1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

HD2: is it worth the extra?

Discussion in 'Projectors, Screens & Video Processors' started by Nick Peacock, Mar 24, 2004.

  1. Nick Peacock

    Nick Peacock
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    This is my first time, so be gentle with me if I ask a naive question. I want to watch DVDs with the quality I get on my PC. I don't mind how I do it, but I don't think it will be with a TV or plasma.

    Will an HD2 DLP PJ fed from whatever source is necessary do that, or will a lower resolution PJ still show me everything that's on a good DVD? I don't think there's a simple answer to the question, but I'm sure this is the right place to ask it.

    Cheers, Nick
     
  2. RTFM

    RTFM
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,014
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Horsham, West Sussex
    Ratings:
    +17
    Screen size and distance you will sitting from the screen will have an effect on the answer to your question.
    If you want to sit close to a big image then the HD2 chip projectors will be a better choice than Matterhorn based units if your budget runs to it. Screen structure when sitting close will be less noticeable with HD2 than Matterhorn.
    If you sit say 2x screen widths away you will probably be happy with the lower resolution.
     
  3. Nick Peacock

    Nick Peacock
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Thanks Jeff. I don't want to spend money for the sake of it, but I doubt I would be satisfied without an HD2 projector. If I did take that route, would I see a better picture sitting 2x SW away from a projection screen than I would sitting 2x SW away from a TV?

    Nick
     
  4. RTFM

    RTFM
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,014
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Horsham, West Sussex
    Ratings:
    +17
    Sitting 2x SW from a TV you will see horizontal scan lines big time and you will get fatigue/eyestrain as your eye muscles have to work harder focussing on close objects.
    With front projection sitting say12-15 feet away is much easier on the eyes as the eye muscles are not working nearly so hard.
    I promise you if you go the projector route you will find it very hard to go back to a regular TV.
     
  5. pdundas

    pdundas
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Personally, I'd say there is a big jump between a HD2 or HD2+ based projector compared with the various cheaper LCD models (even if the resolutions might be the same) but, as they say, your mileage may vary.

    DLP projectors also benefit significantly from using a DVI input.
     
  6. Nick Peacock

    Nick Peacock
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Thanks for the advice guys; I don't know enough yet to make such a deep plunge, but I do have an objective. I want to watch a 72" picture thats better than my 36" TV.

    That might be too tall an order, but if I can do it on my 18" PC screen, then I'm sure there's a way. Maybe it's with a DVD player, maybe not; I hope I can learn something from this forum, though I can feel a trip to Horsham coming on.

    Say I had an HD2 PJ running off a DVI interface, would it make any difference whether I was using a DVDP or a HCPC?

    Cheers, Nick
     
  7. RTFM

    RTFM
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,014
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Horsham, West Sussex
    Ratings:
    +17
    Nick,

    You will find that DVI from a PC or a DVD player or HDMI from a DVD player will give you better results than analogue component or analogue component progressive.
     
  8. Nick Peacock

    Nick Peacock
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Thanks Jeff, interesting to hear an endorsement of DVI on this forum. I can't help thinking that had to be the best way to go, but everyone seems to know a dozen pitfalls. My approach has always been to understand the problems rather than rely on unscientific emprical observations. I'll use a PC if I have to because I am sadly obsessed with picture quality, but with a DVI connection would it be any better than a DVDP assuming there were no scaling complications etc? (and by analogue componment progressive, do you include VGA?)

    Cheers, Nick
     
  9. Wasabi

    Wasabi
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,188
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    SBC (Swedish Born Chinese)/lived in UK since 96, C
    Ratings:
    +32
    Nick,

    If you do go for a HD2 DLP, then you can pick up the superb BenQ PE8700 for only £2.85k at Ivojo or nexnix. The best performer/pound HD2 DLP you can get. And even better news, revised 8700 with the new HD2+ chip has been launched in the US, and to the same market price of $6k (street price for the old one was $4k), so maybe in a short while Ivojo and nexnix will be able to sell it at below £3k (I'm not sure what the UK MRRP is but competitor Infocus 7200 MRRP is £6k).

    I've written about on these threads - thread1 and thread2

    Wasabi
     
  10. MAW

    MAW
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Nr Dorking
    Ratings:
    +412
    Sorry to differ, but I take serious issue with the HDMI picture quality claim In my experience it's simply not so. Quality analogue will out preform, price for price, HDMI. Newer high end HDMI equipped players will reverse this I'm sure, but currently, taking say a Denon 2900 and a Pioneer 868, analogue wins. This would be the case on all DLP HD projectors that I can think of, the internal scaling/deinterlacing is way better than the on board processing in the 868. The argument stops with a well built PC, it's clearly ahead on all points except convenience.:D
     
  11. docfeelgood

    docfeelgood
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2003
    Messages:
    237
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +1
    Maw... are you comparing the interlaced/progressive non-scaled HDMI output of the 868 with interlaced/progressive 2900 component output?

    This would be like for like.

    I would expect the 868 to provide a 'cleaner' image.

    does it not ?

    Can you describe?

    I agree that the scaler in the 868 is probably inferior to many scalers in current DLP PJ's

    regards
    :)
    Doc.
     
  12. Liam @ Prog AV

    Liam @ Prog AV
    Well-known Member AVForums Sponsor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,498
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +827
    I'm treading carefully here, but I do agree with Maw. There is definitely less noise on the picture from the 868... but the 2900 has an immediately deeper, better presented picture overall.

    I say treading carefully because I have only tested these on NEC HT1000 and Panasonic Plasma, and in the case of the plasma I believe the component input to be better suited to video anyway.

    Don't get me wrong, the 868 is a great player if you plan to use iLink and for simplicity's sake are just getting a whole bunch of Pio equipment. But it certainly isn't the be all and end all of players, and the component output on it is less than brilliant (if you do a search I've moaned about it plenty of times on here!!)
     
  13. Kramer

    Kramer
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Under which username?

    :smoke:
     
  14. MAW

    MAW
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Nr Dorking
    Ratings:
    +412
    Do I sense a little botty smack there?

    Now, back on topic. I never tread carefully, this isn't life or death, we're just airing our opinions. I am indeed comparing unscaled HDMI with interlaced or progressive from the denon, or even maybe a HK DV25. I have seen it on a Panny HD, 434HDE, an NEC HT1100, infocus 5700 and 7200, and I universally preferred the analogue. It's a novelty at present, and I have no doubt that a company of Pioneer's stature will get it right. But the fact remains it's about copy protection, not quality. The idea is driven by Hollywood, not the AV industry.
     
  15. Liam @ Prog AV

    Liam @ Prog AV
    Well-known Member AVForums Sponsor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,498
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +827
    Liam McLaughlin !!!
     
  16. mikeaitch

    mikeaitch
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,583
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Stoke
    Ratings:
    +55
    So is SDI the way to go??
     
  17. MAW

    MAW
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Nr Dorking
    Ratings:
    +412
    It's expensive, and the switching gear is terrifyingly so. SDI is the broadcast quality digital connection, very fine but too much for me. Modded sky box, £1k?
     
  18. JohnWH

    JohnWH
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,826
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    St Albans
    Ratings:
    +82
    So MAW, lets get this clear, your just questioning the quality of the scalers in the DVD players yes? In which case I'd be inclined to agree. However can't you set the 868's HDMI output to 576/480i and leave the scaling to the PJ, at which point, as long as the player isn't brain dead, you can be certain that HDMI would give a better result than the component feeds.

    John.
     
  19. MAW

    MAW
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Nr Dorking
    Ratings:
    +412
    No you CANNOT be certain of anything!!! Certainly HDMI is better than component on the 868, but no way is it better than a similarly priced analogue only DVD player of any standing. They've spent loads on the HDMI, including a licensing fee, it's needlessly expensive, cannot be connected to an external scaler. If you want an HD high end system, it's simply not the player for you.
     
  20. JohnWH

    JohnWH
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,826
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    St Albans
    Ratings:
    +82
    Err, actually, in implemetation terms HDMI is massively cheaper than equivalent quality analogue, which, brain dead players asside, isn't actually possible i.e. analgoue will always suffer from noise injection, BW limits, non linearity, phase variance etc etc etc.

    Wrt brain dead players and unnecessary messing with the digital source signal before transmissing over HDMI, the same level of brain dead behaviour can equally applies to analogue outputs.

    I think the term is "all things being equal", given this you can gaurentee that HDMI will give a more exact reproduction of the source data than analogue.

    John.
     
  21. MAW

    MAW
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Nr Dorking
    Ratings:
    +412
    What about the license fee then?
     
  22. IanW

    IanW
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2001
    Messages:
    1,572
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Wiltshire
    Ratings:
    +119
    Regarding Matterhorn Vs HD2. . . . .

    I have applied the twice screen width as the viewing distance rule. Therefore my screen width is 7ft wide and I sit 15ft away, yes I know this is slightly over twice distance. I can quite safely say that the image from the matterhorn chip is absolutely amazing! :clap: I am sure that the HD2 chip might offer some improvement but for the extra money I am more than happy with the matterhorn.

    Ian.
     
  23. MAW

    MAW
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Nr Dorking
    Ratings:
    +412
    At twice screen width viewing distance I'm certain you are right. Most HD projectors have short throw lenses to give a bigger picture for your viewing distance, shortening this ratio, because they can I suppose.
     
  24. JohnWH

    JohnWH
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,826
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    St Albans
    Ratings:
    +82
    No idea, but from experience you can garentee its a fraction of the cost of the analogue circuitry i.e. probably a few c per player with a cap...

    John.
     
  25. MAW

    MAW
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Nr Dorking
    Ratings:
    +412
    Nah, mate. It's instigated by folks who make more before breakfast than most of us earn in a year. I don't know a figure, but it'll eventually be 1/2 the price of the cheapest player you can buy with it on, I should think. And 1/2 the rest goes to Dolby.
     
  26. JohnWH

    JohnWH
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,826
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    St Albans
    Ratings:
    +82
    Actually I work in the IP licensing business, and have a pretty good idea what the numbers are for these sort of things are. Basically if it was that high everyone would be proprietry or would have stuck with DVI which has no licensing cost. Hmm, actually, I'm not convinced there's any license associated with HDMI anyway, will have to ask around...

    John.
     
  27. MAW

    MAW
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Nr Dorking
    Ratings:
    +412
    It's HDCP compliance where that comes in, please post your findings, I have been told an order of magnitude, but of course it could be wrong. BTW I expect the cheapest players to fall to the £100 mark eventually.
     
  28. JohnWH

    JohnWH
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,826
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    St Albans
    Ratings:
    +82
    You can already get HDCP players for <£150.

    Hmm, order of magnetude over a few cents, is a few 10c's, I highly doubt it would be in the $ range, as no one would use it. Although these things normally end up with a taper or volume cap so large volumes end up with a much lower hit...

    The other thing, HDCP is only "required" for transfer of HD resolution source material, so if you remove the scaler from a device thats playing back SD source in theory it requires no HDCP support...

    John.
     
  29. JohnWH

    JohnWH
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,826
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    St Albans
    Ratings:
    +82
    Arr, HDCP is a fixed anual fee of $15K, so it just comes down to the number of units, so I guess this is more significant to the low volume high end market...

    John.
     

Share This Page

Loading...