 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.31.120.238
Looking for another dvd player for my new basement system. Was in Best Buy a couple weeks ago and they had three tv's setup playing the same movie with a standard dvd, upconverted dvd, and blu ray. The blu ray looked great of course, but in my opinion, the standard dvd looked better than the upconverted version. It looked like things were over-colored and a bit grainy, the standard looked more true to me. Has anyone else noticed this? I think a lot of the newer players upconvert so i'm worried I may be stuck with it if I buy new. Should I look for more examples of upconversions before I make a decision? Maybe I can live happily ever after with a progressive scan and component outputs to my tv.
Follow Ups:
If you were watching them on a high definition display, then the standard DVD was being upconverted. High def displays (both screens and projectors) display at their native resolution. If you feed a standard definition signal to the display, then the display will upconvert it. Alternatively, of course, these days you can upconvert in the player and often even in the AV receiver.
So the standard def DVD and the upconverted DVD would both be displayed at the display's native resolution, with the display doing the upconverting in one case and the player in the other. If they look different, and it is quite possible for them to do so, then the reason for that is that there is a difference in the quality of the upconverting done by the player vs that done by the display. You get to choose which you prefer.
In this case it sounds as if you prefer the display's upconversion to that of the DVD player though you said that they had a different setup for each so I'm assuming similar players and displays were being used for all setups. If not it's going to be impossible to tell from just which parts of each chain were responsible for the difference.
And even though most players these days upconvert, you can always choose to turn upconversion off and have the player send a standard definition signal to your display.
In fact, one of your options is to buy a BD player and have it output both DVDs and BDs in standard def which would allow you to watch BD discs if you have a standard definition display. If you're looking at a player now and a high def display at a later date to replace a standard def display, that could be an option you might want to consider.
David Aiken
I've narrowed my tv selection down to a couple of Sony 52" 1080p tv's, one is 120hz and the other is an XBR 240hz(i'll probably get the 120). You're saying even though the signal from the player is standard, the tv is upconverting it anyways? I think all three of the lcd's were identical. If what you're saying is true, then in this case I preferred the standard player with upconversion taking place in the tv rather than the player. I don't recall which players they used. Also is it true that you only benefit from blu ray with newly recorded movies? A salesperson(same Best Buy)said don't think you're going to go out and pick up your old movies and have them be blu-ray quality(Labyrinth was her example, which is also a fav of mine). That did make sense to me, but you'd think a little more definition could be squeezed out somewhere or somehow from older movies transferred to blu ray(?)
A 1080 display has to display in 1080. If it's getting a standard def signal, it has to upconvert and, of course, the big reason for a high def TV having upconversion is simply so that you can watch standard def channels as well as high def channels.
There are a number of old movies being mastered to Blu-ray. So far the oldest I've bought is "Casablanca" which I also had on DVD and the BD disc looked, and sounded, a hell of a lot better than the DVD. If there's a good film master and the transfer is done well, BD should always look better than DVD, even when the DVD has been done well. About the only time when you're not going to see anything more from BD done well is if the master was a standard def digital video source. That kind of source is standard def, period, and you can't get any more resolution out of it. If the source is film or a high def digital video source, then you can get better results with a good BD conversion than you can with DVD.
Whether all of the old movies you, or I, would like to see in better quality ever make it to BD is another question.
David Aiken
Older movies can and frequently do look excellent on BD. It depemds on the source, and how well the transfer is done. Read some of the reviews of The Wizard of Oz on Blu-ray. I'm currently watching the BD of The Prisoner- a British TV show from 1967-you would never know that by looking at it (except for the lava lamps. :-) )I'm quite partial to Blade Runner in HD. Most of my collection is catalog titles. Some don't look so great, others do. This really depends on how much time, energy and money the studio wants to put into it.
HTH,
Jack
the blu ray movie 007 doctor no was the first in the series.It talks about the hi def transfer.how they did it,restoring the old movie.the same company did all of them.the regular dvd is not restored.the movie was good but I liked the extras a lot. A lot of work went into restoring it.they will show side by side old to new transfer.they used the original film to make the blu ray disc.
dvd audio & multichannel sacds rule
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
