[hickmeister]

Howdy all,

Has anybody got any recommendations on a HDD recorder that has built in Freeview/PVR and can upscale DVD`s.

Seen a few out there dont really want to pay anymore than £200.

Cheers

[MarkE19]

Why upscaling? If you have an LCD or plasma TV then the chances are it will do just as good a job of upscaling any SD sources - or probably an even better job of it!
PVR's and HDD/DVD recorders are different products and you don't get both in the same box. You can get a HDD/DVD recorder with a single Freeview tuner, but these wont have full PVR functions. A PVR will nearly always have 2 Freeview tuners and more advanced recording & playback options, but no DVD player or recorder built in.

So you need to decide the most important features for you and then we should be able to give a bit more advice.

Mark.

[R2-D2]

Originally Posted by MarkE19

Why upscaling? If you have an LCD or plasma TV then the chances are it will do just as good a job of upscaling any SD sources - or probably an even better job of it!

That's certainly a possiblity, but if the DVD/Freeview decoder is connected digitally to the upscaler then it has a chance of producing a better picture than if the upscaler is after the conversion to and from RGB/YUV analogue signals (like it would be for the TV's upscaler).

[LV426]

@R2-D2 - I think you are mixing up connection type with scaling. An HDMI connection is digital throughout, regardless of whether the scaling is done in the source or the screen.

And in any case, irrespective of the theory, in practice, HDMI isn't necessarily substantially better than RGB or Component (analogue). Most of the time, major differences are down to difference in calibration (usually of the screen) for the two source types.

[Mr_Sukebe]

The closest solution to that is a PS3 with an upgraded HD and PlayTV. That will upscale TV, DVD and also give you a games machine and a BD player. Problem is that your talking close to twice your budget and whilst the PlayTV is pretty good, it doesn't yet have all of the functionality that other PVRs have.

So in short, all the potential options are compromises.

[R2-D2]

Originally Posted by LV426

I think you are mixing up connection type with scaling.

I think you may have missed the point, but I'll agree that in reality the difference will probably be quite small.

An HDMI connection is digital throughout, regardless of whether the scaling is done in the source or the screen.

The point you're missing is that the response was to whether the OP should consider a normal (SD) Freeview/DVD box, with no HDMI output. Obviously if it has HDMI then it will be upscaling (from the ideal, digital source, or not) but if it's just got the normal (SD) output then clearly the TV will be dealing with (and probably upscaling) the analogue RGB/YUV signal.

[MarkE19]

Originally Posted by R2-D2

The point you're missing is that the response was to whether the OP should consider a normal (SD) Freeview/DVD box, with no HDMI output.

Did I say that? What I said was that scaling in a PVR/DVDr is unlikely to do as good a job as that built into a display.

Originally Posted by R2-D2

Obviously if it has HDMI then it will be upscaling

HDMI is in most cases going to be the best (or at least the simplest) connection, but HDMI does not automatically mean onboard scaling (or the requirement to use it if it has got it).

Mark.

[R2-D2]

Originally Posted by MarkE19

What I said was that scaling in a PVR/DVDr is unlikely to do as good a job as that built into a display.

I'm obviously not being clear, so why do you think that's a fair generalisation?

[Paul Shirley]

Originally Posted by R2-D2

I'm obviously not being clear, so why do you think that's a fair generalisation?

Perhaps because in the many threads asking the question, those of us who've actually tried it both ways consistently say we can't see any difference! That tells me in any halfway decent TV its upscaler is at least as good as upscaling at source. For unfortunate owners of sets lacking 1:1 pixel ratios - that's a lot of people - their sets will scale everything, scaling at source means scaling twice, thats bad.

The theoretical advantages to scaling non-standard SD resolutions at source turn out to make no difference in practice, largely because the image quality is so poor nothing can help it.

Upscaling in SD sources is primarily a sales feature, just a tick on the packaging, with a huge stink of snake oil to it.

[LV426]

Here is some more theory:

Scaling is a process which involves (really) guesswork to fill in the blanks - generate the extra pixels. Any "guesswork" - even very good and clever guesswork, has the potential to degrade at an absolute level.

Therefore scaling is a process best done only once.

If you use a scaler in the source then to get only one scaling process, the source has to be set to output an exact match for the native screen resolution, and the screen has to do 1:1 pixel mapping. If either isn't true then you get two scaling processes.

If the screen is anything other than 1080 or 720 rows (and many are 768 and other values) then, since 768 is not a standard TV signal resolution, the probability that a source will be able to scale to this is low; 720 or 1080 are more likely. Send a 720 or 1080 signal to a 768 screen and the screen will rescale it. So - two scaling processes from an SD source.

If the screen is 720 (rare, but some do exist) or 1080 (quite common) then it's possible (but by no means a promise) to get this exact match right. However, SD video sources require overscanning by 5% to conceal garbage around the edges of the signal. 1:1 pixel mapping (by definition) does not overscan. So you either do away with 1:1 mapping (and get two scaling processes again), or you leave it as it is (and get visible garbage) or you crop all four sides of the image (and get small black borders).

Whereas if you let the screen do all the scaling, then you get an exact fit, for any resolution, with the right amount of overscan, and only one scaling process. As good as it gets. IN THEORY.

[aekostas]

I instinctively buy the scale-once argument.

However, another bit of theory I have read here is that the on-source scaler may be doing a better job at scaling, as it's dedicated to the original format, whereas an on-display scaler is more generic.

The bottom-line is in the source-screen combination in hand, I guess, but I certainly know better than buy a display that is neither 720 nor 1080 native-lines.

[R2-D2]

Originally Posted by Paul Shirley

Perhaps because in the many threads asking the question, those of us who've actually tried it both ways consistently say we can't see any difference!

Getting down to this level, the comparison is going to be extremely close. But given a Freeview/DVD box with just SD output (RGB/YUV -- no manufacturer is going to put a digital output like HDMI on an SD box and not put an upscaler in there) versus one with an upscaler, you must be better off with the one with an upscaler (and its digital output). Even if you then choose to use the 576i mode to feed your less-than-Full-HD panel that doesn't show you the whole picture and won't do 1:1... And if you discover that its upscaler is working internally with the analogue output (or is doing an awful job) then you might swap over to using the RGB/YUV output and be no worse off than if you bought the SD unit (other quality comparisons between units not withstanding).

Hence, the presence of an upscaler on the source unit is better (so long as it's not the only output, I suppose).

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by LV426

Here is some more theory:

Scaling is a process which involves (really) guesswork to fill in the blanks - generate the extra pixels. Any "guesswork" - even very good and clever guesswork, has the potential to degrade at an absolute level.

Therefore scaling is a process best done only once.

If you use a scaler in the source then to get only one scaling process, the source has to be set to output an exact match for the native screen resolution, and the screen has to do 1:1 pixel mapping. If either isn't true then you get two scaling processes.

If the screen is anything other than 1080 or 720 rows (and many are 768 and other values) then, since 768 is not a standard TV signal resolution, the probability that a source will be able to scale to this is low; 720 or 1080 are more likely. Send a 720 or 1080 signal to a 768 screen and the screen will rescale it. So - two scaling processes from an SD source.

If the screen is 720 (rare, but some do exist) or 1080 (quite common) then it's possible (but by no means a promise) to get this exact match right. However, SD video sources require overscanning by 5% to conceal garbage around the edges of the signal. 1:1 pixel mapping (by definition) does not overscan. So you either do away with 1:1 mapping (and get two scaling processes again), or you leave it as it is (and get visible garbage) or you crop all four sides of the image (and get small black borders).

Whereas if you let the screen do all the scaling, then you get an exact fit, for any resolution, with the right amount of overscan, and only one scaling process. As good as it gets. IN THEORY.

You forgot one thing scalers work both ways, sometimes they need to lose pixels eg 1080i HD signal to 1368 x 720 HD ready display

[Paul Shirley]

Originally Posted by R2-D2

you must be better off with the one with an upscaler (and its digital output)

The surprising thing is (well, it surprised me) a lot of HDMI/analogue comparisons posted always mention differences in colour respresentation but mostly don't report any quality advantage (and its not always for HDMI either). I briefly compared analogue (SCART) with HDMI on a Humax Foxsat+Sony TV combo and saw nothing tweaking colours couldn't fix. I would have left it using SCART (for correct aspect switching) but the mother-in-law wanted her HD BBC working

I think it mirrors the PC monitor DVI/analogue situation, where technology quickly improved to the point there's no longer any difference. Owners of bad TV's may be better off with an external scaler but IMHO for most people insisting on HDMI connects on SD sources just reduces their choices for no good reason.

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by Paul Shirley

The surprising thing is (well, it surprised me) a lot of HDMI/analogue comparisons posted always mention differences in colour respresentation but mostly don't report any quality advantage (and its not always for HDMI either). I briefly compared analogue (SCART) with HDMI on a Humax Foxsat+Sony TV combo and saw nothing tweaking colours couldn't fix. I would have left it using SCART (for correct aspect switching) but the mother-in-law wanted her HD BBC working

No reason why you can't use both, select the scart for SD viewing and hdmi for HD. The TV will remember different settings for each input

[MarkE19]

Originally Posted by R2-D2

But given a Freeview/DVD box with just SD output (RGB/YUV -- no manufacturer is going to put a digital output like HDMI on an SD box and not put an upscaler in there)

Well my Arcam DV29 DVD player has an HDMI output, is SD only and does not have any onboard scaling - there's always one

Mark.

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by MarkE19

Well my Arcam DV29 DVD player has an HDMI output, is SD only and does not have any onboard scaling - there's always one

Mark.

Interesting how does the hdmi out look compared to component and/or RGB ?

[Paul Shirley]

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

No reason why you can't use both, select the scart for SD viewing and hdmi for HD. The TV will remember different settings for each input

...getting the TV to autoselect the 'correct' input is the problem. It took a frightening time just showing the inlaws how to select HDMI input - if Humax had implemented HDMI fully SCART would have no advantage, as usual they followed the letter of the certification spec and ignored the spirit.

[MarkE19]

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

Interesting how does the hdmi out look compared to component and/or RGB ?

I have only recently upgraded my plasma to one with HDMI, so was previously using YUV Component which IMO was very good.
HDMI looks a little better (maybe just wishful thinking ) to me, but not a big difference. But then again this is used on a different plasma so could be more to do with the screen rather than the connection.
I've never used the scart output of the DV29 to compare.

Mark.

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by MarkE19

I have only recently upgraded my plasma to one with HDMI, so was previously using YUV Component which IMO was very good.
HDMI looks a little better (maybe just wishful thinking ) to me, but not a big difference. But then again this is used on a different plasma so could be more to do with the screen rather than the connection.
I've never used the scart output of the DV29 to compare.

Mark.

Thanks that seems to confirm that hdmi connections on SD box does not offer much extra except possibly convenience. HD tackle is of course quite a different animal.

I have a double headed graphics card on my PC feeding two identical monitors one by dvi (dgital) and one by VGA (analogue) and there is no discernable difference. Photoshop same high res photo on each screen at same time.

Also my laptop can connect can connect to my Sony LCD by a dvi to hdmi connection or by xvga. Again can't see any difference