Upconverting - good enough?

Some people tend to overstate how close upconverting comes to HD, and some seem to write it off as universally garbage. In my experience, neither are true. I watch a ton of movies on a 120" screen through a properly calibrated 1080p HD projector. I watch HD movies, and I watch upconverted SD. Here is the truth as I see it:

NOTE: I said "as I see it". I'm not talking what is technologically different, because obviously a 1080p source has more resolution than a 480p source, so don't start rhyming off what the technical difference is. I know what it is.

1 - An excellent transfer of a movie on HD media through an HD player on an HD display is amazing. It is better than any SD could ever be by a mile.

2 - An excellent SD transfer through a very good HD upconverting player on an HD display can look fantastic.

3 - A poor quality transfer on HD can look like crap, and can in some cases look worse than an upconverted SD, because every blemish and speck of dirt are visible. Spartacus and Sea of Love are examples of this.

4 - A poor quality transfer on SD may be slightly improved by upconverting, but will still look pretty bad.

To say HD is better is generally true, but to say upconverted SD looks no better than standard SD means you are either ignorant, or blind. My daughter was playing with the remote, and reset the setting on my upconverting player back to 480p. I started watching a recent movie, and thought, "Wow! This is absolutely horrible picture quality!". Then I thought to check the setting, and switched back to 1080p. It was an incredible improvement. Would the same transfer have looked better on HD? Undoubtedly, but the 1080p upconverted image was crisp and detailed, with great black levels and contrast as it was. If you don't see a significant difference between 480p and 1080p on an SD disc, you need a new tv.

[Post edited by interplanetaryspy on Apr 26, 2008]

Well said and true on all points.

Agree also. If the standard dvd already has a superb transfer (ep.3) it can only be improved so much. It may look a little better on blu...but nothing really to write home about. And I am REALLY listening to you because you have such a large screen. Surely if it looks good to you on that big of a screen,it should look REALLY REALLY crisp on what most of us probably have 65'/lower. Upconversion will work for the majority. Digital Downloads will be the next "revolution". This is not exactly as I want it to be,(I've already thrown my 2 cents in other threads about blu-ray) but I am A realist.

[Post edited by bladerunner1 on Apr 26, 2008]

Now with that being said about picture quality:

The sound is not the same. It is the best thing about HD to me. Standard dvd can't even begin to touch the new codecs. So, if surround sound is important to you(as it should be) yeah...go BLU!

The special features? Have we even begun to realize these yet? I am hoping that we will finally get what was promised along time ago w/SD. Wouldnt it be cool to have some feature to remove the R rated content from movies to not offend certain people? For example. I think my daughter, who is 9,would LOVE "Sweeney Todd"....if only I could get rid of the blood....Something like that would be REALLY appealing to alot of people.

So maybe the Blu-Ray camp is putting to much into the "picture quality" thing, and should instead focus on a few of the things mentioned above. Hmmmmmm.

[Post edited by bladerunner1 on Apr 26, 2008]

Not all HD titles offer an improved soundtrack. Some do, though, but when it's an older catalogue title, the difference is negligible. BUT, a new release HD movie with HD audio is certainly worth writing home about.

As for downloads, I have also talked about this before, but because of things you've mentioned, like features and sound options, the "download revolution" is a long way off. Plus, it's really only an option to rentals, not purchasing, since storage devices to hold a large collection don't exist, nor will they anytime soon. And with piracy already being an issue, digital downloads with the same quality as HD discs would make it even easier. Studios don't want that. Blu ray will be viable format for a long time. But, that's another thread...

[Post edited by interplanetaryspy on Apr 26, 2008]

Quote:
My daughter was playing with the remote, and reset the setting on my upconverting player back to 480p. I started watching a recent movie, and thought, "Wow! This is absolutely horrible picture quality!".

What scaling player are you using? Obviously, you can't see 480p on your projector if it's got more than 720x480 pixels. Either the player scales it, or your projector. I'm surprised your projector would be that bad scaling (unless you're using a very expensive outboard scaler to compare). Can you mention the the brand of projector you have, so that I can avoid that projector company when I decide to upgrade in a couple years?

The output of the projector is obviously not 480 pixels, but there is a visible difference between when the players sends a 480p signal and when it sends a 1080p signal. If you have two high quality scalers with 1:1 pixel mapping, you avoid overscan, and there is a further increase in the quality of the picture. Don't be a smart ass.

As I posted, it is a visible difference. You can spout off and be a know-it-all as much as you want. Look at the damn picture!

And this is my projector:
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/projectors/epson-home-cinema-1080/?searchterm=powerlite

[Post edited by interplanetaryspy on Apr 27, 2008]

interplanetaryspy, that's false info. Upconversion should (obviously) take place at the device that does it best. This would be the device that has the best quality video processing/scaling chip set - which might be in the source player, a receiver, an SA outboard processor, or your TV/projector.

And that projector shouldn't be that bad at upconverting. I'm surprised.

I watched my super bit version of Fifth Element last night -- looked pretty damn good to me!

It had very noticeable detail, the color was WOW freaking awesome and a definate improvement over my old SD JVC set. It would appear that upconvert player is doing it's job, IMO.

OK. So maybe I overstated that it looked horrible. It just didn't look as good as it did when the 1080p upconverted signal came through. You are right though, that the better scaling chip should do the upconversion if the source and display are not compatible, which causes many issues in the quality of the resolution of the video, but this is not necessarily so, as I understand it. Also, if you are running your upconverted signal from a DVD player to a HDTV or receiver through analog component cables, the upconversion done by the DVD player is pointless. It only successfully maintains the itegrity of the image if it is transferred digitally through HDMI cables. Also, a very good scaler in a DVD player is often better than a scaler in an HDTV, so when the the tv scaling overtakes the scaling done by the player, the image may not be quite as clear. This is based on my understanding of what I have read on the subject, and what I have seen with my own eyes. I am willing to admit that my understanding could be wrong, and I know that scaling is one of the few drawbacks to this projector (it is only slightly above average at that task), but I have not seen anything saying flat-out that transferring an upconverted 1080p signal to a 1080p display does not improve the quality of the image. If you have such a link, please post it. Who knows? Perhaps my A30 is just so good at upconverting that it trumps the projector.

[Post edited by interplanetaryspy on Apr 27, 2008]