I haven't found that to be the case in my limited research. Even with a Pioneer RPTV I found a slight increase in quality when doing the scaling within the player over the TV.

That may be due to the player's scaler being particularly designed for the material it's providing while the TV is doing generic scaling of any source material, including SD TV. In some cases it's because the "upconverted" material is making fewer D->A / A->D conversions, generally going directly to the digital circuitry of the TV while "non-upconverted" material is presented in analog form and requires a conversion to digital in the TV.

From what I recall (someone can correct me if I am wrong) a big benefit of letting the DVD player do the upconversion instead of the display device was to keep it all in the digital domain. So a progressive scan player outputting through component cables to an HD capable output device had to convert the digital signal from the DVD to analog to just have the display device convert the analog back to digital and then scale the image. Part of the cost of the better DVD players were the quality of the analog converters.

When upconverting players came out many were actually cheaper then their older analog counterparts because the DVD players kept the signal in the digital domain, scaled it, and then passed it though as a digital signal (using DVI and HDMI) with no analog conversions in the process.

So I don't think upconverting players did add real benefits over progressive scan players. The bigger the displayed output the more noticeable the benefits.

Edit: Looks like "X" beat me to it, I have to learn to type faster

Full screen is a compromise made for whiny consumers who don't like the bars on the screen when watching a movie. A movie like The Recruit, say, or your example of Once Upon a Time in Mexico, whose aspect ratio has been opened up on DVD, was a conscious decision by the studio to change it which was not "requested" by anyone or motivated by people being uninformed. I believe on both of these examples the filmmakers were consulted. Who knows, perhaps the IMAX filmmakers are aware that their documentaries are being presented in altered ratios on DVD.

In any case, I haven't seen any fictional films presented in full-screen on BD, which is the main thing.

Bsmith & X...Understood on the conversion...

...I should have stated my opinion on scaling between displays and players as opinion rather than fact...I'll make that change now...

I do think some players can offer a slight improvement and this can especially be seen on larger screens...I just think the majority of people stating that Upconverted DVD looks almost like HD are letting their eyes fool them. But...this is just my very humble opinion.

As I said...a great movie is a great movie (although opinions differ on that too)...but that added PQ and AQ that I see with HD...are pretty hard to pass up at times...I just wish the media prices would drop a bit. I don't mind spending $200-$300 on player...

Stanley Kubrick films such as The Shining, Full Metal Jacket & Eyes Wide Shut are all in 1.33:1 full screen which on the back of the box states as Stanley Kubrick intended it to be ... something along those lines.

I guess this was to avoid the theatrical 1.85:1 image from being panned and scanned or cropped for 4:3 TVs. I believe the Blu-Ray versions are 1.85:1 as shown in theatres.

The mattes were opened to 1.33:1, not cropped. Stanley Kubrick didn't like black bars.

If you mean Blu-ray and not DVD, then Gulliver's Travels would be one example.

I agree, I would never compare upconversion to HD. I'm actually still using a Denon 2900 DVD player that is a progressive scan player and not an upconverter. Mostly because I've been told it has a very good interlacer and even though my previous projector had a DVI connection it did not offer common calibration controls on the DVI output. Since I've upgraded to a 1080p projector in the last 6 months I will probably get an Oppo for region free support, PAL output, and upconversion. Then add on to a Blu-ray player with with internal decoding and anlog outputs.

Having been through collection upgrades between Beta -> VHS (too some degree), VHS -> DVD, Im' not really looking to make the big switch to Blu-ray. I will add certain titles here and there with obvious benefits but probably very selectively. Plus, many of my titles took a while to come out on DVD so it may be some time for Blu-ray. All my recent purchases have been older TV shows anyway while some of the latest movies to come out I just rented and have delayed purchasing for a while figuring they will likely be Blu-ray buys.

While I do see sales on Blu-ray disks they always come with a caveat. The $10 ones I'd be interested in require me to purchases others I don't want to get the deal. The $15 ones are either of no interest or I have on DVD and see no reason to upgrade. That puts most I'd want in the $20+ range which is more then I want to spend considering the cost of comparable DVDs right now.

I agree with you about the switch to Blu-Ray. I know they are set to introduce Ultra High Def in the next few years which will apparently blow away Blu-Ray as far as quality is concerned.

If I recall, Blu-Ray is only 8 bit compressed video with uncompressed audio. I suppose the Holy Grail will be uncompressed HD video (I think is 1G = approx. 1 minute of video footage, correct me if I'm wrong) and uncompressed audio.

In defense of upconverting players, there is a good reason for their existence. As HDTVs get older, their built-in progressive-scan/upconversion capabilities start to pale compared to what's available in newer equipment. The players allow people to upgrade their capabilities without replacing their TV. I know at work, we have this older projector that is only 800x600. Hooking up a DVD player to it, I found that the built-in deinterlacer sucks. However, when I turned on the progressive scan on the player, which was a $30 Philips, the video improved greatly.

That said, somebody buying a brand new HDTV today probably doesn't need an upconverting DVD player, excepting for maybe the advantage of an HDMI interface.

You can output 480i/p digitally via DVI and HDMI. Of course, all the DVD players that HDMI/DVI have upconversion built in.

I don't buy this. Every upconverting DVD player I've seen can output HD video via component, although the existence of Macrovision on a DVD will disable this capability on most players. Even with Macrovision, they all can still always output 480p via component. So they still have the same analog outputting capabilities as progressive scan players.

OK, so how is DVD FS different from BD FS?

How do you know what the motivations behind those decisions were? Studios were releasing FS DVDs either in parallel, or sometimes before, and OAR WS DVD was released. Often it was the OAR enthusiasts who actually had to complain in order to get an OAR release, such as when Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was released, or when Lionsgate initially released Lord of War in an altered aspect ratio on DVD.

Filmmakers have been consulted on 4:3 FS reframes all the time. They've been consulted on airplane and TV cuts of their films as well. However, that's because it's part of their job, and most want to ensure that the job that the studio insists on be done in the best manner possible. It doesn't mean that the altered presentation is the preferred version. Pixar reframed a number of their films to 4:3 for DVD, but the commentary tracks were always tied to the WS version.

With the Recruit and OUATIM, both are touted as the "director's preferred" aspect ratio; which may be true, and in that case those reframings may be acceptable to most fans who want to see a film the way the director wants them to. Similar things happened with Criterion discs like Robocop, where the director reframed from the OAR. Technically though, these films are not being shown in OAR, and there are other instances, like Lord of War, where the reframing was done clearly to appeal to the "masses."

Ironically, when a director insists on only OAR, like with the original Pirates of the Caribbean, the video sales don't really suffer.

Again, whether they are aware or not doesn't change the fact that the BD is not OAR.

As Adam Tyner pointed out above, the BD of Gulliver's Travels proves you wrong:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/36689/gullivers-travels/
http://www.fpsmagazine.com/blog/2009...isc-review.php

When will it be introduced? By whom? How much? For consumer or professional use?

I recall that when DVD first came out, there almost instantly appeared articles about the "next" video format. Holographic discs were mentioned back in 1997, as well as triple-and-up layered discs. One thing that was known when DVD was in its infancy was that the FCC was preparing for a transition to ATSC with HD resolutions. An HD home video format was inevitable, yet that didn't deter most from buying into DVDs, which they could watch on their TVs now.

UltraHD is decades away. If you never buy into a new format for fear of an even newer format coming out, you'd never by any format.

BD has either uncompressed audio (PCM), or losslessly compressed audio (DTS-HD MA, Dolby TrueHD). Lossless compression is as good as uncompressed.

As for video, I'm not sure if even lossless compression is ever going to be truly needed. Saying BD is "only 8 bit compressed video" is understating the video quality capabilities of the format. BD will be more than adequate to provide HD video to most equipment for years, if not decades, to come.

Think of it this way: if HD never existed, and instead a successor to DVD came out that was still SD but used the more advanced video codecs of AVC and VC-1, do you think the improvement in solely the video compression scheme would've been enough to entice many to buy into it?

I don't really need to be proven wrong, I accept that I am wrong, because I haven't seen that film, and thus was unaware. Regardless, it's not a widespread problem: the majority of DVDs from the corresponding era were flippers with WS on one side and FS on the other (MGM, WB, New Line and Sony were doing this at least). While I guess it's not perfect, it's still a comparison of 50% or more to maybe 5%, which is a massive improvement.

The Batman films are probably the most obvious example. There are a number of titles in Europe that have been slightly altered as well.

As Jay G. has pointed out already, there are no such plans in existence.

Correct!

Pro-B

Wait, is your problem with OAR releases no being available, or with FS being offered as an alternative? I don't have a problem with bother OAR and FS being available, since at least I get the choice to view it in OAR. With the BDs so far though, only the altered version is made available.

Apparently Ritek has developed a multi-layer 250G disc which could potentially hold uncompressed video and audio. When will it be available? Who knows?

In 1994 when I bought by Laserdisc player, I never imagined they could squeeze a whole film on one side of a CD-sized disc within 3 years either.

We bought DVD, not out of fear of High Def just around the corner; well, nine years away. We bought DVDs because VHS (or Betamax) had been in our households for 20 years and we really embraced the idea of a whole movie a CD-sized shiny disc that looked great, didn't need rewinding, had chapter stops, perfect freeze-frame, easy storage etc.

There seems to be less of gap between technologies these days. We had twenty years of tape, Laserdisc and CED followed by DVD in 1997 and then Blu-Ray in 2006. I don't see another nine year gap between attempts at a better format or new methods of how it is delivered.


I don't mean to say 8 bit is poor by any means but professional digital video formats currently have 10 bit, 12 bit and 16 bit with higher resolution.

Will a better HD format make your Blu-Ray format seem inadequate? If not, why question people who are content with DVD?

No, an SD successor would fail miserably! Blu-Ray is an improvement over DVD & it's having a difficult time penetrating the market.

Which is my point: nobody knows when these future formats will be anywhere near the point of commercially viable. Again, I was hearing of disc formats with insane disc capacities back when DVD came out.

Laserdisc was released in 1978, so it took them near 20 years to develop something better for the consumer market. I'm not sure why you couldn't have "imagined" a better format though, since you've clearly already imagined a replacement for BD.

Which was my point: even with a known resolution hike in the works, people bout into DVD en masse. Why should people ignore BD now for fear of a newer resolution that's not even close to hitting to consumer market yet, and that the FCC has no current plans to adopt?

You're looking at the technology gap the wrong way. VHS, Beta, LD, CED, and DVD alll offered a max resolution of 480i, which was the maximum resolution offered in the US since 1941 until about 10 years ago when ATSC was formed. So SDTV was around for over 50 years before a HDTV even started to be a viable contender, and we're still having difficulties with the transition to ATSC, with a lot of people simply opting to convert ATSC to SD analog to play on their existing TVs. You you really think the FCC is going to adopt an even higher resolution, which would require a new broadcast standard, new TV standards, and new converter boxes anytime soon? It'll be at least another decade before SDTV has mostly disappeared from US households.

BD has a number of hurdles, but a higher resolution format being "just around the corner," isn't one of them.

Professional video has always been one up on consumer video, it's kinda the point. Professional video used Beta, or at least a form of Beta, for years after it failed as a consumer format. Just because professionals use it

I dunno, it would depend on the format. DVD-A and SACD are clearly superior audio formats to CD, but after weighing all the various factors, I've stuck with CDs. BD is a much more viable format than DVD-A and SACD ever were though.

I'm not questioning with people who are content with DVD, and least for the time being. Hell, I'm one of them. What I am questioning is the original article's argument of DVD being "better" than BD for a number of factors that apply to nearly every new format. I also question those that claim that they'll never upgrade to BD, for what I feel are a number of dubious reasons.

Which is my point: Worrying about a new disc format that offers the same 1080p HD but in "better" quality and/or on a larger capacity disc is as silly as imagining someone replacing DVD with a different SD disc format.

BD offers a clear improvement in video, although it may require some to get a better/bigger TV for them to be able to fully appreciate the difference. But its market share will improve as more and more people buy into big screen HDTVs and want a home video format that looks as good or better than their OTA or cable/satellite HD images.

I don't really count open-matting a 1.85:1 film to 1.78:1 because:

1) It's an extremely minor alteration that's not really noticeable and doesn't significantly affect the composition of a scene.

2) It's been an incredibly widespread practice on DVD for years without any real protest (or people even noticing).

3) It's akin to the practice of cropping 1.37:1 films to 1.33:1 on VHS/DVD (without the cropping). If both the 1.33:1 crops and 1.78:1 open-mattes were counted, DVD's percentage of OAR releases would probably plummet to under 30%

4) Don't forget that scope films often have minor variances aspect ratios on home video as well, ranging from 2.20:1 to 2.40:1.

5) The imprecise and variable way movie theaters matte films means that many people have probably seen a "1.85:1" film in a ratio closer to 1.78:1 in a theater anyway.

That is fine. I just pointed out what was the most obvious Region-A example -- involving a major Blockbuster film(s). This being said, overseas there have been a few instances of adjusting 1.66:1 films to 1.78:1 - Chungking Express (Artificial Eye), The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner (BFI), both falling into the above category, as well as the Thunderbirds (ITV Granada), which is a slightly different case.

Nevertheless, cropping has not been a serious issue of concern as far as BD is concerned.

Pro-B

Yeah, you're probably right. Blu-Ray will probably be the industry's last run with the spinning disc. High Def over the internet or VOD cable box will most likely be the next step.


That's my point, technology has been moving so quickly since digital video technology & the widespread use of the internet, that yes, it is much easier to predict that new technology will be offered to us at a much faster pace.

I haven't done any market research as to why people aren't buying into Blu-Ray but I feel most people feel it's not worth the extra money to switch. Most people don't see the extra value in purchasing Blu-Ray.

The market doesn't lie, the general public are not as enthusiastic about Blu-Ray as many people on this site would like them to be. Much lower prices of Blu-Ray machines and software may help change that.

A car analogy; if you already own a Porsche 944 would you pay 3 times more for a better Porsche 911? Same idea.


You've got a good point. How High-Def video is delivered will may very well be just around the corner.


Yeah, professional formats were rather large physically to be practical for home use. BetacamSP (large format tapes), U-Matic 3/4" tape and 1" formats were very bulky compared to VHS tape and didn't hold as much information. A stronger signal is needed to broadcast than it is to simply run to your TV set.

The picture quality of DVD and especially Blu-Ray are arguably better than the "professional" formats of 15-20 years ago.


I can't say I've heard of DVD-A or SACD which helps explain why you wisely stuck with CD. It's funny that MP-3 and other formats, which are actually inferior to CD, have really threatened CDs existence.


I agree that Blu-Ray is higher resolution and looks better. No argument there. Better enough to justify the difference in cost? That's up in the air right now.


If consumers didn't have any concerns, they'd run out and buy it. After three years of Blu-Ray, most people haven't jumped on the bandwagon. Call it silly...


I'm sure HDTV will become the norm, no argument there. How content will be delivered is what people are skeptical about. It's really a no lose situation to hang back and see where things go. What's the harm?

So you "miss out" on seeing a few movies in Blu-Ray and settle for an up-convert DVD. It's not the end of the world for most of us.

I don't think full-frame should exist, with the exception of films made before 1950 (and the few since then up to the present) that were made in full-screen. When I worked at Best Buy I would explain to the customers why widescreen was the way to go, and some people just didn't understand. I'm glad that on Blu-Ray the option is not available.

Well if it disables HD use on component then it really isn't a usable capability is it? I remember there were a few players at the time that could work around this limitation on component and they sold for a premium. Others could be mod'ed to support it also at a premium.

Of course they can all support component out at 480p (except one of the Oppo's that even left this capability out) for backaward compatibility, but that wasn't the reason for buying an DVI/HDMI capable upconverter was it. In fact, many had inferior component output because it wasn't the strength of the player or the driving force for one to buy an upconverting player.

Just before DVI/HDMI players came out, a good component based analog player cost $800+. Once upconverting players came out a player higher quality output could be had easily for $200, as long as you could support the digital connect of DVI/HDMI.

So I stand by my statement whether you buy it or not. I was actively building my HT at that point and researching DVD players and other HT equipment during that particular time, so I know a little something about that period.

True, the market does not lie....it has shown that Blu-ray is actually growing and gaining in popularity! It was specifically pointed out as one of the only bright spots in consumer purchases during holiday '08 in this bad economy/recession....if Blu-ray was was doing so badly, then major retailers such as Target, Walmart, and Best Buy would NOT continue to expand their shelf space and give it more store presence....

There is no way Blu-ray will be as completely and quickly adopted as DVD because it REQUIRES a specific piece of hardware to gain its benefits, and this hardware is not yet in every house in America: an HDTV....of course "most people haven't yet jumped on the bandwagon", the majority of people do not yet even have the necessary display!
HDTV penetration is not yet at even 50%, while TV penetration was at virtually 100% when DVD was introduced, therefore its possible market was pretty much EVERYONE....
Blu-ray has a much greater barrier to entry, as it can really only sell to those who have already invested in an HDTV, so their target market is already much smaller....but surveys and sales data have shown that of that group, there IS greater interest and growing sales of BD...

I've read that Blu-rays sales tripled over the past year and the DVD sales are down 5% from the previous year. In some sense that should come as no surprise since Blu-ray is the new format and trying to gain traction while SD DVDs have gone through a vast catalog of releases already, so some slow down (in addition the economy) should be expected. After all, how many triple-dips can some of us make for the same titles.

What I haven't yet seen is numbers? I only see percentages. Triple this, 5% that doesn't tell the whole story. What are the actual numbers of SD DVDs and Blu-ray disks sold in 2008? With actual numbers it would be easier to understand what kind of impact Blu-ray is making with consumers. Anyone have numbers to share and their sources?

If a Blu-Ray title sell 5 copies one week and 10 copies the next week. "Sales exploded by 100% in just one week!" This would be a completely true statement but misleading at the same time.

I suppose it depends on what sources you get information from. I understood the electronic retailers' expectations for Blu-Ray fell short over the holidays.

For example the Best Buy flyer in my city used to focus their advertising of new release movies around Blu-Ray. They have since gone back to mostly DVD titles. Maybe that is just the market here and doesn't reflect everywhere else?


You're right, DVD was much easier for people to introduce to their current home entertainment set-up compared to Blu-Ray. It's another hurdle for it to jump...