Best picture quality, interlaced or progressive?

Discussion in 'Blu-ray & DVD Players & Recorders' started by rainstel, Mar 12, 2006.

  1. rainstel

    rainstel
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    As title. Which one is "generally" considered to give the better picture with an LCD tv?
    Also, can/do most dvd players do upscaling over component, or only over HDMI?
    Thanks.
     
  2. rhino2k

    rhino2k
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    6,077
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,283
    i think some players do upscale via component?

    and progressive is generally better, but it can depend on your equipment afaik :)
     
  3. nick501

    nick501
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    7,217
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Walsall, West Midlands
    Ratings:
    +782
    my sammy hd850 could upscale via component. (before i sold it)

    progressive is quite a bit better imho.
     
  4. rainstel

    rainstel
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I've read that quite a lot of ppl going on about using interlacing, if progressive is that good, why would they do that? thanks.
     
  5. Timbo21

    Timbo21
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,682
    Products Owned:
    4
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +332
    It really depends on if the player has got the better deinterlacing or if the display has. I think you have to hunt around for players that will upscale over component. Something like the Snazio 1350 I think will do it, but you'd have to check, & it will play WMV-HD & DiVXHD amongst others.

    That is the best option if you are using an external scaler/video processor, since it has had the least done to it, thus leaving the VP to do the scaling & deinterlacing. This is why players like the Pioneer 989 are useful, since they will output interlaced over HDMI. Again, if your projector or plasma etc. has excellent processing & scaling built in, then sending it interlaced will be the best option.
     
  6. LV426

    LV426
    Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,732
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Somewhere in South Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +6,309
    This is a copy/paste of a post I did elsewhere on this subject. In the case in point, the TV was a 1280x720 device. If yours is (say) 1366x768, replace 720p with 768p (etc):

    Fact 1: The signal encoded on all (PAL) DVD discs is 576i. That means 576 lines, interlaced.

    Fact 2: The image displayed on your TV screen is ALWAYS 720p. That's 720 lines, progressive. This is the only image structure your TV can display.

    To get from the one to the other, your equipment somehow has to

    a) de-interlace. That means, convert from i to p (from interlaced to progressive).

    b) re-scale. That means, (in this case) convert from 576 lines to 720.

    Depending on your equipment, these two things may happen either in the DVD player or in the TV.

    For example, if you feed your TV with a simple video signal (576i) then the TV will both de-interlace and scale it (i.e. convert to 720p).

    Conversely, if you feed your TV with an already converted 720p signal, then it doesn't have to do this job, even though it can.

    The only thing that might be gained by de-interlacing and/or rescaling in the DVD player (if it could) would be if it did a better job than the TV.
     

Share This Page

Loading...