Venturer HD DVD Player Set to Launch December 29

What’s so great about 200 bucks for 1080i.  They can keep this junk.  I don’t think this will be winning any format wars

Does the HD DVD player play MPG-2 TS Files?

Yeah, they lost me at “a 1080i player”...

If you have a 1080p TV and a 1080i player you will still get a 1080p picture.  Just instead of the player doing the deinterlacing your 1080p TV will do it.

My TV is only 1080i so 1080i is just fine for me as well as a lot of the members of the HDTV community who only own 1080i TVs.

The fact is it will be a very cheap player for those looking to jump into HDM.

I’m surprised people are still so ignorant about the 1080i output.  As was just said, if you have a 1080p display, you’ll still get a 1080p picture out of it with no loss in quality (unless you have junk display with a bad deinterlacer).  It’s just a slightly different processing path.

1080p output:
1080p/24 -> 1080p/60

1080i output:
1080p/24 ->1080i/60 -> 1080p/30

1080i is effectively the same as 1080p, but with 30 frames per second instead of 60.  The source material is only 24 frames per second, so you’re not losing anything.

Not ignorant,

I just prefer 1080p24 source right to 1080p24 display.  Therefore, cutting the amount of processing, and displaying at the same frame rate it was shot in.  How good of a de-interlacer do you think this thing has for 200 bucks?

This simply isn’t true and this misinformation is being spread (I suspect) by HD-DVD enthusiasts to discredit that Blu-ray players are all 1080p.

First, two 540 frames shown rapidly is not identical to a full 1080 frame all at once.

Second, The media on HD-DVD discs is stored progressive. If you believe interlacing a progressive image, only to de-interlacing it again at the display is 100% artifact free you probably also think 128 kbps MP3 files sound no different than original CD Audio. Multiple interlacing and de-interlacing is a compromise and is not going to deliver the best possible picture so I’m left to conclude that defenders of this practice consider it “good enough”. Just like millions of people think iTunes music sounds “good enough”. Having invested in my home theater, I’d rather not make compromises in video just to save $100.

The terms, “effectively the same” and “you’re not losing anything” are both untrue.

http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

Lastly, if 1080i is exactly the same, someone please explain to me why both HD disc formats store content in 1080p and why 1080p is part of the HD spec at all. Interlacing is a compromise designed to fool your eyes into thinking they’re seeing something they’re not. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either trying to justify their own purchase of cheaper equipment, or sell you on spending less like they did.

1080i doesn’t look horrible and is way better than any SD image, but it isn’t 1080p no matter how many times people claim there is no difference.

well said soundzilla,  That was my point, you just said it better.  I got a kick out of the 128kbps comment.

Tom,

To answer your question above, this player doesn’t have a de-interlacer.  Hence the 1080i player.

There is a good article here by Home Theater magazine that puts the 1080i to 1080p conversion in layman’s terms.

http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/1106gear/

As long as your TV deinterlaces properly you will have a 1080p picture.

The fact still remains that this cheap player will be a huge entry point for the average Joe into HDM.  As the average HDTV owner, owns a 1080i set.  So bagging on the player for being 1080i just creates confusion for those people, as this cheaper player is all they need.

But it’s not true that 1080i is displayed as two 540 line frames.  On a CRT perhaps, but not on any digital display like plasma or LCD.  They can only do progressive scan.  A 1080p LCD has 1920x1080 pixels and everything displayed has be converted to that resolution.

That’s where deinterlacing comes into play (and no, deinterlacing is not performed on the $200 player, it’s done on the TV).  The alternate frames are combined to produce a single full resolution frame.  Artifacts from interlacing are more of a problem if there is movement in between the alternating 540 lines frames.  When source material is at 24 frames per second, artifacts aren’t too unlikely to occur with good processing in the TV.  No review I’ve seen has reported quality issues as a result of this.

“Interlaced” is really just a transport mechanism It makes no sense to store a film as “1080i”.  You want to store the full frames as they are.

I will grant you that 1080p/24 output has the potential to reduce the judder introduced by 3:2 pulldown.  This will be helpful if you have a 120Hz display.  Reviewers have found the benefit from this to be relatively minor though, but for those looking for that extra 5%, you wouldn’t like this player.

For the majority of us who have 60Hz displays, outputting at 1080p/60 instead of 1080i/60 may reduce artifacts if your TV has bad deinterlacing, but in most cases you’re getting the same final image.

If you’ve got money to blow on the “1080p” moniker, then do it.  I won’t tell you not to.  All I’m saying is, for people who are looking for a cost-effective setup that in most cases provides the same quality, I don’t see the harm in a 1080i output.

Thanks for the article.  Clears some stuff up.  I see the value of this player if all you have is a 1080i TV.  But a lot of TVs now are 1080p anyway.  I went from a 1080i display (Hitachi) to a 1080p (samsung) and blu-ray player.  When the BR discs are displayed at 1080p24, it simply is the best picture from any set-up I have had.

I guess my main thing was this player will not “change the format war” as I wouldn’t even buy one.  There are many people who this might be good for though.

Tom,

Did you actually read the article?  If not, please go back and try to understand that it is saying that the 1080p sets will display the SAME picture from a 1080i source as it would from a 1080p source.  So your point that a lot of TVs are now 1080p doesn’t do anything but prove their point.

On the 1080p24 point, this is valid.  However, there are VERY few TVs that have the 24fps capability.  A 1080p set does NOT automatically have this feature, thus, the vast majority will not gain any benefit from the 1080p signal.

Sid,

Like the other guy said, if 1080i is displayed “the same” as 1080p then why are the movies stored as 1080p.  They should be displayed the same way they are stored for Max quality.  I mis-spoke about the player interlace thing before, so my bad, but my opinion is and will be, 1080i (de-interlaced) is not as good as a pure 1080p signal.

The disc is stored in a progressive format. The $200 HAS to de-interlace it if it’s putting it out in 1080i.

Tom, would you say the 1080p native out from your Blu-ray to your 1080p display looks better or about the same as your old 1080i setup?

I’m not trying to create confusion for anyone.
Some people still have dial-up modems. They don’t “need” broadband because it isn’t required to experience the Internet. People don’t “need” 1080p, but they’re not enjoying an identical experience to 1080p when interlacing then de-interlacing an image.

Telling people they are getting the same thing is what’s going to create confusion because 1080i isn’t 1080p just because the numbers are the same, and dial-up isn’t broadband just because they’re both the Internet.
Read the link I posted.

Sorry, I meant the $200 player HAS to interlace it (not de-interlace).

The 1080i situation is a complicated one that very few people understand correctly. 

The player does 1080i only because it does not have a deinterlacer.  This is done for cost reasons.

1080p/24 is actually lower bandwidth (and hence smaller file size) than 1080i/60, which is equivalent to 1080p/30, resulting in 6 extra progressive frames per second.  Storing movies at 24fps is a great way to store them.

Using a process called 3:2 pulldown, which I won’t go into detail here, the cheap players split the 1080p/24 into essentially 1080i/48, then add frames to pad the 48 into 60.  Out comes 1080i/60 and that plays over the HDMI port.  Since all the information from the 1080p/24 signal is all still there in the 1080i/60 broadcast, a good deinterlacer will recognize this and it will take out those padded frames, and put the 1080i/48 (which does not actually exist I’m just using it here for simplicity sake) back together to make a perfect 1080p/24.  Bam!  There you go, perfect picture with no loss in quality.  This is the holy grail of 1080i/60 and the reason the industry uses it.  Both video and film can be put back together perfectly with a 1080i/60 signal. 

Things aren’t always perfect though, and it turns out that it takes an expensive deinterlacer to recognize that 3:2 pulldown and take those frames out to get to a perfect picture.  Very few TVs pass this test on the HD HQV test.  I wish I had saved that URL, but one website has tested about 60 displays from 2006 and 2007.  80% of displays in 2006, and 60% of displays in 2007 failed this test, which means you don’t get that 1080p/24 picture out of the 1080i/60 and you lose quality. Even nice displays like my brand new Sony KDS60A3000 fails, and the advanced HQV Reon scaler in the Onkyo 875.  So when everyone says “you get the same quality guys with 1080i because the TV just deinterlaces it,”  At least 90% of the time that is wrong (because not that many have 2006 and 2007 displays)  If you have a new JVC, or a new Pioneer Elite Kuro, then sure, who cares, but if you are the $ saving type that would by a Chinese player, hell no, get the 1080p model if you care about quality.

soundzilla,

the 1080p is better, really in a different league when it comes down to the small detail.  But I guess I am imagining things since a 1080i is the same thing

I bet most people wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p displayed on a good set (including many of the people here who only look for the magic numbers on spec sheets).  Besides the average consumer looking for a $200 hd dvd player probable makes up 98% of the consumers out there. It’s like looking for a $45 dvd player or a $1200 50” plasma. All they care about is its cheaper and its better then the last format they had. Just like they know dvd is better then vhs. Instead of bashing the product why don’t you see it for what it is. A product to get more players into the hands of the public, and drive down cost for everyone (manufactures and consumers). It will benefit you even if you would never buy it.

Most people thought Rambo was a great movie, but it isn’t what I would call an important part of cinema history.

Most people think iTunes music is indistinguishable from CDs, but I can certainly hear the difference.

The average consumer looking for $500 flat panel HDTV makes up 98% of the consumers out there, but I wouldn’t use an Olevia display as the centerpiece of my home theater or living room if you paid me.

I’m not a fan of encouraging the further erosion of quality in products. Encouraging “Good enough” lowers expectations and makes mediocrity the standard.

I hate the the HD-DVD camp is flooding the market with cheap 1080i players because it is a compromise. Do you honestly believe that the components used in a $99 HD-DVD player compare to the components used in a $400 HD-DVD player or Blu-ray player? Quality costs money. The 1080p HD spec is fantastic. Given the price difference between 1080i and 1080p, I think it’s worth passing on the 1080i stuff until one can afford true 1080p gear. It’s getting cheaper every day.

My whole point is we judge these products as if they were intended for us. We make up the 2% of the market. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be great full that there is an affordable product for the 98%. Do you think your 1080p display would be so affordable now if millions of people didn’t buy that $500 olevia? Do you think if only the rare “important part of cinema history” were produces we would have movie theaters? Just because the road is full of Honda civics doesn’t mean BMW is going to stop making cars. Besides the more people with players out there the more movies that are going to be bought/rented. More of those “important parts of cinema history” can be remastered in high def. I’m not trying to convince you to buy it. Just saying it’s not such a bad thing.