Hello; I stole the above topic from an earlier post but the latest comments I could find were three or four years old. What is the current view on the subject? I have some of the same issues (picture looks better at the dealer, some motion artefacts) and wonder if a processor is a good investment in picture quality. My video equipment is a Pioneer FD141 and Pioneer BDP09. DVDO's units seem popular and are less expensive, are they worth it?
Thanks, KDM

I use a KeyDigital piece myself and it's VERY worth it to me. Plus it centralizes all my connections and let's me do a number of different tweaks if I need to calibrate the picture.

I did a pant load of reading/research on this not too long ago. What I found is.., it all depends.

I highly doubt you're going to get any improvement on your 1080p display with argueably the best PQ tech available, with your 1080p source.

I'd have to think there's something else going on with your set-up. I'd personally explore that possibility too great extent before I'd look into a scaler.

In most cases that I came across, a scaler/processor was being used with a projector. A stand alone projector usually doesn't have a very solid vid processing section. A display such as yours, with even SD material should have a fantasic pic.

Thanks, Maybe I should look into an ISF pro setup. I bought a dvd called "Pixel Protector", it seems like BS. Also the fine ajustments on the 141FD are password protected so how do I get access to them or should I leave them alone?
KDM

Those higher level adjustments can screw up your display if adjusted improperly. I'm not saying you can't and/or shouldn't give it a try, but I don't know how to access them...

I am looking into the new DVDO and all reviews I have read have been fantastic!

It seems too good to be true!

Once I save up my money, I will buy one and post here just how it worked out.

In my opinion, too much scaling can be a bad thing, if you have a 1080p source such as a quality BluRay player, passing through a good AVR or processor, there is no need for the scaler. At the same time, a 720p cable TV source will still be a 720p source, a scaler will not make it any higher of a resolution. The only time I would use a piece like the DVDO is if I were using a preamp that didn't do much with video. I have a few Sunfire systems where HDMI is not well addressed, and the scaler does a nice job. But the new processors actually have Anchor Bay scalers built in, so an external piece is not needed, just play with the scaling, it may be more harmful than helpful.

[Link: remotecentral.com]

I wouldn't invest unless you have specific problem to solve, like a projector mentioned above. I use a Lumagen Vision HDP to get a few more years out of an old 80 inch Mitsubishi RPCRT HDTV. It does not accept component video (RGBHV) like many projectors and the HD channel will only sync on 1080i. I use an HDFury to view Blue Ray in high def and the lumagen accepts HDMI, and passes the copy projection hand shake back and forth. The HDFury unit hand shakes as a "Sony Approved" display device, accepts the HDMI input and outputs 1080i on analog RGBHD. The lumagen also allows the HDFury picture output to be centered on the screen without redoing the TV tube allignement coils (big task near high voltage inside the set). And all of the various format inputs march into the old Mit's HD channel at 1080i RGBHV. I'll keep this big old Mits until they come out with a bigger, 100 inch??, plasma or other that I don't need to trade one of my grandkids for it. For now the big old Mits looks great and I get to see blue ray at full resolution and all the inputs are upscaled to 1080i. And its much easier to calibrate. I doubt many people can see an improvement on new flat screen TV's.

Keith

full res available on Bluray is 1080p

Full res on the old Mit's is 1080i which will have to do for now.

Max res on my CRT is 480i. If I was to watch a bluray on it, it doesn't mean I'm watching the material at full resolution.

I was just clarifying...

Here we go again. But I'll biite. Actually 1080i and 1080p are expactly the same resolution 1920 x 1080. The difference is in when and how the full picutre is painted. But I'm sure you know the rest of the story.

lol... no arguement here Keith.

I will say though... Anyone that claims 1080i has the same PQ as 1080p must use their display for nothing more than a photo frame. It doesn't take much motion to notice a difference between a interlaced and de-interlaced material, IMHO.

Notice I used PQ rather than res. You're of course right about the numbers concerning the two formats. I just find that the joe six pack public get lost and/or get confused about res values and the difference they make in PQ.

I just thought it should be mentioned (for those lurking, and not up on the tech) that Bluray's capable of 1080p. Which is better than 1080i...., obviously.

Actually any format in 1080i can be displayed at 1080p (if your display device can do it). The information in the picture is the same. 1080i simply displays the picture in two passes each 540 x 1920 in resolution but offset by one horizontal scan line (interlaced). It does this at the rate of ½ picture 60 times per second, or one full picture 30 times per second. 1080p holds ½ of the picture until the second half is available and paints the full picture once at full 1080 x 1920 in one scan 30 times per second. Thus no additional information is in the picture. And if there is little or no motion in the pictures painted there will be no difference in the perception of what is viewed. 1080p improves image perception for situations where there is motion in the scenes viewed. There is also a 1080p format where the full picture is painted twice in a row (60 pictures per second) so called 1080p – 60, but again there is no additional information in the pictures.

But I'm sure on this forum everyone knows this, but Smokinghot started this and so here it is the rest of the story.

Interlacing was originally introduced into CRT displays in the early (1930's) days when CRTs had bandwidth problems. They could only paint about 150 lines in 1/60 of a second. This yielded very poor resolution. Alternately painting the picture at a slower rate caused the eye to see flicker. For example in the early days of moving pictures they would commonly paint one picture three times on the screen to get rid of flicker. Doing this on a CRT obviously was not possible because of bandwidth (in the film they just put three of the same pictures in a row). The solution for flicker and resolution was to paint the picture in two scans, ½ each scan with the horizontal lines interlaced. This “standard” hangs around to this day even though the interlaced “standard” makes absolutely no sense at all in modern digital displays such as Plasma and LCD.

Keith