Is 480i to 1080i better than 480p to 1080i ? (1 Viewer)

[anthony_b]

I currently have a 480i interlaced player with an HDTV that "upconverts everything" to 1080i. My question is, if I feed it a 480p signal would the TV do "extra" processing to bring it back/up to 1080i interlaced ?....I'm considering getting a progressive scan player but I don't want to just waste my money. I'm very happy with the video display from my TV with the interlaced player, I was just wondering if the progressive would be of any benefit all since the TV will show it at 1080i anyway.

 

[David Judah]

Are you sure it upconverts a progressive signal too?

If so, then I'm inclined to say the least amount of conversions is probably going to be best, but you never know for sure until you try it.

DJ

 

[JohnnyG]

On my Toshiba 46H83, the picture is clearly sharper when I feed a 480i signal to the TV, versus 480p from the DVD player and either 540p of 1080i conversion by the TV.

 

[Sean^M]

my personal opinion on this is that any time you "upconvert" anything, all you're doing is adding data that wasn't in the original source material, be it upconverting audio to "96 or 192KHz" or upconverting video to 1080i.
end result.. garbage in = garbage out.
If the source is only 480i at best, what do you really hope to gain, trying to make it 1080i? That's like taking an mp3 and trying to get original CD source resolution from it.. all you can do is add back to the source what was never there to begin with, and in so doing, destroy the original quality.

The only way I'd ever bother upconverting would be with something like a Feroudja line quadrupler, but I'm not about to drop $25,000+ on one of those for an RPTV, either.

My advice is to look at each result, converted or not, and see what looks the best to your eyes.
again, just my two cents.

 

[anthony_b]

Sean, I know were you're coming from with the analogy, but I would need to purchase a unit to compare. I'd like to know if anyone has gone through this, or if I'm missing anything. In refrence to "garbage in and garbage out" the 480p would be better "garbage in" than 480i ?..

 

[Sean^M]

yeah by no means is 480P "garbage" of course.. 480P is the native resolution for current DVD format.
that's 60 progressive frames per second, which is twice that of an interlaced 60 fields per second for 480i (interlaced).
480P is a noticeable improvement over 480i with a good DVD player (chipset) and a 480i capable display.
taking 480-anything up to 1080i is where you start adding data that wasn't in the original source material, and this, much like the "sharpness" adjustment on television sets, is considered questionable by many as to if it's a "good" thing.
My Onkyo receiver can upsample audio sources from 48 to 96, but I never saw a point to that unless it was for recording, and the input signal had to be a specific bitrate or something.

Mind you, most of the real gurus here will have much better information for you than I can offer.

 

[JohnnyG]

480P is the native resolution for current DVD format.

Incorrect. It's actually 480i. You cannot record 480p 60fps video onto a DVD.

One advantage to converting 480i (or 480p) to 1080i is the significant reduction in visible line structure.

 

[anthony_b]

Is there any advantage of converting a 480p to 1080i over a 480i to 1080i ?

 

[JeremyFr]

Incorrect. It's actually 480i. You cannot record 480p 60fps video onto a DVD.

You beat me to it!! hehe absolutely correct though hence why if you're looking at a quality progressive DVD player you want to look at how good the DE-INTERLACING chip is

 

[Sean^M]

mine has a Feroudja DCDi chipset. I'm not overly concerned. My television has a pretty good line doubler internally on top of that.. but I did a fair amount of research before I bought anything.


now if I could just figure out how to afford the MartinLogan Odesseys and the Krell KSA-250 I want.. lol

 

[anthony_b]

Is it true that no HDTV ready unit can upconvert
DVD signals thru the component inputs to 1080i ?..this is due to DVD forum standards ?

 

[JohnnyG]

Is there any advantage of converting a 480p to 1080i over a 480i to 1080i ?

From what I've read, there is at least a theoretical advantage to upconverting interlace to interlace and progressive to progressive.

DVD players generally do not offer 1080i output over analog component video outputs, but I'm not sure if it's DVD Forum rules, fear of MPAA legal action or something else altogether. There's at least one exception that I know of...the LiteOn LVD-2001. There's a thread on this player in this forum.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

Sean, line doubling(video processing) can provide a significant increase in picture quality. Not because it's pulling new picture detail out of thin air, but because the higher resolution you run, the more scanlines you get closely packed together, thus your picture is much more seamless. The negative is that you can double/triple/quadrouple to a set that can't resolve that, you get scanline overlap, and your picture will soften.

You can only do so much to DVD to make it look better than it is, but the difference between 480p and processed video at 720p, 960p, or any resolution around there is VERY significant.

It is not analagous to upsampling audio, the benefits are very significant indeed, and it doesn't take a 30K processor to realize those benefits.

As for this specific example, I do not know. taking 480i, doubling in the DVD player, then sending it to the set, i don't know if the set will convert that to 1080i, or whether you'd want to go back to interlaced video. You should play around with these combinations and see what yields a better picture, or perhaps someone with a similar setup will chime in.

 

[Sean^M]

I realize that the increase in scanlines helps, but, as I said, much like using the "sharpness" control on a television, you're adding "false" data to the original source, which many feel degrades the end result.
It's all personal opinion I suppose, and comes down to what you feel looks the best to you.

I use the 960i line doubling on my widescreen as well as the progressive output of my RP82, but again, it's personal preference. I was merely pointing out the differences for the original question asked.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

I see where you're coming from, but it's not really the same thing. Sharpness control, and EE very much accentuates certain freqeuncies and adds degrading artifacts to the picture if overdone. You're comparing two quite different things.

Video processing, however, in relation to especially CRT-based technologies is VERY beneficial, and I don't think you could find anyone who would chose un-processed video over doubled/tripled etc video in such a setup. Now, OVER-processing the video, and feeding too many lines (again in relation to crt projection displays (RPTVs, fp crts) WILL sacrifice sharpness as the scan lines overlap. The added resolution is not at all degrading if done with a high-quality processor or computer. Now, comparing processed video, with the native 480i DVD is WAY WAY better, but you can see the weakness of the processing because it can't ADD or create any new detail from what is already there, by comparing it with true hi-def material, which is even better. Just so that others are clear, that's all.

 

[JohnnyG]

...you're adding "false" data to the original source, which many feel degrades the end result.

Many? Nobody else here so far.

The data is 'interpolated'. It may not have been in the original signal, but it's far from a crap shoot either.