|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
OzMillsy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:53 pm Post subject: Scalar options: 1080p24 in -> 1080i72 out |
|
|
Hi All,
I'm looking for advise on what scalars are available, that will accept 1080p24 digital input, and scale to:
- 1080p48
- 1080i72
- 1080i96
I havent decided on my preferred output resolution, but am leaning towards 1080i72 . I am feeding a G70 with a Moome-DVI card.
Whats around? After googling for a couple of days, most of the scalars I've come across only support up to 1080i on the input.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mike calcott
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 307
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a TAW Rock pro which will achieve what you are after (not for sale though) they come up on Ebay now and again and are not too expensive, these units require the remote control to operate as there are no controls on the unit. If the seller is only a reseller on Ebay they usually sell them as a non working unit because the lithium battery on the mother board has gone flat, and they do not know you have to program the remote to make them work. Thes units will scale up to 2200 by 1900 in two line increments
_________________
Old dog learning new tricks
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oliverg
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 800
Location: Melbourne, Australia
TV/Projector: Sony G90 X2 - Vidikron Vision 1
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VP50 (gino has one for sale cheap)
Crystalio 2
Vantage HD
_________________
( R ) G ( G ) 9 ( B ) 0 ( R ) G ( G ) 9 ( B ) 0
( R ) G ( G ) 9 ( B ) 0 ( R ) G ( G ) 9 ( B ) 0
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OzMillsy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oliverg wrote: | VP50 (gino has one for sale cheap)
Crystalio 2
Vantage HD
|
Hi Oliver,
Each of those units has significant processing power and functionality. Given the task at hand, maybe overkill ?
If we are talking 1080p24 -> 1080p48 (which I can live with), it's just a simple double - which is 2/3rd's of sfa processing required.
Surely an affordable HD doubler isnt that far away ??
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gino
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 1363
Location: Trinity Beach, AUSTRALIA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| oliverg wrote: | | VP50 (gino has one for sale cheap) |
already sold
_________________
( B ) ( G ) ( R ) Blendzilla Down Under ( R ) ( G ) ( B ) - Tubes of Fury
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OzMillsy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:09 am Post subject: Lumagen? |
|
|
I've just been reading that the Lumagen may do what I need to. Which is more reasonably priced.
Can any Lumagen owners vouch for this?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gino
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 1363
Location: Trinity Beach, AUSTRALIA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Which Lumagen are you looking at?
_________________
( B ) ( G ) ( R ) Blendzilla Down Under ( R ) ( G ) ( B ) - Tubes of Fury
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OzMillsy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gino wrote: | | Which Lumagen are you looking at? |
The VDP seems to be good value.
Do you have any previous experience with the Lumagens, Gino?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OzMillsy wrote: | | Gino wrote: | | Which Lumagen are you looking at? |
The VDP seems to be good value.
Do you have any previous experience with the Lumagens, Gino? |
I assume you mean HDP. Yes, the lumagen's are very nice. For the money, they have the best scaling engine I've seen (no ringing like you get with the DVDO scalers).
But, you are just looking at frame rate conversion. This is very simple and pretty much any scaler that does it will do it well enough. Unfortunately, no super cheap scaler does this.
Also, you don't need a scaler that takes 1080p/24 because you can get just as good results from 1080i/60. That being the case, a Lumagen DVI is even cheaper if you just want 1080i/72 (the DVI will not do 1080i/96). But, all things being equal, I'd get a Lumagen HDP if I were you.
Dave
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OzMillsy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | I assume you mean HDP. Yes, the lumagen's are very nice. For the money, they have the best scaling engine I've seen (no ringing like you get with the DVDO scalers).
But, you are just looking at frame rate conversion. This is very simple and pretty much any scaler that does it will do it well enough. Unfortunately, no super cheap scaler does this.
Also, you don't need a scaler that takes 1080p/24 because you can get just as good results from 1080i/60. That being the case, a Lumagen DVI is even cheaper if you just want 1080i/72 (the DVI will not do 1080i/96). But, all things being equal, I'd get a Lumagen HDP if I were you.
Dave |
Yes, HDP.
With 1080i60, there's no getting around the processing introducing very very minor delays. Probably wouldnt be noticeable, but still, why add a layer of processing when you dont need it. In fact it's 2 layers, when you consider the player is b@stardising the 1080p24 source, into a 1080i60 output.
I dont believe the Lumagens have lipsync correction, as a feature (given they are dvi, no audio inputs). Therefore if there was any noticable delays, you'd have to try and manually correct it at your audio processor.
Official word from Lumagen (Randy) was the HDP/HDQ will "officially" support 1080i60 or 1080i50 outputs (passthrough i guess). That it maybe theoretically possible to create a custom output of 1080i72 or 1080i96, but Lumagen do not recommend it (and have never tested it).
I've posted on the Lumagen forums, to see if anyone else in the world is using these output resolutions on either the HDP or HDQ.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OzMillsy wrote: | | Person99 wrote: | I assume you mean HDP. Yes, the lumagen's are very nice. For the money, they have the best scaling engine I've seen (no ringing like you get with the DVDO scalers).
But, you are just looking at frame rate conversion. This is very simple and pretty much any scaler that does it will do it well enough. Unfortunately, no super cheap scaler does this.
Also, you don't need a scaler that takes 1080p/24 because you can get just as good results from 1080i/60. That being the case, a Lumagen DVI is even cheaper if you just want 1080i/72 (the DVI will not do 1080i/96). But, all things being equal, I'd get a Lumagen HDP if I were you.
Dave |
Yes, HDP.
With 1080i60, there's no getting around the processing introducing very very minor delays. Probably wouldnt be noticeable, but still, why add a layer of processing when you dont need it. |
The processing delay on the Lumagen is 54 milliseconds. One of the nice things the DVDOs have is the audio delay (but it doesn't work for HD audio so no big bonus). Anyway, you can usually compensate for that delay in your source or pre/pro so it becomes irrelevant.
But, anecdotally, I ran for a long time with no audio delay and of the scores of visitors to my theater, no one ever noticed it.
| OzMillsy wrote: | | In fact it's 2 layers, when you consider the player is b@stardising the 1080p24 source, into a 1080i60 output. |
It is not really "bastardizing" and it really doesn't involve and processing that causes degradation. But you do know that the players don't output 1080p/24 from the disc but go through a 1080i/60 step anyway, right?
| OzMillsy wrote: | | Official word from Lumagen (Randy) was the HDP/HDQ will "officially" support 1080i60 or 1080i50 outputs (passthrough i guess). That it maybe theoretically possible to create a custom output of 1080i72 or 1080i96, but Lumagen do not recommend it (and have never tested it). |
Where do you get that? I always deal with Patrick at Lumagen and there is no issue with 1080i/72 and 96. The Lumagen DVI will not do 1080i/96 because it is bandwidth limited but it will do 1080i/72. I've set this resolution up with several Lumagens and never had issue, nor did Patrick ever tell me they were unsupported resolutions.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OzMillsy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | It is not really "bastardizing" and it really doesn't involve and processing that causes degradation. But you do know that the players don't output 1080p/24 from the disc but go through a 1080i/60 step anyway, right?
|
No I didnt. Interesting. So all HD players are reading 1080p24 , generating a 1080i60 resolution, then undoing it back to 1080p24 (if that is the output selected). So the 1080p24 output is an after thought to the initial design?
Surely next generation players wont bother with the 1080i60 step?
| Person99 wrote: |
Where do you get that? I always deal with Patrick at Lumagen and there is no issue with 1080i/72 and 96. The Lumagen DVI will not do 1080i/96 because it is bandwidth limited but it will do 1080i/72. I've set this resolution up with several Lumagens and never had issue, nor did Patrick ever tell me they were unsupported resolutions. |
That's good to know. Thanks. So you've set 1080i96, how did it look?
Email below......
From: Randy Freeman [mailto:support@lumagen.com]
Sent: Friday, 28 December 2007 9:20 AM
To: Andrew Mills
Subject: Re: HDP/HDQ support for 1080p24 (dvi) input
Hi Andrew,
We all had a very nice Christmas. It even snowed on Christmas day which is very unusual for Portland, Oregon.
We only officially support an interlaced output on the HDP of 1080i50 and 1080i60. You could certainly try a different rate. If it works, you can use it.
Best regards,
Randy Freeman
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cine 7
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 26
Location: Singapore
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | That it maybe theoretically possible to create a custom output of 1080i72 or 1080i96, but Lumagen do not recommend it (and have never tested it). |
I was thinking of using 1080i @72Hz for my CRT since it can't handle 1080p @72Hz.
We are talking about frame rate conversion of fields (not frames) here. In this configuration @72 Hz each even field would be refreshed twice and each uneven field would be refreshed once which is a 2:1 field succession?
How would this look like in the real world? Would this result in even worse judder than caused by 3:2 pull down?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cine 7 wrote: | | Quote: | | That it maybe theoretically possible to create a custom output of 1080i72 or 1080i96, but Lumagen do not recommend it (and have never tested it). |
I was thinking of using 1080i @72Hz for my CRT since it can't handle 1080p @72Hz.
We are talking about frame rate conversion of fields (not frames) here. In this configuration @72 Hz each even field would be refreshed twice and each uneven field would be refreshed once which is a 2:1 field succession?
How would this look like in the real world? Would this result in even worse judder than caused by 3:2 pull down? |
Not quite. I'll Use a capital letter for a frame and a "t" for top field and a "b" for bottom field. At 72 Hz, you get a pattern like this:
At Ab At Bb Bt Bb Ct Cb Ct...
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OzMillsy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
thanks for this info guys, I was actually wondering the same with 1080i72 but didnt know how it worked.
in the last week, my preference has been leaning towards 1080i96 , anyone tried this with a lumagen HDP or Q ?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cine 7
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 26
Location: Singapore
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Not quite. I'll Use a capital letter for a frame and a "t" for top field and a "b" for bottom field. At 72 Hz, you get a pattern like this:
At Ab At Bb Bt Bb Ct Cb Ct... |
Is that what the scaler will output? The incoming video signal into the scaler from an interlaced source would be 48 fields in succession:
field 1(At) then 2(Ab) then 3(Bt) then 4(Bb)...... then 48(Xt) then 48 (Xb)
So in your scenario the scaler takes field 1 then 2 and then goes back to field 1 and so on? Seems a bit complicated?
How do scaler who are capable of scaling 1080i handle source material that is progressive?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OzMillsy wrote: |
in the last week, my preference has been leaning towards 1080i96 , anyone tried this with a lumagen HDP or Q ? |
See my posts above, especially the one posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:59 am.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cine 7 wrote: |
Is that what the scaler will output? |
Yes, this is simple frame rate conversion.
| Cine 7 wrote: | | So in your scenario the scaler takes field 1 then 2 and then goes back to field 1 and so on? Seems a bit complicated? |
Logically yes. And it is actually not complicated at all. Physically, the scaler actually buffers two frames so it has the data it needs to perform calculations. With simple frame rate conversion, it is just sending one of the fields in its buffer again.
| Cine 7 wrote: | | How do scaler who are capable of scaling 1080i handle source material that is progressive? |
I don't understand the question.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cine 7
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 26
Location: Singapore
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Physically, the scaler actually buffers two frames so it has the data it needs to perform calculations. |
Yes, since it is buffering all the information needed it can go back to the previous field.
I was wondering if there is a scaler that also can up-scale a field from a 1080i signal which has 540 lines? The reason for this is that at 540 lines I am still able to see scan lines with my Cine 7. What I would like to do is to scale it up to say 720 or 650 lines at which point the line structure disappears.
Of course this will have to be in conjunction with the frame rate conversion to 72Hz!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cine 7 wrote: | | Quote: | | Physically, the scaler actually buffers two frames so it has the data it needs to perform calculations. |
Yes, since it is buffering all the information needed it can go back to the previous field.
I was wondering if there is a scaler that also can up-scale a field from a 1080i signal which has 540 lines? The reason for this is that at 540 lines I am still able to see scan lines with my Cine 7. What I would like to do is to scale it up to say 720 or 650 lines at which point the line structure disappears.
Of course this will have to be in conjunction with the frame rate conversion to 72Hz! |
Scalers will not output interlaced signals other than 1080. Many scalers such as the lumagen will let you scale to any progressive resolution you want (up to max). So, if you want 692p, you can do that. With a Lumagen, you can also do whatever refresh rate you want.
You should not seen scan lines very bad on much other than bright white content unless you sit something like 1x screen width away. You can partially minimize the presence of scan lines by changing your spot shape from round to elliptical with a height to width ratio of 1.33:1. This will also help you eek out a bit more horizontal resolution. The Cine7 will likely still not do the full 1920 but should get a little more and look a little sharper.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
