PDA

View Full Version : BluRay & Animation


cliff secord
10-05-2009, 04:48 PM
I Myself haven't noticed much of a difference in Standard DVD and Bluray when it comes to old school hand-drawn cel animation, not talking CG Enhanced Animation but the stuff we grew up on, like Transformers and joe type animation. Is there really an appreciable difference in quality when it comes to old Animation being viewed on BluRay as opposed to Standard DVD?

ChaplainAsst
10-05-2009, 04:58 PM
I think it depends on the studio and how they approach the animation. I do know some of the older Disney movies being put on Blu-ray are considered the best out there.

cliff secord
10-05-2009, 05:48 PM
I think it depends on the studio and how they approach the animation. I do know some of the older Disney movies being put on Blu-ray are considered the best out there.I would kinda expect a little tweaking on Disney Classic Animation, as many of their Animated Titles are Huge Benchmarks in Classic Fairytales/Stories, But your average type everyday cartoon series like say 90's-X-Men, 90's Batman TAS, Robotech/Macross etc., you know, your old Saturday Morning and Afterschool type Cartoon Franchises...would they really benefit from a BluRay Transfer as they look pretty crisp on Standard DVD?

zuludelta
10-05-2009, 06:33 PM
But your average type everyday cartoon series like say 90's-X-Men, 90's Batman TAS, Robotech/Macross etc., you know, your old Saturday Morning and Afterschool type Cartoon Franchises...would they really benefit from a BluRay Transfer as they look pretty crisp on Standard DVD?

Depends on what the original resolution of the master prints used in the transfer are and at what resolution they're scanned in for the transfer. Ideally, they're using the 35mm prints, which, in digital terms, can carry anywhere between 4 million to 20 million "quality pixels" (not that film has any actual pixels... it's an analog medium but that's how they would be encoded in a digitally scanned image of comparable quality).

NTSC DVD video resolution maxes out at 720 x 480 at 60 progressive frames per second (what people refer to as 480p), which is far below the amount of visual information that film carries (a typical "quality shot" in 35 mm is equivalent to around 3000 x 2000). A Blu-ray player hooked up to one of the newer HDTVs can output video at a theoretical maximum resolution of 1920 x 1080 (what's referred to as 1080p, which carries ~ 2 million pixels), which is still below the average resolution for a quality 35mm shot but is a close enough approximation for most purposes.

Anyway, that's all just minutiae... the short answer is yes, as long as it's being sourced from the original 35mm prints and you're watching it on a screen that can output the maximum resolution for the media in question, a Blu-ray version of a video (whether animation or live-action) will always be superior in terms of resolution and will almost always be significantly superior in subjective visual quality compared to its DVD counterpart. The real question is, is the upgrade in resolution worth the higher cost of Blu-ray media, and that is more of a subjective, case-by-case type of thing. If it's a movie I don't particularly care for and one that I don't plan on rewatching a lot, DVD-level resolution is good enough for me... I mean, just because I can theoretically get <random 1990s cartoon> in 1080p resolution doesn't mean it's automatically worth that much more than a 480p version in terms of the amount of entertainment and enjoyment I can derive from it.

cliff secord
10-05-2009, 07:03 PM
Depends on what the original resolution of the master prints used in the transfer are and at what resolution they're scanned in for the transfer. Ideally, they're using the 35mm prints, which, in digital terms, can carry anywhere between 4 million to 20 million "quality pixels" (not that film has any actual pixels... it's an analog medium but that's how they would be encoded in a digitally scanned image of comparable quality).

NTSC DVD video resolution maxes out at 720 x 480 at 60 progressive frames per second (what people refer to as 480p), which is far below the amount of visual information that film carries (a typical "quality shot" in 35 mm is equivalent to around 3000 x 2000). A Blu-ray player hooked up to one of the newer HDTVs can output video at a theoretical maximum resolution of 1920 x 1080 (what's referred to as 1080p, which carries ~ 2 million pixels), which is still below the average resolution for a quality 35mm shot but is a close enough approximation for most purposes.

Anyway, that's all just minutiae... the short answer is yes, as long as it's being sourced from the original 35mm prints and you're watching it on a screen that can output the maximum resolution for the media in question, a Blu-ray version of a video (whether animation or live-action) will always be superior in terms of resolution and will almost always be significantly superior in subjective visual quality compared to its DVD counterpart. The real question is, is the upgrade in resolution worth the higher cost of Blu-ray media, and that is more of a subjective, case-by-case type of thing. If it's a movie I don't particularly care for and one that I don't plan on rewatching a lot, DVD-level resolution is good enough for me... I mean, just because I can theoretically get <random 1990s cartoon> in 1080p resolution doesn't mean it's automatically worth that much more than a 480p version in terms of the amount of entertainment and enjoyment I can derive from it.Interesting...I would'nt have thought there would be that much of a difference in quality considering they were just backlit cels being filmed in rapid succession to create the perception of movement. I failed to realize it involved almost the same image creating techniques that a live action image with depth of field and other such complexities used. It almost seems more involved actually than live action filmed images. Thanks for clearing that up.

zuludelta
10-05-2009, 07:50 PM
Well... I wouldn't exactly say that an animated film will automatically "look better" in Blu-ray compared to DVD. It will definitely be in a higher resolution, and for many people, higher resolution = better subjective picture quality. But the thing about typical animation as compared to live action film is that there aren't as many gradients involved in the colours and the colour palette is generally a lot more limited, so the distinct advantages offered by Blu-ray, such as better gradient and colour differentiation, might not be as big a factor when it comes to animation. But again, it all comes down to subjective perception. The one thing that I can say is definitely fixed and immutable is that Blu-ray will always offer more pixels per area.

zuludelta
10-05-2009, 10:51 PM
Interesting...I would'nt have thought there would be that much of a difference in quality considering they were just backlit cels being filmed in rapid succession to create the perception of movement.

Keep in mind that even though animation cels are two dimensional images with simulated depth (as opposed to a "live" scene with true depth), those cels are still shot with a 35mm rostrum camera and printed on 35mm film (or in cases of lower quality animation, 16mm or even 8mm). There is going to be a degradation of the image when that film's image is transferred to a lower resolution medium, such as a VHS cassette, a DVD, or a Blu-Ray Disc, although Blu-Ray's maximum resolution is pretty close to the typical resolution of 35mm film compared to other portable media. That being said, I suspect that the differences in resolution aren't going to be as noticeable with certain kinds of cartoons and animation styles. I imagine a flash-animated, Craig McCracken-style cartoon on DVD will look a tad more similar to its BD counterpart, than say, an intensely rendered one like Princess Mononoke.

cliff secord
10-05-2009, 11:27 PM
Keep in mind that even though animation cels are two dimensional images with simulated depth (as opposed to a "live" scene with true depth), those cels are still shot with a 35mm rostrum camera and printed on 35mm film (or in cases of lower quality animation, 16mm or even 8mm). There is going to be a degradation of the image when that film's image is transferred to a lower resolution medium, such as a VHS cassette, a DVD, or a Blu-Ray Disc, although Blu-Ray's maximum resolution is pretty close to the typical resolution of 35mm film compared to other portable media. That being said, I suspect that the differences in resolution aren't going to be as noticeable with certain kinds of cartoons and animation styles. I imagine a flash-animated, Craig McCracken-style cartoon on DVD will look a tad more similar to its BD counterpart, than say, an intensely rendered one like Princess Mononoke.I see what you mean...I guess Image degradation is inherent to, and always a factor in the Transfer of Video Images from one medium to another, So I guess BluRay is the best Format for Video Transfer at the current time technically, with the least amount of signal degradation and greater visual data storage capacity-Thanks for schooling me, I always dig tech talk like this, quite informative!

zuludelta
10-07-2009, 12:41 AM
Oh, and another thing. Most current Blu-ray players (including the PS3) already have the ability to "upconvert" regular DVDs from 480i (standard NTSC resolution) to 720p and/or 1080p. What that means is that they "scale up" the resolution of standard (non-HD) video sources by digitally filling in the lines with computed intermediate colours. The result is that regular DVDs look crisper when viewed with these newer Blu-ray players (not as good as an actual Blu-ray disc, but it's a definite improvement over regular DVD). If you don't use HDMI and your BD player is connected to an HDTV via the older component video (Y-Pr-Pb... not to be confused with the low-res composite video standard) or S-Video connections, the differences between an "upconverted" regular DVD and a Blu-ray Disc in terms of clarity might even be a lot less noticeable (which I think is what's going on in your case... didn't you write a post about returning your HDMI cable and hooking up your PS3 to your HDTV via component cables?).

cliff secord
10-07-2009, 02:54 AM
Yup that was me. I have the option of going S-Video, should I go that route instead of component?

zuludelta
10-07-2009, 03:07 AM
Yup that was me. I have the option of going S-Video, should I go that route instead of component?

There's very little qualitative difference between S-video and component (Y-Pr-Pb) video, at least to my eyes, when viewing in 480i.

However, S-video was designed for use with standard NTSC video broadcasts, so it can't truly carry ED (enhanced definition) or HD video like component video can. So if you're using a TV or monitor that supports 720p resolution or higher and has the appropriate inputs available, go with component cables if you're deciding between component and S-video for connecting to an HD video source. Of course, if you can spring for it and if your TV supports it, my recommendation would be to go with HDMI, which is the current gold standard for commercial HDTV.

cliff secord
10-07-2009, 03:20 AM
Yeah, I'll definetly be getting an HDMI Cable in the near future, just gonna have to go through the whole DVI Converter to make the HDMI Cable fit into the Connection in the Back as its the older DVI/HDTV Jacks from before the Industry decided that HDMI was the way they were gonna go...It's been My ONLY obstacle really, from getting the most out of my TV's Resolution, as soon as I get one of those male to female DVI converters, I'll be good to go with the HDMI, So I guess for now I have to stick with the component setup.

zuludelta
10-07-2009, 10:53 AM
Yeah, I'll definetly be getting an HDMI Cable in the near future, just gonna have to go through the whole DVI Converter to make the HDMI Cable fit into the Connection in the Back as its the older DVI/HDTV Jacks from before the Industry decided that HDMI was the way they were gonna go...It's been My ONLY obstacle really, from getting the most out of my TV's Resolution, as soon as I get one of those male to female DVI converters, I'll be good to go with the HDMI, So I guess for now I have to stick with the component setup.

That sucks about the whole DVI/HDMI thing. It's really luck of the draw for the early HDTV adopters between the two connection formats, since they're equivalent in terms of video quality, and the only real difference being that HDMI also carries audio (meaning that's one less cable one has to keep track of).

There's one more thing to consider when making the switch from a component connection to DVI/HDMI, and that's the distance between the HD source (such as your PS3) and the HDTV/monitor. The thing about component cables is that there's very little, if any, signal degradation, even over extended distances (2 meters and beyond). DVI/HDMI, however, are subject to the "digital cliff" phenomenon: the signal is true and clear at cable lengths of less than 1.8 meters or so, but beyond that distance, one starts to get noticeable artifacting (a lot of complaints about "faulty" Blu-ray players, Blu-ray discs, and high-definition consoles causing distorted images and whatnot can actually be traced to this).

cliff secord
10-07-2009, 11:50 AM
Yeah, kind of makes me kick Myself when I think about buying this TV so early on(But Widescreen was on the Market now due to DVD, and I wanted to get the most out of my DVD experience) considering all the nice Flat screens available now in LCD, LED, Plasma and what have you, and I'm stuck with this hulking 46'inch CRT...As far as the distances though, they'll be pretty much "under the TV" as this set came with a whole entertainment center setup, so It doesn't seem to be much of a problem.

zuludelta
10-07-2009, 04:55 PM
I've been re-reading my responses to your posts in this thread, and I think I might be giving off the impression that you "need" to get HDMI if you want to get the most out of your PS3 and HDTV. In terms of video quality, the differences aren't going to be all that noticeable (although I've never tried comparing HDMI and component singals on a CRT of that size, in theory, there should be very little differentiation between them). The primary reason you'll want to switch to HDMI is convenience (fewer cables to keep track of).

cliff secord
10-07-2009, 07:11 PM
Let me ask you, is that because it's a CRT as opposed to an LCD or LED, and that either way due to it being a CRT, I should'nt expect to see much improvement in Resolution with HDMI's because a CRT's output isn't expected to improve much as would be the case with an LCD, or LED TV using HDMI's instead of component?

Cause honestly it's been bugging me...I mean it is from 2003...it's a SONY, but still, a 2003 46' CRT Widescreen in the end...Maybe it doesn't output as much Resolution in the first place, maybe it doesn't output 1080i...I don't really know, do you have any idea? Does having an DVI/HDTV input mean it should output at 1080i? Or are only TV's with built in HDMI inputs assured that Resolution? Sorry for all the questions, but I'm just curious as to your opinion, as you seem to know your stuff when it comes Electronics/Audio/Visual Tech.

zuludelta
10-08-2009, 04:57 PM
Let me ask you, is that because it's a CRT as opposed to an LCD or LED, and that either way due to it being a CRT, I should'nt expect to see much improvement in Resolution with HDMI's because a CRT's output isn't expected to improve much as would be the case with an LCD, or LED TV using HDMI's instead of component?

Without the model number, I wouldn't be able to say for sure. But in theory, a widescreen CRT should be able to display at least up to 1080i HD video (if it's a WEGA model from 2003, it should, but I'd just fall short of guaranteeing it). I used to use my old NEC CRT monitor as a stand-in for an HDTV and it could display a "close enough" approximation of scaled-down 1080i (about 1280 x 1024, IIRC.. which is between 720p and 1080i). On a 46" display, you should be able to get full 1080i (1440 x 1080) resolution.

You do bring up a good point about a CRT TV probably not benefitting as much from an HDMI connection as an LCD TV. I'd forgotten that you were using a CRT TV. The thing about Sony's WEGA CRTs is that their maximum display resolution is 1080i (at least the 2003 models, AFAIK). A component connection's maximum allowed output is 1080i as well (technically, a component connection is capable of running a 1080p signal, but AACS regulations limit HD media to 1080i when viewed via component connections -- funny story on how that came about).

At 1080i, component and HDMI are virtually identical in qualitative output. In terms of video quality, the only distinct advantage HDMI has over component is the ability to display at 1080p (and again, this has nothing to do with component's physical ability to display 1080p -- because it can display 1080p if allowed -- its limitations are because of imposed restrictions on analog HD connection technology). Keep in mind though that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p on small and mid-sized screens. Anecdotally, I've heard people claim that they can tell the difference on big screen TVs, although I haven't experienced that first-hand (not having a big screen TV myself or knowing anybody who has one).

Since your TV might be unable to display 1080p anyway, getting an HDMI connection might be unnecessary.

cliff secord
10-08-2009, 10:42 PM
Actually, it's not a WEGA, but as far as Model # it's a KP-46WT500, I don't know if that helps any...with a March 2003 Manufacture Date. Well, thanks for the help anyway, I guess that's just the toss of the dice for "Early Adapters".

Zoomie2001
10-08-2009, 10:52 PM
The thing I like about the older film movies on BluRay is that it looks like you're watching a film print without the projector sound. I noticed that with Predator and L.A. Confidential.

cliff secord
10-08-2009, 11:04 PM
The thing I like about the older film movies on BluRay is that it looks like you're watching a film print without the projector sound. I noticed that with Predator and L.A. Confidential.You mean you notice that "grainy" quality that older films have that's part of the developing process alot clearer, than the softer image of Standard DVD which is not as crisp as BluRay? I don't mean that the picture is "crappy grainy" but real Film grain that a projector usually outputs I think...I know what you mean, it's like more "Authenthic" Imagewise...

snakeeyes22
10-08-2009, 11:31 PM
I think it really depends on the movie or show.
You mention Transformers, but that hasn't been released on BluRay, and he source material likely isn't good enough to warrant it, given the crazy amount of restoration that has gone into making it DVD worthy.

I've just watched BluRay Snow White, and it has been pretty magnificently restored. It's not going to be as crisp as something new, but the colors look great and it is very clean. Some edges are soft, but I imagine that has something to do with the way animation was photographed in 1937, and the softer quality still looks nice.

I've watched a couple of the DC direct to video on Blu-Ray, and they are pretty sharp. In some ways, I think the visible edges and solid colors on animation makes it more evident than live action when you aren't watching Hi-Def. The characters' outlines may appear pixelated. The colors on the cells don't appear as uniform, they can be grainy and appear to shift around.

I often don't notice a huge difference in films, unless the transfer is particularly amazing, and some really high quality DVDs can almost pass for Blu Ray to me. But, of all my Blu-Rays, the one that really "popped" the most as unbelieveably clear...was the VentureBros. Season 3. I'm sure it's digitally colored, which must help, but so is just about all "hand drawn" animation nowadays.

Zoomie2001
10-08-2009, 11:53 PM
You mean you notice that "grainy" quality that older films have that's part of the developing process alot clearer, than the softer image of Standard DVD which is not as crisp as BluRay? I don't mean that the picture is "crappy grainy" but real Film grain that a projector usually outputs I think...I know what you mean, it's like more "Authenthic" Imagewise...

Well, photographs will always be sharper than anything else because they are analog. Digital is never as clear as Analog because of the limitations of digital recording. Whereas digital is limited to a sampling rate, analog has an "infinite" sampling rate (for lack of a better term). The closer a digital image gets to the photograph, the better the image will be. That's why older movies look better on BluRay, even though there may be a certain amount of deterioration of the original film.

cliff secord
10-09-2009, 12:34 AM
I often don't notice a huge difference in films, unless the transfer is particularly amazing, and some really high quality DVDs can almost pass for Blu Ray to me. But, of all my Blu-Rays, the one that really "popped" the most as unbelieveably clear...was the VentureBros. Season 3. I'm sure it's digitally colored, which must help, but so is just about all "hand drawn" animation nowadays.I'm pretty sure just about ALL animation made today is digitally colored these days, which is why you don't catch autobot symbols being purple, decepticon symbols being red, autobots suddenly having red-eyes, characters briefly switching colors and other animation mistakes so common in the old Transformer/Joe Era Animation. As annoying as such things can be, I find a certain charm in the way old school things were done...Part of cartoons of My youth that have just about completely disappeared.

cliff secord
10-09-2009, 12:37 AM
Well, photographs will always be sharper than anything else because they are analog. Digital is never as clear as Analog because of the limitations of digital recording. Whereas digital is limited to a sampling rate, analog has an "infinite" sampling rate (for lack of a better term). The closer a digital image gets to the photograph, the better the image will be. That's why older movies look better on BluRay, even though there may be a certain amount of deterioration of the original film.I hear what you're saying, Film nowadays is so clean and soft(The Star Wars Prequels for instance) that it's lost the gritty realism and sharpness of Analog Film of the 70's, 80's and early 90's...

snakeeyes22
10-09-2009, 01:30 AM
I'm pretty sure just about ALL animation made today is digitally colored these days, which is why you don't catch autobot symbols being purple, decepticon symbols being red, autobots suddenly having red-eyes, characters briefly switching colors and other animation mistakes so common in the old Transformer/Joe Era Animation. As annoying as such things can be, I find a certain charm in the way old school things were done...Part of cartoons of My youth that have just about completely disappeared.

I agree!
It's gotten better now, but for some reason, stylistically or otherwise, many of the earlier digitally colored cartoons had washed out colors that couldn't match the bold red and dark blue of Optimus Prime, for example. It came across as more of a pink and blue slate.

I did a test with the Snow White BluRay after seeing this thread by watching a bit of the included DVD of the film, followed by the BluRay.
The DVD looked pretty good coming through the HDMI, pretty clean, maybe a bit dated. After seeing what I thought was great quality I was surprised that the BluRay did look noticeably better. Part of this is no doubt due to the additional cleanup that was done for the Hi-Def release, but it was more vibrant. The backgrounds didn't look faded from age or type of photography, they looked hand drawn! It really gives an appreciation for the work that went into it. I couldn't imagine looking better coming out of a projector in 1937.

Whatever flaws show up are all part of seeing what is closer to the actual artwork.

I have noticed, on TV and DVDs, that there is clarity lost as the pixels seem to be playing catch-up with the characters' motions, like a faint ghosting as they rearrange to approximate the visible colors.

cliff secord
10-09-2009, 01:50 AM
I have noticed, on TV and DVDs, that there is clarity lost as the pixels seem to be playing catch-up with the characters' motions, like a faint ghosting as they rearrange to approximate the visible colors.These types of "Artifacting" are part of the Trade off, of going Analog to Digital I guess. Everybodies in such a hurry to go Digital, that some of the Beauty of Analog is being lost, and it's mostly guys like us that catch this,(The guys who grew up on Analog) our kids and the younger Generation just see it as "Visual Noise" that pops up occasionally in the Transfer or Signal and whatnot, but we know better.

I remember when the Digital Age was beginning with Digital Sattelite Cable and DVD's and Pixelization and other "Ghosting" effects would happen, and I'd be like "whoah, what's that about?" Now it's just like "Oh this Transfer isn't that up to par and whatnot" funny how you become accustomed to these things.

zuludelta
10-09-2009, 03:02 AM
Actually, it's not a WEGA, but as far as Model # it's a KP-46WT500, I don't know if that helps any...with a March 2003 Manufacture Date. Well, thanks for the help anyway, I guess that's just the toss of the dice for "Early Adapters".

I just looked it up and yeah, the maximum resolution for that particular model is 1080i. In theory, there should be no noticeable difference in clarity between the signal sent through component or DVI/HDMI at that resolution.

And just so we're clear (I've had people get this mixed up before), we're talking component video (a.k.a. YPBPr (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Component_video_RCA.jpg)... it's a trio of red, blue, and green colour-coded connectors dedicated to video) and not composite video (a.k.a. RCA (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/RCA_Connector_(photo).jpg)... one yellow video connector and white and red connectors for stereo sound).

zuludelta
10-09-2009, 03:40 AM
I have noticed, on TV and DVDs, that there is clarity lost as the pixels seem to be playing catch-up with the characters' motions, like a faint ghosting as they rearrange to approximate the visible colors.

That's what is known as "pixel lag" and it's a phenomenon seen on LCD TVs, but not on CRTs. Plasma TVs have their own version of the effect called "phosphor lag." This is why for some time after the introduction of affordable home LCD monitors, CRTs were still the professional gaming monitor of choice... during the earlier part of the decade, pixel lag on most models was bad enough that it could affect "performance gaming." Logically, a faster response time (i.e., a lower response time number) is better than a slower response time (a higher response time number)

The delay that results in "ghosting" is due to the LCD's pixels taking time to adjust from gray-to-gray or black-to-white/white-to-black. The amount of time this takes to happen is indicated by the LCD TV's response time. Problem with this is that there aren't any standards on how to report response time. Some manufacturers list the gray-to-gray (GtG) transition time as the TV's response time. Others use black-to-white/white-to-black transition times (commonly referred to as TrTf -- Time rising/Time falling). The problem with the different reporting methods is that they mean different things. GtG response time will always be slower than TrTf response times, because it takes more processing time to zero in on the accurate gray levels than to simply switch from "on" to "off." But some people argue that listing the gray-to-gray response times is a more accurate reflection of how an LCD TV will perform in real-world conditions (since most colour changes in video takes the form of switching from various levels within a colour gradient, and not black-to-white/white-to-black transitions).

The problems arise when you're shopping for an LCD TV. You could be comparing two similarly priced and spec'd TVs, with the only difference being their response times (remember, lower is better). But if one lists its GtG response time and the other lists its TrTf time, you can't really compare those two numbers as they measure two different things. If you're in a store with competent and helpful staff, they can probably get the GtG and TrTf numbers for you from a manual so you can do a fair and objective comparison, but in many cases, the manufacturers themselves don't include the pertinent information on the packaging or the quick set-up manual.

green_shirt
10-09-2009, 04:36 AM
I got my old PS2 and DVD player hooked up to my LCD Projector and I can tell you when I switched from component to s video it was night and day. Everything was so sharp and crisp so I was thinking HD on this thing must be off the wall. Then I went to someones house that had a HD set up to his projector. It was a better picture but not by much. So I'm just staying with s video. As for animation brighter colors is about the only difference I've noticed, but again it's not much.

zuludelta
10-09-2009, 05:23 AM
I got my old PS2 and DVD player hooked up to my LCD Projector and I can tell you when I switched from component to s video it was night and day.

What you probably mean is "composite to s-video." Component is a full HD spec connection comparable to HDMI/DVI at 1080i resolution, and supports resolutions above and beyond what S-video can. Don't worry though, lots of people make that mistake (seriously, who decided on the "component" name anyway? It just lends itself to easy confusion).

green_shirt
10-09-2009, 07:44 AM
What you probably mean is "composite to s-video." Component is a full HD spec connection comparable to HDMI/DVI at 1080i resolution, and supports resolutions above and beyond what S-video can. Don't worry though, lots of people make that mistake (seriously, who decided on the "component" name anyway? It just lends itself to easy confusion).
Cool, Thanks for the help on that.

zuludelta
10-09-2009, 07:48 AM
You're welcome dude.

I put together a visual guide for identifying the types of common video connections. With all the different standards currently in use, it's easy to get confused over what's what (click on the thumbnail to view the guide):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v179/dltesterzfd/interface_connector_thumbnail.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v179/dltesterzfd/interface_connector_guide01.jpg)

Note that for PC use, the maximum resolutions for VGA, DVI, and HDMI connections are also dependent on the GPU/video card.

cliff secord
10-09-2009, 11:07 AM
I just looked it up and yeah, the maximum resolution for that particular model is 1080i. In theory, there should be no noticeable difference in clarity between the signal sent through component or DVI/HDMI at that resolution.

And just so we're clear (I've had people get this mixed up before), we're talking component video (a.k.a. YPBPr (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Component_video_RCA.jpg)... it's a trio of red, blue, and green colour-coded connectors dedicated to video) and not composite video (a.k.a. RCA (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/RCA_Connector_(photo).jpg)... one yellow video connector and white and red connectors for stereo sound).Thanks for all the help ZuluD, I feel much better about my antiquated CRT Monster now, It would'a really sucked if it couldn't output a nice Resolution at such a size, I'm a little hyped about seeing it in action now!

cliff secord
10-09-2009, 11:17 AM
That's what is known as "pixel lag" and it's a phenomenon seen on LCD TVs, but not on CRTs. Plasma TVs have their own version of the effect called "phosphor lag." This is why for some time after the introduction of affordable home LCD monitors, CRTs were still the professional gaming monitor of choice... during the earlier part of the decade, pixel lag on most models was bad enough that it could affect "performance gaming." Logically, a faster response time (i.e., a lower response time number) is better than a slower response time (a higher response time number)

The delay that results in "ghosting" is due to the LCD's pixels taking time to adjust from gray-to-gray or black-to-white/white-to-black. The amount of time this takes to happen is indicated by the LCD TV's response time. Problem with this is that there aren't any standards on how to report response time. Some manufacturers list the gray-to-gray (GtG) transition time as the TV's response time. Others use black-to-white/white-to-black transition times (commonly referred to as TrTf -- Time rising/Time falling). The problem with the different reporting methods is that they mean different things. GtG response time will always be slower than TrTf response times, because it takes more processing time to zero in on the accurate gray levels than to simply switch from "on" to "off." But some people argue that listing the gray-to-gray response times is a more accurate reflection of how an LCD TV will perform in real-world conditions (since most colour changes in video takes the form of switching from various levels within a colour gradient, and not black-to-white/white-to-black transitions).

The problems arise when you're shopping for an LCD TV. You could be comparing two similarly priced and spec'd TVs, with the only difference being their response times (remember, lower is better). But if one lists its GtG response time and the other lists its TrTf time, you can't really compare those two numbers as they measure two different things. If you're in a store with competent and helpful staff, they can probably get the GtG and TrTf numbers for you from a manual so you can do a fair and objective comparison, but in many cases, the manufacturers themselves don't include the pertinent information on the packaging or the quick set-up manual.I remember reading about this on a gaming site years ago, it was about the advantages that good ol' CRT's had over the newer LCD's that were just hitting the Market. The Article (IIRC) also stated that later LCD's and Plasmas would find a way to overcome these image deficiencies...I wonder if the newer LED TV's encounter any of these types of problems.

zuludelta
10-09-2009, 11:49 AM
I wonder if the newer LED TV's encounter any of these types of problems.

I think response times for the current generation of LCD TVs have improved enough that pixel lag isn't really a problem with console gaming (I think the bigger problem now is poor framerates with certain games, and that's more of a CPU/GPU problem than anything to do with connection/interface/monitor type).

I don't know about the extreme end of PC gaming though, where hobbyists always try to push their graphics hardware to the limit. A resource-intensive game like Far Cry 2 at the highest possible resolution would probably make even the most responsive LCD TV miss a beat because of the variable latency it introduces on the GPU end.

snakeeyes22
10-09-2009, 09:15 PM
I've already posted twice, and I'm pretty dumb as far as specifications(I get confused and overwhelmed by the abbraviations and incomparable specs!)
I've realized than my PS3 had not been running a it's best output. I recall being pretty amazed when I first got my 1080p LCD TV, and figured I'd just gotten used to it, but somewhere along the way a setting or 2 weren't quite maxed out.

Anyway, animation looks amazing. Granted, it's not the same as the real textures that come along with live action, but it is quite bold and dynamic. I've been tossing in discs I've gotten over the past few months and they look great. On Supeman/Batman, there is a preview for Death of Superman that isn't hi-def, and the drop in quality is very noticeable.
I'd say buy Blu-Ray for stuff you really care about, but DVD works if it's cheap and you won't watch it a lot.

cliff secord
10-09-2009, 11:29 PM
I've already posted twice, and I'm pretty dumb as far as specifications(I get confused and overwhelmed by the abbraviations and incomparable specs!)
I've realized than my PS3 had not been running a it's best output. I recall being pretty amazed when I first got my 1080p LCD TV, and figured I'd just gotten used to it, but somewhere along the way a setting or 2 weren't quite maxed out.

Anyway, animation looks amazing. Granted, it's not the same as the real textures that come along with live action, but it is quite bold and dynamic. I've been tossing in discs I've gotten over the past few months and they look great. On Supeman/Batman, there is a preview for Death of Superman that isn't hi-def, and the drop in quality is very noticeable.
I'd say buy Blu-Ray for stuff you really care about, but DVD works if it's cheap and you won't watch it a lot.Hey, I hear you, it can get pretty tedious! I've researched a little more about what the p and i in 1080i and 1080p stands for, and it deals with one being "Progressive" which is where you get that p at the end and "Interlaced" for the i.

Basically interlaced for lack of a better word "paints" the image on the screen a little slower than progressive, which does it at what seems like all at once creating a more dynamic image. I agree with you, If it's a Animated Movie/Show you REALLY care about, then go out of your way for a BluRay(If it Exists in that Format), but stuff you just wanna archive is fine on Standard DVD.