Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

high def DVD upconverts

Tags:
  • HDTV
  • TV
  • DVD Players
  • Home Theatre
Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 10:07:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Hi - I'm a bit new to all this but hopefully someone can help:

I have a HD tv that supports 1080i and only has component input. It does
not have any of those newer digital inputs like HDMI. I am in the market
for a new DVD player. My question is whether it is worth buying one of
those ones that say they can upconvert DVD pictures. Will I be able to
take advantage of this, or is my TV not compatible.

If not, then what DVD player should I buy for optimal audio and video
within a modest budget (something you can find at a local best
buy/circuit city). I have to figure that those $30 DVD players can't be
as good as the full fledged $100 counterparts, can they?

More about : high def dvd upconverts

Anonymous
June 21, 2005 12:16:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeremy Dominik wrote:
> Hi - I'm a bit new to all this but hopefully someone can help:
>
> I have a HD tv that supports 1080i and only has component input. It
> does not have any of those newer digital inputs like HDMI. I am in
> the market for a new DVD player. My question is whether it is worth
> buying one of those ones that say they can upconvert DVD pictures.
> Will I be able to take advantage of this, or is my TV not compatible.

There are still a couple that upconvert over component, but make sure your
TV doesn't do it for you. There are extensive discussions on avsforums.com
about these.

>
> If not, then what DVD player should I buy for optimal audio and video
> within a modest budget (something you can find at a local best
> buy/circuit city). I have to figure that those $30 DVD players can't
> be as good as the full fledged $100 counterparts, can they?

I can't comment on these, but there is usually a good reason why some things
are that much cheaper.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 7:02:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

thank you for your help: one follow-up question: Will the upconvert
still be noticeable even on a smaller tv (27 inches)?

L Alpert wrote:

> Jeremy Dominik wrote:
>
>>Hi - I'm a bit new to all this but hopefully someone can help:
>>
>>I have a HD tv that supports 1080i and only has component input. It
>>does not have any of those newer digital inputs like HDMI. I am in
>>the market for a new DVD player. My question is whether it is worth
>>buying one of those ones that say they can upconvert DVD pictures.
>>Will I be able to take advantage of this, or is my TV not compatible.
>
>
> There are still a couple that upconvert over component, but make sure your
> TV doesn't do it for you. There are extensive discussions on avsforums.com
> about these.
>
>
>>If not, then what DVD player should I buy for optimal audio and video
>>within a modest budget (something you can find at a local best
>>buy/circuit city). I have to figure that those $30 DVD players can't
>>be as good as the full fledged $100 counterparts, can they?
>
>
> I can't comment on these, but there is usually a good reason why some things
> are that much cheaper.
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:00:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeremy Dominik" <jdominik@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:UoLte.2639$ik5.2553@fe12.lga...
> Hi - I'm a bit new to all this but hopefully someone can help:
>
> I have a HD tv that supports 1080i and only has component input. It does
> not have any of those newer digital inputs like HDMI. I am in the market
> for a new DVD player. My question is whether it is worth buying one of
> those ones that say they can upconvert DVD pictures. Will I be able to
> take advantage of this, or is my TV not compatible.
>
> If not, then what DVD player should I buy for optimal audio and video
> within a modest budget (something you can find at a local best buy/circuit
> city). I have to figure that those $30 DVD players can't be as good as the
> full fledged $100 counterparts, can they?

As a minimum you must have a DVD that supports 480P. As to upconverting
from there, unless your TV has terrible video processing there is no
benefit in getting an upconverting DVD player.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 7:14:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeremy Dominik <jdominik@optonline.net> wrote in news:UoLte.2639$ik5.2553
@fe12.lga:

> Hi - I'm a bit new to all this but hopefully someone can help:
>
> I have a HD tv that supports 1080i and only has component input. It
does
> not have any of those newer digital inputs like HDMI. I am in the
market
> for a new DVD player. My question is whether it is worth buying one of
> those ones that say they can upconvert DVD pictures. Will I be able to
> take advantage of this, or is my TV not compatible.
>
> If not, then what DVD player should I buy for optimal audio and video
> within a modest budget (something you can find at a local best
> buy/circuit city). I have to figure that those $30 DVD players can't be
> as good as the full fledged $100 counterparts, can they?

I bought a Samsung 5-disc player for $25 on eBay that does everything I
need it to do. My TV upconverts 480p anyway and can be sized for the
anamorphic widescreen stuff. Moreover the player will size and anamorph
the non-anamorphic letter-boxed stuff for me. I get excellent, seamless,
sharp pictures with no horizontal scan lines visible and good detail.
1080i from the satellite is a cut better, but until DVD technology puts
it on the market with lots of content, I'm going to stick with what I
have.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 7:15:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeremy Dominik <jdominik@optonline.net> wrote in
news:42B7BB85.3050308@optonline.net:

> thank you for your help: one follow-up question: Will the upconvert
> still be noticeable even on a smaller tv (27 inches)?

I'll put my 27-inch HDTV up against any standard-def model and blow it
away!


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.
June 21, 2005 7:31:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

--
www.unclet.netfirms.com
"Jeff Rigby" <jeffg212@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CfCdnUm1lYP7kiXfRVn-sg@comcast.com...
>
> "Jeremy Dominik" <jdominik@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:UoLte.2639$ik5.2553@fe12.lga...
>> Hi - I'm a bit new to all this but hopefully someone can help:
>>
>> I have a HD tv that supports 1080i and only has component input. It does
>> not have any of those newer digital inputs like HDMI. I am in the market
>> for a new DVD player. My question is whether it is worth buying one of
>> those ones that say they can upconvert DVD pictures. Will I be able to
>> take advantage of this, or is my TV not compatible.
>>
>> If not, then what DVD player should I buy for optimal audio and video
>> within a modest budget (something you can find at a local best
>> buy/circuit city). I have to figure that those $30 DVD players can't be
>> as good as the full fledged $100 counterparts, can they?
>
> As a minimum you must have a DVD that supports 480P. As to upconverting
> from there, unless your TV has terrible video processing there is no
> benefit in getting an upconverting DVD player.
>

Don't listen to him.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 8:47:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I do not notice a difference myself. I wouldn't go out of my way to get an
upscaling player or worry about it much.

--Dan

"Jeremy Dominik" <jdominik@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:UoLte.2639$ik5.2553@fe12.lga...
> Hi - I'm a bit new to all this but hopefully someone can help:
>
> I have a HD tv that supports 1080i and only has component input. It does
> not have any of those newer digital inputs like HDMI. I am in the market
> for a new DVD player. My question is whether it is worth buying one of
> those ones that say they can upconvert DVD pictures. Will I be able to
> take advantage of this, or is my TV not compatible.
>
> If not, then what DVD player should I buy for optimal audio and video
> within a modest budget (something you can find at a local best buy/circuit
> city). I have to figure that those $30 DVD players can't be as good as the
> full fledged $100 counterparts, can they?
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 9:02:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeremy Dominik <jdominik@optonline.net> wrote:

>Hi - I'm a bit new to all this but hopefully someone can help:
>
>I have a HD tv that supports 1080i and only has component input. It does
>not have any of those newer digital inputs like HDMI. I am in the market
>for a new DVD player. My question is whether it is worth buying one of
>those ones that say they can upconvert DVD pictures. Will I be able to
>take advantage of this, or is my TV not compatible.

You can't get any greater resolution out of a DVD with upconversion.
The biggest advantage is that if the TV has a digital display
(basically anything but CRT) and a digital input, an upconverter can
avoid a D/A conversion in the player and an A/D conversion in the TV.
But you don't have a digital input.

All digital displays must up- or down-convert to their native
resolution (at least 720 lines for HDTV) but a CRT might just scan at
the incoming resolution. If you can see scan lines on 480i material
(more so than on 720p or 1080i) then upconversion in the player could
help by making the scan lines less visible.

Features I'd look for:

- Component output. Most have this, but some of the cheapest ones
don't.

- Progressive scan. Nearly all players today offer this.

- Ability to make use of the anamorphic feature. I'd be surprised if
any player couldn't do that.

- Digital audio, if your audio system can handle it or there's any
chance you'll upgrade the audio system before you replace the DVD
player. And make sure it's compatible with your system; there are
several types.

>If not, then what DVD player should I buy for optimal audio and video
>within a modest budget (something you can find at a local best
>buy/circuit city). I have to figure that those $30 DVD players can't be
>as good as the full fledged $100 counterparts, can they?

One popular player with those features is the Philips DVP642. Its
popularity is due not so much to its quality (it's cheaply made) as to
its extra features. It will play several computer-related video
formats such as VCD, SVCD and DivX. Reportedly it will play some
XviDs and not others. Also does MP3 audio. And one or two
undocumented features you'll find out about if you research it on the
Web. About $70 lots of places, less if you shop around. Here are
links to a couple of reviews:

http://www.techtastic.ca/reviews3/dvp642.html
http://www.videohelp.com/dvdplayers.php?DVDnameid=4117&...

Del Mibbler
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 9:03:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Del Mibbler (mibbler@nycap.rr.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> You can't get any greater resolution out of a DVD with upconversion.

You can get a better picture, though, through dithering. A line that is
nearly (but not exactly) horizontal or vertical can benefit from the extra
resolution by appearing more like a line and less like a series of steps.

--
Jeff Rife | "Tragedy struck today in Sector Nine as rebel
| terrorists blew up the Death Star, killing
| thousands. The Rebel Alliance, a fringe group
| of anti-Empire fanatics, has claimed
| responsibility for the terrorist act.
| Fortunately, Lord Vader escaped without harm.
| Our hearts go out to the families of the
| victims."
| -- "NewsRadio"
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 11:08:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeremy Dominik wrote:
> thank you for your help: one follow-up question: Will the upconvert
> still be noticeable even on a smaller tv (27 inches)?

Couldn't tell you that. Maybe you will get to give us your impression.


>
> L Alpert wrote:
>
>> Jeremy Dominick wrote:
>>
>>> Hi - I'm a bit new to all this but hopefully someone can help:
>>>
>>> I have a HD tv that supports 1080i and only has component input. It
>>> does not have any of those newer digital inputs like HDMI. I am in
>>> the market for a new DVD player. My question is whether it is worth
>>> buying one of those ones that say they can upconvert DVD pictures.
>>> Will I be able to take advantage of this, or is my TV not
>>> compatible.
>>
>>
>> There are still a couple that upconvert over component, but make
>> sure your TV doesn't do it for you. There are extensive discussions
>> on avsforums.com about these.
>>
>>
>>> If not, then what DVD player should I buy for optimal audio and
>>> video within a modest budget (something you can find at a local best
>>> buy/circuit city). I have to figure that those $30 DVD players can't
>>> be as good as the full fledged $100 counterparts, can they?
>>
>>
>> I can't comment on these, but there is usually a good reason why
>> some things are that much cheaper.
June 22, 2005 3:44:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:07:45 -0400, Jeremy Dominik
<jdominik@optonline.net> wrote:

>I have a HD tv that supports 1080i and only has component input. It does
>not have any of those newer digital inputs like HDMI. I am in the market
>for a new DVD player. My question is whether it is worth buying one of
>those ones that say they can upconvert DVD pictures. Will I be able to
>take advantage of this, or is my TV not compatible.

Nearly all DVD players will not upconvert over component, due to the
paranoid movie industry's demands. There may be a few players left
that do, but they will be hard to find.

Therefore you will absolutely not benefit from an upconverting DVD
player. A good old progressive scan with 480p output is all you need.
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 10:30:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

DaveR wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:07:45 -0400, Jeremy Dominik
> <jdominik@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> I have a HD tv that supports 1080i and only has component input. It
>> does not have any of those newer digital inputs like HDMI. I am in
>> the market for a new DVD player. My question is whether it is worth
>> buying one of those ones that say they can upconvert DVD pictures.
>> Will I be able to take advantage of this, or is my TV not compatible.
>
> Nearly all DVD players will not upconvert over component, due to the
> paranoid movie industry's demands. There may be a few players left
> that do, but they will be hard to find.

Bravo

HD
http://www.220-electronics.com/dvd/418.htm

NeoNeo
http://www.neuneo.com/body/product/HVD2081/feature.asp

There are a few others. Lots of discussion at avsforums on most of them.

>
> Therefore you will absolutely not benefit from an upconverting DVD
> player. A good old progressive scan with 480p output is all you need.
June 23, 2005 12:25:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:14:34 GMT, Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:

>Moreover the player will size and anamorph
>the non-anamorphic letter-boxed stuff for me.

LOL!

Thanks for the laugh of the day.
June 23, 2005 8:52:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

--
www.unclet.netfirms.com
"DaveR" <NOSPAM_drubin@NOSPAM_i-2000.com> wrote in message
news:0Ya5QhDd8g85PEssabCBMwm5uTVy@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:07:45 -0400, Jeremy Dominik
> <jdominik@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>I have a HD tv that supports 1080i and only has component input. It does
>>not have any of those newer digital inputs like HDMI. I am in the market
>>for a new DVD player. My question is whether it is worth buying one of
>>those ones that say they can upconvert DVD pictures. Will I be able to
>>take advantage of this, or is my TV not compatible.
>
> Nearly all DVD players will not upconvert over component, due to the
> paranoid movie industry's demands. There may be a few players left
> that do, but they will be hard to find.
>
> Therefore you will absolutely not benefit from an upconverting DVD
> player. A good old progressive scan with 480p output is all you need.

There are great benefits my friend. If you can see a benefit from
progressive scanning, then why not up-converting? If there is no advantage
in up-converting, then why do you believe it when it comes to the TV's
up-converting chip? I am here to tell you that I see it very clearly and
would find it very hard to watch a DVD without it.

I started getting back in my James Bond films. I was watching "The Living
Daylights" and believe when I tell you, there is a big difference. It was
super clear and sharp. With the latest firmware update(Panny s97), it
almost matches broadcast HDTV! Note that I said 'almost' for you specific
nuts.

Don't ever listen to someone who probably never had one hooked up. Would
not buy it because they are too cheap. Are only going by the science that
they perceive. I mean, he is right in that you cannot get more resolution
out of resolution that was not there, but look at HDTV - same thing. It
is -up-converting most programs. I am sure that you see a difference right?

I buddy of mine just got involved. I was afraid that he would not see the
difference, but he saw it right away and was pleased. He has a Samsung
up-convert DVD and a 32" LCD screen(16:9). I have a 34" JVC CRT and I see
that the CRT has a lot better detail. This is one reason I stuck with a
CRT. The LCD has better on-screen graphics displays like wording and what
not. Of course I did not tell my buddy this as I did not want to ruin his
happiness. He also thinks that he has a better TV than mine because his is
flat panel. Never fail to bet on JVC!
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 9:02:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Baked <baked@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
news:78ebd$42ba0174$453de2c1$15643@FUSE.NET:

> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:14:34 GMT, Dave Oldridge
> <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>Moreover the player will size and anamorph
>>the non-anamorphic letter-boxed stuff for me.
>
> LOL!
>
> Thanks for the laugh of the day.

Glad you liked it.

Actually, there is quite a bit that can be done on the fly with good
MPEG-2 decoding firmware. It will not, of course, add any resolution to
what's on the DVD, but it can enable you to display it better. By taking
a letter-boxed image (e.g. the 16:9 image of the Buffy episode "Once More
with Feeling" -- the only episode so filmed) and sending it anamorphed to
4:3 (clipping the black letter-box bars) to my TV as an anamorphed 480p
signal, I can set the TV to 16:9 full screen to display the result full
screen. Without the feature I'd have to watch it letter-boxed with the
TV in 4:3 mode. Do you understand the difference?

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.
June 23, 2005 5:27:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Guest" <n0gar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8erue.1804$re.1797@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> --
> www.unclet.netfirms.com
> "DaveR" <NOSPAM_drubin@NOSPAM_i-2000.com> wrote in message
> news:0Ya5QhDd8g85PEssabCBMwm5uTVy@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:07:45 -0400, Jeremy Dominik
>> <jdominik@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I have a HD tv that supports 1080i and only has component input. It does
>>>not have any of those newer digital inputs like HDMI. I am in the market
>>>for a new DVD player. My question is whether it is worth buying one of
>>>those ones that say they can upconvert DVD pictures. Will I be able to
>>>take advantage of this, or is my TV not compatible.
>>
>> Nearly all DVD players will not upconvert over component, due to the
>> paranoid movie industry's demands. There may be a few players left
>> that do, but they will be hard to find.
>>
>> Therefore you will absolutely not benefit from an upconverting DVD
>> player. A good old progressive scan with 480p output is all you need.
>
> There are great benefits my friend. If you can see a benefit from
> progressive scanning, then why not up-converting? If there is no
> advantage in up-converting, then why do you believe it when it comes to
> the TV's up-converting chip? I am here to tell you that I see it very
> clearly and would find it very hard to watch a DVD without it.
>
> I started getting back in my James Bond films. I was watching "The Living
> Daylights" and believe when I tell you, there is a big difference. It was
> super clear and sharp. With the latest firmware update(Panny s97), it
> almost matches broadcast HDTV! Note that I said 'almost' for you specific
> nuts.
>
> Don't ever listen to someone who probably never had one hooked up. Would
> not buy it because they are too cheap. Are only going by the science that
> they perceive. I mean, he is right in that you cannot get more resolution
> out of resolution that was not there, but look at HDTV - same thing. It
> is -up-converting most programs. I am sure that you see a difference
> right?
>
> I buddy of mine just got involved. I was afraid that he would not see the
> difference, but he saw it right away and was pleased. He has a Samsung
> up-convert DVD and a 32" LCD screen(16:9). I have a 34" JVC CRT and I see
> that the CRT has a lot better detail. This is one reason I stuck with a
> CRT. The LCD has better on-screen graphics displays like wording and what
> not. Of course I did not tell my buddy this as I did not want to ruin his
> happiness. He also thinks that he has a better TV than mine because his
> is flat panel. Never fail to bet on JVC!


I have a Samsung 32" LCD and use a LG3510a DVD player to upconvert via DVI
cable and YES the image is much better with the upscale to 720P. There is
something else to consider though. There is some copy protection built into
the cables. DVI and HDMI are HDCP or Hi Def Copy Protected. So I don't
know the full ramifications of this but it may just pertain to recording the
signal and not watching the signal. BUT I did notice that the $110 Monster
DVI cable was about half of the resolution of the $19 DVI cable that I
bought at Cablemasters. I took the Monster back. So I suppose that maybe
there are DVI cables that are HDCP and some that aren't.

BC




>
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 6:47:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote (in part):

>By taking
>a letter-boxed image (e.g. the 16:9 image of the Buffy episode "Once More
>with Feeling" -- the only episode so filmed) and sending it anamorphed to
>4:3 (clipping the black letter-box bars) to my TV as an anamorphed 480p
>signal, I can set the TV to 16:9 full screen to display the result full
>screen.

Now, there's an episode I'd like to have in HD. Exceptional
television that never received the critical acclaim it deserved.

Guess I'll have to wait until the local stations start demanding their
syndicated shows in HD. Even then it'll probably be the shortened
version.

Del Mibbler
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 9:32:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:8thlb1h6vmln1vurn7io8vce19lqn7uvrk@4ax.com:

> Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote (in part):
>
>>By taking
>>a letter-boxed image (e.g. the 16:9 image of the Buffy episode "Once
>>More with Feeling" -- the only episode so filmed) and sending it
>>anamorphed to 4:3 (clipping the black letter-box bars) to my TV as an
>>anamorphed 480p signal, I can set the TV to 16:9 full screen to
>>display the result full screen.
>
> Now, there's an episode I'd like to have in HD. Exceptional
> television that never received the critical acclaim it deserved.
>
> Guess I'll have to wait until the local stations start demanding their
> syndicated shows in HD. Even then it'll probably be the shortened
> version.

Well, if there's a demand and there's an HD DVD spec soon enough, maybe
20th Century Fox will put it out in HD on a "best of Buffy" DVD pack or
something. If enough fans squawk loud enough that's sometimes enough to
get the ball rolling.

I'd not mind seeing the whole series re-done at 1080i resolution. The
first season was filmed on 16mm and might not look all that good, but the
rest was done on good 35mm stock and my TV actually does play 1080i at
4:3 full screen if that's what you give it.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.
June 26, 2005 4:20:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 05:02:51 GMT, Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:

>Do you understand the difference?

Do you understand that it is ZOOMED, not "anamorphed"?
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 9:32:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Baked <baked@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
news:a68bf$42bed5b8$453de2c1$12090@FUSE.NET:

> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 05:02:51 GMT, Dave Oldridge
> <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>Do you understand the difference?
>
> Do you understand that it is ZOOMED, not "anamorphed"?

Yes, it is zoomed (on the vertical axis) from an MPEG-2 image and
distorted into an anamorphic image that is then sent to the TV. The TV
then applies its own line-doubling technology and squeezes it back to
16:9 aspect ratio.

So yes, the base resolution is determined by the MPEG-2 file. Most movie
DVD's are fairly good and actually have an anamorphic MPEG-2 image. This
EZView trick on my player is a compromise for those movies that are just
letter-boxed. It doesn't waste the TV's bandwidth on a lot of black
area, that's all.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 12:23:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

X-No-archive: yes

"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns967DE047449A8doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
> Baked <baked@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
> news:78ebd$42ba0174$453de2c1$15643@FUSE.NET:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:14:34 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>> <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Moreover the player will size and anamorph
>>>the non-anamorphic letter-boxed stuff for me.
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Thanks for the laugh of the day.
>
> Glad you liked it.
>
> Actually, there is quite a bit that can be done on the fly with good
> MPEG-2 decoding firmware. It will not, of course, add any resolution to
> what's on the DVD, but it can enable you to display it better. By taking
> a letter-boxed image (e.g. the 16:9 image of the Buffy episode "Once More
> with Feeling" -- the only episode so filmed) and sending it anamorphed to
> 4:3 (clipping the black letter-box bars) to my TV as an anamorphed 480p
> signal, I can set the TV to 16:9 full screen to display the result full
> screen. Without the feature I'd have to watch it letter-boxed with the
> TV in 4:3 mode. Do you understand the difference?
>
> --
===========================
It is STILL NON-anamorphic and is lower resolution.
You cannot create picture where none exists.
=========================
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 12:24:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

X-No-archive: yes

"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96816B30B8EB4doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
> Baked <baked@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
> news:a68bf$42bed5b8$453de2c1$12090@FUSE.NET:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 05:02:51 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>> <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Do you understand the difference?
>>
>> Do you understand that it is ZOOMED, not "anamorphed"?
>
> Yes, it is zoomed (on the vertical axis) from an MPEG-2 image and
> distorted into an anamorphic image that is then sent to the TV. The TV
> then applies its own line-doubling technology and squeezes it back to
> 16:9 aspect ratio.
==================================
It STILL only has the lower resolution of a NON-anamorphic image.
====================================
>
> So yes, the base resolution is determined by the MPEG-2 file. Most movie
> DVD's are fairly good and actually have an anamorphic MPEG-2 image. This
> EZView trick on my player is a compromise for those movies that are just
> letter-boxed. It doesn't waste the TV's bandwidth on a lot of black
> area, that's all.
>
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 1:41:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:RumdnX8Yj7rpLFvfRVn-1w@comcast.com:

> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Xns967DE047449A8doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
>> Baked <baked@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
>> news:78ebd$42ba0174$453de2c1$15643@FUSE.NET:
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:14:34 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>>> <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Moreover the player will size and anamorph
>>>>the non-anamorphic letter-boxed stuff for me.
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> Thanks for the laugh of the day.
>>
>> Glad you liked it.
>>
>> Actually, there is quite a bit that can be done on the fly with good
>> MPEG-2 decoding firmware. It will not, of course, add any resolution
>> to what's on the DVD, but it can enable you to display it better. By
>> taking a letter-boxed image (e.g. the 16:9 image of the Buffy episode
>> "Once More with Feeling" -- the only episode so filmed) and sending
>> it anamorphed to 4:3 (clipping the black letter-box bars) to my TV as
>> an anamorphed 480p signal, I can set the TV to 16:9 full screen to
>> display the result full screen. Without the feature I'd have to
>> watch it letter-boxed with the TV in 4:3 mode. Do you understand the
>> difference?
>>
>> --
> ===========================
> It is STILL NON-anamorphic and is lower resolution.
> You cannot create picture where none exists.

Of course not. My point is that the additional flexibility lets ME
decide how to display it and which upconversions to do. That means I have
more choices about how to watch it.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 1:41:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

X-No-archive: yes

"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9687956E14DA8doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
> "Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote in
> news:RumdnX8Yj7rpLFvfRVn-1w@comcast.com:
>
>> X-No-archive: yes
>>
>> "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:Xns967DE047449A8doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
>>> Baked <baked@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:78ebd$42ba0174$453de2c1$15643@FUSE.NET:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:14:34 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>>>> <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Moreover the player will size and anamorph
>>>>>the non-anamorphic letter-boxed stuff for me.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the laugh of the day.
>>>
>>> Glad you liked it.
>>>
>>> Actually, there is quite a bit that can be done on the fly with good
>>> MPEG-2 decoding firmware. It will not, of course, add any resolution
>>> to what's on the DVD, but it can enable you to display it better. By
>>> taking a letter-boxed image (e.g. the 16:9 image of the Buffy episode
>>> "Once More with Feeling" -- the only episode so filmed) and sending
>>> it anamorphed to 4:3 (clipping the black letter-box bars) to my TV as
>>> an anamorphed 480p signal, I can set the TV to 16:9 full screen to
>>> display the result full screen. Without the feature I'd have to
>>> watch it letter-boxed with the TV in 4:3 mode. Do you understand the
>>> difference?
>>>
>>> --
>> ===========================
>> It is STILL NON-anamorphic and is lower resolution.
>> You cannot create picture where none exists.
>
> Of course not. My point is that the additional flexibility lets ME
> decide how to display it and which upconversions to do. That means I have
> more choices about how to watch it.
>
>
=======================================
But you clearly said:
">>>Moreover the player will size and anamorph
>>>the non-anamorphic letter-boxed stuff for me."

That is totally wrong.
=====================================
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 1:46:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:l8KdncVuEb4uLFvfRVn-pw@comcast.com:

> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Xns96816B30B8EB4doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
>> Baked <baked@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
>> news:a68bf$42bed5b8$453de2c1$12090@FUSE.NET:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 05:02:51 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>>> <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Do you understand the difference?
>>>
>>> Do you understand that it is ZOOMED, not "anamorphed"?
>>
>> Yes, it is zoomed (on the vertical axis) from an MPEG-2 image and
>> distorted into an anamorphic image that is then sent to the TV. The
>> TV then applies its own line-doubling technology and squeezes it back
>> to 16:9 aspect ratio.
> ==================================
> It STILL only has the lower resolution of a NON-anamorphic image.

Did I say otherwise? Are you reading impaired?

Let me put it in simple terms that you might understand.

A non-anamorphic image displayed on an ordinary TV has about 360 lines of
vertical resolution, not because of limitations in the image, which may
have more pixels than the TV can display, but because of its own
hardware. Send that same image as 480p to an HDTV with built-in line
doubling and it will double letter-box it, giving only a slight
improvement on the SDTV display. Send it digitally anamorphed in the DVD
player to an HDTV and you can use the full screen to watch it, losing
none of the resolution that is actually there on the DVD to watch.

Most DECENT HDTV's will line double it and give a very creditable image
full screen.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 12:49:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:11:16 -0700, "Richard C."
<post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:

>X-No-archive: yes
>
>"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:Xns9687956E14DA8doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
>> "Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote in
>> news:RumdnX8Yj7rpLFvfRVn-1w@comcast.com:
>>
>>> X-No-archive: yes
>>>
>>> "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns967DE047449A8doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
>>>> Baked <baked@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
>>>> news:78ebd$42ba0174$453de2c1$15643@FUSE.NET:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:14:34 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>>>>> <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Moreover the player will size and anamorph
>>>>>>the non-anamorphic letter-boxed stuff for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the laugh of the day.
>>>>
>>>> Glad you liked it.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, there is quite a bit that can be done on the fly with good
>>>> MPEG-2 decoding firmware. It will not, of course, add any resolution
>>>> to what's on the DVD, but it can enable you to display it better. By
>>>> taking a letter-boxed image (e.g. the 16:9 image of the Buffy episode
>>>> "Once More with Feeling" -- the only episode so filmed) and sending
>>>> it anamorphed to 4:3 (clipping the black letter-box bars) to my TV as
>>>> an anamorphed 480p signal, I can set the TV to 16:9 full screen to
>>>> display the result full screen. Without the feature I'd have to
>>>> watch it letter-boxed with the TV in 4:3 mode. Do you understand the
>>>> difference?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> ===========================
>>> It is STILL NON-anamorphic and is lower resolution.
>>> You cannot create picture where none exists.
>>
>> Of course not. My point is that the additional flexibility lets ME
>> decide how to display it and which upconversions to do. That means I have
>> more choices about how to watch it.
>>
>>
>=======================================
>But you clearly said:
>">>>Moreover the player will size and anamorph
>>>>the non-anamorphic letter-boxed stuff for me."
>
>That is totally wrong.
>=====================================

It seems the difference in opinion is more a semantic issue ...

To my understanding, the wording anamorph comes from the solution for
film that use anamorphic lenses to distribute a wider aspect ratio in
the film frames (because the same film is used.)
An anamorphic lens gives different magnification horizontally and
vertically.

For electronic distribution we have to know when displaying in what
aspect ratio the signal shall be "projected". That is true both for
the older 4:3 standard and newer 16:9, and true whether the transfer
is analogue or digital. The 4:3 SD signal of TV or DVD is from the
start defined with non-square pixels.

There is no principle difference in the signal type when the signal is
resampled to fit another resolution and aspect standard.
Of course the aspect ratio of the pixels are changed, and that is what
can be compared to the anamorphic process in film.

On the other hand none of these signals are more "anamorphic" then the
other. (If anything, the HDTV signals with square pixels could be
regarded "non-anamorphic".)

The process should be called resampling.

I understand the trick here to be that this particular DVD player can
do zoom and resample on a 4:3 signal with letterboxed 16:9 content and
put it out resampled as a 16:9 1080i signal.

If that is better than having the TV do the zoom and resampling
depends on the player and the TV. If the TV resamples the signal again
it could be better not to resample the signal twice.
/Jan
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 8:10:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:p MmdnW-ypdu7sFrfRVn-vw@comcast.com:

> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Xns9687956E14DA8doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
>> "Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote in
>> news:RumdnX8Yj7rpLFvfRVn-1w@comcast.com:
>>
>>> X-No-archive: yes
>>>
>>> "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns967DE047449A8doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
>>>> Baked <baked@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
>>>> news:78ebd$42ba0174$453de2c1$15643@FUSE.NET:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:14:34 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>>>>> <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Moreover the player will size and anamorph
>>>>>>the non-anamorphic letter-boxed stuff for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the laugh of the day.
>>>>
>>>> Glad you liked it.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, there is quite a bit that can be done on the fly with
>>>> good MPEG-2 decoding firmware. It will not, of course, add any
>>>> resolution to what's on the DVD, but it can enable you to display
>>>> it better. By taking a letter-boxed image (e.g. the 16:9 image of
>>>> the Buffy episode "Once More with Feeling" -- the only episode so
>>>> filmed) and sending it anamorphed to 4:3 (clipping the black
>>>> letter-box bars) to my TV as an anamorphed 480p signal, I can set
>>>> the TV to 16:9 full screen to display the result full screen.
>>>> Without the feature I'd have to watch it letter-boxed with the TV
>>>> in 4:3 mode. Do you understand the difference?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> ===========================
>>> It is STILL NON-anamorphic and is lower resolution.
>>> You cannot create picture where none exists.
>>
>> Of course not. My point is that the additional flexibility lets ME
>> decide how to display it and which upconversions to do. That means I
>> have more choices about how to watch it.
>>
>>
> =======================================
> But you clearly said:
> ">>>Moreover the player will size and anamorph
>>>>the non-anamorphic letter-boxed stuff for me."
>
> That is totally wrong.

No it's not. The DVD's image is DIGITAL, not analogue and it can be
resized on the fly, using DIGITAL techniques. These do not improve the
actual resolution of the DVD (though they need not degrade it
perceptibly) but can put the image in a condition where the TV that is
receiving it can do a better job of displaying it. That is to say, it is
MADE anamorphic on the fly, digitally.

In other words, the image coming OUT of my DVD player can be made
anamorphic, even though the DVD itself is not. Now YOU could sit here
all day denying that it's happening and watch the long tall figures in a
4:3 format on the TV or you could do what I do and switch the TV to 16:9
and watch the picture. I'm just saying my TV does a better job when it's
fed that way (480 non-interlaced lines of digitally anamorphed picture
swiped from the middle 2/3 of the image on DVD) than it does when it's
fed 120 lines of unadulterated black every frame. And I can adjust my TV
so that all 480 lines are incorporated in a 16:9 image.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 8:15:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

nospam@nospam.se (Jan B) wrote in news:42c79554.116619319@wingate:

> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:11:16 -0700, "Richard C."
> <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>X-No-archive: yes
>>
>>"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9687956E14DA8doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
>>> "Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote in
>>> news:RumdnX8Yj7rpLFvfRVn-1w@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>> X-No-archive: yes
>>>>
>>>> "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns967DE047449A8doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
>>>>> Baked <baked@nowhere.invalid> wrote in
>>>>> news:78ebd$42ba0174$453de2c1$15643@FUSE.NET:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:14:34 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>>>>>> <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Moreover the player will size and anamorph
>>>>>>>the non-anamorphic letter-boxed stuff for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the laugh of the day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad you liked it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, there is quite a bit that can be done on the fly with
>>>>> good MPEG-2 decoding firmware. It will not, of course, add any
>>>>> resolution to what's on the DVD, but it can enable you to display
>>>>> it better. By taking a letter-boxed image (e.g. the 16:9 image of
>>>>> the Buffy episode "Once More with Feeling" -- the only episode so
>>>>> filmed) and sending it anamorphed to 4:3 (clipping the black
>>>>> letter-box bars) to my TV as an anamorphed 480p signal, I can set
>>>>> the TV to 16:9 full screen to display the result full screen.
>>>>> Without the feature I'd have to watch it letter-boxed with the TV
>>>>> in 4:3 mode. Do you understand the difference?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>> ===========================
>>>> It is STILL NON-anamorphic and is lower resolution.
>>>> You cannot create picture where none exists.
>>>
>>> Of course not. My point is that the additional flexibility lets ME
>>> decide how to display it and which upconversions to do. That means I
>>> have more choices about how to watch it.
>>>
>>>
>>=======================================
>>But you clearly said:
>>">>>Moreover the player will size and anamorph
>>>>>the non-anamorphic letter-boxed stuff for me."
>>
>>That is totally wrong.
>>=====================================
>
> It seems the difference in opinion is more a semantic issue ...
>
> To my understanding, the wording anamorph comes from the solution for
> film that use anamorphic lenses to distribute a wider aspect ratio in
> the film frames (because the same film is used.)
> An anamorphic lens gives different magnification horizontally and
> vertically.
>
> For electronic distribution we have to know when displaying in what
> aspect ratio the signal shall be "projected". That is true both for
> the older 4:3 standard and newer 16:9, and true whether the transfer
> is analogue or digital. The 4:3 SD signal of TV or DVD is from the
> start defined with non-square pixels.
>
> There is no principle difference in the signal type when the signal is
> resampled to fit another resolution and aspect standard.
> Of course the aspect ratio of the pixels are changed, and that is what
> can be compared to the anamorphic process in film.
>
> On the other hand none of these signals are more "anamorphic" then the
> other. (If anything, the HDTV signals with square pixels could be
> regarded "non-anamorphic".)
>
> The process should be called resampling.

That is what is happening.
>
> I understand the trick here to be that this particular DVD player can
> do zoom and resample on a 4:3 signal with letterboxed 16:9 content and
> put it out resampled as a 16:9 1080i signal.

Actually, it puts out the middle 2/3 of the image as a resampled 16:9
480p signal, which my TV can display the same way it displays a truly
anamorphed DVD. It's not as good as playing a truly anamorphed DVD, but
it's better than playing the non-anamorphed DVD straight up in 4:3 with
120 lines of TV scan being wasted on black every frame.

> If that is better than having the TV do the zoom and resampling
> depends on the player and the TV. If the TV resamples the signal again
> it could be better not to resample the signal twice.

Most HDTV sets resample 480i and 480p signals. The DVD player just gives
me a choice about how and where. And my TV will not zoom anything on its
component inputs unless it's 480i (Yeeeechhh!) so the zoom in the DVD is
very convenient.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 4:28:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I like the Zenith DVB318 with the older firmware or the new NeuNeo
HVD2081 to upconvert over component. Whether or not you will find any
benefit with upconversion on your monitor can only be determined by
you. I have both of those players and believe I achieve a very subtle
improvement with my HD displays when compared to a standard 480p
player. It is certainly dependent on the DVD and not all DVDs benefit.

Chris

Jeremy Dominik wrote:
> Hi - I'm a bit new to all this but hopefully someone can help:
>
> I have a HD tv that supports 1080i and only has component input. It does
> not have any of those newer digital inputs like HDMI. I am in the market
> for a new DVD player. My question is whether it is worth buying one of
> those ones that say they can upconvert DVD pictures. Will I be able to
> take advantage of this, or is my TV not compatible.
>
> If not, then what DVD player should I buy for optimal audio and video
> within a modest budget (something you can find at a local best
> buy/circuit city). I have to figure that those $30 DVD players can't be
> as good as the full fledged $100 counterparts, can they?
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 4:43:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

X-No-archive: yes

"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96885D541AF25doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
>> =======================================
>> But you clearly said:
>> ">>>Moreover the player will size and anamorph
>>>>>the non-anamorphic letter-boxed stuff for me."
>>
>> That is totally wrong.
>
> No it's not. The DVD's image is DIGITAL, not analogue and it can be
> resized on the fly, using DIGITAL techniques. These do not improve the
> actual resolution of the DVD (though they need not degrade it
> perceptibly) but can put the image in a condition where the TV that is
> receiving it can do a better job of displaying it. That is to say, it is
> MADE anamorphic on the fly, digitally.
================================
But is it NOT made anamorphic - on the fly or otherwise.
Do you actually know waht anamorphic and "enhanced for 16:9 TV actually
means?
================================
>
> In other words, the image coming OUT of my DVD player can be made
> anamorphic, even though the DVD itself is not. Now YOU could sit here
> all day denying that it's happening and watch the long tall figures in a
> 4:3 format on the TV or you could do what I do and switch the TV to 16:9
> and watch the picture. I'm just saying my TV does a better job when it's
> fed that way (480 non-interlaced lines of digitally anamorphed picture
> swiped from the middle 2/3 of the image on DVD) than it does when it's
> fed 120 lines of unadulterated black every frame. And I can adjust my TV
> so that all 480 lines are incorporated in a 16:9 image.
>
=======================
Are you using a 4:3 TV?
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 2:41:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:XoCdnXqlkNJ_f1ffRVn-rA@comcast.com:

> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Xns96885D541AF25doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159...
>>> =======================================
>>> But you clearly said:
>>> ">>>Moreover the player will size and anamorph
>>>>>>the non-anamorphic letter-boxed stuff for me."
>>>
>>> That is totally wrong.
>>
>> No it's not. The DVD's image is DIGITAL, not analogue and it can be
>> resized on the fly, using DIGITAL techniques. These do not improve
>> the actual resolution of the DVD (though they need not degrade it
>> perceptibly) but can put the image in a condition where the TV that
>> is receiving it can do a better job of displaying it. That is to
>> say, it is MADE anamorphic on the fly, digitally.
> ================================
> But is it NOT made anamorphic - on the fly or otherwise.
> Do you actually know waht anamorphic and "enhanced for 16:9 TV
> actually means?

Yes, I do. The image is 480 lines tall but contains strictly a 16:9
picture distorted to fill the 480 lines. Most modern 4:3 TV's can scan
the center 3/4 of the screen only on a command from the user (I'm not
sure if any can actually sense it or not--mine doesn't), using all 480
lines to do it. This gives the user a full-width, 480-line edition of
the anamorphed image on the DVD. My DVD player will take ANY 4:3 image,
extract the middle 3/4 of the scan, blow it up to 480 lines and transmit
as an anamorphic image to the TV. Obviously this cannot provide any more
information than is IN that middle 3/4 of the scan, but the proof of the
pudding here is that, if I leave my TV in 4:3 mode, the image appears
distorted vertically, just as the anamorphic ones do. When buying movies
I try to buy ONLY anamorphic, but some are just not available in the
format and some things, like that isolated Buffy episode are in letter-
boxed 4:3, which, as I keep telling you, my DVD player extracts the
middle 360 lines from and resamples it to 480 lines and outputs the
result as a 480p signal. By setting the TV to 16:9, I can use the full
16:9 raster on this just as if it were an anamorphic DVD, even though it
is not. Naturally the resolution is not as good as if they had
anamorphed it BEFORE putting it on the DVD. But I never said otherwise.

Apparently you think anamorphing is something that can only be done with
a lens. This is not really true any more. Digital filtering can change
the aspect ratio or resolution of an image on the fly, often without
losing anything important. And the resulting image may display better on
some hardware than the untreated image.

>> In other words, the image coming OUT of my DVD player can be made
>> anamorphic, even though the DVD itself is not. Now YOU could sit
>> here all day denying that it's happening and watch the long tall
>> figures in a 4:3 format on the TV or you could do what I do and
>> switch the TV to 16:9 and watch the picture. I'm just saying my TV
>> does a better job when it's fed that way (480 non-interlaced lines of
>> digitally anamorphed picture swiped from the middle 2/3 of the image
>> on DVD) than it does when it's fed 120 lines of unadulterated black
>> every frame. And I can adjust my TV so that all 480 lines are
>> incorporated in a 16:9 image.
>>
> =======================
> Are you using a 4:3 TV?

Yes, but it's switchable, 4:3 and 16:9 and it understands 480p and 1080i
signals. I can even feed it a 4:3 1080i upconversion from my sat
receiver on SD channels, but there's no real point to it. It's better to
just pass them on as 480p and let the receiver switch to 1080i only on HD
signals. In short, my TV does a better upconversion than the sat
receiver.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.
!