Yamaha S540 PAL->NTSC Progressive?

[Tony Randal]

I'm torn between getting the Yamaha s540 and the Sony 730. Since my display will only accept an NTSC progressive signal, I'm interested in the Yamaha's ability to output PAL as NTSC progressive (which I understand the Sony does not do).

Basically, how does a PAL signal look when converted to NTSC progressive as opposed to it's native non-progressive mode? This function is the only thing stopping me getting the Sony, so I'm curious if the difference is that noticeable. If it makes any difference, I already watch all PAL + NTSC discs with my TV (Tosh 32zd26) set to progressive mode (I guess it has some sort of internal psuedo-progressive algorithm).

 

[bonzobanana]

pal converted to progressive ntsc is normally pretty hopeless and feeding the set a pal interlace component image and letting the set create a progressive image internally should be better.

Three problems with pal to ntsc progressive.

a) It has to create false frames or repeat frames as ntsc has more frames compared to pal (30 compared to 25).

b) It has to chop off or distort the image slightly so that the greater resolution of pal fits into a ntsc screen.

c) You suffer the pal speedup of 24fps films being shown at 25fps but have none of the advantages as its being hacked about to make it fit 30fps.

Its possible some players do a better job of pal to ntsc progressive conversion but if its anything like the results I've seen you'd be better off checking the results first before buying.

 

[Tony Randal]

Thanks a lot, guy! Looks like I'll be getting the Sony.

 

[saturday]

I have a S540. I think it handles the PAL to NTSC conversion well. The image on my PW6 is fabulous whether PAL or NTSC as source.

 

[Tony Randal]

Would you say it looks better than non-progressive PAL? Can you notice any problems mentioned by bonzobanana? Point a) is a particular concern of mine.

Also, have you noticed any ghosting problems? This seems to be a problem some people have with the S540.

 

[saturday]

It looks better to me. I have a 42" plasma. The difference on a 32" screen may not be as discernable.

No juddering or other attifacts obvious to me when converting. If you were to feel there were then you can set the player to only convert NTSC and play PAL non progressive. In this case you'd be the same as if you had the Sony.

No ghosting whatsoever. It gives as good an image as I've seen on my display. YMMV. For the money (<£100), I think it is fantastic.

Build quality seems OK. Remote is cheap feeling but works fine.

Best solution would be to demo both players with your display. If this isn't possible then go with the one you feel is right for you.

 

[Tony Randal]

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Uzey]

Tony,
I was also in this dilema but I thought that seeing as the Sony outputs 'true' PAL progressive, it has to be the winner.
Also, the Sony has the 'Progressive' button on the front, so you can easily switch between the two modes and literally 'see' the difference between interlaced and non-interlaced.
Both the DVD players have had excellent write ups but the above has convinced me that the Sony wins by an edge!

 

[Nike]

Originally posted by saturday
I have a S540. I think it handles the PAL to NTSC conversion well. The image on my PW6 is fabulous whether PAL or NTSC as source.

Surely as you have a multi-standard display, you would set the player to ‘auto’ and display NTSC as NTSC. PAL as PAL? No conversion necessary in this case.

 

[saturday]

Yes but the capabilities of my display is not relevant to Tony's question.

Tony's display will only accept NTSC progressive. I've experimented with forcing PAL to NTSC progressive (and NTSC to PAL) and found the player does it very well.