Top

Toshiba To Unveil Next Gen Upscaling?

Posted by Mehar Gill on June 3, 2008 
Filed Under: Blu-ray, Format War



Word from Japan via Yomiuri is that Toshiba is set to unveil a new way to upscale standard DVDs. The problem lies with the original article itself, we are lead to believe that the article was either worded poorly (Like a majority of Japanese -> English articles are) or Toshiba has released very few details on their new player.

The player has a release date of late 2008, it will also be heavily advertised as a cheaper solution to Blu-ray.(Did we expect Toshiba to jump on the BD bandwagon?) Those are all the details currently out about the new technology, expect more news in the coming weeks.

We all know how good Toshiba’s HD DVD players were at upscaling, (the first gen units, as well as the HD-XA2) if this source is indeed correct, we would like to see how well this new technology will stack up against Blu-ray and Digitally Distributed content (we’re not holding our breath).

At CES 2008 Toshiba demonstrated the future of on the fly upscaling with the CELL chip, after Toshiba withdrew, Sony contracted a deal with Toshiba that would give it majority share in new CELL manufacturing plants. If these players live up to the “hype” could Sony have unintentionally hurt themselves? I’m not speculating these will lead to the mass failure of Blu-ray, but it could definitely hinder progress.

We wonder if this uses the same concept as the Dscaler project that the HTPC guys use to upscale their DVDs.

Related posts:

  1. HDGURU Reviews New Samsung BD-P1200

Comments

59 Responses to “Toshiba To Unveil Next Gen Upscaling?”

  1. merrick97 on June 3rd, 2008 8:06 am

    Toshiba lost the battle for HD media.

    Now theyre going to try and keep DVD around as long possible.

    I am curious though if it indeed does make my dvds look way better since a lot of my DVDs wont be coming to blu any time soon.

  2. Jonsson on June 3rd, 2008 8:06 am

    Even if this is true, it’s just marketing hype. You can not take SD material and expect to make it into HD, full stop.

    No matter how god an upscaler is, it doesn’t have acces to the full material and can only make educated gesses about the missing bits.

    I whish the plonkers at Toshiba just admitted their defeat, stopped messing around with this totally unneccesary marketing nonsense and started to make BD players just like everyone else.

  3. Mehar on June 3rd, 2008 8:18 am

    No point speculating what it can do this early in the game, I seen some bad upscaller’s and Ive seen good one’s as well. The sad reality is many of these upscaler produce a better quality image then their Blu Ray counterpart.

    I’m personally waiting for a tech demo too see how well it lives up the hype.

  4. The Guardian on June 3rd, 2008 8:23 am

    The “planned obsolescence” of DVD has already begun. Look at most of the catalog DVDs you can buy these days – crappy low-bitrate encodes with low-bitrate DD sound, often on single-layer discs (or two movies on a double-layer disc). I think you’ll find even Toshiba’s upscaler will have trouble making anything at all out of that. And it doesn’t upscale the audio.

    Another side effect: If these are indeed Cell-based players, that will increase the market for Cell chips thus lowering the price thus allowing Sony to make the PS3 a little cheaper.

  5. Mehar on June 3rd, 2008 8:31 am

    Guardian: Not really, Toshiba co created CELL along with Sony and IBM. Using your own product won’t make a market for it.

    Some companies are going to make DVD Exclusive’s this year, not bad ones but also good ones to tie in with movies. I was going to write an article about it but it slipped my mind.

  6. Roberta on June 3rd, 2008 8:32 am

    Hey Toshiba,

    Skip this ill-timed venture and develop proper 4k machines and discs that look wonderful on 72″+ screens, unlike Blu-Ray which looks like the shite on screens larger than 60″.

  7. The Guardian on June 3rd, 2008 9:06 am

    Mehar, I was referring to economies of scale with the Cell chips.

  8. webdev511 on June 3rd, 2008 9:54 am

    @Mehar

    Do you mean that good stand alone upscalers do a better job of upscaling than Blu-Ray players? There are exceptions, but in general I tend to agree with you.

    I have to believe that it is an expense issue in that the cost of really good upscaling would make the price of a Blu-Ray player even higher. On the other hand I wouldn’t doubt that the more invested members of the BDA aren’t loosing any sleep over poor upscaling of standard def discs. Anything to make Blu look leaps and bounds better and bump up the attach rate.

    I for one will be interested to see just how good a job this new player can do. Granted the picture and sound are dependent on the quality of the transfer and encode, but with new movies getting really good transfers for the BD version you’ve got to believe the DVD version will benefit.

  9. merrick97 on June 3rd, 2008 10:16 am

    Mehar,

    This comment:
    The sad reality is many of these upscaler produce a better quality image then their Blu Ray counterpart.

    Is absolute garbage and it implies that bluray is merely upscaled dvd. If you think that about bluray, Id LOVE to hear your thoughts on many of those Universal HD-DVDs.

    A 1080p (even 720p) version of a film will look better EVERY TIME.

    I challenge you to name one dvd that looks as good as bluray.

    The worst bluray I have seen is Total Recall and it still manages to look quite a bit better than its dvd counterpart.

  10. Dave Cowl on June 3rd, 2008 10:17 am

    Upscaling standard def DVDs will always fall into the ‘better than DVD, not as good as True HD’ category.

    You can’t get something from nothing, and the harder you try, the less real it looks.

    This is just Toshiba trying to save face, and it faces competition from all of the CE’s.

    If Sony or Panasonic said they had a new upscaling DVD player it wouldn’t be considered news at all.

  11. Jonsson on June 3rd, 2008 10:52 am

    Mehar, I agree with Merrick, what you say is absolutely ridicolous.

    You can not take a SD image, upscale it, and say that it produces an image anywhere close to a proper HD one.

    If that’s what you think you must have a very very poor setup.

    This entire think is just a poore loosers game.

  12. Mehar on June 3rd, 2008 11:44 am

    By better I was reffering to the fact that some studios do a poor job at upscailing. Ill be honest, I spend alot of time at the Digigods site, and at time’s I hear reviewer’s on many popular review sites complain the transfer on a film is poor and you can get better or matched quality by upscailing.

  13. Mehar on June 3rd, 2008 11:45 am

    I’m at school right now so when I get home I will go into a bit more depth if you like.

  14. webdev511 on June 3rd, 2008 11:45 am

    I don’t think that’s what he’s saying.

    Point is the Blu-Ray players produce an outstanding picture from BD, and a marginally better than un-upconverted picture off of DVD. Who buys a Blu-Ray player based on it’s ability to upconvert standard DVD?

    Stand alone upconverters have one purpose; upconvert. If they don’t do a good job, the don’t sell.

    A Super-Cell upconverter isn’t going to beat blu-ray, but if the price is right and joe six pack can’t tell the difference on the displays at wal-mart, sears or target well do the math.

  15. Justin Sluss on June 3rd, 2008 11:57 am

    Toshiba is just trying to regain face and try to sell us on some new upconversion BS. I could care less about upconversion. My PS3, Toshiba HD player all do a great job as it is now of upconverting. I see no need to pay Toshiba for anything again anytime soon… Especially buying a Toshiba HDTV set. That’s totally out of the question to me, not only because I’d pick Sony over it but the fact of their business ethics… I’d never buy a Toshiba product again so long as I live to be honest.

  16. Justin Sluss on June 3rd, 2008 11:59 am

    Wow I didn’t even read what Dave said and now reading it, he pretty much said what I did to a degree. LOL

  17. merrick97 on June 3rd, 2008 12:00 pm

    @webdev511,

    Anyone that cant tell the diff between bluray and dvd needs to have their eyes checked.

    NOW, whether or not J6P thinks that difference is worth the extra cost is another argument entirely.

    Mehar,

    I didnt mean to completely trash your comment, but I do think it is WAY OFF to say that upconverted dvd looks even remotely close to as good as bluray.

    My best dvds dont come close to my blurays in terms of detail at least.

    But there isnt a film out there where its dvd counterpart looks better than its bluray.

  18. Mehar Gill on June 3rd, 2008 1:31 pm

    I’m not saying all up converted disk’s look as good or better then their counter parks, I’m saying that some of them do since the transfer on the Blu Ray is horrible!

    Plus CG Film’s like Shrek, Cars, etc don’t make a difference in HD either so their are exceptions. If this player is below the $100 sweetspot and is actually demoed then like stated above the average consumer won’t care.

  19. merrick97 on June 3rd, 2008 1:52 pm

    Mehar,

    You are again dead wrong.

    Cars, Ratatouille and Bee Movie all looked MANY times better on bluray than they did on dvd.

    Maybe you need to get your equipment checked.

  20. Dave Cowl on June 3rd, 2008 1:54 pm

    I would tend to disagree for the CGI stuff.

    Granted it looks pretty good upscaled from DVD, but in good quality HD it looks spectacular.

    It comes down to what Merrick said, there is definitely (for the most part) an improvement over DVD. The question is whether it is worth it.

    As the cost reduces, more people will consider it worth it.

    It would be interesting to know how many people with HD Disc buy DVD when there is an HD disc available, due to the higher price for the BD (usually)…

  21. webdev511 on June 3rd, 2008 2:11 pm

    Yeah I have to agree that you are way off base on the computer animated movies. Ratatouille is so deep on BD vs DVD it’s not even funny. Granted that depth is in places like the level of detail on a paper bag, or some other object on the screen that isn’t the focus of the scene. It may not seem like it makes a difference, but if you pull out too many of these details the more depth you pull out of the frame. If the detail isn’t present in a frame in the source, it won’t matter how much upscaling / de-interlacing you do.

    That said, I’m willing to see what Toshiba actually produces before I pass judgement. Personally all I think they’re doing is trying to make people think twice and in turn slow down Blu-Ray adoption while they figure out how they’re going to implement flash as a means of distributing Hi Def Media.

  22. Dave Cowl on June 3rd, 2008 2:27 pm

    I am sure that Toshiba will do anything they can to avoid released BD hardware…

  23. Mehar Gill on June 3rd, 2008 2:33 pm

    Well I don’t like arguing on speculation, that’s why I am waiting for a demo. Toshiba has a ton of revolutionizing technology coming out in the near future.

    You realize essentially movie’s on Blu Ray/HD DVD are also upscailed using different methods. Granted it’s not the same tech in DVD/Blu Ray/HD DVD players.

  24. The Guardian on June 3rd, 2008 4:38 pm

    Ummm.. Mehar, virtually none of the BD/HDDVD movies are “upscaled”… they are in fact merely not DOWNSCALED as much as DVDs are.

    There might be the odd exception but for the most part, that’s how it is.

  25. Mehar Gill on June 3rd, 2008 4:42 pm

    None of the film’s are shot in true HD yet, so the “Analouge” film is converted to “Digital”.

  26. merrick97 on June 3rd, 2008 5:38 pm

    Yes, but film has a much higher resolution than even 1080p, so it is in fact Super HD

  27. Mehar Gill on June 3rd, 2008 5:50 pm

    Well they just have a bigger resolution, not the quality of true HD. Think of it like comparing 1080p on a 6 year old TV compared to a 6 week old TV.

  28. Tyler Pruitt on June 3rd, 2008 6:26 pm

    Merrick,

    I agree, Just look at films like 2001, Forbidden Planet, Blazing Saddles…. all look spectacular on HDM.

  29. Mehar Gill on June 3rd, 2008 6:29 pm

    True they look awesome, mostly due to restoration! Would you really want to watch the original The Thing or even E.T. prints in HD?

  30. Mehar Gill on June 3rd, 2008 6:33 pm

    This story is getting more buzz now in North America from other sites, neat!

  31. The Guardian on June 3rd, 2008 6:41 pm

    Seriously Mehar, I don’t know why they let you post on this site as a contributor with the mistruth that you spew.

    Film has a much higher quality and “resolution” than any digital format. But if you really want to say digital is higher quality, there are a number of films that are being shot on 4K digital cameras (which is much more detailed than 1080P!).

    So either way what you said was a flat out lie.

  32. Mehar Gill on June 3rd, 2008 7:14 pm

    Wait a minute! You put words into my mouth and tell me I’m worng? I was talking about True HD, do a search, it is currently a term used to define 1080p with the goodness of audio. What your talking about is “beyond HD”, it’s currently not under the True HD label. To get a film that is over the 1080p resolution onto a disc that supports only 1080p will require you to “edit” the film so it can be viewed properly on a screen. Think of it like the 16:9 -> 4:3 ratio warning they had on VHS tapes.

  33. The Guardian on June 3rd, 2008 7:41 pm

    OK now you’re putting words into my mouth.

    You said that movies put onto Blu-ray from film have to be “upscaled” (YOUR WORD) to do so, implying that film has a lower resolution (it doesn’t).

    You then admitted that ok film has higher resolution but not the “quality” of HD (I assume you mean digital crispness and no film grain?).

    I then pointed out that most people find film to be of higher quality, and even if you don’t there are a number of films filmed on 4K digital cameras, which is more than 4x the number of pixels of 1080P, so clearly more detailed and thus of higher quality. Which is then *downscaled* to 1080P for Blu-ray (and to 480 for your precious DVDs so they can be re-scaled back up later on!)…

    You then started talking about audio and weird other stuff that has nothing to do with what we were talking about?

  34. Mehar Gill on June 3rd, 2008 8:22 pm

    Poor choice of words, I meant “descaled”, yea I was going to talk about the contrast ratio’s but when I was typing my original argument I thought it would further confuse you, I guess I should have added that to the comment.

    Yea I was wrong about the film thing, I was thinking of a totaly different concept with old films and the fps concept.

    Why do you call me a fan boy? I’m apart of the FMC team to report news, I don’t hold a bias if that’s what you think.

  35. Jonsson on June 3rd, 2008 10:39 pm

    Mehar, if I do not remember wrongly, you stated these total lies before in this forum. That time it was directed at me.

    You said then as well that “no films where shot in HD quality” and that they where “upscaled” when transfered to BD.

    It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Any decently modern theatrical release are filmed in quality thet generally is at least HD and often surpasses it.

    You where given the same response then so your claim of “bad choice” of words is quite unimpressive.

    Stop spreading these lies, especially in a forum where there are lots of people that, unlike you, KNOW what they are talking about.

  36. Tyler Pruitt on June 4th, 2008 12:37 am

    Simmer down guys ;) We all know upscaled DVD doesn’t compare to real HD content, lets just hope J6P figures this out as well.

  37. Belard on June 4th, 2008 2:03 am

    Sorry Mehar, but you are bias. You compare SD/Upconversion to Blue-Ray, rather than HiDef.
    Like your quote: “I’m not saying all up converted disk’s look as good or better then their counter parks, I’m saying that some of them do since the transfer on the Blu Ray is horrible!

    Plus CG Film’s like Shrek, Cars, etc don’t make a difference”

    There is a difference… you compare Toshiba to BluRay. The quality of the source / transfer and encoding will determine the quality if a BD disc. So while a UpscaleDVD may look better than “HiDEF” video, that is only when the movie title is of low quality by either cable transmission or whoever pressed the dsics. Its not a fault with the Blu-Ray tech.

    You cannot take a 720×480 Video image and “Create” 3x extra detail to compete with HiDef. Here’s an experiment that those with 2mp or better cameras can do or get a picture from http://www.powershot.com (Canon). Scale down the picture to 1900×1080. Pretend thats the HiDef video. Then resize the image to 720×480 (or whatever, as long as its 480) BUT to be truthful, Widescreen DVD is even smaller than a 1080 HD video. IE: only about 300lines of actual movie data vs. 1080. Then save the 720×480 or 720×300 JPG file. Then resize it back up to 1900×1200 size. Compare it side by side with the original. Remember 720×480 isn’t wide-screen data. Another good test, take a photo from space.com of the shuttle docked at ISS or the other way around… these photos are super sharp. I took a photo 3000×2000, cut it to 1500×2000 for easier side-by side compare. Shrink to 1080. (That is a great loss already, a mans face in a window goes from face structure to a face). The photo looks great. I then resized the photo to 320pixels high (simulating letterbox detail – At this time, you can barely tell theres a man in the window, most of the individual shuttle tiles dissapear and the name “Endevor” is a blur of letters. Now ZOOMING up the image to fill the screen (like as if on a 1080 screen) creates a jagged mess… horrible. Now lets resize the photo back to 1080. The software used anti-aliasing work to “fill in” the missing info. The photo LOOKS better than simply enlarging the 320 image to fill the screen. The “Endevor” name is a easiy better than when it was 320. I then pasted this “upscaled” image next to the “original” 1080 one… no comparision, the “upscaled’ image looked horrible in comparison.

    Here is a picture of video size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UHDV.svg Click to get it 100% heheh…

    Also – Anime and 3D graphics DO work best in highest possible res because they don’t have real-world colors/detail/mess to HIDE its low res. This is why we’ve been using expensive monitors for our computers rather than TVs.

    I’ve seen a DVD masters that was SOOO BAD, it was worse than typical VHS movies. I was so pissed and dissappointed that I was able to ger a refund.

    Reply | http://www.powershot.com (Canon). Scale down the picture to 1900×1080. Pretend thats the HiDef video. Then resize the image to 720×480 (or whatever, as long as its 480) BUT to be truthful, Widescreen DVD is even smaller than a 1080 HD video. IE: only about 300lines of actual movie data vs. 1080. Then save the 720×480 or 720×300 JPG file. Then resize it back up to 1900×1200 size. Compare it side by side with the original. Remember 720×480 isn\’t wide-screen data. Another good test, take a photo from space.com of the shuttle docked at ISS or the other way around… these photos are super sharp. I took a photo 3000×2000, cut it to 1500×2000 for easier side-by side compare. Shrink to 1080. (That is a great loss already, a mans face in a window goes from face structure to a face). The photo looks great. I then resized the photo to 320pixels high (simulating letterbox detail – At this time, you can barely tell theres a man in the window, most of the individual shuttle tiles dissapear and the name \"Endevor\" is a blur of letters. Now ZOOMING up the image to fill the screen (like as if on a 1080 screen) creates a jagged mess… horrible. Now lets resize the photo back to 1080. The software used anti-aliasing work to \"fill in\" the missing info. The photo LOOKS better than simply enlarging the 320 image to fill the screen. The \"Endevor\" name is a easiy better than when it was 320. I then pasted this \"upscaled\" image next to the \"original\" 1080 one… no comparision, the \"upscaled\’ image looked horrible in comparison.\r\n\r\nHere is a picture of video size: http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Image:UHDV.svg Click to get it 100% heheh…\r\n\r\nAlso – Anime and 3D graphics DO work best in highest possible res because they don\’t have real-world colors\/detail\/mess to HIDE its low res. This is why we\’ve been using expensive monitors for our computers rather than TVs.\r\n\r\nI\’ve seen a DVD masters that was SOOO BAD, it was worse than typical VHS movies. I was so pissed and dissappointed that I was able to ger a refund.’); return false;”>Quote
  38. Belard on June 4th, 2008 2:04 am

    BTW – between me typing the above.. the website “style” changed on me… nice improvement in every way…. Congrats.

  39. Tyler Pruitt on June 4th, 2008 2:43 am

    Belard,

    Thanks for the nice words! I hope everyone likes it.

  40. DavidB on June 4th, 2008 5:48 am

    Mehar, your article and your posts in the comments do CLEARLY show you to be biased, or at the least “anti Blu-Ray”. You’re not “reporting” as you claim, you are “opining”. You do not back up any of your “facts” with documentation, and you constantly type blatant falsehoods and misconceptions and then try to pass them off as either a mis-type or a “forgot” to mention something.

    It is CLEAR that you, Mehar, are buying into the hyp of the HD-DVD supporters, who are now making a full court press to convince the public that Blu-Ray isn’t “really” any better than quality upscaled DVD, while the exact opposite is clearly true. There is NOT A CHANCE that ANY upscaler can take 720x480i source material and make it look anything CLOSE to as good as 1080p or even 1080i/720p source material, UNLESS you happen to be watching that Blu-Ray content via the composite video output connection on a 4:3 aspect CRT tube television.

    And YES, there are clearly “bad” transfers making it onto Blu-Ray releases. BUT if you’re going to “report” versus just “opine”, you must objectively also cite that there were just as many “bad” transfers to HD-DVD and FAR MORE “bad” transfers to regular DVD.

    And oh my gosh, your conjecture about CGI stuff like Shrek or Cars, are you suffering from macular degeneration or something? Sorry, but on ANY display of your choosing (CRT, LCD, plasma, etc.), there is no way to look at Cars side by side from upconverted DVD and from native or downconverted Blu-Ray and NOT see a massive difference. EVEN over a simple composite video output from the crappiest Blu-Ray player, the difference is remarkable. But then again, since you don’t “report”, you have obviously done no such comparisons.

    Lastly, prowling other blog sites and regurgitating what you find there isn’t “reporting”, not when you try to pass off HERE as facts the opinions you find out there.

  41. The Guardian on June 4th, 2008 6:09 am

    I found the choice of Cars to be amusing also, since it’s rated visually the #2 best BD for visual quality over on the AVS Tier thread (behind only Ratatouille, another CGI Cartoon!).

  42. Mi on June 4th, 2008 7:29 am

    toshiba clearly ddin’t fire enough people after the HDVD debacle. Place is still being run by dopes.

  43. Mehar Gill on June 4th, 2008 7:38 am

    It seems like you guys missed my old comment, True HD is a brand name now used by companies to sell their product, it dosen’t refer to 1080p+.

    Jonsson: I don’t recall, I actually used a poor choice of words to describe what I wanted to, Belard actually proved my point in his post above with the resize aspect. He took a huge image and to get it to a 1080p resolution he had lost some quality, call it descaled if you want.

    When I listed the CG film’s above I didn’t mean those film’s were bad transfers, I meant to list what type of films I was refering to, so it could be differentiated from movie’s like Star Wars, LOTR, etc that use a ton of CG. What I was saying was their is a much better difference noticed between a “real” movie and one that’s cg.

    I almost rolled over my chair lauging, you guys think I hold a bias!

    DavidB: Sorry your majesty, unless theirs a convention of some sort in the area none of us get it “Straight from the source” as you called it, even news organizations like MSNBC, CNN, Fox, etc they are also forced to get their news from other area’s as well. It is a practise that’s been going on for decades now.

  44. Mehar Gill on June 4th, 2008 7:49 am

    Also, I do make Blu Ray article’s about things other then this as well, I actually had 2 last week that didn’t get published. Why? Because usally someone else can write and article that may be written better, or it may be from a newer source hence it containing more newer info.

    Feel free to ask anyone that writes here, they can all vouch for it.

  45. Jonsson on June 4th, 2008 8:22 am

    Sorry Mehar but your article(s) are nonsense.

    Now all off a sudden you ckaim Belard was proving some point and talking about “descaling”. Belard tried to prove the point that upscaling can never match the original full resolution image but it seems to have been a wasted effort.

    This is really laughable. Just accept that you where (are) plain wrong and just get over it.

  46. Mehar on June 4th, 2008 9:01 am

    Sure if you guys really want, I’m always up for a good debate once in a while, it helps improve my writing.

    I did admit I was wrong with some of the things I said, but I am not going to say I am wrong about others yet.

    Belard did strengthen my point when he said he had to descale the high quaity image for it to fit “1080″ resolution. By doing so he said he lost some qualitty, I was saying for quite a while now that movie film must be edited for it to appear properly on Blu Ray.

    How do my article’s factor in to this?

  47. Mehar on June 4th, 2008 9:03 am

    Just so were clear, the President of Toshiba Japan talked to Yomiuri abou this technology, not me! You can’t say my articles are “flawed” for me writing about technological advances.

  48. Jonsson on June 4th, 2008 11:03 am

    Mehar, I did not say that your article as such was flawed. It accurately presented the Toshiba BS.

    I reacted against your (repeated) statement which said, to my understanding, that most normal film material was “upscaled” for BD (which is not true) and therefore implied that a upscaling DVD player could even remotely compete with proper HD material (BD or HD-DVD)

    Belard didn’t strengthen your point, he strengenthed every one elses point which was that theatrical film material has at least as high resilution as BD and when you donwscale it to DVD quality and then upscale it again (a la Toshiba’s BS) then you get lesser quality.

    It’s a simple as that. Toshiba is trying to BS the customers by saying that a upscaling DVD player is an alternative to BD. It is that only if you accept lesser qualiity. Full stop.

    I can understand that some people consider you being biased by spreading this untruths that DVD upscalers and I think it’s unfortunate that this myth continues to be spread.

    If some people are satisfied with the lesser quality of upscaled DVD’s then so be it but it’s sad if they are so because they are simply missinformed.

  49. Mehar on June 4th, 2008 11:46 am

    Like I said before, I used the wrong term to describe my point, I meant a type of “descaling” was done for the film to work on Blu Ray/HD DVD/DD.

    To the average consumer, they really won’t care about True HD, their gonna look at the small info card in the Best Buys and Walmarts and see the $50 player offers 1080p and the $300+ Blu Ray player offers 1080p.

    The only thing I said about upscalers was that some Blu Ray videos have a poor transfer and that their upscaled DVD counterparts could and might look just as good or better. It has nothing to do with Blu Ray itself, but with the studio’s job of bringing content to Blu Ray.

  50. Jonsson on June 4th, 2008 12:00 pm

    There I’m afraid that you are right. The average consumer is going to look at the Toshiba player which might CLAIM to offer 1080p which technically it does but in reality doesnt.

    It offers a 180p signal but without the true content. Technically you could replicate every pixel the necessary times in each direction and claim 1080p. The image would look like shit but the signal is 1080p…yuck :-(

    This is exactly why I’m so annoyed by these false claims about upscalers being comparable to true HD material. They fuel this misconception and makes the penetration of proper quality hardware and content so much more difficult.

  51. Tyler Pruitt on June 4th, 2008 12:59 pm

    Jonsson,

    I just wonder if some J6P with a 32″ Wal-Mart LCD will ever see a difference (Lets hope the placebo effect works on him).

  52. Mehar on June 4th, 2008 1:26 pm

    I think I understand Tyler’s cue ;)

  53. thomas p vinelli on June 4th, 2008 2:27 pm

    mehar is here all the time. his theme is the same everytime and that is another reason why he won’t buy into blu-ray,thats all it is.
    i heard these tosh players will cost 200.00. how good of a scaler can it be at that price.you can get a dvd player for 30.00 why in the world would jp6 now buy a dvd player for 200.00.because to them thats all its going to be.
    like many have said if can’t see the difference between bd and upconvert dvd,you need your eyes checked.and if your 40 or above you need them checked anyways.most people that age are losing their close up vision anyways and because its a slow ageing thing you may not noticed you lost any vision.

  54. Mehar Gill on June 4th, 2008 3:13 pm

    Not this again, I told you before I do plan on buying a Blu Ray player once a standalone 2.0 player is released or the supposed “Blu Ray 360″ add on is released. (Both are rumoured to be released around the same time frame)

    Yes I realize their is the PS3 but no way I’m buying another gaming console in my already complicated set up.

  55. Belard on June 5th, 2008 4:46 am

    I reported last week about a Samsung BD-Live player at Walmart for $360 or so.

    For J6P: there are plenty of people who CAN’T tell the difference between VHS and DVD… so those same people will think that upconverters are the same as well.

    And no Mehar, my photo-editing test did NOT prove your point as valid. You took part of what I said and ran with it. I said when I took the 2000 ver. Rez image and reduced TO 1080 pixels high (like HD) the image still looked great, not as good. This is a bit of simulation from FILM or theater DLP. When reducing the image down to 320 – typical of a DVD widescreen movie – the image look like pure crap in details, but the color looks fine. When I reized the image BACK UP to 1080 (simulation of a DVD upconverter) – the image looked much better than the 320 version, but still didn’t come close to the previous 1080. The details were lost forever in LOW res SD. So no, upscalers are a poor replacemnt of HD. If I had a place to upload, I would do so with my sample.

    And you said:
    “I was saying for quite a while now that movie film must be edited for it to appear properly on Blu Ray.”

    When you “EDIT” a movie/video – it means TO CUT or ADD to the media. The proper term is “Mastering” and/or “encoding” depending on the sourcefinal product. If the movie (like of the old) are transfered into HD format, it is digitized… most likely the studios are doing higher than HD. Then encoded for the format that is needed (Blu-Ray, Download, DVD, Broadcast) These 4 general formats require difference encoding to work. This has nothing to do with BluRay. HD-DVD and Blu have the ability to produce the same quality of video, actually – Blu had ability for better quality by use of less compression due to high storage space.

    $200 for a top-end Toshiba upscaler?! LOL… that’ll be funny. When Sony conceded to VHS, they had VHS VCRs on the market in less than 4 months (first gen SONY decks were actually Hitachi – so they can sell the brand)

  56. DavidB on June 8th, 2008 5:03 am

    Poor Mehar. You write articles and post them HERE so that you can become a better writer? Um, isn’t that what a SCHOOL is supposed to do for you? Foisting your jibberish on FWC readers is a dis-service to all.

  57. Bob on June 12th, 2008 2:22 pm

    There’s simply no way to make prime rib out of hamburger. Upscaled images from low resolution will NEVER look like a nicely done transfer for 1080p and lossless sound to boot compared to very compressed Dolby Digital. To those left over anti-blu hd-dvd fanboys, it’s been over for over 3 months now, please try to heal and move on with life.

  58. thomas p vinelli on June 14th, 2008 1:29 am

    its interesting that some people in the film industry feel that blu-ray looks better,then some film prints.
    the reason is everytime you copy a print off the master you lose something,copy the copy and some prints look worse then a sd dvd.
    despite tosh’s efforts sr will fail.
    tosh could make a great bd player,but no!, i guess they like the feeling of losing

  59. RobertaZ on June 15th, 2008 8:23 pm

    Originally Posted By Justin Sluss…..That’s totally out of the question to me, not only because I’d pick Sony over it but the fact of their business ethics… I’d never buy a Toshiba product again so long as I live to be honest.

    Oh my God! You have got to be kidding! You’d buy a product from the company that brought us Elcaset, Beta, ATRAC, Memory Sticks and CDs with rootkits?????

    Couple that with the fact that every Sony product I have ever owned failed prematurely and that Sony is the company with no ethics and a plethora of proprietary failed formats, I (and MANY other Sony-haters – just Google it) will never buy an over-priced, poor quality product from these jokers again.

    RobertaZ

    P.S. I have 3 DVD players and a rear projection TV made by Toshiba that have performed flawlessly since the days they were bought.

Feel free to leave a comment...If you have not commented before, your comment will be held for moderation.
and oh, if you want an Avatar to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!





Bottom