DVD players that claim "upgade to 1080p" provides NEAR HD picture quality? Is it true?

[Anonymously Submitted]

how good are the DVD players that claim "upgrade to 1080p" and provides NEAR HD picture quality?

[Richard]

Based on a description of the average consumers perception, this is a true statement.

Simply put, if your display accepts HDMI then you will get better pictures by utilizing an HDMI equipped DVD player which usually automatically selects the highest scan rate your display supports. If performance is your bag you should check for the right output setting by checking an information screen on your display that shows the incoming scan rate or checking the menu of the player to confirm the right setting.

Based on the technical issues at hand it is usually true. DVD is not HD and must be converted to the native pixel matrix of your display. This conversion process tends to fair better from sources rather than what is used on your display to do the same thing. Nearly all large screens are now 1080p but there are less expensive products that are labeled as 720p yet are not using a true 720p pixel matrix, in which case results could vary.

For more info, FAQ: 720p versus 1080p
viewtopic.php?t=11190

[Rodolfo]

My answer is: it depends.

In general I agree with Richard, but generalities are many times wrong when considering screen size and the video processor quality of the player. For example, if you have an average size screen, viewed from at least 3 times its height, and the display and player have good quality video processors, then you may not notice a "large" difference with HD for casual viewing.

However, for example, my screen is 135 inches diagonal in Cinemascope aspect ratio, when I play a 1080p upscaled DVD I can notice a clear difference with HD quality (cable or Blu-ray). Would that make me avoid DVD quality when a Blu-ray is not available? No. But if it is available I would not chose DVD upscaled ever.

In numerical terms, consider that HD (1920x1080) is 6 times the quality of DVD (720x480) in number of pixels per video frame (spatial resolution, vertical x horizontal). Only 16% of the image you will see is made of original resolution pixels from the DVD disc, the other 84% of pixels have been interpolated (invented) by the video processing chip (within the player or the TV). How much can one expect of that quality when blown to large screen sizes? Tolerable YES, Similar NO.

Think about using Photoshop to manually add 84% of the pixels of a photo, think about doing it with a large print, think about adding motion, whereby the next 59 photos will also be with 84% of invented pixels, all displayed in one second. Quite a job indeed, it will never be the same as 100% of original pixels registering each different piece of image as seen by a camera with that resolution.

So, DVD upscaled does a good job but is not the same as HD, and it certainly does not look the same on large HD screens viewed from a standard HD distance.


Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

[Richard]

That said, this constant remains true, regardless of screen size, with any performance capable display if you are using the product at it's full potential, about a 3 screen height viewing distance. Get far enough away from any display and even SD can appear to be HD!

[Rodolfo]

That said, this constant remains true, regardless of screen size, with any performance capable display if you are using the product at it's full potential, about a 3 screen height viewing distance.

The statement needs clarity regarding which "constant remains true" and what can be expected at "about a 3 screen height viewing distance", and also at a shorter distance.

My post indicated the factors of screen size and viewing distance to appreciate differences, but even at the common 3-times-screen-height for HD viewing-distance an upscaled DVD will NOT show similar to HD, it will lack the original pixel detail a true 1080p image has, although it will certainly show better than plain 480x720 under the same conditions.

Although there are tables that provide guidelines of how close 1080p, 720p and 480p could be viewed, those are based on original resolutions not the 84% upscaled resolution of upconverted DVD.

While a viewer does not need to view DVD upscaled as far away as the distance recommended for 480p, viewing from the 1080p recommended distance will show obvious differences in image quality compared to true HD, so a point in between may be better for that type of upconverted content, and your own eyes should decide where that point is.

However, at that distance it may be too far away when is the turn to appreciate true HD quality, and the width of the angle of view may be reduced to a point the movie immersion factor is lost. To deal with that, some people prefer to move the seat to adapt to the quality of the image and maximize the width of the angle of view, while other people may prefer to fix the seat position (and the width of the angle of view) and tolerate the image quality differences.

[Richard]

The question is clear that DVD does not equal HD, only that upscaled DVD delivers near HD quality and the question seeks affirmation of that claim. In my own experience that claim cannot be refuted and at 5 screen heights one could easily claim DVD and HD appear the same. In my experience, in thousands of peoples homes, the common viewing distance is 5-10 screen heights and that was the inspiration for my answer; how most people use these products.

It was your desire to take this to greater depth for performance viewers like you and I. Yet with that you inferred that large HD screens may change this outcome. I only point out that size is not the issue, it is the viewing distance.

In general I agree with Richard, but generalities are many times wrong when considering screen size... So, DVD upscaled does a good job but is not the same as HD, and it certainly does not look the same on large HD screens viewed from a standard HD distance.

That said, this constant remains true, regardless of screen size, with any performance capable display if you are using the product at it's full potential, about a 3 screen height viewing distance. Get far enough away from any display and even SD can appear to be HD!

[Rodolfo]

We both agree that viewing distance is important. Most HDTV buyers are more concerned with screen size than viewing distance.

The reason why I said “larger screen sizes” was because since the 80s most people are replacing their relatively small TVs with larger and larger screens sizes without typically changing the viewing arrangements (distance from TV/furniture arrangement/seating positions) because most people do not know the rules of viewing distance/resolution/screen size.

For that reason it needed to clarified that if the viewing distance becomes inappropriate for the “larger screen size” the appearance of an upconverted DVD will NOT be as “close” to HD as the reader may think, definitely NOT at the recommended 3 times height viewing distance for HD.

Obviously if the viewing distance is from far away (from the kitchen to the family room for example) not even using binoculars there may be a difference.

Otherwise Blu-ray would not have reason to exist, a position Toshiba was eager to defend when they did not win the format war and decided to reinvent DVD with new players and the idea of how good upconverted DVD was.

Another reason a clarification was needed was that although the viewer may be casually informed by the store that this new HDTV is so sharp that HD can be viewed at 3 times its height, the generalization usually does not properly cover the viewing of an upconverted DVD, which is missing 84% of the original HD detail.

In order to provide this “non-generalized” information properly this exchange became necessary and I hope the reader will have now enough elements to apply the concepts to his/her particular installation.

[Richard]

The reason why I said “larger screen sizes” was because since the 80s most people are replacing their relatively small TVs with larger and larger screens sizes without typically changing the viewing arrangements (distance from TV/furniture arrangement/seating positions) because most people do not know the rules of viewing distance/resolution/screen size.

All true but your reply assumes that by replacing their old NTSC TV with a larger screen HDTV that most people are now coming close to or using 3-4 screen heights which is not true. My observation is 5-10 screen heights in thousands of homes with an HDTV. Using the parameters you state above, the observed viewing distance with their old NTSC TV would have been 8-15 screen heights. That is the required piece of information not found in the above analysis.

As you point out, most do not change their viewing arrangements and that is the key to understanding what is happening in the home. Many of my customers have stated that they did not buy an even larger screen (which they should have based on our rules) because of past information about viewing distance based on the old NTSC system. Yet when I explain to them these fundamentals that you and I understand, we discover rather than the 45-65 inch screen they are using, the correct size is actually 65-105 inches. Naturally they are shocked by the very thought of such a large screen in the room which then leads to justification as to why that would never happen. And that always comes down to having to change the design of the room, in essence, the life style they and their loved ones prefer to experience. Just the thought of moving a couch closer to the display can be upsetting!

Few actually pursue the immersive and high resolution experience you and I relish in. Some will not do it due to motion sickness. Yet most simply do not care and are satisfied with the improvements they already perceive with their HDTV in the comfort they already had. This final observation also carries over to those who have spent thousands of dollars for a dedicated home theater yet still choose to not have the 3 screen heights experience you and I prefer. In these systems 4-6 screen heights is common.

I am puzzled by your claim that a store would state, “that this new HDTV is so sharp that HD can be viewed at 3 times its height”. Maybe, I repeat maybe a high end store but this is difficult to comprehend occurring at the local Best Buy, Walmart, Brandsmart, HHGregg, etc..

Toshiba clearly had made a valid observation! Indeed, properly upconverted/scaled DVD is quite satisfying under normal consumer use and most do perceive the result as being just like HD. Why would a store go out of its way with each and every customer to point out viewing fundamentals and resolution differences that 90-95% do not care about, and have no real intention of changing their lifestyle or spending more money to address such concerns? It is people like you and I demanding better and willing to move mountains for this experience yet we only represent about 5-10% of the viewers. I am grateful for blu-ray because it is the ONLY source that actually delivers the HD promise of perfection at the correct viewing distance. Indeed, it is so good that folks like you and I can modify a 2.35 blu-ray source to fill out a 2.35 cinemascope screen, exceeding the original capability of HD. I am very grateful that the general public also perceives a benefit so blu-ray can exist! If only it would have been so for SACD and DVD-Audio...

On that note, the 90-95% who don’t care are having a major influence in the market and appear to be saying they will except a lower standard of source quality, DVD or HD, provided they can access it now at the touch of a button, and experience it with any device they can lay their hands on, just like they did with audio. My observation is the future does not look very bright for performance folks like you and I because ultimate performance is not the goal of the majority; good enough balanced against the most convenience will do just fine.

Going back to this simple question and the way it was delivered, the experience of my observations draw a reasonable and ordinary anecdotal conclusion; this person has likely just purchased an HDTV and while they could simply connect their old DVD player, something has inspired them to look at a player that claims to deliver near HD quality with DVD. More than likely the inspiration came from a sales person or simply seeing this claim on a box or on a product. Hence the root of the question, is it true?

There is a plenty of performance information on this site for any reader who wishes to put forth the effort to find it. There are a number of authors and forum members who have the answer to a readers performance question; they only need to ask a performance related question.