Video processor benefits

I understand the scaling is better, how does this look to the eye.
The main benefit you get from Lumagen scaling is that it is "ring-free". Look at a normal TV and try turning up the sharpness control much too high: notice how (for example) a dark object against a moderately bright background gets an even brighter "halo" around it? Poor quality scaling tends to have much the same effect as excessive sharpness or edge-enhancement.

The reason this tends to be a problem (especially with poor quality sources) is that it exaggerates digital compression artefacts. When you switch to using a Lumagen you may actually not notice much difference; but if you try switching back again you suddenly think "ugh! where did all that macro-blocking and digital artefacting come from?!"

So it's not that it improves the picture as such, it's simply that it avoids making it look worse than it needs to by not exaggerating the artefacts.

I have to say, if your main gripe is image softness then it is unlikely that you will feel much happier with a scaler in place. If anything, the scaler may make it look even softer. Image softness can sometimes be the result of poor deinterlacing (film deinterlaced as video) and you should make sure you've switched off any "noise reduction" settings too. But it may well be that you simply can't tolerate an SD image blown up that large: upscaling cannot add any detail to the picture, it simply blurs the boundaries between adjacent pixels.

My own solution to softness is to use my Lumagen HDP to avoid upscaling. For a standard-definition image (especially on Sky) I have the programme playing in a 1024x576 window in the middle of an otherwise-black 1920x1080 screen. I find that looks much nicer. :)

However, I'm probably the only person in the world who does this. :suicide: Most people insist on having a picture that fills the screen!
 
The main benefit you get from Lumagen scaling is that it is "ring-free". Look at a normal TV and try turning up the sharpness control much too high: notice how (for example) a dark object against a moderately bright background gets an even brighter "halo" around it? Poor quality scaling tends to have much the same effect as excessive sharpness or edge-enhancement.

The reason this tends to be a problem (especially with poor quality sources) is that it exaggerates digital compression artefacts. When you switch to using a Lumagen you may actually not notice much difference; but if you try switching back again you suddenly think "ugh! where did all that macro-blocking and digital artefacting come from?!"

So it's not that it improves the picture as such, it's simply that it avoids making it look worse than it needs to by not exaggerating the artefacts.

I have to say, if your main gripe is image softness then it is unlikely that you will feel much happier with a scaler in place. If anything, the scaler may make it look even softer. Image softness can sometimes be the result of poor deinterlacing (film deinterlaced as video) and you should make sure you've switched off any "noise reduction" settings too. But it may well be that you simply can't tolerate an SD image blown up that large: upscaling cannot add any detail to the picture, it simply blurs the boundaries between adjacent pixels.

My own solution to softness is to use my Lumagen HDP to avoid upscaling. For a standard-definition image (especially on Sky) I have the programme playing in a 1024x576 window in the middle of an otherwise-black 1920x1080 screen. I find that looks much nicer. :)

However, I'm probably the only person in the world who does this. :suicide: Most people insist on having a picture that fills the screen!


Thanks for the comments, image softness is not normally an issue for me, so long as it looks filmic and not digital. I am an analogue man at heart

The NEC looked fine to my eyes on the same size screen in terms of sharpness and that was a 1024 x 576 image from memory, an old unit. I used to place the focus a little out to improve the look of the picture and allow the pixcel edges to blend a little, so even softer !

This demonstrates just how poor the toshiba JVC combination is at present !

Monday will be a big day for me !
 
I've found that letting the JVC HD100 do upscaling creates some motion artefacts which are annoying, but not too distracting.

I've recently had both an EDGE and an HDP feeding my JVC, and to be honest both were an improvement. I think others have outlined the principle differences on here already.

Strangely enough, the best image quality I got for DVDs was when I put the signal through both processors at the same time.
 
I've found that letting the JVC HD100 do upscaling creates some motion artefacts which are annoying, but not too distracting.

I've recently had both an EDGE and an HDP feeding my JVC, and to be honest both were an improvement. I think others have outlined the principle differences on here already.

Strangely enough, the best image quality I got for DVDs was when I put the signal through both processors at the same time.

Interesting !

If you had to keep one box for DVD replay would that be the HDP?
 
Strangely enough, the best image quality I got for DVDs was when I put the signal through both processors at the same time.
For video sources, the optimum setup would definitely be to let the Edge do the deinterlacing while the HDP does the scaling. I'm puzzled as to why using both would look better for film material, though (unless the Edge's 2:2 detection is significantly better than the HDP's; even if that's the case, locking the HDP into film mode ought to be better still).
 
For video sources, the optimum setup would definitely be to let the Edge do the deinterlacing while the HDP does the scaling. I'm puzzled as to why using both would look better for film material, though (unless the Edge's 2:2 detection is significantly better than the HDP's; even if that's the case, locking the HDP into film mode ought to be better still).

Oddly, Eiren had them chained the other way round. And for one good reason - you can't get the EDGE to output a res dependent on input (i.e. 576i -> 576p & 1080i ->1080p) so you'd be constantly fiddling with the output res on the edge.

and for one bad reason - he was outputting 1080i from the HDP and then having the edge deinterlace it.

Which is crazy but I understand from the avs thread that he didn't know the HDP can output 1080p @ 50 and 60.
 
Out of interest where would smoething with the Realta HQV processing sit amongst anchor bay and the likes ?

In other words would something like the 3800 Denon be better than the oppo (you would hope so at the price !) or even as good as the oppo 980 and Lumagen ?

I did see the onkyo receiver work wonders together with a Denon transport (The new and expensive BR transport) against standard DVD upsclaed with a Infocus 83 and the HQV chip benefits were substantial on DVD replay
 
Out of interest where would smoething with the Realta HQV processing sit amongst anchor bay and the likes ?

In other words would something like the 3800 Denon be better than the oppo (you would hope so at the price !) or even as good as the oppo 980 and Lumagen ?

I did see the onkyo receiver work wonders together with a Denon transport (The new and expensive BR transport) against standard DVD upsclaed with a Infocus 83 and the HQV chip benefits were substantial on DVD replay

Sigma (VXP), Silicon Optix (HQV), Marvell (Qdeo) and Anchor Bay (VRS) are all aiming for similar levels of performance.

The danger is not all implmentation of high performance video processing chips achieve the same results. For example the VXP is a very good video processor ergo a product with VXP will offer top draw SD DVD video image. Do you find this with the JVC ?

Anyone who has been involved with external VP's knows how the continuing software development changes the performance and feature set of the device. I can't see the likes of Denon and other mainstream CE's committing to this level of development. The 3800 is a very good device but it will lack some of the customisation and calibration features of some VP's

AVI
 
Last edited:
Sigma (VXP), Silicon Optix (HQV), Marvell (Qdeo) and Anchor Bay (VRS) are all aiming for similar levels of performance.

The danger is not all implmentation of high performance video processing chips achieve the same results. For example the VXP is a very good video processor ergo a product with VXP will offer top draw SD DVD video image. Do you find this with the JVC ?

Anyone who has been involved with external VP's knows how the continuing software development changes the performance and feature set of the device. I can't see the likes of Denon and other mainstream CE's committing to this level of development. The 3800 is a very good device but it will lack some of the customisation and calibration features of some VP's


AVI, thanks fo your comments, the only unit I have run through the 100 so far is my old Toshiba SD900E. The results are very dissapointing, it throws out 480P, it did a good job with R1 discs but not so good with the NEC on R2. With the JVC it is truly c**p images look no sharper than my very old NEC 1000 and I have much, much more digital noise... The contrast and black levels are noticeably better but the unit looks like a very poor cousin to the same unit I saw at PJ fed with DVD.....
 
AVI, thanks fo your comments, the only unit I have run through the 100 so far is my old Toshiba SD900E. The results are very dissapointing, it throws out 480P, it did a good job with R1 discs but not so good with the NEC on R2. With the JVC it is truly c**p images look no sharper than my very old NEC 1000 and I have much, much more digital noise... The contrast and black levels are noticeably better but the unit looks like a very poor cousin to the same unit I saw at PJ fed with DVD.....

I've never used a SD900E but I was always lead to believe it was a "quality" player with decent component output.

Funny after you mentioned the Denon 3800 I happened to see it in action ealier but only with Blu-ray. I guess the best thing is to try the Oppo you have ordered and see what you think.

It may sound daft but sometimes how we perceive things in our own HT's is different. If you ordered the Oppo over the phone/internet you should be covered by distance selling regs i.e. if you are unhappy/change you mind it can be returned within 7 days.

AVI
 
Oddly, Eiren had them chained the other way round. And for one good reason - you can't get the EDGE to output a res dependent on input (i.e. 576i -> 576p & 1080i ->1080p) so you'd be constantly fiddling with the output res on the edge.
Eek! :eek: Okay then, I take it back: it wouldn't be a good idea to have the Edge feeding the HDP. :rolleyes:
 
And for one good reason - you can't get the EDGE to output a res dependent on input (i.e. 576i -> 576p & 1080i ->1080p) so you'd be constantly fiddling with the output res on the edge.

It would be good to have auto input/ouput selection based res and freq. That said the output res freq can be changed using a direct code so you don't need to go through menus to change it. Frame lock (if/when released in production) resolves the issue of things like the PS3 that may output different freq at the same res.

Auto would be better but it can be worked around. :)

AVI
 
Yeah the optimum way would be EDGE first, and then a Lumagen... but EDGE doesn't change output resolution automatically.

However, I did find that EDGE deinterlacing the altered fields from the HDP gave a much better end picture than just sending the progressive output of the HDP to the screen. So whatever additional processing it was doing to the interlaced signal was a good improvement. PReP is not enabled for a 1080p input, so that wasn't an option either.

I know you're all recoiling in horror at the thought of that, but you can't argue with the end result which was fantastic and better than running through just one or the other.
 
Yeah the optimum way would be EDGE first, and then a Lumagen... but EDGE doesn't change output resolution automatically.

However, I did find that EDGE deinterlacing the altered fields from the HDP gave a much better end picture than just sending the progressive output of the HDP to the screen. So whatever additional processing it was doing to the interlaced signal was a good improvement. PReP is not enabled for a 1080p input, so that wasn't an option either.

I know you're all recoiling in horror at the thought of that, but you can't argue with the end result which was fantastic and better than running through just one or the other.

Yeah but why would you need PREP?

If the deinterlacing of the HDP is good enough that the end result is better, and we all know the HDP scales better than the EDGE, what's the point of converting 1080p in the HDP to 1080i output just to have the EDGE deinterlace it again?

I can't see what value the EDGE is adding here.
 
I've never used a SD900E but I was always lead to believe it was a "quality" player with decent component output.

Funny after you mentioned the Denon 3800 I happened to see it in action ealier but only with Blu-ray. I guess the best thing is to try the Oppo you have ordered and see what you think.

It may sound daft but sometimes how we perceive things in our own HT's is different. If you ordered the Oppo over the phone/internet you should be covered by distance selling regs i.e. if you are unhappy/change you mind it can be returned within 7 days.

AVI

The Oppo 983 is in a different league to the Toshiba, I am a happy bunny. Clearly the 480p feed into the JVC was problematic....

I am a happy bunny :clap: I have no visible atrifacts that I can see and ererything is dramatically better Blacks (detail and depth), colours, detail, depth, motion, you name it ......
 
Yeah but why would you need PREP?

If the deinterlacing of the HDP is good enough that the end result is better, and we all know the HDP scales better than the EDGE, what's the point of converting 1080p in the HDP to 1080i output just to have the EDGE deinterlace it again?

I can't see what value the EDGE is adding here.


Hi mate,

Look at what PReP actually does. The PReP element converts the signal back to an interlaced signal, AND THEN it works its magic fixing the crap:

As a solution to this problem, Anchor Bay introduces PReP, an advanced video processing technology that reverts the progressive video signal output from source equipment to its original interlaced format. PReP then converts the interlaced signal to progressive format, this time applying the source, edge, and motion adaptive algorithms in its Precision Deinterlacing™ technology to eliminate jaggies, combing, and other degrading effects. PReP technology allows 480p, 576p, 1080p/50, 1080p/60, and other formats to be processed by this method.

What I am arguing, is that when you feed a dodgy interlaced signal into EDGE... it does the second part of PReP i.e. PReP then converts the interlaced signal to progressive format, this time applying the source, edge, and motion adaptive algorithms in its Precision Deinterlacing™ technology to eliminate jaggies, combing, and other degrading effects.

This is what I am seeing!
 
Hi mate,

Look at what PReP actually does. The PReP element converts the signal back to an interlaced signal, AND THEN it works its magic fixing the crap:



What I am arguing, is that when you feed a dodgy interlaced signal into EDGE... it does the second part of PReP i.e. PReP then converts the interlaced signal to progressive format, this time applying the source, edge, and motion adaptive algorithms in its Precision Deinterlacing™ technology to eliminate jaggies, combing, and other degrading effects.

This is what I am seeing!

So the dodgy signal is input from Thomson SkyHD box to the HPD. Is this a 576i or 576p signal ?

What signal is output from the HPD to the Egde ?

AVI
 
Last edited:
So the dodgy signal is input from Thomson SkyHD box to the HPD. Is this a 576i or 576p signal ?

What signal is output from the HPD to the Egde ?

AVI

I haven't got a Thomson box, it's the Samsung.

I was outputting a 1080i signal from the HDP, so it has deinterlaced the original signal (either well or badly, depending on the material) or just taken a progressive signal, then scaled to 1080, then interlaced again to output at 1080i.

This 1080i signal is then put through the EDGE's 'Precision Deinterlacing™ technology to eliminate jaggies, combing, and other degrading effects' which would appear to eliminate any problems with deinterlacing that the HDP may have introduced or exaggerated.

This is what I was seeing, and I think Ian confirmed that he got a good picture going this route too (although he had sync problems).
 
If you go Lumagen first, and then EDGE. The Lumagen theoretically creates 1080p internally then outputs as 1080i (from 576i, 576p, 1080i etc sources). So Lumagen is deinterlacing, upscaling, then finally reinterlacing for output. All the EDGE is doing to the 1080i out from the Luma is recreating the 1080p again as done by Lumagen processing. The deinterlacing quality of your SD sources into the Lumagen is exactly the same as if the Lumagen was connected directly to your display at 1080p. The EDGE cannot find any of the original information except for 1080i sources to the Lumagen coming out 1080i and then being deinterlacing using DVDO technology. All the EDGE is doing is reconstructing the Lumagens original output, it doesn't know that there are more things further back in the chain.

In other words, if I've understood how you are connected up correctly, you are seeing barely any benefit of the EDGE. We end up back to somebodys earlier point (which shares my point of view) that the Lumagen is so superior in every other department, not having SD video deinterlaced so well doesn't really bother me.
 
If you've got a spare 10 minutes or so, can you give it a whirl with your set-up there?

Run into a Lumagen first, and output at 1080i to EDGE. See what you think.

I haven't got the HDP anymore, so can't run through and do photos etc.

The biggest problem I had was getting sound from this set-up, I had to use optical out on sources, but if you've got a Radiance that wouldn't be an issue either.
 
I haven't got a Thomson box, it's the Samsung.

I was outputting a 1080i signal from the HDP, so it has deinterlaced the original signal (either well or badly, depending on the material) or just taken a progressive signal, then scaled to 1080, then interlaced again to output at 1080i.

This 1080i signal is then put through the EDGE's 'Precision Deinterlacing™ technology to eliminate jaggies, combing, and other degrading effects' which would appear to eliminate any problems with deinterlacing that the HDP may have introduced or exaggerated.

This is what I was seeing, and I think Ian confirmed that he got a good picture going this route too (although he had sync problems).

So the HPD is deinterlacing the input from Samsung box, then interpolating the progressive signal to 1080 and then re-interlacing the signal to ouput 1080i.

The Edge then receives the 1080i from the HPD but it doesn't perform PReP and just deinterlaces the heavily processed HPD signal. Precision deinterlacing doesn't do the same as Prep so I'm not sure how it resolves deinterlacing issues in the original source i.e. Thomson SkyHD box using this setup.

I guess we also need to get to the bottom of 576i/576p with the Samsung and different Lumagen units using EDID.

AVI
 
Last edited:
That could be another variable in the equation.

Surely someone else has tried linking the two brands together?
 
That could be another variable in the equation.

Surely someone else has tried linking the two brands together?

Out of interest how does this compare to Samung SkyHD to the Edge at 576p and then 576p fom the Edge to the HPD that is then set to output 1080p.

What differences do you notice ?

AVI
 
If you've got a spare 10 minutes or so, can you give it a whirl with your set-up there?

Run into a Lumagen first, and output at 1080i to EDGE. See what you think.

I haven't got the HDP anymore, so can't run through and do photos etc.

The biggest problem I had was getting sound from this set-up, I had to use optical out on sources, but if you've got a Radiance that wouldn't be an issue either.

Don't have both here at the moment. But there is no mystery to what the EDGE will do, it might add noise reduction but otherwise think of the Lumagen output from SD sources as 1080i film. All the EDGE can do is bring it back to 1080p50/60. So you are using Lumagen or Sky deinterlacing for SD. HAving never used 1080i out of a Lumagen I'm not sure whether 1080i input would be original frames in the 1080i output, or deinterlaced and reinterlaced thus same as above, not EDGE deinterlacing but Lumagen.
 
Out of interest how does this compare to Samung SkyHD to the Edge at 576p and then 576p fom the Edge to the HPD that is then set to output 1080p.

What differences do you notice ?

AVI

When you run it through the HDP as well, you get noticeably less ringing around text... especially on the Sky EPG.

When I ran via EDGE first, and then fed the HDP the 576p output... it looked the same. This is a pain to have this way around, obviously for the fixed EDGE output.

The rest looks close to identical, as far as I can see.

I'm highly confused about it all now... haha :suicide:
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom