Blu-Ray Players

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Wow Pix, your ignorance of the Bluray format is staggering. You really need to take a Bluray 101 course - you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

[harley .guy07]

I've only owned the BDP-93 for a few short weeks now, but have absolutely no complaints with BR or audio (SACD) performance. In fact, I'm kicking myself for having waited so long to pull the trigger on a purchase. Time to find a new home for the Pioneer Elite Blu Ray player that it replaced.

It's also time to consider picking up either the Marantz AV8003 & MM7055 or Integra 80.2 & DTA 70.1. Getting back to separates is also long overdue, especially now that I have the space for it.

yeah I have not seen to many people out there that don't like what the Oppo players do for them in their setups. Any format I put in my player plays good and either sounds great through my dac(audio) or looks good either being DVD or Blue Ray. I know that DVD upscaling will not add any content to the material anyone with any kind of knowledge knows that just like taking a mp3 and making it flac format ro wave to transfer to a cd will not add anything to the origional data but the video processors in the Oppo players are top notch in their class for taking DVD's and making them look as good as they possibly can on a 1080p led tv. There might be better out there but at much higher prices and that is probably why Lexicon tried to take a BDP-83 and put their own face plate on it and charge over 3 grand for it. while its a stupid move of Lexicons part it does show you that the Oppo players are great and that is pretty much common knowledge at this point.

[pixelthis]

Wow Pix, your ignorance of the Bluray format is staggering. You really need to take a Bluray 101 course - you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

If you are even in a war, you will be shooting at the people standing next to you.
What I KNOW is learned honestly, not through some press release.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If you are even in a war, you will be shooting at the people standing next to you.
What I KNOW is learned honestly, not through some press release.

Please be standing next to me, pleeeeeeeze.

If I learned what I have learned from press releases, then I need to hand them over to you. You don't know dooookey about audio or video.

[harley .guy07]

I have put my input on this subject strictly as a view of what I have experienced and the Knowledge war is yours as far as I am concerned. I know my stuff but trying to out do each other with knowledge is not my cup o tea. I agree with the things that are correct form each individual and the things that aren't correct will show to the people that know.

[pixelthis]

Please be standing next to me, pleeeeeeeze.

If I learned what I have learned from press releases, then I need to hand them over to you. You don't know dooookey about audio or video.

I KNOW audio AND video from actually using and working with it on a daily basis.
MY first HD set, a 47" rptv PANNY, I went into, worked over with the service menu,
you name it.
I HAVE INSTALLED sat tv, home theater, studied volumes on resolution, how
video actually works, took a three year class, have taken sets apart and reassembled
them.
The problem you have with me is that you are a total ignoramus on all things video,
you know just enough to come across as a complete buffoon, you don't know
an oscillator from an escalator. NOR do you understand the basics of how a
set displays resolution, which is why you buy into cons like "motion" resolution,
etc.
YOU, SIR, ARE a perfect example of someone who has had the common sense
educated out of them. If there is an instruction book you might be okay, but try
to color outside the lines and you will be lost at sea, because you have never
been educated in the basics, you just know what your masters tell you, which
is not surprizing for a PR HACK.
I AM A LAYMAN with quite a bit of experience in these things, don't pretend to be nothing
else.
YOU ARE a lawyer or other kind of PR type that has been trained in just enough
basic electronics to understand elemental terms.
WHAT gets your goat about me is that I SEE RIGHT THROUGH YOU, you are a
fraud, a creation of a corporation, and you know just enough, with the help of a search
engine, to fool the ignorant most of the time.
But you don't fool me , I HAVE never pretended to be more than I AM.
You have, and thats why you're FAKE.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I KNOW audio AND video from actually using and working with it on a daily basis.
MY first HD set, a 47" rptv PANNY, I went into, worked over with the service menu,
you name it.
I HAVE INSTALLED sat tv, home theater, studied volumes on resolution, how
video actually works, took a three year class, have taken sets apart and reassembled
them.
The problem you have with me is that you are a total ignoramus on all things video,
you know just enough to come across as a complete buffoon, you don't know
an oscillator from an escalator. NOR do you understand the basics of how a
set displays resolution, which is why you buy into cons like "motion" resolution,
etc.
YOU, SIR, ARE a perfect example of someone who has had the common sense
educated out of them. If there is an instruction book you might be okay, but try
to color outside the lines and you will be lost at sea, because you have never
been educated in the basics, you just know what your masters tell you, which
is not surprizing for a PR HACK.
I AM A LAYMAN with quite a bit of experience in these things, don't pretend to be nothing
else.
YOU ARE a lawyer or other kind of PR type that has been trained in just enough
basic electronics to understand elemental terms.
WHAT gets your goat about me is that I SEE RIGHT THROUGH YOU, you are a
fraud, a creation of a corporation, and you know just enough, with the help of a search
engine, to fool the ignorant most of the time.
But you don't fool me , I HAVE never pretended to be more than I AM.
You have, and thats why you're FAKE.

WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.,.....heheheheheh eheheheheheheh.. gotta pee......LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Pix, after saying all of that, lets revisit one of your stupid comment in this thread.

SO WHY DON'T we abandon 1080p since its so much easier to produce 1080i sets?
PRODUCTION houses use CRT because they are cheap, and as these wear out they will be replaced by panels. but anybody who thinks 1080i is even close to 1080p
needs to have their head examined, as well as their eyes..

1080p and 1080i have all of the same information just presented differently. 1080i presents the information in two fields, and 1080p presents it in one field. At common viewing distances you will not see any difference between the two. The resolution is exactly the same, no difference.

Post houses still use CRT's because they are more accurate than the current professional panels on the market. The grey scale is more accurate, color rendition is more accurate, blacks are blacker, and there is no motion trails. The professional CRT's used in post houses costs far more than your panel costs - which means there is nothing "cheap" about them.

So if you think there is such a dramatic difference between 1080p and 1080i, YOU need to get YOUR head examined.

Somebody needs to call the men in the white coats. Pix is so delusional, he is dangerous to himself.

Good joke Pixie, I hope you have fully convinced yourself that you are a legend in your own empty head. Whatever you are taking, stop.

[pixelthis]

WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.,.....heheheheheh eheheheheheheh.. gotta pee......LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Pix, after saying all of that, lets revisit one of your stupid comment in this thread.

SO WHY DON'T we abandon 1080p since its so much easier to produce 1080i sets?
PRODUCTION houses use CRT because they are cheap, and as these wear out they will be replaced by panels. but anybody who thinks 1080i is even close to 1080p
needs to have their head examined, as well as their eyes..

1080p and 1080i have all of the same information just presented differently. 1080i presents the information in two fields, and 1080p presents it in one field. At common viewing distances you will not see any difference between the two. The resolution is exactly the same, no difference.

Post houses still use CRT's because they are more accurate than the current professional panels on the market. The grey scale is more accurate, color rendition is more accurate, blacks are blacker, and there is no motion trails. The professional CRT's used in post houses costs far more than your panel costs - which means there is nothing "cheap" about them.

So if you think there is such a dramatic difference between 1080p and 1080i, YOU need to get YOUR head examined.

Somebody needs to call the men in the white coats. Pix is so delusional, he is dangerous to himself.

Good joke Pixie, I hope you have fully convinced yourself that you are a legend in your own empty head. Whatever you are taking, stop.

this is an exelent example of your ignorance in basic knowledge of anything video.
THANKS for the demo of your ignorance, outmatched only by a dino walking into a tar pit.
No "difference"? THEN WHY CAN'T YOU BUY a 1080i anywhere?
BECAUSE side by side there is a marked difference between 1080i and 1080p.
You just have to compare the two, basically.
This is because a 1080p picture has twice the information at any given time
onscreen than a 1080i.
This is because the two "fields" in a 1080i picture are deinterlaced to create a
progressive picture with a true 1080 lines, as opposed to the 540 lines that are on a
1080i screen at any given time.
ALSO 1080p has few artifacts, while 1080i loses up to half its resolution everytime
theres' movement. This is common knowledge, but of course you don't have
a clue about it. This is why the entire industry went progressive, because you don't
lose res when theres movement, and there are fewer other artifacts.
Any progressive image is going to be more solid than any given interlaced pic.
THIS is why the computer industry went to progressive scan displays early, so
that text could be read easier on computer screens.
A system has gradually evolved where the broadcast standard for HD is 1080i, which
saves bandwidth, then 1080p sets deinterlace the two fields for complete frames in
a progressive 1080p picture, which looks outstanding.
EVENTUALLY THERE WONT be any interlaced displays, they are obsolete.
Anything else you care to display your ignorance on?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

this is an exelent example of your ignorance in basic knowledge of anything video.
THANKS for the demo of your ignorance, outmatched only by a dino walking into a tar pit.
No "difference"? THEN WHY CAN'T YOU BUY a 1080i anywhere?

Its is not because 1080p is better than 1080i. Its because most of the sources we use are progressive, and progressive going to a progressive reduces the amount of processing you have to include in the set.

BECAUSE side by side there is a marked difference between 1080i and 1080p.
You just have to compare the two, basically.
This is because a 1080p picture has twice the information at any given time
onscreen than a 1080i.
This is because the two "fields" in a 1080i picture are deinterlaced to create a
progressive picture with a true 1080 lines, as opposed to the 540 lines that are on a
1080i screen at any given time.

If I am refreshing each field 30 times a second, you are not going to see 540 lines - our eyes do not process the information that fast. If they did, you would see flickering as each field is sequentially painted on the screen. Painting the screen with each field 30 times a second, to the eyes we see exactly the same thing as a progressive screen painting the screen 60 times a second. Its one thing to talk about theory, its another to see how that theory works with the eyes and brain.

Learn something:

http://www.hometheater.com/geoffreym...061080iv1080p/

Notice these words from the article

There Is No Difference Between 1080p and 1080i

I supposed you are going to claim he doesn't know what he is talking about as well.

ALSO 1080p has few artifacts, while 1080i loses up to half its resolution everytime
theres' movement. This is common knowledge, but of course you don't have
a clue about it. This is why the entire industry went progressive, because you don't
lose res when theres movement, and there are fewer other artifacts.

Even progressive displays lose resolution when there is movement.

http://hdguru.com/will-you-see-all-t...exclusive/287/

Note this line:

An HDTV may resolve a stationary test signal at full bandwidth, displaying all the detail within the 1920 individual pixels that appear across the screen, but not necessarily when motion is introduced, which on some sets causes a resolution drop.

So you are wrong again!

Any progressive image is going to be more solid than any given interlaced pic.
THIS is why the computer industry went to progressive scan displays early, so
that text could be read easier on computer screens.
A system has gradually evolved where the broadcast standard for HD is 1080i, which
saves bandwidth, then 1080p sets deinterlace the two fields for complete frames in
a progressive 1080p picture, which looks outstanding.
EVENTUALLY THERE WONT be any interlaced displays, they are obsolete.
Anything else you care to display your ignorance on?

Actually, based on the links its you that is displaying the ignorance. Your the kind of idiot that does not know how to separate hype and theory from real world conditions. Theory is one thing, how our eyes and brain process that theory is another.

Here is some more information for you if you can actually understand it.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/26585312

[BobB]

I will look at Best Buys line up and go from there. Thanks for all of your replies.

[Hyfi]

I will look at Best Buys line up and go from there. Thanks for all of your replies.

Bob, it's a shame a few guys crapped all over your post but if you read every other response there is a lot of good info to be had.

I know from your original post your budget was not at $500 but if you can swing it, the OPPO 93 is a killer universal player that will have great Blu playback as well as 3D and awesome DLNA streaming capabilities from over the network and attached drives.

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE]

Its is not because 1080p is better than 1080i. Its because most of the sources we use are progressive, and progressive going to a progressive reduces the amount of processing you have to include in the set.

1080P IS "better, has twice the information onscreen at any given time.
AND AS FAR AS "processing" goes, stitching two fields together is hardly processing at all.
AND most of the sources we use are interlaced , the only native progressive is
a few pay-per-view choices and BLU ray.
PROGRESSIVE simply uses too much bandwidth.

If I am refreshing each field 30 times a second, you are not going to see 540 lines - our eyes do not process the information that fast. If they did, you would see flickering as each field is sequentially painted on the screen. Painting the screen with each field 30 times a second, to the eyes we see exactly the same thing as a progressive screen painting the screen 60 times a second. Its one thing to talk about theory, its another to see how that theory works with the eyes and brain.

If there is movement in an interlaced pic, the illusion falls apart, and resolution drops,
sometimes fifty percent.
I USED to wonder at how still images looked so good on old 480i NTSC, reason is
that they are still images, and a true 400+ lines of resolution.
AND, NO, our brains do not process information that fast (our eyes don't process
anything), but on an interlaced pic the illusion of res thats not there falls apart
whenever there is movement, and the drop in res is noticeable



Learn something:

http://www.hometheater.com/geoffreym...061080iv1080p/

Notice these words from the article

There Is No Difference Between 1080p and 1080i

I supposed you are going to claim he doesn't know what he is talking about as well.

DEPENDS on what hes talking about.
If hes' talking about a 1080p pic and a 1080i pic that has been deinterlaced there
is no difference. HOWEVER, the non-deinterlaced pure 1080p pic that BLU delivers
does seem better to me than the deinterlaced pic from cable, although technically
they are the same(or close).

Even progressive displays lose resolution when there is movement.

SOME, but its nowhere near the almost (or more) fifty percent that an interlaced pic loses

Note this line:

An HDTV may resolve a stationary test signal at full bandwidth, displaying all the detail within the 1920 individual pixels that appear across the screen, but not necessarily when motion is introduced, which on some sets causes a resolution drop.

So you are wrong again!

Not really. THE RES DROP of a 1080p or other progressive picture is slight compared to the almost fifty percent of an interlaced pic.
APPLES AND ORANGES, really.

Actually, based on the links its you that is displaying the ignorance. Your the kind of idiot that does not know how to separate hype and theory from real world conditions. Theory is one thing, how our eyes and brain process that theory is another.

Our "eyes and brains" don't process "theory", but theory explains what our eyes and brains see under certain circumstances.
AND YOU ARE THE one displaying "ignorance", as your "quotes" back up what I'm
saying, not you. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND that because of your ignorance.

Here is some more information for you if you can actually understand it.

I could teach them a thing or two.
WE HAVE ARGUED ABOUT THIS FOREVER, AND ALL IT BOILS DOWN TO
is your inferiority complex over your antique CRT based projection system,
which is quite obsolete.
Maybe you will figure that out one of these days.

[pixelthis]

BTW the LG "42 that passed your weird little "motion" res test in your gamespot link
(the only one that passed) is the same model I HAVE.
i didn't need some fake "test" to see what an excellent pic it produces , I could tell
by eyeballing it in the store.
THANKS for verifying the basic goodness of my panel, knew you'd be good for
something one of these days.
AND what does it say about my "expertise" when the set I picked out by eyeballing it
is the only one that passed your little "motion" res test?

[pixelthis]

ALSO the consensus on that forum page was that LCD looked better than
plasma.
KINDA shot yourself in the foot with that one, there.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE=pixelthis]

1080P IS "better, has twice the information onscreen at any given time.
AND AS FAR AS "processing" goes, stitching two fields together is hardly processing at all.
AND most of the sources we use are interlaced , the only native progressive is
a few pay-per-view choices and BLU ray.
PROGRESSIVE simply uses too much bandwidth.

If our eyes don't notice two fields being painted on the screen sequentially, then progressive is not better or worse than interlace - especially when you get to full HD resolution.

If there is movement in an interlaced pic, the illusion falls apart, and resolution drops,
sometimes fifty percent.
I USED to wonder at how still images looked so good on old 480i NTSC, reason is
that they are still images, and a true 400+ lines of resolution.
AND, NO, our brains do not process information that fast (our eyes don't process
anything), but on an interlaced pic the illusion of res thats not there falls apart
whenever there is movement, and the drop in res is noticeable

Sorry but you are wrong again.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/26585312

Notice the static resolution versus the moving resolution of the LCD models. Almost all of them lose half of their resolution with moving images. The plasma models do much better than the LCD models in this respect, maintaining at least 900 lines of resolution with moving images.

If moving images fall apart with interlaced sets, that would make their images unwatchable. Since that is not the case perhaps you should spare us the hyperbole in your responses.

DEPENDS on what hes talking about.
If hes' talking about a 1080p pic and a 1080i pic that has been deinterlaced there
is no difference. HOWEVER, the non-deinterlaced pure 1080p pic that BLU delivers
does seem better to me than the deinterlaced pic from cable, although technically
they are the same(or close).

Since we are mostly working with 1080i/p images, there is no depends here(except what YOU wear in the name of underwear). The world is basically moving past 480i as a standard resolution, only DVD supports that.

SOME, but its nowhere near the almost (or more) fifty percent that an interlaced pic loses

Either you cannot read, or you cannot see. Look at the static versus moving resolution of all of the LCD. They lose between 40-60% of their resolution with moving images. The chart does not lie Pixie.

Not really. THE RES DROP of a 1080p or other progressive picture is slight compared to the almost fifty percent of an interlaced pic.
APPLES AND ORANGES, really.

Slight?? The LG LCD goes from 1040 lines of static resolution down to 340 lines when images move. The Toshiba goes from 1040 lines of static resolution down to 320 lines with moving images. The Sharp 52" goes from 1080 lines to 330 lines. My dino CRT does better than this by a looooooong way. The stats don't lie Pixie, but you apparently do.

Our "eyes and brains" don't process "theory", but theory explains what our eyes and brains see under certain circumstances.
AND YOU ARE THE one displaying "ignorance", as your "quotes" back up what I'm
saying, not you. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND that because of your ignorance.

Pix, is it so hard for you to admit that you don't know what you are talking about....wait that takes maturity, and everyone knows you lack that.

I could teach them a thing or two.

Based on what I have seen so far, I highly doubt that.

WE HAVE ARGUED ABOUT THIS FOREVER, AND ALL IT BOILS DOWN TO
is your inferiority complex over your antique CRT based projection system,
which is quite obsolete.
Maybe you will figure that out one of these days.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...this statement is beyond stupid, but par for the course for you. There is no need for me to have a inferiority complex over something that outperforms what you have, and any flat panel on the market today.

Try making a less stupid statements in the future if that is possible.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

ALSO the consensus on that forum page was that LCD looked better than
plasma.
KINDA shot yourself in the foot with that one, there.

Test prove otherwise, and I choose the testing over the opinion any day.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

BTW the LG "42 that passed your weird little "motion" res test in your gamespot link
(the only one that passed) is the same model I HAVE.
i didn't need some fake "test" to see what an excellent pic it produces , I could tell
by eyeballing it in the store.
THANKS for verifying the basic goodness of my panel, knew you'd be good for
something one of these days.
AND what does it say about my "expertise" when the set I picked out by eyeballing it
is the only one that passed your little "motion" res test?

It passed the deinterlacing test, but failed the 3:2 pull down. I'd rather have the test than your eyeballs, because it has already been proven that you don't know what image quality really is.

[pixelthis]

It passed the deinterlacing test, but failed the 3:2 pull down. I'd rather have the test than your eyeballs, because it has already been proven that you don't know what image quality really is.

I have a lot better idea than you do, at least my monitor is not an antique(much like yourself).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have a lot better idea than you do, at least my monitor is not an antique(much like yourself).

So what are you if I am younger than you....a fossil???

[pixelthis]

So what are you if I am younger than you....a fossil???

SOME of us get seasoned as the years go by, some just get "old".

[Woochifer]

WRONG (as usual). In order to avoid 2:3 pulldown, BLU has a rate of 72hz.
EACH frame is shown three times(72 divided by three= 24). This gives a frame rate
of 24fps without pulldown.
WHEN THIS happens my set displays 1080p24.

And which of your TVs has a 72 Hz refresh rate? Do the math. Unless you owned one of Pioneer's plasmas, there aren't any HDTVs out there with a native 72 Hz refresh rate.

Blu-ray is not a 72 Hz format. You keep repeating this nonsense over and over. You might believe this, but that doesn't make it true.

Pixelthis says 2006 = "a decade old" .
Still irrelevant, like most of what you say.

And "a decade old" still doesn't apply to anything made in 2006. Nice try.

BECAUSE a "modern" player does not have component.

So, you're saying that your Funai player is the "modern" player, and the top-rated Oppo player isn't?

AND YOU WANT TO BUY A PLAYSTATION, and pay for a hackers crack addiction,

Judging from the responses here, us PS3 owners aren't the ones on crack.

THEY COST THREE HUNDRED BUCKS. Yeah, this would be a great first player.
WHY BUY A three hundred player when your TV is as old as dino bones?

And those models aren't the only ones still being made that have component outputs. If you're cheap, there are still plenty of current options to choose from.

IF ITS NOT 1080P. This is where BLU shines, and if your set won't display it, then
you're wasting your time with a BLU player

So, anyone buying a 32" HDTV shouldn't bother with Blu-ray either? At that screen size, any difference between 720p and 1080p is negligible in normal viewing.

It doubles the resolution. THIS is the one time (deinterlacing) that you can get a res increase on a signal.

Utter BS. Deinterlacing does not do anything to the native resolution of the DVD format.

Because it doesn't. 1080i is down converted and 480i is upconverted.
BOTH look rather decent. And similar.

And one is SD and the other is HD. Nothing at all similar about the two signals.

Not on my cable system. Without an adapter you can't get a signal.

And yet, the source signal getting fed to the cable system is still native 480i

AND dvd does still exist, and if you really wanted you could watch it on an old NTSC
set, but why bother? And any set you watch it on that is HD is going to upconvert it
weather you do or not. SO SURE its natively 480i, but it would cost you to actually watch
it in 480i.

And again, this is a native 480i signal. All of the processing in the world doesn't change this fundamental fact.

And an upscaled 480i signal is nowhere near the picture quality of a 1080p signal downscaled to 720p.

If your set is not 1080p, why waste your time? You need to be saving your coin to
buy a decent monitor.

Because if someone already has a HDTV and simply wants to enjoy Blu-rays, it's ridiculous to upgrade the TV first, given that whatever Blu-ray player they buy today will already have the HDMI output that you feel is so mandatory.

If they upgrade the TV next year or the year after, any Blu-ray player they buy right now for their older TV will work perfectly fine with their new TV.

Yes, they will enjoy a picture that looks like a really good DVD, they will have to pay
300+ TO GET A SONY OR AN oppo to see this incredibly average picture on
their obsolete set with component, when if they bought a new set, they could see a much
better pic with a 100 buck(or less) blu player. AND SPENDING 300 plus on a
BLU player when your monitor is obsolete is not unwise, ITS STUPID.

No, actually it's far more stupid to buy something that you don't need (i.e., a new TV) instead of something that you do need (i.e., a Blu-ray player). Plenty of Blu-ray choices in the $100 range will support that.

anybody follows your lame advice, they will be decidedly unlucky

Yeah, most of us are unlucky to be happy enough with our TVs and video devices to enjoy them for several years before upgrading them. The lucky ones are those like you who buy a new TV or Blu-ray player every few months, right?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

SOME of us get seasoned as the years go by, some just get "old".

If this is the case, you are just getting old. And these statements prove it.

WRONG (as usual). In order to avoid 2:3 pulldown, BLU has a rate of 72hz.
EACH frame is shown three times(72 divided by three= 24). This gives a frame rate
of 24fps without pulldown.
WHEN THIS happens my set displays 1080p24.

If you stated that your 42" LG set was the one that passed the 3:2 pull down, that set is a 768p set, not a 1080p - and that set is only capable of a 60hz refresh rate, so you MUST have 3:2 pull down and all the judder that goes with it. Bluray does not have a rate of 72hz, it does not have anything in any hertz. Bluray is a 24p 1080p carrier of video, it has no refresh rate, that is left up to the set.

AND YOU WANT TO BUY A PLAYSTATION, and pay for a hackers crack addiction

These guys were not trying feed a drug habit, they were trying to hurt and embarrass Sony. It worked on both counts, but you do need to get your facts straight. Those hackers did not diminish my use of my PS3 on bit, I does not depend on the PSN to function, it can and has functioned quite well in the absence of the PSN. Your statement shows your ignorance on the subject.

It doubles the resolution. THIS is the one time (deinterlacing) that you can get a res increase on a signal.

Deinterlacing increases resolution??? That's rich! You cannot get more signal than coming out than went in. Deinterlacing just brings two seperate sequential fields in a frame into one field. That does not increase resolution.

AND dvd does still exist, and if you really wanted you could watch it on an old NTSC
set, but why bother? And any set you watch it on that is HD is going to upconvert it
weather you do or not. SO SURE its natively 480i, but it would cost you to actually watch
it in 480i.

What would it cost you. The signal is 480i, and the display is 480i, so where is the loss? There is none, you are confused as hell.

Wooch has done very well in rebutting your misinformation. The fact that you think you are correct shows just how uniformed you are. Pix, your a legend in the empty space between your ears.

[pixelthis]

If this is the case, you are just getting old. And these statements prove it.

Not older, just better

If you stated that your 42" LG set was the one that passed the 3:2 pull down, that set is a 768p set, not a 1080p - and that set is only capable of a 60hz refresh rate, so you MUST have 3:2 pull down and all the judder that goes with it. Bluray does not have a rate of 72hz, it does not have anything in any hertz. Bluray is a 24p 1080p carrier of video, it has no refresh rate, that is left up to the set.

MORE nonsense that doesnt matter.
Everything I HAVE READ ON THE PLANET...everything, states that 24p is achieved
by a freq of 72hz, each frame is showed three times for a total frame rate of 24p.
I DON'T care how they do it, it looks great. AND blu HAS A RATE OF 24P?
What about all of the viideo I HAVE ON blu THAT IS 60HZ?

These guys were not trying feed a drug habit, they were trying to hurt and embarrass Sony. It worked on both counts, but you do need to get your facts straight. Those hackers did not diminish my use of my PS3 on bit, I does not depend on the PSN to function, it can and has functioned quite well in the absence of the PSN. Your statement shows your ignorance on the subject.

and your statement shows your ignorance of the criminal mind.
THESE morons saw an opportunity after the Japanese earthquake, and all of the confusion created, and took advantage, and were wildly successful

Deinterlacing increases resolution??? That's rich! You cannot get more signal than coming out than went in. Deinterlacing just brings two seperate sequential fields in a frame into one field. That does not increase resolution.

You need to quit talking about things you don't have any comprehension of.
A 1080i pic has less than half of the res of a 1080p pic at any given time.
WHEN AN interlaced pic is deinterlaced (two fields stiched together) twice the
picture info is shown on screen, and that pic is not subject to artifacts, like res loss when theres movement.
One of the reasons I BOUGHT MY FIRST 1080I HD set was to see DVD in 480p(my
set had two native resolutions, 480p and 1080i).
THE 480P DVD pic, while SD, was a lot better than the 480i, because it had twice the picture info onscreen at any given time.
No, there was no "new" resolution created, just more pixels onscreen, creating a
more detailed picture.
This is why progressive has replaced interlaced, progressive has more picture information on screen at any given time.
DENY reality all you want, pull any layman off of the street, ask ANYBODY on this board,
and they will ALL tell you that a progressive pic is sharper, just plain better.
BECAUSE IT HAS MORE PICTURE INFOR MATION THAN AN INTERLACED PIC!!!

What would it cost you. The signal is 480i, and the display is 480i, so where is the loss? There is none, you are confused as hell.

And you are ignorant as "hell".

My electronics teacher told me about forty years ago that any interlaced pic was going to lose up to half its resolution whenever there is movement. JOE KANE and others have said
it, its common knowledge, its something I HAVE TAKEN FOR GRANTED.
You don't even have to take my word for it, set a progressive panel next to an interlaced
CRT, run a 480i DVD picture to the CRT and a progressive 480p to the panel.
EVERYBODY looking at the demo will tell you that the progressive is sharper and all
around better.
What I CAN'T BELIEVE is that I am arguing with a ninny that refuses to face the obvious

Wooch has done very well in rebutting your misinformation. The fact that you think you are correct shows just how uniformed you are. Pix, your a legend in the empty space between your ears.

"Wooch" knows juat enough to get himself into trouble.
IS THIS THE SAME Wooch that is running around saying that a component cable is better than an HDMI? Is this your champion?
FIGURES

[amarmistry]

After much consideration, I bought Panasonic DMP-BD85K BluRay player, primarily because it was one of the only two BluRay players that was under $200 and had 7.1 channel analog audio.
I hooked it up directly to my projectors and connected my audio (only 5.1) at present to my receiver. If I had an HDMI receiver, then 7.1 channel audio in the BluRay player would not be as imporant. It does an excellant job at upconverting DVDs, and sound is fantastic. Moreover it comes with built in wifi (actually its an external USB adapter which comes free with the player).

[amarmistry]

After much consideration, last November I bought Panasonic DMP-BD85K BluRay player, primarily because it was one of the only two BluRay players that was under $200 and had 7.1 channel analog audio.
I hooked it up directly to my projectors and connected my audio (only 5.1) at present to my receiver. If I had an HDMI receiver, then 7.1 channel audio in the BluRay player would not be as imporant. It does an excellant job at upconverting DVDs, and sound is fantastic. Moreover it comes with built in wifi (actually its an external USB adapter which comes free with the player).