Goodbye RP-82, Hello Toshiba 3800/4800! (1 Viewer)

[Robert McDonald]

Graham,

The 4800 says it has DTS Digital out. Does this mean it doesn't do DTS decoding internally? For my comparison (see below) I had the 4800 connected to my Onkyo 797 (which has DTS decoding) via optical.

I've played with both the Panasonic RP-82 and the Toshiba 4800 for the past few days. I have watched some or all of: The Making of Apollo 13, Toy Story chapter 4, North by Northwest (cab ride scene), IMAX Super Speedway (4:3 video), IMAX Ring of Fire (4:3 video), Titanic (non-enhanced wide screen), and Mary Poppins(non-enhanced widescreen). They were viewed on a Mitsubish WS-65819, calibrated by Video Essentials. Sound was via optical into my Onkyo 797. I have not had a chance to compare the DVD-A portion, as I have no DVD-A discs

Before stepping up to one of these 2 players I had been using the Pioneer DV-525, a very capable player but non progressive.

My thoughts (for what they are worth....)

Both had a great picture on film material; the problem is now I want to re-watch all of my 130+ DVDs (good thing my wife has been out town ) I really couln't tell a difference in the picture quality for film, the colors were vibrant for both players. The Toshiba appeared to have a slight case of the chroma bug, but to my untrained eyes it certainly wasn't bad enough to make me want to turn it off.

The RP-82 did appear to be a better picture on the IMAX videos, though, especially noticable at the 10:00 mark of Ring of Fire. In that scene the camera is flying in from San Fransisco Bay toward the city, showing the skyline. As the buildings move across the screen there was severe shimmering on the 4800, but a nice, clean picture with the RP-82.

For both Titanic and Mary Poppins, though, the 4800 was very good with its internal zoom (or scale, depending on the correct terminology). The Mits 65819 does not lock into a mode when fed a progressive scan; on non-anamorphic titles it will display in the "standard" mode stretching the disply as it would a 4:3 picture (after all, a non-anamorphic widescreen is nothing more than a letterboxed 4:3, correct?). Of course I can change the setting to Mits' "expand" or "zoom" if necessary.

On the Tosh, however, you have several zoom steps you can make (either zooming it to make the picture larger or, if you want, reduce the size as well). On the 4:3 material the Tosh would automatically put black bars on the left and right, keeping the picture non-distorted (with the RP-82 it would stretch the picture unless I set the tv to "narrow" mode, Mits' 4:3 mode with the grey bars on the sides).

Another feature of the Tosh allows you to move the picture around the screen with the arrow keys (i.e., you can move the picture higher, lower, left or right on the screen).

A quirk I did have with the Tosh is lining up the Titanic and Mary Poppins menu icons with the corresponding text. For instance, if I wanted to go to a specific chapter for Titanic through the chapter index I would have to highlight an area not linied up with what was displayed on the screen. I moved the picture around as noted above to get it lined up, but after powering down the 4800 and trying it again they were again misaligned.

The layer changes seemed to be about the same for each one. Sound was very good for both, too.

The RP-82 claims to play DVD-R and DVD-RAM, while the 4800 claims to play DVD-R. I don't have any, so I can't comment on that (I am actually pretty ignorant on DVD-R/DVD-RAM).

Finally, the remote for the 4800 seemed better.

Both very good players, as far as I can tell. I guess I need to decide do I want the zoom feature of the 4800 or the better video picture of the RP-82?

I have a number of miniDV home movies I want to transfer to DVD, which I assume would be akin to video. Other than DVD-R vs DVD+R does anyone have any input on what I should be looking at?

Robert McDonald

 

[StaceyS]

Watch Castle of Cagliostro. Unless you know the Japanese language, the subtitles are cut off using the regular TV's zoom.

Are the subtitles generated by the player or burned on the disc? Can you turn them off? If so, they are generated by the player. Some movies have subtitles burned into them. You cannot turn them off. take the Star Wars LDs, all subtitles show up in the black bars.

 

[Graham Perks]

I picked up a Toshiba 4800 and I excitedly set it up. I was really hoping for a video improvement over my "old" Toshiba 2108, about 3 or 4 years old now.

With my (non-progressive but 16x9) projector turned on, giving a big image on my wall with about a 10 foot or so diagonal, I was all set for a shoot-out!

I tried ID4; and spooled both players to the same frame. This is tough when both units respond to the same remote and you only want one of them to advance a frame!

Anyway, switching between them, I couldn't see any difference. None at all. Zip.

I pulled out the original Terminator 2, with the noticeable-if-you-know-it's-there layer change at the point where they pull the knife from the table. While I did not have a stop watch, the layer change was an identical number of finger-taps. No difference there.

I had muted the sound, so that a different volume level would not throw out the image comparison. The 4800 is a *much* quieter, my 2108 squeaks during layer changes especially! The mechanics in the 4800 are not audible from 6 feet away.

OK, next I pull out the original The Rock, the non-anamorphic one. Perhaps the scaling will help the 4800 win the comparison. While I did not A-B compare this one, back-to-back playings of the same scene in both players looked identical. And I was so hoping the picture would be better!

The Zoom function does so make the image look the correct height, BUT it cuts off the sides! It does Zoom, not scale, just like the button says. Perhaps it scales with progressive output, but I do not have a progressive display.

The 4800 is going back. In my setup, there's no point in me keeping it. I have no DVD-Audio requirement. It doesn't help with non-anamorphic DVDs. The picture is no better. The sound is DD and I hardly expect a digital data stream can be improved!

Very disappointed, but I should be happy I've saved myself $220!

 

[nousername]

If one has a 4:3 direct-view HDTV and does not care about MP3 or JPEG capability, which one is the better player to get: the RP-82 or the 3800/4800?

I'm assuming the zoom/scaling feature is really only important if one has a 16:9 TV, right?

In addition to watching anamorphic 16:9 material, I also watch a lot of 4:3 material, both film and video-based...

 

[Sujeet Patel]

Allan, you seem to be in the same boat as me. I bought the Toshiba 4800, but am now second-guessing my decision, after hearing that the RP-82 is shimmer-free and supposedly does the anamorphic downconversion better than the Toshiba. I'm still unsure what to do, as I bought my 4800 from Best Buy, and am not sure if I'd be able to return it for my money back (I've had it for around a week now). Looking forward to hearing what others say about your situation.

I can't see myself ever using the JPEG viewer, and the Toshiba's 8 character MP3 limitation is sort of frustrating as well.

 

[Peter Loan]

Argh, I've already posted several times in this thread that the scaling only works in progressive mode. I'm staring at Criterion's Armageddon right now, properly scaled in it's 2.35:1 aspect ratio and although it's not 16x9 enhanced, it looks better than most of the transfers out there.

 

[nousername]

Sujeet, it sounds like the Panasonic DVD-RP82 is a better choice for us, since the zoom/scaling feature is primarily for those who have 16:9 TVs. I also must mention that I don't have a lot of non-anamorphic DVDs in my collection, so I don't really care about the scaling feature.

What I do care about is chroma-bug and shimmering, particularly on video-based material. It seems like the RP82 is better at these than the Toshiba 3800/4800. Someone also mentioned (in another forum) that the flicker-bug in the Panny RP56 and RP62 is significantly reduced in the RP82.

But I'm not 100% sure about my conclusions, since I am relying on word-of-mouth on this and other forums. I guess the best thing to do is acquire both players and do some testing on our own to see which player consistenly produces a more pleasing image (both film and video-based) on our own particular 4:3 sets.

For the record, I have a Sony 36XBR450 direct-view HD-ready 4:3 TV and a Panasonic RV31 (excellent interlaced player). I also briefly had a Panny RP91 last summer for about a week. After comparing the RV31 and the RP91, I returned the RP91 because it combed too much. The RV31 has been very adequate since then because the line doubling and 3:2 pulldown on my Sony TV is quite good.

The main reason I'm interested in a progressive player again is primarily for video-based material. I find Faroudja's DCDi to be an intriguing feature, since it helps to reduce the jaggies and shimmering that is present in most video-based material. I am also curious to see how the Sage chip handles some of my film-based DVDs, which caused the RP91 to comb quite badly and noticeably, no matter how I adjusted it.

 

[Sujeet Patel]

I'm afraid I lost you, what constitutes video-based material, and what constitutes film-based material?

Also, does anyone know Best Buy's return policy on DVD players?

 

[Jay_Leonard]

Ok,

Have any of you that already have rp82 3800/4800/watched Star Trek Next generation Season 1, using either of these players?

I am using a borrowed Samsung progressive, on my 50H81. When the Ship pans accross the screen the stars blink on and off. I do not know if this is "Shimmer" or "Chroma" or "Combing" but It looks bad.

I would like to know if either of these players will handle this video situation more adeptly

Thanks,

J

 

[Jon Duke]

Sujeet:

I believe BB's return policy is 30 days. BUT, you must have the receipt.

Somebody correct me if I'm way off on this, I worked at CC but I think their policy was similar to ours.

 

[nousername]

I'm afraid I lost you, what constitutes video-based material, and what constitutes film-based material?

Video-based material is material shot on video cameras, similar to the video camcorders that people buy to record family events. Video has sort of a hard, electronically processed look about it. Most live TV programs are shot on video: sporting events, news broadcasts, talk shows, etc. Video is usually shot at 30 fps (frames-per-second)*.
Film-based material is material shot on film. The film is very similar to that which you buy for your film camera and usually has a higher resolution than video-tape. Virtually all movies you see in the theater are shot on film, and usually at 24 fps. Film has a much more natural look compared to video.
Anyway, the problem when transferring film to a video-based medium such as DVD is how to deal with the different rates of frames-per-second. Since this is way beyond my scope of knowledge, I'll just leave you with a link to an Link Removed that explains it much better.
*The article clarifies this as 60 fields-per-second for video...

 

[Sujeet Patel]

After reading that article, this thread, and dealing with some of the quirks of the Toshiba, I returned the 4800 tonight and ordered an RP82 from OneCall. Unfortunately, no one seems to have them in stock right now, so I'm looking at the 2nd week of August before I get mine. Looking forward to it!

 

[Thik Nongyow]

While OneCall is out of stock with the Panasonic RP82, it has the Toshiba 4800 in stock. Which one are people buying?

 

[Sujeet Patel]

People are buying both (You can get the 4800 for $179 from eCost.com!), but for my needs (4:3 HDTV w/o anamorphic squeeze), the RP-82 sounds like it was the player that better met my needs. I also didn't like the way it handled MP3s, and the picture view seemed pretty useless to me. So I returned the 4800 and ordered the RP-82.

 

[Josh Lowe]

I couldn't help myself. I just ordered an RP82 to demo against my RP91. The winner will then demo against a well-configured HTPC with a key digital transcoder using theatertek..

this "hobby" is more like a very serious addiction.

 

[Graham Perks]

I gave the 4800 a second chance last night. Previously I'd tested with composite cabling and ID4 - one player the actual movie DVD, the other player a demo disc with ID4 scenes.

I borrowed The Fifth Element and The Matrix from a friend, and I also have those movies, so I had one DVD for each player.

I dug out my extra-long s-video cable and ran that to my FPTV.

First The Fifth Element (T5E) went in. On the menu screen, there was a very very slight difference, noticeable in the grill on the yellow car. The old 2108 was marginally sharper. Possibly. Hard to tell for sure.

Skip forward to Milla's creation. Definite difference, color tinting way different. The 4800 has much more vivid orange hair. Great, saturation is up!

Skip to her jumping off the building. Red hair still brighter, good! However then I noticed the grey concrete building has a red tint too. So I adjusted the colors to make the building look grey again. Incidentally my projector with 2108 was calibrated using Video Essentials.

So now the two DVD units are putting out the same tint/brightness etc. And, guess what? No difference in the two images.

Try The Matrix. Newer transfer, newer player, might show up something eh? Skip to the Lady in Red (of course). Nope no difference to be seen.

Eject discs, pack up 4800 in disgust. It's going back to the store today. Waste of money.

 

[Andrew W]

We picked up the 4800 this weekend. I have a 57" Sony XBR RPTV. I had tried the RP62, but it didn't work for me.

I wanted:

Academy format films with black (not gray) bars on the sides

Letterbox 4:3 material scaled at the DVD player

Progressive, de-interlaced picture on above and 16x9 enhanced material.

The 4800 picture looks great on my TV. Disney's "Dinosaur" is actually the best DVD around to actually see a difference in interlaced vs. progressive. If you can't see a difference on that movie, you need to sell your HT stuff and take up bingo or bowling....

Fifth Element superbit also looked superb. A bunch of other DVD's I trial viewed were better, but it does depend on the source material how much improvement you will see.

The 4800 does all this and play my MP3s as well. The RP62 would not play 192KHz or 160KHz MP3s. I don't know what the hell it does play, I don't encode them any lower than that. The 4800 will play up to 320KHz.

 

[ThomasL]

Graham, I guess I should ask the obvious question. Where were you expecting differences? i.e. what about those particular scenes were you looking for to be different? were there some artifacts that exist with the 2109 and were still there with the 4800?

cheers,


--tom

 

[BobJ]

Unfortunately, no one seems to have them in stock right now, so I'm looking at the 2nd week of August before I get mine. Looking forward to it!

Crutchfield has it in stock, it's more expensive than onecall ($230 vs $206). However, Crutchfield has a more liberal return policy, while onecall only excepts defective returns:
"Our return policy is not to accept merchandise for return except in factory sealed, unopened cartons, unless the merchandise is defective."
Something to consider, if you want to compare players and possibly return one.
I found the RP-82 to be great on video based material.

 

[Andrew W]

Graham,

What kind of visible difference were you expecting with a progressive scan DVD player if you have a interlaced projector and only an S-video connector?

Andy