Stephen,
Just a quick reply as I’m about to travel to Japan. I’ll discuss this topic with you in your more detail when I return mid August.
Stephen Dawson said:
I have learnt a huge amount from this discussion. Thanks Darklord.
No problem. I’ve learnt a few things myself (there is ALWAYS more to know when it comes to video processing!) and have found this discussion very interesting.
Stephen Dawson said:
I'm presently using a very expensive ($30,000) 3 chip DLP projector and thanks to this discussion I've noticed something I probably wouldn't have previously. Elsewhere you recommend a test DVD, but I'm reluctant to purchase it because it has limited relevance to Australia. I checked it out and it looks interesting, but I've already been through the whole Video Essentials thing of finding that NTSC test patterns aren't of very much use when what we mostly watch is PAL.
The Silicon Optix DVD has no real bearing on PAL/NTSC 50/60hz. It contains flags and patterns for both 2:2 cadence (50hz film sources) AND 3:2 cadence (60hz film sources). In addition it has test patterns for every unusual cadence known to man, and a variety of de-interlacing tests which are relevant to both PAL/NTSC sources. In other words it will test bob/weave/motion adaptive abilities for PAL/NTSC devices with complete accuracy.
Don’t confuse the HQV DVD with PAL/NTSC calibration discs. It can in no way help you optimise a display/video source’s image quality. Rather it simply tests the device to give you an accurate indication as to its de-interlacing/processing abilities. In short it tells you just how bad the processing of the given display is! Its industry standard conformity is what makes it such a valuable tool for A/V reviewers. For the first time ever there is now a proper benchmark by which the video processing of video devices can be accurately judged.
Hmm.. I’m starting to sound like an add for Silicon Optix but I think you get the point..
Stephen Dawson said:
Instead I've gradually been capturing program material which seems to illustrate various points, and all have the advantage of being in PAL.
The term “PAL” has in all honesty now lost relevance to today’s A/V industry. In fact to be complete geeky and “nit picky” with you, unless you’re dealing with composite/S-Video output PAL itself no longer exists. RGB/Component/DVI/HDMI are all different standards to Phase Alternating Line, and the only relationship they can share with PAL is their legacy refresh rate and resolution. If you use component/HDMI output from a DVD Player to a digital display, the video has never been PAL.
Nowadays it’s more accurate to refer to sources as 24p, 50i or 60i (along with their horizontal resolution figure) as these make up the majority of industry standards. If you’ve captured material from DTV or region 4 DVDs then as you know you’re dealing with 576i50 (either native 50i video or 24/25p derived 50i) which is certainly a good way of testing the processing of a given display. However 480i60 2:2 video (as seen on the HQV DVD) will actually test the display’s de-interlacing in the same manor, and given it tells you what to look as part of the test, for you’ll quickly see whether a display “locks on” to a given cadence. If it passes for 2:2 480i, it will also pass for 576i50 2:2 film sources.
Stephen Dawson said:
One I've been using a lot lately is a snippet from a Sunday night movie, which being film sourced only requires weave deinterlacing, in which the station the station has run a horizontally scrolling public service message across the bottom of the screen. I've kept this on my Topfield and copied it to a DVD for convenience.
Now this projector uses Faroudja DCDi, which of course is highly reputable. In the projector's setup menu you can choose 'on' or 'auto' for cinema mode. With video-sourced interlaced TV material, fed via S-Video, neither is particularly satisfactory. In 'Auto' mode the interlacing is simply not recognised and weave deinterlacing is implemented. The result is extremely heavy combing, especially on the Aussie Rules footy match showing on TV at the moment. That forces you to select 'Off' for cinema mode. But what does 'Off' do?
That's where my little test snippet proved useful. As it happens, it seems that 'off' forces the projector into bob deinterlacing mode. This wasn't obvious for what I speculate are two reasons. First, the picture itself was not especially sharp in any mode. Second, I think bob deinterlacing somehow tricks the eye into seeing most of the full resolution, turning the sequential delivery into spatial resolution.
This is a common problem and is another strong argument against interlaced scan broadcasting in general. As soon as video titles, overlays, graphics or any other kind of material is keyed into digital film sources on television, the cadence is nearly always destroyed. What should be clean 2:2 film material can become 1:1 50hz (50 unique fields a second) and hence the processing either causes combing by staying in weave mode (as you clearly noticed with DCDi) or falls back on bob, losing resolution and introducing artefacts.
This is where next generation per pixel motion adaptive de-interlacing comes into play! Going back to the HQV DVD as a reference one more time, it actually contains a test for this very problem (although from memory its 3:2 film with 60i graphics overlaid) and of course it causes havoc with most processing. Guess which video processing technology passes the test with flying colours maintaining full resolution with no artefacts? HQV processing of course!

. HQV analyses material on a multi-field per-pixel level, and then applies sophisticated motion adaptive de-interlacing/noise reduction/scaling on a “per pixel” level. It also has the most advanced cadence detection available, allowing it to lock onto the most obscure video cadences comprised of different film/video/graphic combinations. The result is locks onto different type of video sources extremely quickly, then weaves together parts of the fields
without inter-field motion and interpolates on a per pixel level parts of the fields
with inter-field motion. Finally it cleans up noise (again using a multi-field analysis method) and applies a diagonal jaggy filter to remove unnatural jagged edges from field interpolation (similar to DCDi). Pretty damn cool!
What also sets HQV processing apart from the competition is that it
can do all this magic to 1080i sources. As a comparison not only is DCDi limited to 480i/576i SD sources (its completely inactive when you feed your projector an HD source) but it is unable to lock onto anything other than the most basic film/video cadences.
While DCDi was considered state of the art only a couple of years ago, times have moved on, and until Faroudja develop a chipset capable of 1080i per pixel motion adaptive processing/noise reduction and 1024 tap scaling, HQV will remain the king of video processing. Particularly now that they have announced plans for their affordable
Realta line of processing chips specifically designed for displays (meaning this kind of processing will soon be available in affordable plasmas/LCDs etc).
You can read about the benefits of HQV and how it all works
here.
Stephen Dawson said:
BUT, having read this forum entry, I was able to recognise a giveaway of bob deinterlacing: moire pattern. At one point in the clip, a character moves vertically on the screen and his patterned jacket exhibited this moire, although it didn't with the cinema mode set to 'Auto'. Rewinding the Topfield with cinema set to 'Auto' and a similar moire pattern was shown. The reason is that in pause, fast forward, and rewind the Topfield drops one of the fields to avoid combing problems.
Exactly. Moiré is a dead giveaway of bob. Have a look at the difference of bob vs weave moiré pattern in these screenshots:
bob /
weave.
Other noticeable artefacts of bob are shimmer (particularly noticeable in fine detail such as venetian blinds, car grills, crowds and trees) and aliasing along all jagged edges (due to uneven interpolation). Line flicker will also be evident where fine horizontal lines are present.
Stephen Dawson said:
Static test patterns are for assessing static image qualities only, of course (although this do impact upon ultimate moving picture quality). That's why I'm gathering clips of moving material for assessment of these aspects of performance.
DVE PAL does contain moving Snell & Wilcox patterns for testing de-interlacing under motion. However they don’t tell you much and the multiple tests on the HQV DVD are far more useful.
DVE PAL remains a very valuable calibration tool though.
Anyway, I’m afraid I have to run, but I look forward to discussing this with you in more detail when I return in August.