View Single Post
Old 07-09-2008   #32
DaViD Boulet
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 272
Default Re: Kaleidescape and Toshiba Claim 1080p Upscaling Players Rival Blu-ray

t seems like we are in agreement then that regardless of whether the DVD content was originally shot on film or video, the resulting fields are interlaced. Your only point seems to be that the process of recombining the interlaced fields to produce progressive output (deinterlacing) doesn't lose any information. I see your point, there is no interpolation or scaling or anything else involved. And it should not produce artifacts, if done correctly. That is a very good point. Well taken. It is not directly in disagreement with anything I previously said, since I didn't say anything about whether information was lost or added in the deinterlacing step, only that an extra step was involved. Still, I guess you're right if you mean to say that ouputing the same information in a different way can not really be called "upconverting", since, after all, it is still the same information. And clearly the result will be the same whether the player does the deinterlacing or the display does it. As long as they both perform the deinterlacing correctly the final result should be identical either way.
Precisely. That's exactly what I was trying to say.

On the other hand, when the source material was originally 60i, you can't just combine two adjacent interlaced fields since they were taken at different points in time, and would not mesh well if there was rapid movement during that 1/60th of a second. In that case the player really does have to interpolate to fill in the missing alternate lines of information. So, then it would be completely correct to say that in this case the "progressive scan" player really "upconverts"? In the case of 60i video the player has to "fill" the physical space by interpolation.
Yes, quite right. For the progressive-scan conversion of any *native* interlaced video signal, interpolation of some kind is utilized in order to "fill in the missing lines" with new information. Your thinking is 100% correct.

BTW, that's true of a Blu-ray or HD DVD player outputting a 1080p signal from native 1080i content (like programs shot on a 1080i HD cam) as well... not limited to standard definition.

In the case of the 24fps film, the player has to "fill" the temporal space, which is done by repetition, 3:2 cadence. Have I understood you correctly? Thanks again for the explanation.
EXACTLY. You've got a perfect understanding. Thanks for indulging me on my technical foray... these differences may seem subtle to some, but they're actually quite fundamental when we're talking about the type of "processing" getting applied to an image (and the same principles hold true for progressive-scan processing of HD images as well... though thankfully on Blu-ray "film" images are stored in true 24p form to begin with to ease processing demands for 1080p24 hardware).
DaViD Boulet is offline   Reply With Quote