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

[DaViD Boulet]

Just picked up a panny BD30 which apparently scales all output to a constant 1080p60 regardless of content encoding type (if you select 1080p60 output).

Woohoo... I'll report back later with the results... and I'll let you all know how that DTS-HD MA sounds when full decoded since I'll be bitstreaming it to my receiver...

[DefTechPioElite]

do you people really watch special features for their picture quality? I know it's annoying to see SD compared to BD but come on, these are just the special features.

[DaViD Boulet]

do you people really watch special features for their picture quality? I know it's annoying to see SD compared to BD but come on, these are just the special features.

That's not the reason we're asking for upconversion for SD BD material: it has to do with the problem of losing the video lock/handshake with the display every time the PS3 changes output mode.

The PS3 is designed pretty poorly in this regard... it even drops the video signal when it moves from a 1080p film back to the 1080p menu or vice versa. It's one thing to drop an audio signal when you don't know what the next codec will be, and most audio processor are more forgiving about a blanked-out audio signal and codec swapping. But cutting off the video signal over HDMI and then starting it up again in 480p... or going from 480i to then 1080p60 causes some issues with many displays that take a few seconds to lock back on... or in my case it loses the video lock altogether and I have to power down the PS3 and start it back up again to re-establish a video hand-shake (my PJ is more sensitive then most in that it only handles 1080p60).

[wallendo]

Originally Posted by DefTechPioElite

do you people really watch special features for their picture quality? I know it's annoying to see SD compared to BD but come on, these are just the special features.

For me it isn't an image quality issue. When a BR disc shows 480i or 480p content, it is "postage stamped" on my screen. (A fairly small postage stamp in fact)

I can change the settings to get my projector to scale it to fill the screen, but, unless I change the settings again, it causes problems with 4:3 output.

[bferr1]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

That's not the reason we're asking for upconversion for SD BD material: it has to do with the problem of losing the video lock/handshake with the display every time the PS3 changes output mode.

The PS3 is designed pretty poorly in this regard... it even drops the video signal when it moves from a 1080p film back to the 1080p menu or vice versa. It's one thing to drop an audio signal when you don't know what the next codec will be, and most audio processor are more forgiving about a blanked-out audio signal and codec swapping. But cutting off the video signal over HDMI and then starting it up again in 480p... or going from 480i to then 1080p60 causes some issues with many displays that take a few seconds to lock back on... or in my case it loses the video lock altogether and I have to power down the PS3 and start it back up again to re-establish a video hand-shake (my PJ is more sensitive then most in that it only handles 1080p60).

Wow, this is all true, and my Mitsubishi DLP takes forever to recover from every resolution change/HDMI handshake. Glad I'm not the only one dealing with this.

And it's not just SD video extras. It's concert videos, too. I have a John Legend BD where the main menu is in 1080p, but the concert itself is 1080i! WTF? And it's even on FBI warning type screens. You can load up a disc, and the main menu will be 1080p. But then some of the FBI warning crap might be 1080i, so you go through a round of HDMI handshaking and whatnot; then the main feature follows that, and it's in 1080p, which brings on another set of HDMI delays. I miss the first few seconds of whatever video every time the PS3 does this!

[Grisle]

Yeah because of the dropped signal my crappy tv has green sparkles when the PS3 goes to the 720p signal...I don't know why.

[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

Guys,

is anyone aware of a BD player that *does* output a constant 1080p60 signal if the user desires? The Panny BD30? I just realized it would be a LOT cheaper for me to buy a new BD player that can force 1080p60 than to buy a scaler with 1080p60 pass-through to use with the PS3!

thanks,

dave

An alternative is to use your display as the upscaler/deinterlacer if it is good at it.
regards.

[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.

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by Jason One

Why would it be questionable? We already know it does a great job upscaling 480i content from DVDs. Why would it be any different for 480i content on BDs?

Based on my experience, PS3 is not the best DVD upscaler while it is the best blu-ray player that delivers an stunning picture even on large screens. Check this thread.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...905#post741905
post #22

[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.

[Blinkman987]

What I was told today:
The really great part about the PS3 is that it doesn't try to adjust picture settings through the player. If you want to calibrate it, you can just do it through the HDMI inputs and calibrate it that way. If you want to calibrate some other DVD players and such, they have their own picture settings. You have to calibrate it through the disc, and that sometimes means buying multiple discs because the regular DVDs tend to be pretty low-rez.

Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong. I realize i'm not using the best terms or language, but the idea is communicated effectively.

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by owa

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

Good point. It should be clearly labeled in "English". In addition to HD, SD 1080p, 480i jargon!

[bferr1]

This thread is veering way off-topic. The original topic is about the PS3 outputting all video on BD discs in its native resolution, not whether SD content should be labeled clearly on packages.

All other BD players capable of 1080p output can upconvert all video, whether it is 480i/p or 1080i, to 1080p. The PS3 itself can upconvert SD DVDs from 480i to 1080p. The problem is that the PS3 does not upconvert all video on BD discs to 1080p, when it does so for SD DVDs. Why? To people like myself and DaViD, this is a glaring oversight, one without any apparent technical reason, and one that causes some integration issues with our other equipment.

[DaViD Boulet]

All other BD players capable of 1080p output can upconvert all video, whether it is 480i/p or 1080i, to 1080p. The PS3 itself can upconvert SD DVDs from 480i to 1080p. The problem is that the PS3 does _not_ upconvert all video on BD discs to 1080p, when it does so for SD DVDs. Why?

Amen.

And it just cost me $500 in the form of a new Panny BD30.

BTW, quick side-step: The bitstreaming DTS-HD MA from the Panny is mind-blowing. Hairspray is a COMPETELY different film. Utterly.

WOW.

[bferr1]

Hey DaViD, here's a theory: We know that the PS3 does not upconvert PS3 games on BD discs unless higher resolutions are supported in the game through its programming. (This is the issue of people trying to play 720p games on their non-720p-supporting HDTVs and ending up with... 480p! )

What if the PS3 can't distinguish between movie BDs and game BDs and simply applies the same rules to movie playback?

[Jason One]

Originally Posted by syncguy

Based on my experience, PS3 is not the best DVD upscaler while it is the best blu-ray player that delivers an stunning picture even on large screens. Check this thread.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...905#post741905
post #22

Although the PS3 is not the absolute best upscaler, it is still very good. If it were to upscale 480i content from BDs, as many of us would like it to, it is an exaggeration to say that the quality would be questionable.