Time To Enjoy The 65 Vt20a

[B-Force]

Thanks MLXXX.

Just with the black border thing - I understand the colour fringing, but what I was referring to is, the PlayTV outputs a border around the whole screen when watching FTA.

While I understand FTA has edge artefacts, PlayTV seems to have very large black borders on all four sizes and none of the borders are even - the left board is about 5-7cm in from the edge!! Very annoying. If all edges were even and centered it would be less annoying.

The only way to avoid these borders when using PlayTV is to have the TV set to "overscan" on.

This is a known fault (uneven borders) with PlayTV - it doesn't support 1 to 1 pixel viewing (although the PS3 for gaming, blu-ray etc does). The issue is talked about a lot on the Play Station web site and I think on the DTV Forums (Gaming section).

I don't know how you can stand watching it like that graham!!

I just followed Owen's advice (he posted somewhere on a similar topic) - "just turn overscan on, leave it on and forget about it"

[graham johnson]

I don't know how you can stand watching it like that graham!!

Its only about 10mm wide just on the edges of the screen (not the top) Not very wide at all. It was easy to ignore.

[MLXXX]

Just with the black border thing - I understand the colour fringing, but what I was referring to is, the PlayTV outputs a border around the whole screen when watching FTA.

I quickly misread one of graham's posts as referring to my subpixel offset topic, not your the PlayTV topic.

I guess that after activitating overscanning on your TV you are getting the benefit of a slightly larger picture size for the part of the PlayTV video that is visible.

[graham johnson]

I quickly misread one of graham's posts as referring to my subpixel offset topic, not your the PlayTV topic.

I guess that after activitating overscanning on your TV you are getting the benefit of a slightly larger picture size for the part of the PlayTV video that is visible.

I understand what you are getting at as the coloured phosphers are not superimposed upon each other but are more or less side by side.

Just finished watching a movie on the VT20 I recorded on the PS3 last night. No black bars and the HDMI input is 1:1 matched ?? I know they where there on the 50PZ800.

But I think I worked out why.

My PS3 is a US machine ( all my playback equipment is. I have had HD DVD and Bluray from the first days they appeared in 2005-2006)

When using the FTA signal via the PS3 and the PlayTV the VT20 reports 50Hz. When I play back my FTA recorded matter or Bluray it reports 60 Hz.

There are no thin black side bars on the 60 hz output signals. But there is on the 50 hz signals. Go figure.

Edited January 2, 2011 by graham johnson

[kendrew]

B-force, it may also be a design thing. (Blu-ray videos are not all that sharp. They are designed to look very smooth like a cinema picture. They contain no aliasing whatsoever with oblique lines. Sharper is not always better if the source contains artifacts.)

It is conceivable that the 65VT20As have a more pronounced softening than the 50VT20As. I don't know. I comment on my 50VT20A below.. . . .

I may be missing something but I’m a bit confused. When you say “Blu-ray videos are not all that sharp” - are you referring to BDs? Most of your post seemed to relate to internal tuner characteristics.

Our AVR automatically adjusts its HDMI video output to the native resolution of the TV. It then upscales all sources to the TV.

Yesterday I did another set up of our 65VT20 for “Cinema” via calibration disc through our Oppo BDP-83 using its Source Direct. Then I switched it back to HDMI 1080p and adjusted the Oppo picture settings, still with the calibration disc images, to suit my preferred BD playback PQ.

Last night we played just the one BD - “GI-Joe” - and everyone (me too) was amazed at the clarity and depth of the picture.

Since being used to the superb SXRD HD processing where we had fine detail - without artifacts - I was entranced by the superior (YES) picture from the 65VT20A. The blacks were extraordinary, shadows were detailed, colours were magnificent.

I may like sharper detail than some. I like to see facial details such as minor blemishes and skin pores. There were no noticeable artifacts (to my eyes).

I recall being very impressed with the SXRD’s rendition of the old FTA TEN HD loop; the detail in brickwork of churches, historic buildings, etc. was fabulous.

Last night the 65VTA20 ran rings around the SXRD! - My son said it is the best “picture” he has ever seen. The other viewers frequently pointed out their “wow” observations. I was stunned by a dark fur stole type garment; the lighting was spectacular and I could virtually distinguish individual hairs in the darkest of shadow areas.

We haven’t any of the “reference” BD discs reviewers refer to (King Kong, Dark Knight, etc.) but if this “GI-Joe” is just average - well?

Its DTS HD audio 5.1 soundtrack is not as good as many others. I had to bump up some of the levels to reach the body-bruising impact which I prefer. But that’s OK.

By the way, I make no reference to its storyline or character depth but it is a rollicking yarn; in my favourite genre of Sci-Fi/Action. Special effects and creative movie sets are made for BD. Real escapism.

BD playback says a lot about our abysmal FTA digital TV - but that’s for another time. “Can’t make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.” - How true.

[CCRider]

I may be missing something but I’m a bit confused. When you say “Blu-ray videos are not all that sharp” - are you referring to BDs? Most of your post seemed to relate to internal tuner characteristics.

We haven’t any of the “reference” BD discs reviewers refer to (King Kong, Dark Knight, etc.) but if this “GI-Joe” is just average - well?

Its DTS HD audio 5.1 soundtrack is not as good as many others. I had to bump up some of the levels to reach the body-bruising impact which I prefer. But that’s OK.

By the way, I make no reference to its storyline or character depth but it is a rollicking yarn; in my favourite genre of Sci-Fi/Action. Special effects and creative movie sets are made for BD. Real escapism.

BD playback says a lot about our abysmal FTA digital TV - but that’s for another time. “Can’t make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.” - How true.

I agree re GI Joe. Saw it at HN on a loop via 65vt20 and 63 7000 (Both sets were side to side) and said to my self ...gotta get this..

Well it was part of buy two for $30 deal and with 20% of came to $12. TBH it is a great "escape from reality" movie...but that is all. It looked fantastic to my eyes... reminded me

of Transformers.

Also like you noted that sound effects could have been better. Kids movies like Cars and Toy Story etc (I love watching them ) always have the best surround effects.

I like you noted that latest version of King Kong looks breathtaking on BR. But still blown away with I Robot.

I'm watching the GAME ( 2 for $20 deal less 20%) with Mike Douglas looks like another beautiful transfer on the 65vt20.

Edited January 3, 2011 by CC Rider

[MLXXX]

I may be missing something but I’m a bit confused. When you say “Blu-ray videos are not all that sharp” - are you referring to BDs? Most of your post seemed to relate to internal tuner characteristics.

Yes I was referring to the encoded video on the Blu-ray disc. It will contain no aliasing artifacts, whereas an HD television video camera typically does give slight aliasing, and a more detailed picture. For example, with sports TV coverage a hint of moiré (false patterning) in the herringbone weave of jacket of a judge being interviewed is acceptable. With a digital transfer to Blu-ray, such artifacts in what is supposed to be cinema picture would be unacceptable.

This is a concept that most people struggle with, as most people assume that the better the camera quality the more detail will be visible. And it is commonly assumed that Blu-rays contain the most detailed video available in the 1920x1080 format.

As another example, a military surveillance digital camera may not blend its pixels all that much in order that very small individual specks of detail detail may be just visible. The trade-off is that regular patterns (e.g. a distant picket fence) may give rise to moiré patterns. Blu-ray cannot afford moiré. It must look like the cinema, and not all "digital".

This is one reason why I find heated discussion about 1:1 pixel mapping for video a bit odd. If you take an extracted frame from a Blu-ray and rescale it up and then rescale it back to 1920x1080, it will require extreme care to detect a difference. Many people assume it would have to to make an obvious difference. The reason it doesn't is that there has already been intentional blending of pixels in creating the super smooth, alias-free, Blu-ray master. (The additional blending caused by rescaling upwards and back is a very minor further blending.)

Last night we played just the one BD - “GI-Joe” - and everyone (me too) was amazed at the clarity and depth of the picture.

Since being used to the superb SXRD HD processing where we had fine detail - without artifacts - I was entranced by the superior (YES) picture from the 65VT20A. The blacks were extraordinary, shadows were detailed, colours were magnificent.

I may like sharper detail than some. I like to see facial details such as minor blemishes and skin pores. There were no noticeable artifacts (to my eyes).

I recall being very impressed with the SXRD’s rendition of the old FTA TEN HD loop; the detail in brickwork of churches, historic buildings, etc. was fabulous.

Last night the 65VTA20 ran rings around the SXRD! - My son said it is the best “picture” he has ever seen. The other viewers frequently pointed out their “wow” observations. I was stunned by a dark fur stole type garment; the lighting was spectacular and I could virtually distinguish individual hairs in the darkest of shadow areas.

The modern plasmas do provide very dark blacks. And quite high contrast. I run my SXRD with a fixed iris setting, and its "blacks" cannot compare with blacks from my 50VT20A. Mind you, the 50VT20A has a much more reflective screen so the room has to be darkened during the day, and at night-time care has to be taken to avoid using any source of light that would directly reflect off the screen back to viewers.

When I acquired my 60" SXRD 4 years ago, the television display world was very different. Colour looked very artificial to me even on higher end plasmas and LCDs. Today, colour is very well managed. I still have a gripe that the standard for red is a bit towards orange, and that I cannot see real life red when I look at a plasma screen!

Tonight I'm watching the Hopman cup on One HD and although it is upscaled SD (with aliasing of the court lines occasionally very obvious) my VT20A is producing a very vibrant and detailed picture. It is more vibrant than the SXRD picture.

Plasma display technology has advanced a lot. However I cannot give my VT20A a clean bill of health because as soon as I put a 1080p60 or 1080p50 computer desktop on the screen there is visible flicker for my eyes. And a difficult to pin down busyness in a static picture. The SXRD is perfectly "calm". And flicker is often visible with FTA on the VT20A.

I still have issues with gamma (daylight scenes in movies including expanses of black) but these issues are probably more to do with standards of producing video source material rather than the fact that modern plasma displays have such high contrast that anything encoded near to video black can scarcely be seen.

Edited January 4, 2011 by MLXXX

[CCRider]

Yes I was referring to the encoded video on the Blu-ray disc. It will contain no aliasing artifacts, whereas an HD television video camera typically does give slight aliasing, and a more detailed picture. For example, with sports TV coverage a hint of moiré (false patterning) in the herringbone weave of jacket of a judge being interviewed is acceptable. With a digital transfer to Blu-ray, such artifacts in what is supposed to be cinema picture would be unacceptable.

T

I still have issues with gamma (daylight scenes in movies including expanses of black) but these issues are probably more to do with standards of producing video source material rather than the fact that modern plasma displays have such high contrast that anything encoded near to video black can scarcely be seen.

I'll say it once more. You have a gift no doubt. Love reading your posts they are refreshing and polite.

Edited January 4, 2011 by CC Rider

[kendrew]

I like you noted that latest version of King Kong looks breathtaking on BR. But still blown away with I Robot.

I'm watching the GAME ( 2 for $20 deal less 20%) with Mike Douglas looks like another beautiful transfer on the 65vt20.

Thanks for the recommendation. My son is bringing home I Robot (BD) this afternoon. We have it on DVD but I'm sure it will be spectacular on BD.

I'm very envious - you seem to get onto some attractively priced bundles.

[B-Force]

Its only about 10mm wide just on the edges of the screen (not the top) Not very wide at all. It was easy to ignore.

Maybe it's because yours is a US Version?? The Australian version has uneven black boarders especially on the left hand side - and it gets worse depending on what FTA channel you are watching.

As you have discovered the black borders don't appear upon playback of a FTA recording. Wired!!

Oh well

[kendrew]

Yes I was referring to the encoded video on the Blu-ray disc. It will contain no aliasing artifacts, whereas an HD television video camera typically does give slight aliasing, and a more detailed picture. For example, with sports TV coverage a hint of moiré (false patterning) in the herringbone weave of jacket of a judge being interviewed is acceptable. With a digital transfer to Blu-ray, such artifacts in what is supposed to be cinema picture would be unacceptable.

This is a concept that most people struggle with, as most people assume that the better the camera quality the more detail will be visible. And it is commonly assumed that Blu-rays contain the most detailed video available in the 1920x1080 format.............

..............Plasma display technology has advanced a lot. However I cannot give my VT20A a clean bill of health because as soon as I put a 1080p60 or 1080p50 computer desktop on the screen there is visible flicker for my eyes. And a difficult to pin down busyness in a static picture. The SXRD is perfectly "calm". And flicker is often visible with FTA on the VT20A.

I still have issues with gamma (daylight scenes in movies including expanses of black) but these issues are probably more to do with standards of producing video source material rather than the fact that modern plasma displays have such high contrast that anything encoded near to video black can scarcely be seen.

I hope this isn’t too far OT.

MLXXX, I am quite obviously a layman in this field and I do appreciate your learned responses.

In my own dedicated area of interest; that of music, I find myself constrained by the technicalities. I sometimes forget to listen as a “devotee” and instead listen with all the burdens of “knowing” how it “should” sound, why those frequencies are poorly presented, etc, etc, and generally nitpicking. We are familiar with the (perceived?) demarcation between the analogue and the digital.

With respect to BD resolution (detail?) compared with HD TV, I must confess, as a layman, that I’m also struggling with the concept that HD TV video gives a more detailed picture than BD encoded video.

My earlier post regarding our revelatory BD event was based purely on a subjective comparison between my past experiences with previous TVs (SXRD included of course), and how much more enjoyable our current TV picture now is. I frequently say “to my ears” and “to my eyes”; an essential qualifier I believe.

Whether or not HD TV is capable of better resolution than that of BD encoded video is of little concern to me. To my eyes, the BD picture I watched was the BEST I had ever seen. My son and others all agreed. I cannot imagine how the picture could be better?

This next bit may seem irrelevant but it may further indicate that I would rather the BD encoded video than the superior HD TV with all its quirks.

I find it vexing and distracting to observe moiré patterns (and any intrusive artifacts) which serve to disrupt whole involvement. And I need to stay away from the horror you have described when mating a computer to your VT20. As for your terrifying Gamma issues. Begone.

When following the setup procedures on a calibration BD, I’ve previously referred to the fact that afterwards, I readjust some settings - to suit my eyes. I’m not the only one.

A calibrationist may use a colorimeter connected to a PC with suitable software to log and interpret the readings. I have seen examples of calibrated panels and inevitably I’m desperate to fiddle with some settings so the picture is suitable for my eyes. So I use the technology as a guide but then suit myself.

Thanks again for your insightful comments, They are well presented and most welcome.

[MLXXX]

Thanks CC Rider and kendrew for your kind comments.

...

With respect to BD resolution (detail?) compared with HD TV, I must confess, as a layman, that I’m also struggling with the concept that HD TV video gives a more detailed picture than BD encoded video.

My earlier post regarding our revelatory BD event was based purely on a subjective comparison between my past experiences with previous TVs (SXRD included of course), and how much more enjoyable our current TV picture now is. I frequently say “to my ears” and “to my eyes”; an essential qualifier I believe.

Whether or not HD TV is capable of better resolution than that of BD encoded video is of little concern to me. To my eyes, the BD picture I watched was the BEST I had ever seen. My son and others all agreed. I cannot imagine how the picture could be better? ...

Yes BD is so smooth and rich that you want to immerse yourself in it! It looks great on a large display.

I perhaps should qualify my comments about the extra detail that an HD video camera can provide, e.g. in a television studio with guests being interviewed. It is very much subject to bitrate constraints.

For a 1920x1080 studio camera, careful engineering goes into the design of the anti-aliasing optical filter in front of the image sensing pixels (this physical filter diffuses incoming light to prevent detail falling on only one pixel at a time). And a degree of electronic image sharpening will typically be used in the camera to boost the visible sharpness (modulation transfer function) for detail that exists a little below the "Nyquist" spatial frequency of detail. Video camera design is a complex compromise. The final result is raw video giving a strikingly sharp and vibrant picture with only a moderate level of aliasing.

With a live broadcast, that video signal has to run the gauntlet of being routed through the studio and being encoded into the MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 video compressed digital stream for broadcast. In this process, the video is typically pre-filtered, somewhat, prior to compression.

The compression process itself will reduce the detail whenever there is too much movement to be encoded accurately within the constraint of the maximum available video stream bitrate for the broadcast. Those parts of the image in excessive flux will be robbed of their detail and replaced with the chunky pixelated type of look that we see in low bitrate youtube video.

So although we sometimes see extra detail with television camera high definiton video, including aliases, compared with Blu-ray, the level of detail varies. Blu-ray encoded quality tends to be much more consistent (it has a much higher maximum bitrate) but even Blu-ray will need to shed some detail in very demanding scenes. Cheers.

Edited January 4, 2011 by MLXXX

[kendrew]

..................... I like you noted that latest version of King Kong looks breathtaking on BR. But still blown away with I Robot.

Thanks for the recommendation. My son is bringing home I Robot (BD) this afternoon. We have it on DVD but I'm sure it will be spectacular on BD.

I'm very envious - you seem to get onto some attractively priced bundles.

Unfortunately, CC, it turns out that I Robot BD wasn't in stock when my son went to pick it up. Some mixup. Boohoo.

And all my online searches have come down to one available at about $40.00 - we'll wait until something like your deal comes along.

[kendrew]

Thanks CC Rider and kendrew for your kind comments.

Yes BD is so smooth and rich that you want to immerse yourself in it! It looks great on a large display.

I perhaps should qualify my comments about the extra detail that an HD video camera can provide, e.g. in a television studio with guests being interviewed. It is very much subject to bitrate constraints.

For a 1920x1080 studio camera, careful engineering goes into the design of the anti-aliasing optical filter in front of the image sensing pixels (this physical filter diffuses incoming light to prevent detail falling on only one pixel at a time). And a degree of electronic image sharpening will typically be used in the camera to boost the visible sharpness (modulation transfer function) for detail that exists a little below the "Nyquist" spatial frequency of detail. Video camera design is a complex compromise. The final result is raw video giving a strikingly sharp and vibrant picture with only a moderate level of aliasing.

With a live broadcast, that video signal has to run the gauntlet of being routed through the studio and being encoded into the MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 video compressed digital stream for broadcast. In this process, the video is typically pre-filtered, somewhat, prior to compression.

The compression process itself will reduce the detail whenever there is too much movement to be encoded accurately within the constraint of the maximum available video stream bitrate for the broadcast. Those parts of the image in excessive flux will be robbed of their detail and replaced with the chunky pixelated type of look that we see in low bitrate youtube video.

So although we sometimes see extra detail with television camera high definiton video, including aliases, compared with Blu-ray, the level of detail varies. Blu-ray encoded quality tends to be much more consistent (it has a much higher maximum bitrate) but even Blu-ray will need to shed some detail in very demanding scenes. Cheers.

I followed your lucid explanations quite easily, MLXXX, thanks again.

I almost hesitate to admit - I noticed my very first "posterization" on the 65VT20A a couple of nights ago - in the playback of a recorded off-air movie. I didn't want to see it (the posterization), which made it worse (ahh, the old SXRD).

Last night, I was able to control myself a little and actually didn't see any overt examples.

Referring to that recorded movie again, it was off our local "HD" GEM. When played back, the detail was surprisingly good and artifact free apart from the posterization. If we had watched the movie straight off-air, via the PVR tuner, I think the resolution would not have been as good. The PVR video output is set to 1080i. Is it possible there is further processing (upscaling) when the recording is played back?

Or is it my imagination?

I wonder about the "chain" of upscaling/upconverting processes which occur from, say, the PVR to the AVR and then to the VT20A. Is there a situation where sources can be upscaled/upconverted several times; culminating in better (or worse) results?

I had a DVDO iScan VP30 some time ago which simply didn't work with the SXRD; the results were atrocious and so I "eBayed" it.

[MLXXX]

If we had watched the movie straight off-air, via the PVR tuner, I think the resolution would not have been as good. The PVR video output is set to 1080i. Is it possible there is further processing (upscaling) when the recording is played back?

Or is it my imagination?

There's very unlikely to be different processing on digital PVR playback that would boost Picture Quality compared with the live PVR output.

You can be watching live, start a recording, and then "rewind" for an instant replay, and PQ should stay the same throughout.

I wonder about the "chain" of upscaling/upconverting processes which occur from, say, the PVR to the AVR and then to the VT20A. Is there a situation where sources can be upscaled/upconverted several times; culminating in better (or worse) results?

Marketing people will tend to recommend to engineers that any product "enhance" the video.

Today's TV sets will have default settings that do such things as adaptive deinterlacing, detail boosting, sharpening, video noise reduction; automatic black level, brightness, and colour balance adjustments; and motion smoothing. An external video processor can do these things, though motion smoothing would have a limit to its frame rate.

Late model higher end TV sets should be able to do all essential (e.g. deinterlacing and rescaling) and all optional video processing (e.g. sharpening) to a high standard. There should be little need for any outboard video processor. [You yourself report that a DVDO iScan VP30 did not help video quality when used with your SXRD TV.]

There is a a group of ardent supporters of upscaling DVD players. Some of these supporters believe that such players are able to go a long way towards rendering a 720x576 PAL DVD with the quality of a 1920x1080 Blu-ray. Given that the horizontal pixel density of PAL DVDs is only 37.5% that of Blu-rays, this is a very optimistic point of view.

It is extremely commonplace for TVs to be on show side by side in showrooms, often displaying SD FTA. It is very much in the different manufacturers' interests to equip their TVs with deinterlacers and rescalers that deliver an impressive result. Even a small edge of improvement could decide a sale to a member of the public. [On the other hand, you will not see upscaling DVD players set up side by side and switched between at Harvey Norman, or any other major retailer.]

Experimenting with resolution settings

These days with most displays capable of accepting Full HD, the logical starting point is to set a PVR at a maximum resolution output. However it is usually recommended if watching an SD channel, to experiment at least once with setting the output resolution of the PVR lower, so that rescaling is performed by the TV (or even an interposed AVR). Unless this gives a definite improvement, it should probably be avoided as when the PVR is tuned to a higher resolution FTA program stream there is a fair chance visible resolution will be compromised.

Cultivating a tolerance of pixellation

Given the dynamically varying quality of a lot of our FTA SD sources (more prominent MPEG-2 pixellation when the picture content changes rapidly and chaotically) it is useful to develop an ability to tolerate artifacts. Realistically, MPEG-2 pixellation artifacts cannot be eliminated. There are those people unable to tolerate MPEG-2 artifacts who place their TV so far from their view that they are unable to see the detail delivered in static or slowly changing scenes! They are paying a significant price for their inability to tolerate video encoding artifacts.

I personally belong to the "see it warts and all" school, not the "I won't watch that" school.

There is a definite limit to improvements possible from "rescaling" and "enhancing". Digital FTA video is not perfect.

Blu-ray

As for Blu-ray, it has been mastered to give a very smooth, non-digital looking, PQ. It should require no "enhancing", with the possible exception of a little bit of motion smoothing to make screen credits, and slow pans, display more smoothly without jitter; though purists may well prefer the classic film look, i.e. occasionally visible jitter during the film.

Edited January 6, 2011 by MLXXX

[graham johnson]

I did find an achilles heal in my VT. I have a D-Theatre VHS player that plays HD video tapes ( I have I robot too )

But the VT doesnt have an optical audio input I needed to feed SPDIF into it. The Old 50PZ800 had one.

Edited January 6, 2011 by graham johnson

[pietro1503559499]

I have recently started to notice posterization too, quite severe on occasions. I noticed it on the SXRD as well, though infrequently. Is it to do with bit-rate? I have not seen any on a BD so far.

[re-boot]

I have recently started to notice posterization too, quite severe on occasions. I noticed it on the SXRD as well, though infrequently. Is it to do with bit-rate? I have not seen any on a BD so far.

I asked the same question, and MLXXX provided an explanation here.

http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?s=&...t&p=1655823

Alot of it went over my head, but I understood the basic concept.

I found this link helped as well.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/posterization.htm

[CCRider]

I have just acquired a DVDO edge from Amazon USA around $500 delivered and set up last night so that my 65VT is getting signal PVR>DVDO edge>Denon 4308 AVR> TV via hdmi.

I was blown away with how good SD FTA looked. Even better was HD.

Even the Samsung 7000 plasma could not produces that type clarity.

I was sceptical about what the edge could do but now I am one of the converted.

Edited January 7, 2011 by CC Rider

[MLXXX]

I have just acquired a DVDO edge from Amazon USA around $500 delivered and set up last night so that my 65VT is getting signal PVR>DVDO edge>Denon 4308 AVR> TV via hdmi.

I was blown away with how good SD FTA looked. Even better was HD.

Even the Samsung 7000 plasma could not produces that type clarity.

I was sceptical about what the edge could do but now I am one of the converted.

CC Rider, is this improvement with static scenes, or just moving scenes? If with static scenes is it possible to get two photographs of a PVR recording, perhaps of just part of the screen to make it easier to see detail, one with the DVDO edge dormant, and one with it activated, so that the extent of the improvement can be seen by others on the forum?

The "before" and after "picture" of seating at http://www.anchorbaytech.com/dvdo_edge/product.php looks remarkable but one is always sceptical of pictures provided by a manufacturer. The "before" looks very poor.

Edited January 7, 2011 by MLXXX

[CCRider]

CC Rider, is this improvement with static scenes, or just moving scenes? If with static scenes is it possible to get two photographs of a PVR recording, perhaps of just part of the screen to make it easier to see detail, one with the DVDO edge dormant, and one with it activated, so that the extent of the improvement can be seen by others on the forum?

The "before" and after "picture" of seating at http://www.anchorbaytech.com/dvdo_edge/product.php looks remarkable but one is always sceptical of pictures provided by a manufacturer. The "before" looks very poor.

Will do in the near future. I am tied up preparing for a wedding tomorrow...(not mine )

The improvement is with everything. The edge has also imprved my DVD viewing experience cleaning up a lot of compression artefacts.

I also have the Oppo bd83 SE and despite it also having the same chip as the edge the functionality and features in the Edge makes the Oppo's seem very watered down.

Edited January 7, 2011 by CC Rider

[kendrew]

I have just acquired a DVDO edge from Amazon USA around $500 delivered and set up last night so that my 65VT is getting signal PVR>DVDO edge>Denon 4308 AVR> TV via hdmi.

I was blown away with how good SD FTA looked. Even better was HD.

Even the Samsung 7000 plasma could not produces that type clarity.

I was sceptical about what the edge could do but now I am one of the converted.

C.C. I too have been impressed by the favourable reports on ABT's "The Edge". It is well recognized as a vast improvement over the iScan VP30. I was reluctant to get one due to the SXRD's largely acceptable PQ for FTA SD, its incompatibility with the VP30 - and the Oppo's inclusion of the ABT upscaling chip in the BDP-83, which in some circles is said to be at least the equivalent of The Edge.

Since getting the 65VT20A with its poor FTA SD, I may reconsider; but not because Oppo has swapped the ABT for the Qdeo in their new BDP-95 which will be our 3D BD player.

You highly rate the improvement of the FTA SD via the PVR>The Edge>AVR>TV. To your eyes what's the difference between The Edge, and no Edge? Please excuse my apparent inanity but your reassertion would be appreciated.

*** HMM. I half did this post earlier in the day and got distracted. I've just finished and posted and now see some consequential preemption.

Edited January 7, 2011 by kendrew

[MLXXX]

The improvement is with everything. The edge has also imprved my DVD viewing experience cleaning up a lot of compression artefacts.

I will be fascinated to see what the edge can do to remove artifacts, hopefully without at the same time compromising valuable detail.

A picture is worth a thouand words. So often we read forum members make claims about the advantages of video processors, but without any photographs showing what can be achieved. Cheers.

[kendrew]

There's very unlikely to be different processing on digital PVR playback that would boost Picture Quality compared with the live PVR output.

You can be watching live, start a recording, and then "rewind" for an instant replay, and PQ should stay the same throughout.

Marketing people will tend to recommend to engineers that any product "enhance" the video.

Today's TV sets will have default settings that do such things as adaptive deinterlacing, detail boosting, sharpening, video noise reduction; automatic black level, brightness, and colour balance adjustments; and motion smoothing. An external video processor can do these things, though motion smoothing would have a limit to its frame rate.

Late model higher end TV sets should be able to do all essential (e.g. deinterlacing and rescaling) and all optional video processing (e.g. sharpening) to a high standard. There should be little need for any outboard video processor. [You yourself report that a DVDO iScan VP30 did not help video quality when used with your SXRD TV.]

There is a a group of ardent supporters of upscaling DVD players. Some of these supporters believe that such players are able to go a long way towards rendering a 720x576 PAL DVD with the quality of a 1920x1080 Blu-ray. Given that the horizontal pixel density of PAL DVDs is only 37.5% that of Blu-rays, this is a very optimistic point of view.

It is extremely commonplace for TVs to be on show side by side in showrooms, often displaying SD FTA. It is very much in the different manufacturers' interests to equip their TVs with deinterlacers and rescalers that deliver an impressive result. Even a small edge of improvement could decide a sale to a member of the public. [On the other hand, you will not see upscaling DVD players set up side by side and switched between at Harvey Norman, or any other major retailer.]

Experimenting with resolution settings

These days with most displays capable of accepting Full HD, the logical starting point is to set a PVR at a maximum resolution output. However it is usually recommended if watching an SD channel, to experiment at least once with setting the output resolution of the PVR lower, so that rescaling is performed by the TV (or even an interposed AVR). Unless this gives a definite improvement, it should probably be avoided as when the PVR is tuned to a higher resolution FTA program stream there is a fair chance visible resolution will be compromised.

Cultivating a tolerance of pixellation

Given the dynamically varying quality of a lot of our FTA SD sources (more prominent MPEG-2 pixellation when the picture content changes rapidly and chaotically) it is useful to develop an ability to tolerate artifacts. Realistically, MPEG-2 pixellation artifacts cannot be eliminated. There are those people unable to tolerate MPEG-2 artifacts who place their TV so far from their view that they are unable to see the detail delivered in static or slowly changing scenes! They are paying a significant price for their inability to tolerate video encoding artifacts.

I personally belong to the "see it warts and all" school, not the "I won't watch that" school.

There is a definite limit to improvements possible from "rescaling" and "enhancing". Digital FTA video is not perfect.

Blu-ray

As for Blu-ray, it has been mastered to give a very smooth, non-digital looking, PQ. It should require no "enhancing", with the possible exception of a little bit of motion smoothing to make screen credits, and slow pans, display more smoothly without jitter; though purists may well prefer the classic film look, i.e. occasionally visible jitter during the film.

Thank you for your comments and comprehensive descriptions.

[kendrew]

I did find an achilles heal in my VT. I have a D-Theatre VHS player that plays HD video tapes ( I have I robot too )

But the VT doesnt have an optical audio input I needed to feed SPDIF into it. The Old 50PZ800 had one.

There are SPDIF to HDMI to SPDIF adaptors available - they are called AVRs. Sorry I'm being a mite facetious and somewhat plagiaristic.