Upscaling SD content - which is better?

robt_2

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Probably due to using poor scart leads (Which will confuse the scaling software)

But the sheer fact it FITS the WHOLE screen means its scaled. If it wasnt scaled, it would have borders all around the pictures inches wide.

That has nothing to do with upscaling... think your getting confused

aliEnRIK

superscaper wrote: »

Actually no, upscaling means that it upscales the resolution not whether it fills the entire screen. It can still fill the entire screen but not be high definition. Upscaling means interpolating the standard definition pixels to get a high definition number of pixels. Simply inputting a standard definition source into a HD TV does not upscale it. Scaling can mean the size of a picture but in this context it's about resolution only.

If you want an SD source (such as DVD) to be upscaled on a HD TV then you need something to process the upscaling and calculate that interpolation to get pseudo HD, otherwise it's still just an SD display. Simply filling the screen is not upscaling.

Sorry Scraper

Its not often we disagree but thats wrong what you have put there

Scaling an SD with a dvd player is NOT high definition. Nor is it with a tv. High definition is only high def' when its SOURCE has the correct number of pixels to begin with. ANYTHING else is scaling.

If all it did was 'blow up' the picture, it would look truly awful. It doesnt, it 'interpolates' the surrounding pixels and does in fact 'upscale', If it didnt, the picture would be blocky as holy hell. Further more, my Pioneer upscales to a FAR better degree then my PS3 which everyone keeps going on about how brilliant it is, when in fact it loses all TRUE 'detail' in the picture

In truth, upscaling dvd players do NOTHING different to the tvs internal (Although its all down to which software is better, so there is a clear difference, its down to which is better). An SD picture scaled to FIT a larger screen (1080 say) will always be interpolated in some way or other, it cant be done any other way. All its doing is scaling at the tv end instead of the dvd end. If no one believes me, just watch a Pioneer tv scale and then an upscaling dvd player through the same tv, chances are the Pioneer will beat it.


Also, ive tested this THOROUGHLY
Some dvd players, and some tvs are purely awful at scaling mind.

aliEnRIK

Ive not read this fully, as I know all about it ayways. But this should explain the SCALING of tvs ~
http://www.avforums.com/forums/dvd-recorders-recording-media/846759-upscaling-confused-about.html
In short, its down to wether the tv scales better, or the source

superscaper

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Ive not read this fully, as I know all about it ayways. But this should explain the SCALING of tvs ~
http://www.avforums.com/forums/dvd-recorders-recording-media/846759-upscaling-confused-about.html
In short, its down to wether the tv scales better, or the source

Don't see how that's different from anything I've said. Just because it's being displayed on a screen with more pixels doesn't mean it's been upscaled in itself. It just means that sets of pixels are treated as if they were one pixel, which isn't really interpolation at all. And if you think they'd look rubbish and blocky if that were the case then well yes and that's the reality, SD does look pretty rubbish and blocky on large HD TVs, usually 4 times as much as a HD picture;) The difference between playing a DVD without upscaling and with is quite obvious on an HD TV.

aliEnRIK

superscaper wrote: »

Don't see how that's different from anything I've said. Just because it's being displayed on a screen with more pixels doesn't mean it's been upscaled in itself. It just means that sets of pixels are treated as if they were one pixel, which isn't really interpolation at all. And if you think they'd look rubbish and blocky if that were the case then well yes and that's the reality, SD does look pretty rubbish and blocky on large HD TVs, usually 4 times as much as a HD picture;) The difference between playing a DVD without upscaling and with is quite obvious on an HD TV.

Im unsure what your meaning here but ill try and elaborate using my own equipment.
The sheer fact an SD picture fills the screen means it 'scaled' Theres nothing more to add to that except its all down to the algorithms used in the software (Be it the tv or the dvd player etc)
And your completely wrong, SD upscaled via my PS3 AND my pioneer dvd player are NOT as good as my tv scaling them. Blocky is certainly NOT how I would describe it. ***read the link I sent for further proof***
Ive even got my PS3 and tv running through an 'Isotek Mira' filter to get the very best I can out of both components to test them.
My Pioneer tv trounces the PS3 and the Pioneer dvd player for upscaling capabilities. In fact id put my Pioneer up against any other tv fed by any upscaling dvd player.
HOWEVER, a c*ap tv will have inferior capabilities.
Again, its down to the software used and how it differentiates the scaling.
For example, if say 3 pixels are to be scaled to 5 theres so many different ways of doing it. By either colouring the ones inbetwen for a smoother effect or whatever the software wrote chooses to do. But wether the tv or the dvd does it they ARE upscaled. End of story

aliEnRIK

superscaper wrote: »

It just means that sets of pixels are treated as if they were one pixel

No theyre not, THATS where your getting it competely wrong. as explained above you cannot fit 3 pixels into 5, there MUST be some form of interpolation used to fit them.
Sorry mate

jaydeeuk1

Thank you for all the opinions.

Just my luck, had an email back from JL to say the TV is out of stock

Anyone know where else the same tv is available at same price and 5 yr warranty? (£599)
Dixons/Currys/Pc world won't increase their standard 1yr warranty for same price, and sony center are unable to match the price.

superscaper

aliEnRIK wrote: »

No theyre not, THATS where your getting it competely wrong. as explained above you cannot fit 3 pixels into 5, there MUST be some form of interpolation used to fit them.
Sorry mate

I disagree. I don't know if you're using a different definition of interpolation but when an SD picture is displayed on an HD display the picture is made bigger by simply copying the adjacent pixels to "fill in" the unused resolution. So on an SD display a single absolute red pixel becomes 4 absolute red pixels on an HD display. That's what happens as standard and isn't upscaling nor is it interpolation. When upscaling the pixels are not copied but mathematically interpolated dependant on the neighbouring pixels' colours.

aliEnRIK

superscaper wrote: »

I disagree. I don't know if you're using a different definition of interpolation but when an SD picture is displayed on an HD display the picture is made bigger by simply copying the adjacent pixels to "fill in" the unused resolution. So on an SD display a single absolute red pixel becomes 4 absolute red pixels on an HD display. That's what happens as standard and isn't upscaling nor is it interpolation. When upscaling the pixels are not copied but mathematically interpolated dependant on the neighbouring pixels' colours.

Im sorry Scraper but your wrong. Pioneer, Sony, Samsung and Panasonic are just a few of the MANY tvs that do NOT scale that way

If you dont believe me thats upto you

I know what I know because im REALLY into my av and hifi

Heres a quote from Wikipedia just as a secondary backup ~

"When resolution is considered, both the resolution of the transmitted signal and the (native) displayed resolution of a TV set are taken into account. Most HDTV sets contain video scalers and will "upscale" or "upconvert" the transmitted signal to that of the set's native format."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television

PLEASE look at the facts instead of guessing Scraper.........

aliEnRIK

heres a quote from the avforum page

"Upscaling (or downscaling) is required to fit a source signal onto a display that doesn't match the source's original resolution.

So for example if you display a standard DVD on a 1080 display its roughly 4 times the resolution so you need to feed information to all pixels.

If you imagine a 2 x 2 square of pixels with the original pixel being in the corner then if you put the same colour on all the pixels you would end up with a blocky picture. Lots of nice jaggies on diagonal lines and it your super duper new TV would leave you a bit disappointed. The bigger the TV the more noticeable it would be. If you then pick a colour in between the two neighbouring pixels then you end up with less blockiness but a less sharp image. Getting the right colour is all about the algorithm used.

So your TV uses upscaling which as interpolates the difference and effectively guesses whats should be there.

As you can imagine there could be a number of ways of doing this and this is where the differences in quality of upscaling lies.

As a general rule of thumb the more complex the algorithm for working out what should be there the more work the upscaler will have to do. This should give you a more realistic image that would be closer to the original image at a higher resolution. However it is still a guess.

Given its all in real time the more complex generally leads to higher processing requirements and the chipset doing the scaling will be more expensive.

The lower end chipsets available in the cheaper DVD players may do a worse job of scaling then your display. Unfortunately its a matter of trying to see which you like best. You might not even notice any difference.

DVD\HDD recorders will only record at the same resolution (or lower) of the source input (or a compressed version of it). On playback they then might scale as appropriate."

If my Pioneer had the dreaded 'jaggies' id have fired it straight back at them....