“increasing image definition and improving picture edges” -- I believe "improving" would be a personal opinion. For example, I imagine the producer, director, editor, etc of a motion picture just might think that their original picture is better.
Am I the only one who thinks a television should simply display the data it receives without trying to guess what the picture represents (which ends up wasting energy (which wastes electricity, which wastes money), and results in a *worse* picture in some cases)?
Well, the SPURSengine happens to have a few of the Cell's important fast bits (the SPEs), so all is well. That Toshiba changes the PPC core for something other surely means it would be overkill for a rather fixed function processor.
(I don't think it is just an unsharp mask op: it probably derives info from several frames at once and some other voodoo)
Can it do anything useful like de-interlace difficult material?
When sales types talk about stuff like increasing image definition, improving colour and edge enhancement my usual question is "can you turn that off?" This can be a lot of fun at trade shows if a few others catch on and several people ask "can you turn that off" after they talk about each useless feature.
Since they're saying 'upscaling', I'm presuming the point is to take 480p or 480i content and do a better job getting it to 1080p than usual (with usual being anywhere from nearest-neighbor to bilinear in terms of quality). My guess is they're doing something like I do with ffdshow for DVD upscaling - a 5-tap deinterlace, lanczos upscaling, and some kind of high quality sharpener, not just an unsharp mask. I'm using a neat sharpener called LimitedSharpenFaster (with the point being its ability to heavily sharpen upscaled content *without* ringing or other artifacts) on my home theater machine, but it's massively CPU intensive and I'm not sure mainstream companies are using something like it for sharpening yet.
Regardless - processing a 1080p image isn't going to do any good, you're right. But you can do a WORLD of good to an SD signal - getting it maybe 70% of the way to HD from 30% - with the right process.
All that said, TV manufacturers have a penchant for applying ludicrous levels of saturation exaggeration while simultaneously crushing blacks and whites and then tossing on rabid amounts of contrast, and calling the whole thing something like "Super X-phase 2 modulation signal enhancement with XRT2 Tri-Tritone Phase technology", instead of the more accurate, "Rape Your Image" - and so I don't necessarily trust that they're doing anything good with this, even though they could well be.
"Am I the only one who thinks a television should simply display the data it receives without trying to guess what the picture represents"
You've obviously not had the pleasure of daytime TV on BBC.
And besides, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with wanting to improve the quality of a SD image in a HD screen. For a very good example of what Freeview SHOULD be now, head over to Sky 104 (Channel 4), then compare the upscaled version on 144 (Channel 4 HD) - this is upscaled at source, not on the TV, and the result is stunning.
When handed a DVD source of 720x576 rectangular pixels, what would you rather your 1920x1080 screen do? Intelligently scale it up as the specs indicate you should do, or put it in a tiny box in the middle of the screen with the wrong aspect ratio?
It's digital dude - the "original picture" was lost long before it reached you! #
Posted Tuesday 11th November 2008 12:16 GMT
"For example, I imagine the producer, director, editor, etc of a motion picture just might think that their original picture is better."
Indeed they would. And it's for this reason that the TV does it's best to recreate that original picture. The picture source is NOT the image that the producer/director/editor created. Even broadcast TV images are not received at production quality - the pixel resolution may be the same (with digital transmission), but the content of those pixels has been squeezed and colour mapped to fit into the available space in the airwaves.
The same applies, to a lesser extent obviously, to DVD and even HD/BD content.
Even movies created for digital projection are of higher resolution than Full HD.
You could watch the content as unprocessed as possible (beyond raw MPEG decompression). Or you choose the best video processor in your input chain to extract as much picture INFORMATION from the picture DATA as possible. That might be your DVD player, it might be a dedicated video processor or it might be the circuitry in your TV (or projector etc).
So now Toshiba have (or claim to have) improved the ability of the TV itself to do this, so you should get the best display for all your source material, but if you already have acceptable or preferred video processing applied to some of those sources, presumably you can tune the additional TV processing, or even turn it off.
Samsung UN55B8000 55" LED TV (Widescreen, 1920x1080, HDTV)
Panasonic VIERA TC-L32X1 32" LCD TV (Widescreen, 1366x768, HDTV)
Panasonic VIERA TC-P50X1 50" Plasma TV (Widescreen, 1366x768, 30,000:1, HDTV)
Samsung LN52B750 52" LCD TV (Widescreen, 1920x1080, HDTV)
Toshiba 32AV502R 32" LCD TV (Widescreen, 1366x768, HDTV)
Toshiba launches Cell-derived HD TV
Eddie Edwards
Crucially? #
Posted Monday 10th November 2008 16:10 GMT
Why is it "crucial" that the SPURSengine isn't *quite* the same thing as the Cell?
I mean, yeah, crucial to your tagline ... but is it crucial in any sense that has meaning?
Stuart Halliday
Tell me... #
Posted Monday 10th November 2008 16:10 GMT
Tell me it just isn't doing a real-time unsharpen mask on the image....
Chris C
Improving? #
Posted Tuesday 11th November 2008 00:31 GMT
“increasing image definition and improving picture edges” -- I believe "improving" would be a personal opinion. For example, I imagine the producer, director, editor, etc of a motion picture just might think that their original picture is better.
Am I the only one who thinks a television should simply display the data it receives without trying to guess what the picture represents (which ends up wasting energy (which wastes electricity, which wastes money), and results in a *worse* picture in some cases)?
snafu
Cellish #
Posted Tuesday 11th November 2008 12:15 GMT
Well, the SPURSengine happens to have a few of the Cell's important fast bits (the SPEs), so all is well. That Toshiba changes the PPC core for something other surely means it would be overkill for a rather fixed function processor.
(I don't think it is just an unsharp mask op: it probably derives info from several frames at once and some other voodoo)
Tom
Stuff to list on the box... #
Posted Tuesday 11th November 2008 12:15 GMT
Can it do anything useful like de-interlace difficult material?
When sales types talk about stuff like increasing image definition, improving colour and edge enhancement my usual question is "can you turn that off?" This can be a lot of fun at trade shows if a few others catch on and several people ask "can you turn that off" after they talk about each useless feature.
David Wiernicki
@Chris C #
Posted Tuesday 11th November 2008 12:15 GMT
Since they're saying 'upscaling', I'm presuming the point is to take 480p or 480i content and do a better job getting it to 1080p than usual (with usual being anywhere from nearest-neighbor to bilinear in terms of quality). My guess is they're doing something like I do with ffdshow for DVD upscaling - a 5-tap deinterlace, lanczos upscaling, and some kind of high quality sharpener, not just an unsharp mask. I'm using a neat sharpener called LimitedSharpenFaster (with the point being its ability to heavily sharpen upscaled content *without* ringing or other artifacts) on my home theater machine, but it's massively CPU intensive and I'm not sure mainstream companies are using something like it for sharpening yet.
Regardless - processing a 1080p image isn't going to do any good, you're right. But you can do a WORLD of good to an SD signal - getting it maybe 70% of the way to HD from 30% - with the right process.
All that said, TV manufacturers have a penchant for applying ludicrous levels of saturation exaggeration while simultaneously crushing blacks and whites and then tossing on rabid amounts of contrast, and calling the whole thing something like "Super X-phase 2 modulation signal enhancement with XRT2 Tri-Tritone Phase technology", instead of the more accurate, "Rape Your Image" - and so I don't necessarily trust that they're doing anything good with this, even though they could well be.
Stike Vomit
re: Improving? #
Posted Tuesday 11th November 2008 12:15 GMT
Chris C: "Am I the only one who thinks a television should simply display the data it receives without trying to guess what the picture represents..."
So you want a tiny 704×576 pixel image displayed in the middle of your big 1080p HDTV?
Weird.
Scott
RE: Improving? #
Posted Tuesday 11th November 2008 12:15 GMT
"Am I the only one who thinks a television should simply display the data it receives without trying to guess what the picture represents"
You've obviously not had the pleasure of daytime TV on BBC.
And besides, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with wanting to improve the quality of a SD image in a HD screen. For a very good example of what Freeview SHOULD be now, head over to Sky 104 (Channel 4), then compare the upscaled version on 144 (Channel 4 HD) - this is upscaled at source, not on the TV, and the result is stunning.
Iain
That depends, Chris #
Posted Tuesday 11th November 2008 12:15 GMT
When handed a DVD source of 720x576 rectangular pixels, what would you rather your 1920x1080 screen do? Intelligently scale it up as the specs indicate you should do, or put it in a tiny box in the middle of the screen with the wrong aspect ratio?
bluesxman
RE: Tell me... #
Posted Tuesday 11th November 2008 12:15 GMT
I imagine that it's using that perennial CSI favourite -- the "Add Detail Not Present In The Original Signal" filter.
Jolyon Smith
It's digital dude - the "original picture" was lost long before it reached you! #
Posted Tuesday 11th November 2008 12:16 GMT
"For example, I imagine the producer, director, editor, etc of a motion picture just might think that their original picture is better."
Indeed they would. And it's for this reason that the TV does it's best to recreate that original picture. The picture source is NOT the image that the producer/director/editor created. Even broadcast TV images are not received at production quality - the pixel resolution may be the same (with digital transmission), but the content of those pixels has been squeezed and colour mapped to fit into the available space in the airwaves.
The same applies, to a lesser extent obviously, to DVD and even HD/BD content.
Even movies created for digital projection are of higher resolution than Full HD.
You could watch the content as unprocessed as possible (beyond raw MPEG decompression). Or you choose the best video processor in your input chain to extract as much picture INFORMATION from the picture DATA as possible. That might be your DVD player, it might be a dedicated video processor or it might be the circuitry in your TV (or projector etc).
So now Toshiba have (or claim to have) improved the ability of the TV itself to do this, so you should get the best display for all your source material, but if you already have acceptable or preferred video processing applied to some of those sources, presumably you can tune the additional TV processing, or even turn it off.