A Video Processing Question

[mzpro5]

I am really showing my ignorance with this but it is something I have been wondering about since spending 4x the price of a decent BD player for the Oppo 93.

BD's are digital signals the whole 0's and1's thing so how is it that I am seeing a superior picture with the 93? What exactly does a video processor do that could make such an improvement in PQ? There is a real difference and I love it but don't understand how with a digital signal.

 

[Botch]

Great question, and I'm looking forward to learning the answer too.

 

[Rope]

Scaling, it's what the chip set does after it's feed the 0's and 1's. If I remember correctly, the 93 uses a Marvell chip set versus the Anchor Bay in the 83. Processing chip sets will continue to evolve.

I can remember outboard scaling processors that used to cost thousands and were difficult to setup and use.

Rope

More detail on the 93's hardware configuration and processing features.
:text-link:

 

[mzpro5]

Scaling, it's what the chip set does after it's feed the 0's and 1's. If I remember correctly, the 93 uses a Marvell chip set versus the Anchor Bay in the 83. Processing chip sets will continue to evolve.

I can remember outboard scaling processors that used to cost thousands and were difficult to setup and use.

Rope

More detail on the 93's hardware configuration and processing features.
:text-link:

Thanks. The link says "So basically HDMI 1 is equivalent to the video processing on the BDP-83" but from my recent experience it is much better.

Not a real issue the PQ is great and I love it.

 

[Rope]

The link states HDMI 1 uses the Marvell processing chip set, the DAC is the same as the 83. In essence, the audio is exactly the same as the 83, not the case with video processing.

Also note the 93's disc tray and mechanism is completely revamped, designed from scratch.

Rope

 

[Yesfan70]

Wouldn't the video DAC's also play a role? Before the conversion it's all one and zeros, but it eventually has to be converted to analog for us to see it right?

 

[Botch]

Wouldn't the video DAC's also play a role? Before the conversion it's all one and zeros, but it eventually has to be converted to analog for us to see it right?

I would say, No. An HDTV is NOT an analog device; it has a set, finite number of pixels that can display a finite number of colors at a (I believe) finite number of brightness levels. For this reason I've always wondered too how a different chipset could display digital info better than another.

Now, I don't have a feel at all for how many mathematical variations a TV display has versus a bluray data stream, hopefully one of the wizards on this site can clarify.

 

[Rope]

Wouldn't the video DAC's also play a role? Before the conversion it's all one and zeros, but it eventually has to be converted to analog for us to see it right?

HDMI = Digital Video/Digital Audio. Digital to Analog Converter (DAC) is an audio term, where a digital device sends a digital audio source that is then converted to an analog signal (Audio). The video source remains digital.

The 93 uses a Marvell, versus 83's Anchor Bay video chip set to process the vidio signal. The audio DAC is no different between the 93 and 83. If you want the upgraded Sabre audio chip set, you'd have to upgrade to the 95.

Rope

 

[Yesfan70]

.........An HDTV is NOT an analog device.....

Yeah, but isn't the display part we see with our eyes analog? My understanding is a HDTV takes a video signal (converts it to digital, if the incoming signal's analog), up/down scales to it's native resolution (720p/1080p), then converts it to analog for viewing. We "see' in analog, so that's why I ask.


EDIT: Just saw your post Rope. What about video sources that have a Video DAC? Seems I've seen that term before

 

[Rope]

.........An HDTV is NOT an analog device.....

Yeah, but isn't the display part we see with our eyes analog? My understanding is a HDTV takes a video signal (converts it to digital, if the incoming signal's analog), up/down scales to it's native resolution (720p/1080p), then converts it to analog for viewing. We "see' in analog, so that's why I ask.


EDIT: Just saw your post Rope. What about video sources that have a Video DAC? Seems I've seen that term before

Video DACs were handed out by our illustrious government when the conversion to digital TV signal was adopted (2008-2009). People who could not afford to purchase a digital TV were given a voucher to purchase a conversion box that would convert the digital video signal to analog so they were able to view their analog TV's.

Rope

BTW, don't confuse digital TV with HDTV, just because a TV is digital doesn't mean it has the capability to display a high definition signal, although, both are digital.

 

[yromj]

Scaling, it's what the chip set does after it's feed the 0's and 1's...

What's getting scaled? Since we're talking about blu-rays here (and I'm assuming that we're talking about blu-rays @ 1080p) on a 1080p display, what is there to scale?

Other than this I completely agree with what Rope has said in this thread: in today's TVs, the signal never goes analog because DLP, LCD (no matter the light source), plasma, and DLP are all digital technologies.

John

 

[Rope]

Scaling, it's what the chip set does after it's feed the 0's and 1's...

What's getting scaled? Since we're talking about blu-rays here (and I'm assuming that we're talking about blu-rays @ 1080p) on a 1080p display, what is there to scale?

Other than this I completely agree with what Rope has said in this thread: in today's TVs, the signal never goes analog because DLP, LCD (no matter the light source), plasma, and DLP are all digital technologies.

John

In a 1080p to 1080p scenario, scaling is perhaps incorrect terminology. However, based on Mzs' experience with improved PQ using the 93 vs 83, seems the Marvell chip set is doing some processing to improve the video being displayed.

The acid test would be to pass the video signal through the 93 (bi-pass the Marvell chip set) to determine if there's a difference in PQ.

Rope

 

[yromj]

In a 1080p to 1080p scenario, scaling is perhaps incorrect terminology. However, based on Mzs' experience with improved PQ using the 93 vs 83, seems the Marvell chip set is doing some processing to improve the video being displayed.

The acid test would be to pass the video signal through the 93 (bi-pass the Marvell chip set) to determine if there's a difference in PQ.

Rope

I would LOVE to get some real information on this (and I'm not trying to argue w/ at all I promis). I just wonder the Marvell chip could be doing. The data on the blu-ray disc is compressed into a file ala a plain text document into a zip file. When the image file is decompressed by two different processors and two different images are received it's akin to saying that when the text document is unzipped one had bolder text and the font was bigger. Now it IS possible that a decompression program could add effects to the font such as italics, bold, and change the color but that's not what was in the original document either.

John

 

[Rope]

In a 1080p to 1080p scenario, scaling is perhaps incorrect terminology. However, based on Mzs' experience with improved PQ using the 93 vs 83, seems the Marvell chip set is doing some processing to improve the video being displayed.

The acid test would be to pass the video signal through the 93 (bi-pass the Marvell chip set) to determine if there's a difference in PQ.

Rope

I would LOVE to get some real information on this (and I'm not trying to argue w/ at all I promis). I just wonder the Marvell chip could be doing. The data on the blu-ray disc is compressed into a file ala a plain text document into a zip file. When the image file is decompressed by two different processors and two different images are received it's akin to saying that when the text document is unzipped one had bolder text and the font was bigger. Now it IS possible that a decompression program could add effects to the font such as italics, bold, and change the color but that's not what was in the original document either.

John

The question would then become, why improve chip sets from Anchor Bay to Marvell. Marketing, video voodoo? I don't have a clue, since I haven't viewed the 93. It seems source component manufacturers are consistently touting the chip set card. We went from Faroudja to Anchor Bay, now Marvell. :confusion-shrug:

Rope

 

[Rope]

Marvell Armada

Rope

 

[yromj]

That's what I wonder, also. Remember the discussions we would have about the brand of DACs in receivers etc. and then we learned that the technology had progressed far enough that it would be virtually impossible to identify any difference in the sonic performance of two DACs? I wonder if that doesn't apply here, also.

Also, one thing that these chips could legitimately tout as a valid quality would be there performance when outputting a component video signal. Of course we look at that and say that's akin to have the best sounding 8 track player, but still...

John

 

[Deerhunter]

So after reading this is it again night and day difference between those blu ray and my $120 panny blu ray? Or is it more subtle differences that you would really have to look for?

 

[Rope]

So after reading this is it again night and day difference between those blu ray and my $120 panny blu ray? Or is it more subtle differences that you would really have to look for?

I can't say, since my rig involves scaling. However, I can tell a difference when I bypass the REON chip set in the 885 and let the Anchor Bay chip set in the Oppo do the scaling. It is not a night and day difference, although distinguishable.

Scaling a 1080p video signal to 1364 x 765 (720p, which is 720 x 1280) versus a 1080p to 1080p, is like comparing oranges and apples, since there is no scaling, or shouldn't be, with a 1080p source to a 1080p display.

Rope

 

[Deerhunter]

Mine would also have to scale down since plasma is 720. Looks like that player will in on my to get list. Thanks!

 

[mzpro5]

So after reading this is it again night and day difference between those blu ray and my $120 panny blu ray? Or is it more subtle differences that you would really have to look for?

Between the 83 and the 93 there is a more than subtle discernible difference but I would not say it was a night and day difference.

If that actually makes any sense.