PS3 doesn't upscale Blu-ray Disc "Standard Def" features?

[akadkins]

Originally Posted by djepic112

No, that's not true at all. The only answers are cheapness/laziness/being rushed.

And now that Blu-Ray has won the war, there isn't much incintive to make the product any better...

[gvortex7]

Originally Posted by akadkins

And now that Blu-Ray has won the war, there isn't much incentive to make the product any better...

Where did you get that from? What previous technology in your opinion has ever stagnated long after its release? And please show my a company that doesn't strive to make their products better with each new generation of units.

[fronn]

This is one of the biggest annoyances for me about the PS3 at the moment. Because my receiver scales anything that's not 1080i or 1080p to 720p, I get the ishy double scaling artifacts on my SD extras on my PS3.

There's really no excuse for the lack of SD scaling on BR movies... I always figured it was more of an oversight than anything.

It's actually my number 1 most wanted feature (with DTS HDMA a very close second).

[richieb1971]

I figured it would be false advertising so they don't risk it.

It is strange how bad some extras look though, I think they dunk the film in the toilet and wipe their butts with it before putting it on bluray, it looks terrible in places. I mean if that was the state of the original footage the main feature would never look that good.

For an idea of what i'm talking about, have you seen the original Revenge of the Jedi trailer. LOLZ.

[Maxell]

But if the PS3 upconverts standard dvd's, then why doesn't it just upconvert the blu-ray SD extras? I hope Sony fixes this one day.

[Clark Kent]

As others have speculated I think this problem of not upscaling sd content from BDs is just an oversight from Sony and the PS3 development team. I imagine things like in-game crossbar and DTS-HD MA decoding and Home are bigger priorities right now. Sony does not have infinite resources to make the PS3 do everything in the world all at once.

[DaViD Boulet]

Being about to scale all content to a constant 1080p output seems like a no-brainer. That's not above-and-beyond, that's standard-practice for a device to be able to output a signal of a chosen resolution and scale everything to match.

If it can do it with SD DVD content, no reason why it can't also do it with SD BD content.

[kingofgrills]

Originally Posted by akadkins

And now that Blu-Ray has won the war, there isn't much incintive to make the product any better...

It's not a matter of not wanting to make the product any better. If this issue has been identified to Sony, it's probably on their upgrade wish list. Is it the highest priority for PS3s? Certainly not. I'll take DTS-HD MA decoding over upscaled extra content for sure.

The biggest fault lies at the feet of the BD association for allowing non HD content for extra material into the BD profile. All content should have been required to be 1080p, not just the movie. So many film crews use cheap @ss video cameras to document the making of a movie for DVD extras. Often that stuff just gets slapped over from the DVD release without regard to Blu-ray picture capabilities. It's a shame.

[DaViD Boulet]

The biggest fault lies at the feet of the BD association for allowing non HD content for extra material into the BD profile. All content should have been required to be 1080p, not just the movie. So many film crews use cheap @ss video cameras to document the making of a movie for DVD extras. Often that stuff just gets slapped over from the DVD release without regard to Blu-ray picture capabilities. It's a shame.

So if a documentary only existed in SD because it was shot 10 years ago on a digital cam-corder, are you saying you don't want it to be made available on BD? or are you saying that it makes more sense to artificially upconvert it to 1080p so the encoding wastes more room on the disc rather than just providing the native 480p file compressed with AVC which would be the more efficient option, and then let the player upconvert on its end after decoding.

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

So if a documentary only existed in SD because it was shot 10 years ago on a digital cam-corder, are you saying you don't want it to be made available on BD? or are you saying that it makes more sense to artificially upconvert it to 1080p so the encoding wastes more room on the disc rather than just providing the native 480p file compressed with AVC which would be the more efficient option, and then let the player upconvert on its end after decoding.

This is where correct labelling could play a vital role.

If sub-standard content is encoded on to blu-ray (as given in the above example), IMO, that fact should be clearly indicated in the packaging. Then the consumers would know what they are paying for and their expectations would be nicely managed. Otherwise, consumer confidence on blu-ray-quality could be damaged and it will not be trivial to restore lost confidence.

[owa]

Originally Posted by syncguy

This is where correct labelling could play a vital role.

If sub-standard content is encoded on to blu-ray (as given in the above example), IMO, that fact should be clearly indicated in the packaging. Then the consumers would know what they are paying for and their expectations would be nicely managed. Otherwise, consumer confidence on blu-ray-quality could be damaged and it will not be trivial to restore lost confidence.

If you're talking about the special features being marked as HD or SD on the back cover, a lot of them have that already. Spot checking titles from Sony, Disney, Warner, Lionsgate, New Line, Paramount and Fox, they usually had it marked pretty clearly on the back cover except for titles from Fox (didn't see any titles listing it). Also, with the two titles I checked from Paramount, one listed it in the fine print (doubt anyone would see it) and one had it clearly marked. Out of the 4 titles I checked from Sony, 3 were clearly marked but one mentioned it in the fine print (doubt anyone would see it). Some also list the supported resolutions for the special features.

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by owa

If you're talking about the special features being marked as HD or SD on the back cover, a lot of them have that already. Spot checking titles from Sony, Disney, Warner, Lionsgate, New Line, Paramount and Fox, they usually had it marked pretty clearly on the back cover except for titles from Fox (didn't see any titles listing it). Also, with the two titles I checked from Paramount, one listed it in the fine print (doubt anyone would see it) and one had it clearly marked. Out of the 4 titles I checked from Sony, 3 were clearly marked but one mentioned it in the fine print (doubt anyone would see it). Some also list the supported resolutions for the special features.

This is good news. It is better if it is clear and people see it easily. So there would be no surprises.

In some cases, even the content of main feature could lack definition as indicated by a previous poster (e.g. some content recorded 10 years ago on a digital camera.). Especially these cases should be marked clearly, so that people know what they purchase and most importantly this would give a clear message, if the BD lacks quality, the reason is the original content rather than the blu-ray technology and associated technical processes.

[owa]

Originally Posted by syncguy

This is good news. It is better if it is clear and people see it easily. So there would be no surprises.

Maybe. The next issue might be whether or not they understand what it means.

Originally Posted by syncguy

In some cases, even the content of main feature could lack definition as indicated by a previous poster (e.g. some content recorded 10 years ago on a digital camera.). Especially these cases should be marked clearly, so that people know what they purchase and most importantly this would give a clear message, if the BD lacks quality, the reason is the original content rather than the blu-ray technology and associated technical processes.

When I made my last post on that, I thought he was talking about a documentary as a special feature but after reading your post and re-reading his again, you might be right. It does seem like he's saying it's the main feature. In that case, yeah, it needs to be extremely clear what's going on.