Greg Lovern
Stunt Coordinator
- Joined
- Apr 28, 1999
- Messages
- 64
I recently got my first HDTV, a used Philips 60PP9601, and just yesterday got my first progressive-scan DVD player for it, a Toshiba SD-4700, replacing our old Panasonic DVD-RV30 interlaced DVD player.
The Philips' internal line-doubler is notoriously bad (I'll be adding an iScan external line doubler soon for laserdisc, TV, etc.), and in the couple weeks I've had it I've seen the sort of liney artifacts it produces when objects on the screen are in fast motion. As expected the SD-4700 did a much better job when we watched a DVD in it last night, which happened to be "Spy Kids 2". The picture looked great and I never once noticed the liney artifacts that are so ubiquitous with the Philips' internal line doubler.
Tonight I watched some old favorites of mine on DVD -- two Buster Keaton shorts from 1921 & 1922, "The Playhouse" and "Cops" (they're on the DVD titled "The General"). The first, "The Playhouse", had liney artifacts similar to, and almost as bad as, the Philips' internal line doubler. But "Cops" had none -- it looked as good, allowing for the film's age etc., as "Spy Kids 2" had looked.
Any idea why the difference?
Thanks,
Greg
The Philips' internal line-doubler is notoriously bad (I'll be adding an iScan external line doubler soon for laserdisc, TV, etc.), and in the couple weeks I've had it I've seen the sort of liney artifacts it produces when objects on the screen are in fast motion. As expected the SD-4700 did a much better job when we watched a DVD in it last night, which happened to be "Spy Kids 2". The picture looked great and I never once noticed the liney artifacts that are so ubiquitous with the Philips' internal line doubler.
Tonight I watched some old favorites of mine on DVD -- two Buster Keaton shorts from 1921 & 1922, "The Playhouse" and "Cops" (they're on the DVD titled "The General"). The first, "The Playhouse", had liney artifacts similar to, and almost as bad as, the Philips' internal line doubler. But "Cops" had none -- it looked as good, allowing for the film's age etc., as "Spy Kids 2" had looked.
Any idea why the difference?
Thanks,
Greg