use progressive-scan players with HDTVs. His response was, "That's because they haven't compared the comb filters in their TVs and DVD players or because their DVD players have poor interlaced video output." He went on to say that they use interlaced output in their high-end video rooms that provide incredible video quality. Thus, he said there is no reason to use the progressive-scan output on these players. I found his viewpoint very surprising.

Isn't it true that people often use composite video cables with LD players because the LD players have inferior comb filters than quality TVs? If so, then why might the situation be different with DVD players? So, does the salesman I spoke to have a point or not?

 

[Kwang Suh]

Having progressive scan in a DVD player doesn't mean that it's automatically better than any interlaced player. I've seen some very, very good interlaced players. But, the best prog scan players beat them, hands down.

And, some TVs have incredibly good deinterlacers.

Again, it's all about comparing within the same price point.

 

[Bill Lucas]

The saleman is correct, to a degree. You will always get a better image if you output an interlaced signal from an excellent player, run it through a very good video processor and output a resolution that most closely matches the sweet spot or native resolution of the display device. This method will beat progressive scan 100% of the time, hands down. However, the price of admission is steep. Regards.

 

[Michael Reuben]

His point was that quality HDTVs have better 3D comb filters than DVD players. In his words, "Which do you think is going to have a better comb filter? An $800 DVD player or a $4000 HDTV? Obviously the HDTV."

It's a wonderful argument. Just one problem: It's irrelevant. In progressive scan, the comb filter isn't used.
The signal on a DVD is stored as separate color and black-and-white. A p/s player manipulates this information in the digital domain and passes it to the TV through component connections, thereby bypassing the comb filter in both. (EDIT: I'm not even sure a DVD player has one. Why would it?)
To the extent that the built-in line doublers in today's HDTVs are better than ever, the difference between a p/s image and an interlaced run through the set's internal doubler is narrowing. But there's still an advantage to skipping the extra stages of digital/analog conversion involved when the set does the doubling.
It's a shame, really. The salesman could have given you a straight answer and still made a sound point. Instead he resorted to double-talk.
M.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Thanks Bill, I was going to email you about this thread.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Bill, a question.
To your knowledge, is there currently any display device on the market that has a built-in video processor sufficient to best a progressive scan image from a top-of-the-line p/s player (say, the Panasonic H1000 or H2000)? If so, what model(s)?
My sense is that the processors you're referring to are high-end separates from the likes of Faroudja.
M.

 

[Ryan Spaight]

Sounds like the salesman said "comb filter" when he meant "deinterlacer." Hate it when that happens.
One question -- does a monitor-based deinterlacer have to rely on cadence-reading to properly do the 3:2 pulldown, or does it somehow have access to the flags that a player would get from the digital MPEG stream? This would seem to me to be a point in favor of a player-based approach.
Finally, how does the DRC system in the Sony XBR450 direct-views stack up in terms of deinterlacing quality? Would getting a Sage/Faroudja-based player (I'm thinking Denon DVD-1600) be a worthwhile upgrade to my current setup of an interlaced player (Sony NS500V)?
Ryan

 

[Jeremy Little]

One question -- does a monitor-based deinterlacer have to rely on cadence-reading to properly do the 3:2 pulldown, or does it somehow have access to the flags that a player would get from the digital MPEG stream? This would seem to me to be a point in favor of a player-based approach.

My thoughts exactly. As we all know, when you send the signal through component video it has been converted to analog. The connection should therefore not contain the flagged fields that the de-interlacer in the player would be allowed to use.

If we compared the top of the line de-interlacer in a DVD and the same time the top of the line in a Television set, wouldn't the fact that the DVD has access to the flagged information digitally give it a more natural image with less artifacts?

 

[David Judah]

While I wouldn't doubt that an interlaced player run through a processor as expensive as a $4000 TV would look good, it sounds like the salesman was just referring to a DVD player connected to a TV.

In that case, I think he needs to stick to the audio section of the store.

DJ

 

[Bill Lucas]

Michael,

I don't believe there is. Yes, I was referring to a Faroudja Native Rate Scaler. If someone is putting out the jack for a Pioneer Elite RPTV, a plasma display or a projector I believe they'd be foolish if they didn't complete the transaction by purchasing a scaler such as the Native Rate. The difference in image quality is that startling. I first demoed the NR scaler on a Pioneer Elite HD1000 50" plasma and the depth of image and improved resolution and color saturation floored me. No contest whatsoever.

I have found flaws in the image of every single progressive scan DVD player that I have viewed. I haven't seen them all but I have seen a great number. I attended CEDIA and video is my thing so you can imagine how much attention I paid to video displays and DVD players.

Phil,

No problem. Thanks again for having me over on Saturday. I enjoyed the meet immensely. Everyone from the meet is invited to the opening of our demo rooms sometime in April.

 

[Allan Jayne]

DVD players, progressive or not, do not need comb filters and do not have comb filters. As it comes off the disk, DVD video is component video and S-video is a generated by-product. The only reason DVD players also generate composite output (interlaced only) is for owners who haven't yet bought a TV with S-video (interlaced only) or component video (interlaced or progressive).
The best progressive DVD players also do spot checking taking hints from the video to fall back on if the flags are incorrect or if the video source is not film. Should 3-2 pulldown be lost, the de-interlacing needs to take hints from the entirety of several consecutive video fields (like the best stand alone or TV built in de-interlacers do) to generate the progressive video frame. Without this, in extreme cases there can be a sudden noticeable degradation of the picture if the 3-2 cadence is lost, then sudden re-improvement when the player regains the cadence. Progressive DVD is not a scam but if you get a player on which non-film source DVD's don't look that good, it is almost like being scammed.
Players with Silicon Image (iScan innards) de-interlacing are among the best.
Some TV sets upscale the DVD progressive output (480p) to 540p which then comes out as 1080i. The quality of this varies and can spoil the superb de-interlacing of the best players. Better is for the TV to have two speed scanning, 960i or 480p for DVD (treating 480p as 960i does not degrade it) and 1080i for HDTV. The use of external scalers such as the aforementioned Faroudja is in an effort to get around an inferior upscaler in the TV.
Video hints:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/viddoubl.htm