I saw different posts from Dragun and Sknath mentioning about the some Ayngaran dvd’s are better than DEI. How come it is possible? Do any of you compare them side-by-side by using progressive scan player and progressive display?



Edited By ganti on July 17 2002 at 09:02

i just threw my DEI soldier dvd in my prog scan HDTV based system..Results..JAW DROPPING..Oh My GOD! UNBELIEVABLE..WHAT A PICTURE, WHATA SOUND! ONE OF THE BEST BY DEI!!UNDOUBTEDLY! HIGHLY RECOMENDED! IF U CAN FIND IT? :love:

Arsh,
I am with you on this one. But I think it is cropped to 1.85:1 from 2.35:1. I have to check to make sure.
But still it is one of the good one’s from DEI/EROS.

Ganti i never said that they are better than DEI progressive scan DVDs ... What I meant was that when you are surrounded by pirates, the qualityof Ayngaran can be compared to DEI in as that tey use an original film source for transfer. As for whether they are progressive or non progressive i cant comment as I have only 1 dvd from their catalogue (Avvai Shanmugi)

Just judging by my eye, I prefer Ayngaran DVDs to DEIs. Not by much, as they both make very good discs, but I notice more DNR in DEI's discs. Is it more difficult to make a progressive DVD than an interlaced one?

[Arsh,
I am with you on this one. But I think it is cropped to 1.85:1 from 2.35:1. I have to check to make sure.
But still it is one of the good one’s from DEI/EROS.
]

That is a valid concern! cropped aspect ratio! But DEI had been doing that, CT cropped slightly their LAGAAN too!

But Picture quality from PROG MASTER is OUTSTANDING, Clean TRANSFER!

Dragun,
I value your judgment and I also noticed the DNR problem with DEI disks.
But are you using progressive display? And how big is your display, as I believe there is a size threshold for the PQ which will be apparent from I to P. In the same lines EVP disks are good but there are also from interlaced source/authoring.



Edited By ganti on July 17 2002 at 14:39

I have a $1200 prog scan player and 64 inch, widescreen HDTV set up, connected via 480p/520p, component video connection..cheers! what is the limit here, dude! :vsneaky:

Arsh,
I know you have a progressive setup. And I agree with you about Prograssive image, it always looks good on a progressive setup. And I am not questioning you. My point is every medium and display has its limits. For example in my setup I can’t take all the advantages of the HD Image. It looks a tad better than my DVD image because my setup is very much optimized for the dvd’s. I can take the advantage better if I use bigger than my current screen size of 100 inch. The Higher resolution of the HD image needs bigger display to reveal the additional resolution it offers..
Similarly an Interlaced and progressive dvd may look as good in a smaller display.
So I am questing Dragun about his setup so that I can find the reference here.



Edited By ganti on July 17 2002 at 17:34

I would say that of late many new Ayngaran film DVD titles seem much better then DEI's new film titles. For example just compare Kanathil Muthamital DVD quality with Yeh Dil Ashiquna DVD.

However its not really a question of interlaced Vs progressive video (even though progressive is much better), it all depends on the source of the film used, and Ayngaran do use the best source ever seen for an Indian film for both DVD and VHS. Thanks to Tamil prodcuers Ayngaran have access to the original negatives and from them Prasad do thier telecine work onto a computer where colour correction is made and stored on DLT.

DEI uses Interpostive prints and sometimes the labs can cock up the job, see thier Abhay DVD then see Ayngaran version Alla vandhan and you can see the difference in quality!!

However when it comes to DVD authoring DEI are much better, as thier encoding process is more professional as is thier authoring. But I can say in all honesty that the day Ayngaran start using progressive video then DEI could be facing with a proper rival in terms of the quality fight.

In reality both companies managed to produce some of the best Indian DVD's and these small companies put to shame the multi-million dollor companies of Yash Raj films and EROS who wouldn't even put more then £5000 for a decent telecine transfer onto DLT or Digibeta!

"and thats my two cents"

Sunny there is no company called DEI anymore.. Its again a 1 horse race and why dont you speak with Ayngaran to pick up the DEI catalogue (of unreleased films) and maybe then we can have a truely superior company giving us quality DVDs

Ganti, I use an interlaced 35 inch Sony Trinitron, with a Sony S530D DVD player connected via S-video cables. I'm sure that DEI discs do look better on progressive displays, though my personal preference is for Ayngaran discs. It's a pathetic setup compared to many people's home theaters.

Dragun,
I still have a system worse than your system in my living room that was my primary media room some time ego. Let me know if you need any advice when you are ready to move to FP, cheap.

Sunny



Knowing the use of better film source material by Ayngaran impresses me. But still it does not and I insist does not even come close to a progressively sourced material. I hope Anagran will move to the progressive very soon. With the use of better source coupled with the progressive scan makes them on par with our western counterparts.

As a matter of fact I am using the best algorithm available today to de-interlace the video sourced material.


Bob vs. Weave—Illustrated


The following images will help illustrate the difference between Bob and Weave de-interlacing. Of course, the real frames have 480 lines, which would be too small to show here. To illustrate, I've simplified the picture a bit, and represented each frame with 22 or 24 lines.

Weave de-interlacing method for film-sourced material: The frame from Austin Powers that you see repeated on this page originated as a progressive-scan image. The good news is that the two interlaced (480i) fields generated from this frame came from the same point in time, which is a single frame of film. Therefore, they can be de-interlaced, using the Weave method, to perfectly re-create the progressive image with no motion artifacts.



Interlaced field 1—odd lines
This first interlaced field contains the odd lines (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, etc.) from the original frame. When watching the movie on an interlaced display (practically every NTSC television), this is really all the information you see at any given point in time, a single film frame. But because the interlaced fields are alternated every second, our persistence of vision fools us into thinking that we're seeing all the lines (both fields) from the image at all times.


Interlaced field 2—even lines
The next interlaced field contains the even lines (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc.) from the original frame. For viewing the movie on a progressive display, the HTPC's Weave algorithm can interleave both fields to re-create the progressive frame, then repeat each frame three times to create a flicker-free 72Hz image.


Weaved film frame—480p
The native 720x480 frame can be displayed as 480p or interpolated up to your desired display resolution (1280x720, 1600x900, etc.). Weave maintains all the detail that was in the original image.


Bob de-interlacing method for video-sourced material
Time: 0 sec. Original video field 1—odd lines
Because video-sourced material originates interlaced, there is no original "progressive image" from which the fields can be reassembled. In order to generate a progressive image, the DVD software program could simply interleave the two fields (same as in the Weave method). The problem is that, with video-sourced material, there is often motion that occurs from one field to the next because the two fields do not come from the same point in time. Each field is shot second after the previous one.


Time: 1/60 second later
Original video field 2—even lines
Weaving video-sourced material provides a sharp image only when there is no motion from one field to the next; a rare situation. When there is interfield motion, the result from Weaving is severe motion artifacts—kind of a "comb" look to moving objects. The solution to this problem is the Bob de-interlacing method. Bob converts each 1/60 second field into a frame, so the image becomes 60fps. But there's still a problem: Because the picture is interlaced, blank lines alternate with the active picture lines.


Weaved frame shows motion artifacts
Here you see the artifacts that result when interlaced fields are Weaved together. The areas of motion in the frame (player's finger) have artifacts, because those elements of the image were at different locations in each field.


Bobbed field, ready to be stretched
This image approximates what Bob does to one of the interlaced fields above. The field is "flattened" down to a 240-line-high progressive image, eliminating the blank alternating lines of the original interlaced field. Now, a new problem: The image is only half the correct height. The Bob algorithm then zooms in on the 240-line image and stretches it vertically to the correct size. This provides 60fps progressive video, but the resulting image is somewhat soft because it originates from a 240-line source.


Final frame—the field becomes a progressive frame
Here the "flattened" field has been interpolated vertically to re-create the correct proportions. The Bob method solves the problem of motion artifacts, but provides only half the vertical resolution of the Weave method. Newer software-DVD programs use an advanced algorithm for video-sourced material that attempts to combine the benefits of both methods. Each field from the source is analyzed, and areas of the picture that do not have motion are Weaved together. In areas of the picture where motion occurs, the fields are interpolated together and smoothed out. This results in a sharper picture overall, with only those areas containing interfield motion appearing soft

Check this link for the text with images

http://www.guidetohometheater.com/showarchives.cgi?10:5



Edited By ganti on July 18 2002 at 09:39

From Authoring point of view:
I think, the main advantage for a Progressive mastering is that you need to record 48 half frames in one second as opposed to 60 half frames for interlaced. This gives you a 25% higher bit rate for the same DVD bit space.

From Progressive Home Theatre point of view:
Original film frames can be weraved/ recreated together giving an "interlaced artefact" and "flicker" free Picture which has twice the number of lines in each frame. Once a Progressive picture has been created, it can easily be scaled to any of the higher resolutions e.g. 1280 x 1024, 1600 x 1200, 1920 x 1440 etc. Creating the original film frames is the difficult part; the rest is easy.

Rana

Rana

Rana,
good point.


THE ARTIFACTS AND ISSUES OF INTERLACED SCANNING

Reduced vertical resolution and aliasing (jaggies)
Saw tooth type edge distortion (a.k.a. mice teeth, combing, serrations)
Line flicker (inter-line twitter)
Scan line structure visibility
Lower image brightness (compared with progressive scanning)
Field flicker
Line crawl
Non-compatibility with computer systems and alternative display technologies of today & tomorrow
Reduced image quality due to filtering and design restrictions
http://www.progressivescan.co.uk/interl ... ages.shtml