To those who have experiences..does progressive (DVD) scan really make a difference?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Keir H, Oct 11, 2001.

  1. Keir H

    Keir H Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just got a deal on a Panny 47" HDTV. I have a Pioneer 414 which has been out a while. I know it was one of the best for the money back then (~99) but I am not sure it's able to compete with todays players much less a progressive scan one. For me to show dvd at it's best on this set, should I get a progressive scan DVD player?? Does price matter on the player as far as quality is concerned? Opinions please. THanks
     
  2. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    5,110
    Yes, progressive scan makes a difference. How much of a difference depends on individual perception (and perhaps the video display). For some people, the difference leaps out. For others, it's subtle. If your display supports it, I wouldn't hesitate.
    M.
     
  3. Kwang Suh

    Kwang Suh Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 1999
    Messages:
    849
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Keir, the Pioneer 414 is a really bad player. I used to have one, and judging it as an interlaced player, it really really bites. The picture quality is atrocious. Making the leap to a prog-scan player from the 414 is a quantum leap.
     
  4. Kieran Coghlan

    Kieran Coghlan Second Unit

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 1998
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To add to Michael's post, I'd say that it also depends on the viewing distance. If you're watching a 47" TV from 15 feet or more away, the differences will be less impressive. If you're watching from 10 feet or closer, the differences will be amazing. (distances quoted are IMHO) [​IMG]
    I have a very well tuned TW40H80 tv, which is NOT progressive nor HD capable, but it is 16:9. Anamorphic dvd's on this set look great, but from 10 feet in, the newer HD ready 40"ers from Toshiba look better with prog scan dvd. HOwever, from about 17 feet away (my old appartment's setup) the differences were indicernable.
    ------------------
    -Kieran
    My HT Page
     
  5. Keir H

    Keir H Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Kwang, really? That bad huh? Well, i thought I was getting stellar images from this player after calibrating it. It has also good reviews out there still too. There was something about a lip synch problem though. What would you rec'd around $250, anything? thanks.
     
  6. Jeff D

    Jeff D Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 1999
    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't have any of the hardware mentioned, but I have NOT noticed a big difference at all with progressive players I've tried. I've tried the Tosh 5109 and Pana RP56 on a Toshiba tw56x81. The TV's hardware does as go a job as the dvd player.
    Just my $.02
     
  7. Rick Radford

    Rick Radford Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2001
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm currently comparing a JVC 32" analog set to a Hitachi 32" digital set with a Panny RP91. Both sets have component video inputs, but only the Hitachi can take 480p and also does the squeeze.
    Thus far, (with only Toy Story to judge by), I can't see ANY difference in PQ between PS on or off.. or between the JVC and the Hitachi. Either the JVC is very good for an analog set, or the Hitachi is not so good for a digital set.. or I am not using a good example to compare and/or have something not hooked up properly.
    I have a thread on this in the TV and projectors area... but no response yet.
    ------------------
    --RR
     
  8. Jim A. Banville

    Jim A. Banville Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 1999
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Unless the TV's line doubler is poor, there isn't THAT big of a difference between a line-doubled interlaced player and a native progressive player. Sure, you can search out this object here, and that line there to see a slight improvement, but at a typical seating distance the difference does NOT knock you out of your seat. I have had 4 different 480p players on my Sony HD TV, so I speak from experience. IS progressive better than interlaced. YES, but what a "normal" viewer would consider "slight" (professional reviewers have used that word to describe it also), and video fanatics would call "major". The improvements are in the details. You have to look to find them, generally.
     
  9. AllenD

    AllenD Second Unit

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2000
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    double post
    [Edited last by AllenD on October 13, 2001 at 01:49 AM]
     
  10. AllenD

    AllenD Second Unit

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2000
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it makes a huge difference. I sit 12.5 ft. away from my 65807. But you also have to consider I went from a cheap RCA 5210P interlaced player to an HTPC which scales DVDs from 480p to 1080i. Plus the Mits are not known for having good, or average, line doublers. I'd have to pay twice for an Elite that has excellent doublers.
     
  11. andy_brehm

    andy_brehm Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is no way that a progressive scan would make it look worse could it. I might have got a bum panny RP56 but I swear that the panny RV65 looked better on my PT61HX40. I know that in interlaced mode the RV65 definatly looked better. but the RP56 that I saw in circuit city looked very good.....
     
  12. Steve Schaffer

    Steve Schaffer Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 1999
    Messages:
    3,756
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It basically boils down to the quality of the player (whether it does 3-2 pulldown) and the display.
    I have a JVC XVS series progressive scan player and an Hitachi 53UWX10B and see little if any difference when I switch the player from progressive to interlaced mode. This set does do 3-2 pulldown, as does the player. On some older digital sets that lack 3-2 pulldown, a progressive scan player with that feature would look better than an interlaced player.
    ------------------
    Steve S.
    I prefer not to push the subwoofers until they're properly run in.
     
  13. JohanK

    JohanK Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2000
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    On a projector, I've found the difference b/t 480i and 480p to be huge. I am willing to believe that, on a smaller RPTV with a good line doubler, that the interlace and progressive images will be close.
    ------------------
    http://www.hometheaterforum.com/bbs/equipment/28687.html
     
  14. Kwang Suh

    Kwang Suh Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 1999
    Messages:
    849
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here's my take on the whole progressive scan thing:
    It makes a huge difference. But, you might not notice it. Why? Because it depends.
    I have a TW40X81. My TV has no 3:2 pulldown. Thus, when I watch interlaced film material, I notice combing. Big time. In fact, I notice it so much that I can't even watch an interlaced movie for more than about 30 seconds.
    But, I _never_ noticed this UNTIL one day, when I was selling my old DV-414 to some people and I hooked it up to the TV to show that it worked fine. I was ASTONISHED at the amount of combing. It was EVERYWHERE. I had gotten so used to 3:2 pulldown that I always thought that "movies were supposed to look that way". But when I first started using my SD-5109, I was hard pressed to notice to the difference.
    Now, on my SD-3750 with the interlaced/progressive switch on the remote, I can notice in about 1/2 second the difference between the two. Heck, you can blind test me. Spin me around the room and punch me in the head, I will notice the difference right away. I can go into an AV showroom and know INSTANTLY if there's a prog scan picture on a 16:9 TV.
    Now having said that, I will tell you that recent interlaced DVD players have vastly improved to the point that if you are not trained to notice 3:2 pulldown, or if you pause the picture to compare, you will have a hell of a time noticing the difference between a prog scan and interlaced picture.
    Keir, there have been great improvements in picture quality since the DV-414. For a 1.5 generation player, it was quite excellent. It has since been far surpassed. Heck, I've seen better picture quality from a recent cheap Sanyo player.
    Jeff, try the SD-3750. Rent Enemy at the Gates. Use the progressive/interlaced switch on the remote. You will notice MUCH better blacks and contrast in the progressive mode. And watch background movement carefully. The interlaced mode will comb massively. The progressive image is rock solid.
     
  15. TimW

    TimW Agent

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2001
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here's a question
    I haven't gotten around to getting a progressive scan yet. I own a Mitsubishi WT-46807.
    Now I've been using the line doubler. If I were to get a progressive scan player, would I have to disable the line doubler feature? Is this what I would use to compare the two?
    Forgive if I seem ignorant. I'm still not quite up to speed with all this pulldown jargon. [​IMG]
    Tim
     
  16. andy_brehm

    andy_brehm Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so what players have the 3:2 pulldown? I have heard a lot of good things on JVC's picture quality but not so much on their duribility.
     
  17. JohanK

    JohanK Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2000
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  18. RoyGBiv

    RoyGBiv Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2000
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tim:
    When you connect a 480p source to your TV, the TVs line doubler doesn't function. The TV automatically takes the 480p signal and projects it without doing further "upconverting." The TV does this automatically. You don't do anything except connect the DVDs component output to your TVs component input and set the DVD to progressive.
    I have the Mitsubishi 46805. This TV is not known for having a great line doubler and does not do 3:2 pulldown. I can tell you that sitting about 9 feet from this TV I can see a remarkable difference with my RP-91 between progressive and interlaced. Having said that, I agree with the other posters that how much any one individual will notice the difference depends greatly on their equipment, distance from the screen, lighting, viewing habits, and the individual DVD.
    SMK
     
  19. RAF

    RAF Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1997
    Messages:
    7,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm in total agreement with the others here who are of the opinion, "It depends." The monitor and the player can make all the difference in the world.
    In my particular case, where I have a Sony VW10HT front projector (110" 16:9 image viewed from about 11-12 feet) coupled to SONY 9000ES and Panasonic RP91 DVD players, there is a huge difference in the quality of the picture when using progressive mode. Motion artifacts immediately come to mind. They just don't exist in progressive mode whereas in interlaced mode they can drive you crazy on such a large screen. In fact, back in the days when my progressive player was a Toshiba 5109 I made the statement that SONY should bundle a progressive scan player with the VW10HT projector since it made *that much* of a difference.
    A lot of the heated arguments about this projector when it first came out revolved around some people looking at images in interlaced mode rather than in progressive mode (as well as some people using composite sources rather than component sources - but that's an entirely different issue.) Viewing progressive sources changed a lot of minds about this excellent video display.
    On the other hand, when I look at source material on my Pioneer Elite Pro-75 (circa 1990) 45" Rear Projection Monitor (non-anamorphic) I find it much harder to see significnat differences between progressive and interlaced source material, so I can fully understand those who claim that there is no real difference.
    In summary I would suggest the following: Since the price differential between progressive scan and interlaced DVD players has narrowed so much (the RP-91 is a tremendous buy for the money and several models from other manufacturers like SONY, etc. are also much less expensive than just a few years ago) that it makes sense to consider a progressive scan player even if your current display doesn't take advantage of it - especially if you have even the remotest chance of upgrading in the near future.
    And that's the real name of the game here, right?
    [​IMG]
    ------------------
    RAF
    [Demented Video Dude since 1997]
    [Computer Maven since 1956]
    ["PITA" since 1942]
    My HT (latest update 02/05/01)
     
  20. JohnHN

    JohnHN Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2000
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have a Panasonic RP56, which uses the Sage deinterlacer, hooked up to a Toshiba 50HX81, which has a good internal deinterlacer with 3:2 detection.
    I can point to any number of places where the Panny does a better job than the Tosh. Typical examples involve closely spaced lines, where the Tosh introduces moire patterns whereas the image from the Panny is more stable. But we are talking "very good" vs. "even better" here, not "bad" vs. "perfect."
    ------------------
     

Share This Page