New TV's......too many to choose from
- Thread starter jrose609
- Start date
You're wrong. The source resolution being higher might be important to an overal good picture but it doesn't change that fact that upscaling is easier when all you have to do is duplicate pixels. We aren't discussing picture quality, because the source resolution of a bluray is almost always the same, 1080p.
Negative. If you can prove this, I will admit I am wrong. TVs do FAR more than duplicate pixels... even if the device displays an even multiplier of the source.
Apparently you did not understand that when i first posted. Have you heard of nearest neighbor, linear, bilinear and cubic filtering?
Think hard... in my example above the tv would have to approximate more pixels. Roughly 400x200 more. The more approximated pixels, the.more error in the final image.
Go find an hd image. Resize it with no filter to the sizes i show. Then resize both back to HD using a cubic filter... which is likely not as good as many tv.
zoom in 4x to each and compare. If you do not know how to do this then i am not surprized by your confusion.
Apparently you did not understand that when i first posted. Have you heard of nearest neighbor, linear, bilinear and cubic filtering?
Think hard... in my example above the tv would have to approximate more pixels. Roughly 400x200 more. The more approximated pixels, the.more error in the final image.
Go find an hd image. Resize it with no filter to the sizes i show. Then resize both back to HD using a cubic filter... which is likely not as good as many tv.
zoom in 4x to each and compare. If you do not know how to do this then i am not surprized by your confusion.
i never said tvs cannot do more than duplicate pixels. I said that in the case of an even multiple they don't need to. If you watch a dvd on a 4k tv I assume there is plenty more going on than duplicating pixels. But that's not related at all to what I said. I said don't buy an upconvert BLURAY player.
Jafir,
If you do not care to learn how to articulate what you know into accurate statements OR if you do not care to learn how you are inaccurate (wrong), I cannot help you.
Read what you wrote again dude.
Here is what you said, again....
There are plenty of reviews they are all BS to some degree. Eventually all manufactures have good reviews. It all comes down to budget and personal choice... unless you are going to calibrate them all and measure with expensive devices that 99.9% of consumers do not have.
Now that I read this again. I understand your confusion.
If you cannot imagine what it does, then you should either stop making recommendations on what to buy or learn what upscaling does and learn how to articulate good advice.
Again. How "great" the picture looks has NOTHING to do with the fact that the source video is "an even multiplier" of the device display format. It has EVERYTHING to do with input resolution. I guarantee you that a 1366x768 input to an HD or UHD TV will look better than a 720p input.
Further your recommendation on not getting an upscaling BR is not good advice. There is every reason to get a good quality upscaler IF your TV does shit for upscaling. In general, you get what you pay for. Good upscaling costs the manufacturers significant R&D and you have to pay for this R&D on every TV they use it on.
For you, since you say this and your picture looks great, I'd say you don't need any more than you have right now.
I'll be amazed if you can tell and point out the difference.
Now, you are talking upscaling, letterbox and a bunch of other stuff when you watch DVD on 4k. Are you purposefully mixing DVD and BR now? You do know that there is a big difference between DVD and BR right?
But following your prior logic... Why would more be going on if it does not need to be done? Fact is, no TVs duplicate pixels... even when it is easy to duplicate pixels and end up with an even multiplier of the resolution. They ALWAYS do more and that is why you think that they look great.
If all TV upscalers only did pixel replication there would be FAR less HD TVs out there and Ultra HD would only be a novelty.
Even a consumer would notice this difference, except for maybe you.
If you do not care to learn how to articulate what you know into accurate statements OR if you do not care to learn how you are inaccurate (wrong), I cannot help you.
Read what you wrote again dude.
Here is what you said, again....
There are plenty of reviews they are all BS to some degree. Eventually all manufactures have good reviews. It all comes down to budget and personal choice... unless you are going to calibrate them all and measure with expensive devices that 99.9% of consumers do not have.
Now that I read this again. I understand your confusion.
If you cannot imagine what it does, then you should either stop making recommendations on what to buy or learn what upscaling does and learn how to articulate good advice.
Again. How "great" the picture looks has NOTHING to do with the fact that the source video is "an even multiplier" of the device display format. It has EVERYTHING to do with input resolution. I guarantee you that a 1366x768 input to an HD or UHD TV will look better than a 720p input.
Further your recommendation on not getting an upscaling BR is not good advice. There is every reason to get a good quality upscaler IF your TV does shit for upscaling. In general, you get what you pay for. Good upscaling costs the manufacturers significant R&D and you have to pay for this R&D on every TV they use it on.
For you, since you say this and your picture looks great, I'd say you don't need any more than you have right now.
I'll be amazed if you can tell and point out the difference.
Now, you are talking upscaling, letterbox and a bunch of other stuff when you watch DVD on 4k. Are you purposefully mixing DVD and BR now? You do know that there is a big difference between DVD and BR right?
But following your prior logic... Why would more be going on if it does not need to be done? Fact is, no TVs duplicate pixels... even when it is easy to duplicate pixels and end up with an even multiplier of the resolution. They ALWAYS do more and that is why you think that they look great.
If all TV upscalers only did pixel replication there would be FAR less HD TVs out there and Ultra HD would only be a novelty.
Even a consumer would notice this difference, except for maybe you.
Vizio:
Whatever leftovers they stumbled across at the beginning of a product cycle, assembled by whichever factory had low-rent time on their hands that year.
Vizio is a decal and a yearly gamble. That's all. I've seen their televisions in no-name Chinese computer monitor housings. Hell, the damned guy that runs the joint has no idea what's going to hit the docks that year.
The last one I bought had advanced calibration utilities from the service menu of a Sony television as page one of the consumer-level video options menu. None of them worked. Not even the basic controls worked, which just happened to be a dead ringer for Sharp controls, buried in another menu...
The one before that attempted to receive only Chinese channels, regardless of the input selected, and when it did, by a stroke of luck, find something, it was a toss-up as to what it might be.
Every now and again, Vizio accidentally makes a good television. Most of the time, though, they make unfortunate televisions that only shock and awe new owners by way of sheer size or increased resolution; which sometimes turns out to not have been increased to begin with...
You are arguing the technology of upscaling with a man that purchased a 70" Vizio television and seems to believe it's on par with products that were actually designed to be themselves, for better or worse...
Try kicking water uphill. It's not quite as entertaining, but it's a hell of a lot more productive.:rofl:
Cheers,
Kennith
Whatever leftovers they stumbled across at the beginning of a product cycle, assembled by whichever factory had low-rent time on their hands that year.
Vizio is a decal and a yearly gamble. That's all. I've seen their televisions in no-name Chinese computer monitor housings. Hell, the damned guy that runs the joint has no idea what's going to hit the docks that year.
The last one I bought had advanced calibration utilities from the service menu of a Sony television as page one of the consumer-level video options menu. None of them worked. Not even the basic controls worked, which just happened to be a dead ringer for Sharp controls, buried in another menu...
The one before that attempted to receive only Chinese channels, regardless of the input selected, and when it did, by a stroke of luck, find something, it was a toss-up as to what it might be.
Every now and again, Vizio accidentally makes a good television. Most of the time, though, they make unfortunate televisions that only shock and awe new owners by way of sheer size or increased resolution; which sometimes turns out to not have been increased to begin with...
You are arguing the technology of upscaling with a man that purchased a 70" Vizio television and seems to believe it's on par with products that were actually designed to be themselves, for better or worse...
Try kicking water uphill. It's not quite as entertaining, but it's a hell of a lot more productive.:rofl:
Cheers,
Kennith
LOL. Yeah, I know. I'll try to give up now. Rescaling concepts are 35 year old tech for me.
RE: vizio. Fine choice if you make in consciously. If you think you have the best TV out there, well....
Also. Ultra HD (UHD) < 4k even though many people, including myself sometimes mistakenly interchange the two. 4k is noticeably higher resolution. I only make this mistake in casual conversation though, because there is a price difference.
RE: vizio. Fine choice if you make in consciously. If you think you have the best TV out there, well....
Also. Ultra HD (UHD) < 4k even though many people, including myself sometimes mistakenly interchange the two. 4k is noticeably higher resolution. I only make this mistake in casual conversation though, because there is a price difference.
For a new system, what do you recommend for upscaling? Are you OK running everything through a nice receiver? Or do you prefer the TV to handle it alone?
For an HD set up, I think you would be fine upscaling with the display device, if it is a good quality device. I think mid-high end sony and Samsung displays do a fine job as do and higher end oppo, sony, Samsung, Panasonic, pioneer players. If you have a lower end display, you might wish to consider a good player and utilize it. In general, I do not have any practical experience with A/V recievers and their upscaling quality. Again, like TVs it is difficult to compare these in a big box store. I am using mid range Sony Player and it is good enough, but rarely do I use upscaling.
I think likely, you are thinking about upscaling on UHD, which really you have no choice but to let the display device do it or use a A/V receiver to upscale.
With UHD, if I were to do it now, I would make sure that I got an A/V receiver that at least would allow upscaling to UHD@60 Hz and see how it works. HDMI 2.0 and UHD@60 support is still pretty uncommon last Oct when I was looking into my upgrade. I would guess at present most everyone just lets the device do the upscaling for now. Assuming you have HDMI 2.0 input to your UHD device, you will likely have many more options for upscaling in a year.
When I was upgrading my system in Oct of last year this played in my decision. I felt that with lack of HDMI 2.0 support for 60Hz UHD in sets, receiver and players that it was not worth being an early adopter. Otherwise you have to go with some form of media serving device that supports HDMI 2. Most of my hands on experience right now with UHD/4k devices use the device itself to upscale OR use HDMI 2.0 and native UHD/4k support.
I think likely, you are thinking about upscaling on UHD, which really you have no choice but to let the display device do it or use a A/V receiver to upscale.
With UHD, if I were to do it now, I would make sure that I got an A/V receiver that at least would allow upscaling to UHD@60 Hz and see how it works. HDMI 2.0 and UHD@60 support is still pretty uncommon last Oct when I was looking into my upgrade. I would guess at present most everyone just lets the device do the upscaling for now. Assuming you have HDMI 2.0 input to your UHD device, you will likely have many more options for upscaling in a year.
When I was upgrading my system in Oct of last year this played in my decision. I felt that with lack of HDMI 2.0 support for 60Hz UHD in sets, receiver and players that it was not worth being an early adopter. Otherwise you have to go with some form of media serving device that supports HDMI 2. Most of my hands on experience right now with UHD/4k devices use the device itself to upscale OR use HDMI 2.0 and native UHD/4k support.
Last edited:
I'm not trying to thread-crap here, but there is yet another option: your computer. You can get pro-quality algos (NNEDI3 doubling w/luma/chroma, EWA_Lanczos(Jinc), etc.) scalers with anti-ringing and linear light downscaling options, just about all of which are superior to any consumer "firmware" built into the monitors, and that includes Sammys and Sonys. You can also get calibration support, high-quality dithering options, all tweakable to your heart's content (or your eyes).
You'll have to have a semi-powerful GPU (AMD or nVidia, Intel iGPU is shit for shader support and general 3D perf) as the GPU is used now by most players that support these options. For UHD, you'll want a hi-perf GPU.
In addition, you can get smooth motion FRC with these latest players/renderers that, again, in most cases is better than what the panels offer. 10-bit support is available now, too. I'm not sure you can get a real 10-bit panel without going pro-level, however. These other guys might know.
On Windows, madVR is a pro-quality video renderer that is available in the best players and it has built-in calibration support for CALMAN, etc....I use JRIver and a newer, lesser know player, MPDN.
On Linux, you can go with MPV or a player there that will allow MPV to be used "externally". On my linux boxes, I use MPV directly (no frontend).
None of this is rocket science, but it's not quite for the faint of heart. It also depends on what your source material will be. The beauty of it is, IMO, that you have complete control, you're not dependent on someone else's "black box" to a degree.
Just some food for thought....
What applications were you rescaling? The reason I ask is because what I think I'm seeing on cheap upscaling equipment appears to be nearest neighbor not linear interpolation. If you are upscaling signals other than video (which 35 years ago would be way more useful) then nearest neighbor is worthless where in video its cheap, fast, and decent. Way more true to the original than standard linear interp.
I have dealt with tons of resampling problems in graphics and video (production and realtime) over the years and dozens of hardware/software applications. Nearest Neighbor, Linear, Bilinear and Cubic are typical methods, especially if you are talking old equipment. Now, I am sure with software/hardware advances most new/good TVs will have filters as well.
Maybe you could use software like what noee points us to to control the interpolation/filter and compare to what you are seeing? Are you saying your cheap equipment is adequate or not? Do you see any of the artifacts like noee says? Rings/Halos? Edges? Blurry? Blocky? These artifacts might help you determine what the device is actually doing.
The sky's the limit with rescaling now. Stuff implemented on the GPU as noee points us to can do some very cool stuff. The TVs will follow, but an NVidia GPU will always do more.
I may have to get madvr for home and see how it does on my some old DVD.
Wtf is there an apostrophe in the thread title? Plural of TVs is just that; nothing possessive about it...