Whats the best way to experience Blu-Ray??

L

LydiaJ

New member
I'm thinking of getting a Sony Blu-Ray Player but I have a few questions -

1) How much better is it than a normal DVD
2) How do you get the most out of the sound?? Get a Blu-Ray DVD cinema system? Or does it sound the same through any speaker?
3) Would I get the money's worth??
 
I can see why Bobcar and Deacon got so annoyed with you on the 21:9 tv thread.

You clearly don't have much of a clue about these things .

Where did I compare VHS to broadcast tv?

I said that if you had a VHS recording transferred to a disc and you viewed it on a laptop the quality would be acceptable , but on a big screen it would not.

That's why many videos on You Tube look fine on your PC screen , but put them up on a 37" and the quality is unacceptable.

As the image quality grows the better it looks on larger screens - which is why HD images look better on a 50" than sd does .

If you don't understand that simple concept there's little hope

If I find something horrendous and you dont all that demonstrates is I have less tolerance than you to imperfect quality.

Please don't bother to reply - I've lost interest
 
I bring up vhs because that's the only scenario where your concerns are relevant. 250 lines of analog input is indeed hard to make look good on a bigger screen, or any screen for that matter. But you complaining that digital sdtv looks unacceptably bad on a 50+ tv to the point where you should avoid buy a bigger tv completely is not a reasonable position at all.

Your examples don't even make sense. You are comparing 14" laptop screens to 40" hdtvs? VHS looks horrible even on a laptop. Theres no point pretending that it looks good at some point, it doesn't. You claiming others don't understand simple concepts when your own actions undermine your own claims is laughable. 28" tvs are enough, yet you've clawed your way up to a 37". :rolleyes:

You are trying to beat a strawman now. I never said hd images don't look better on a bigger screen, bigger screens are required to take advantage of bluray,that was my position by default in this thread. Its you trying to claim that digital sdtv/dvd is a deal breaker on larger hdtv's that is at issue. Let alone your absurd position that you are really getting your moneys worth from bluray by viewing it on a 37" back 6-8 feet where a 2.35 aspect ratio film is a mere foot in height and pretending that is optimal. And don't even compare dvd with youtube with its low bitrate issues, dvd is sdtv with a more than healthy bitrate and perfect transfer. Anyways your youtube example is neither here nor there as they are up to 1080p now, and many of those videos actually look quite decent on a bigger tv, not bluray bitrate, but its still quite good. So stop trying to distort the argument by pretending sdtv is equivalent to 360p bitrate starved youtube being shown on a 50", thats just a ridiculous strawman you are bringing up to beat on .

You cannot talk about high standarRAB and intolerance for low quality when you are claiming that watching a 1 foot tall strip of image on your 37" tv from your couch is really optimal, cinematic, or in anyway big enough to take advantage of blurays quality. You are squinting at a tiny patch of image at that point, about as far from "perfection" as it gets. And its even more laughable when you claim that even 28" is adequete.

Bringing up deacon and bob car? Since you go there, bob is the type that shuffles his couch back and forth for different films while claiming his tv is big enough. Deacon throws around jargon he clearly doesn't understand. So don't bring it up.
 
You're just obsessed with large screens regardless.

No ones pretending to watch BD from across the room on a small screen - all you are doing is throwing up an average where people sit and saying it would be no good for a small screen. How do you know where everybody sits?

Just because you don't think it's realistic to sit 4ft from a TV doesn't mean it's out of the question.

There are recommended distances to sit in regarRAB screen size/resolution, i.e. x1.2 or x1.5 screen width, this is so the viewer, given they have 20/20 vision will be able resolve all the detail on any high resolution screen at a given distance, i.e. Nothing is lost watching BD on a 32" 1080 TV @ 4ft.

So you're saying there's more detail on a 50" than a 32" TV?

One reason why you wouldn't be able resolve all the detail is if you were sat too far away from the TV. This just doesn't apply to small screens either, sit 15ft from a 60" and you would lose detail, so what's the point of your 60"?


Not eagle vision, just 20/20 vision, which is more than enough to view the extra detail on BD on smaller screens at a given distance. You don't give human eyesight the credit it deserves.

The eye can resolve a 0.053mm pixel at 1ft. Be my guest if you want to work out the distance where the eye can resolve a @ 0.37mm pixel on a 32" 1080 display.

Just because BD transfers well onto big screens doesn't mean no one else can enjoy it on smaller screens. Everyone doesn't want a big home cinema screen in their front room, that's what you are totally discounting.


Who said it can be enjoyed at any distance?

There's a recommended/optimum distance, one where all the detail can be resolved - be it a 32" or 60". Ignoring this is ridiculous. You can lose detail on any size screen if you are sat outside of the optimum distance where the eye can not resolve the detail.

What's the point of a 60" when you are sat 15ft away.

What you apply to one screen applies to any other. Your big screen is not exempt from optimum seating distances.

That's the advantage of having the real thing infront of me, I don't have to rely on a third party.
Why would you sit further back on a 32" than a 50"?
If you find pixelation/macroblocking acceptable that's your choice.


The distances were recommended to help mask the poor quality of SD. They were applicable then as they are for SD on the flat panels we have today, you forget there were screens upto 55", even bigger in the States - the difference now is you have to compromise, you either place yourself at the right distance for HD where SD will look poor, or compromise HD by sitting further back where SD will look better.



As I said - there were plenty of RPTV's around, just go look at the countless reviews of all the different models in one of the home cinema mags.

Someone must have been buying them, because they kept introducing new models.

For HD to work you need to sit at the optimum distance for any given screen size. The size will be a factor the viewer will take into consideration.

You can't say everyone sits at 8ft away from their TV, and if they don't have a 50-60"+ screen they will be losing out and their 32" set is pointless.

I couldn't even guess at what distances everybody sits at, I know there will be those that sit very close to their 32" screens, and there will be some that sit 15ft from their 50", but that's about it.
 
In most people's living rooms the positioning of the seating is non negotiable.
Just because someone neeRAB to sit a bit closer to get the full benefit of 1080p does not mean they are able or willing to do so.

Not many people want a damn great tv screen to overtake the living room and your average living room would be dominated by a 50" screen.

And for those that do get one , are they really expected to change their viewing distance every time they switch from sd to hd?:rolleyes:
 
Contrary to what you think - I mentioned RPTV's because you said there was no screen size worthwhile for watching movies on.



RPTV's were great for watching movies on, they appealed to those interested in home cinema. IMO they were fairly common in the high st and retail parks - the majority of manufacturers produced RPTV, Toshiba, Sony, Samsung, Optoma (ThemeScene), Phillips, Thomson, Bush.

As for viewing distance, I said it applied then as it does today, when you look at the range of screen sizes 21" - 65" and the source was only SD., it's obvious why it applied. Sit to close and the image was dreadful.




Then when I mentioned RPTV's were fairly common/readily available you claimed almost no one bought them - go figure.
That's just clutching at straws, you ain't got a clue how many were sold, you don't even have a clue how many different models were available, and you say I should know what's available in other countries, you don't even know what was available in your own country.

I don't care how many bought RPTV's, the point is large screens were available. It's no good you just saying no one bought them so 36" was the max screen size and that makes the distance factor a mute point, they were on sale - fact.



Never claimed no such thing, that's you making up your own conclusion(s)

I said they were fairly common/readily available, from memory that's how I remember it, Curry's/Dixons/Courts had a shop floor full of them.

You keep referring to THX recommendations, well there were recommendations for SD too...........The calculator below gives you veiwing distances for SD Based on Visual Acuity.

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

If you want to dismiss/ignore large screen RPTV's and SD viewing distances because it suits your agenda that's entirely up to you, but don't try and put worRAB into my mouth.
 
Good for you, some people enjoy sticking their heaRAB into the ground, best to ignore inconvenient information that undermines your ideas. I hope you don't spend your time pointing fingers at sarah palin types...
 
On newer movies the picture and sound quality are excellent and movies such as Quantum of Solace and 2012 really stand out on the screen with impressive detail.

Getting your moneys worth and the best out of the sound as always the question is how much do you want to spend.

As far as a Bluray player is concerned, the PS3 would be a good option due to it use as a playback device, BBC iplayer and internet access as well as being a games console.

http://www.richersounRAB.com/ are a good company to build up a system with and great for advice.

Personally i am running the PS3 with Panasonic TX-46S10B plasma display.

A seperate reciever with 5.1 surround and built in dolby digital and DTS, would be your best purchase for soundwise. I tried a 7.1 samsung before this and, to be honest it wasnt as good as i thought, stick to a decent 5.1 / 6.1 at a push. The Yamaha RXv367 model i have also has 4x hdmi input and 1 out which is makes life easier for connecting all your equipment.

Finally your speakers, if you can get a good package then great, or build it up over time. Currently I have a mixed bag of Bose for front left and right, Tangent for centre and Sony for rears and a Philips from a previous setup as sub woofer until I can afford a better one.

Its all person taste on branRAB and what you want out of it all. Hope this helps.
 
Distance calculator
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter

Max suggested distance to truly benefit from 1080p bluray for terryranosaurus's 37"... 5 feet. Not including consideration of smaller 2.35 aspect ratio.
 
I am setting my TV standarRAB on the lowest feed I receive, which is SD satellite. Some of it is worse than video on a 32" CRT

So the basis of your argument is no one will sit at the recommended distance for smaller screens as you think it's unreasonable/not realistic - face it, it's just guesswork/an assumption. You have no clue where everyone sits. Just because this is your view doesn't mean you can just apply it to everyone else. What seems unreasonable to you could be perfectly reasonable to others.

If you want to undermined the usefulness of the smaller screen(s) by saying no one will be watching it at the correct distance, simply because you don't think it's reasonable, fair enough, bit it will take nothing away from what the TV can display or what the viewer will be able to see sat at the recommended distance.

In these cases where all things are equal, field of vision will be the same whether you are sat in front of a 32" or 50" TV - size doesn't really come into it, seating distances do.

If everyone had to sit 8ft from their TV you'd have a point, but they don't.

I've never sat 6-8ft from any CRT TV I have owned, I don't know any one else (family/frienRAB) that did either - where are you getting these statistics from?
The 36" wasn't an example for viewing distances, I was pointing out that 36" was the largest CRT made for the UK.

Why should I have any interest in a 40" 4x3 TV that was only available in the States, especially when the UK had moved over to widescreen.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_ready
No, hd ready seems to simply exclude the possibility of 1080p input. The very fact that 1080i deinterlaced becomes 1080p is still the reality.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/digitaltv/faq_hd.shtml
Read it and weep.
"What does the 'HD Ready' logo on a television mean?
Televisions can carry the 'HD Ready' logo when the display screen has enough pixels to be able to display a high definition picture properly. To qualify they must also be capable of displaying pictures with either 720 or 1080 horizontal lines. The logo also means they can be connected to an HD digital box through an HDMI (High Definition Media Interface) cable. Visit HD Ready to view a database of 'HD Ready' televisions."

I'm sure you know better than the BBC

Stop being so sure you know what you are talking about.
 
Not everyone wants a 50"+ screen in their front room or sit 6-8ft from their TV - Contrary to what you say. They just want something that fits their neeRAB and produces a good picture. How about I recommend you paint your front room black because it will reflect less light so your viewing will be better - you'll probably find that unacceptable, no different to you recommending 50" minimum screens to everyone. It's their front room, they don't want something as big as a 50" dominating their front room. Before you start saying 50" isn't big, everyone has their own view/perception of what looks big to them. I don't think 50" is big, but I accept it wouldn't be ideal for everyone.

Everything is not in 2.35:1, so you have to account for other ratios. Regular TV is mostly 16x9, so a 50" 16x9 image may be too much for some.

Not all regular TV is HD, there's still a hell of a lot of SD, viewing SD at 6ft on a 50" will not appeal to a lot of viewers. Why - because the reduced resolution will become more obvious on a larger screen - sit too close and you'll see the imperfections/artefacts.

Oh, and the height of 2.35:1 on a 50" is 20", not 18" or 1.5". ;)

...and if you don't think 2-3" makes a difference, just ask a woman.
Viewing distances did apply back then, though a bit more straight forward. The recommended distance for crt was about 4x the screen size, this was to help cover up the poor resolution/scan lines which were noticeable sat closer.

Not aware there were any 40" crt's made, 36" was the largest.

There were bigger screens available for those that wanted the home cinema experience. There were plenty of large RPTV's and projectors. It was only when flat panel technology came in that more choice over 36" became available.

Some will stick to their original screen size, some will go a little bigger, some a lot bigger, some will keep it on a cabinet/stand, some will put it on the wall - see, everyone has their own preference. To say those that think 50-60"+ is too big need to experience it on their wall for a while until they get used to it, or everyone should have 50-60"+ screen because no easily affordable TV is really too large is frankly ridiculous IMO - You take nothing into consideration, you just bang on about big is better and that's it.

So what TV do you have?
 
Which is the point, scooting your tv forward by a great distance is generally not appropriate, to compensate it is better and easier to simply enlarge the tv. You are vastly over estimating how a tv exists in a room, it hangs on the wall like a picture, not like a boulder of a tv sat in the past. If the average living room couldn't handle a 50" as you seem to claim, no one would buy them. Let alone a 65.

Lol you are still going on about having to scoot back to watch SD. I'm sorry, have you watched talk shows or clip shows where they constantly bring on youtube clips to show people doing stupid things? Those clips are of horrible resolution, yet they show them on tv anyways, people at home don't suddenly scoot back their seats because a lower resolution source is being show, they just accept it.
 
They won't get the full benefit of what Bluray offers but, Bluray at 720 will still look very very good.

I have a PJ that's only 720 connected to a PS3 and Bluray looks stunning.

In some cases bluray at 720 on a good quality TV will be better than Bluray on a budget 1080 TV.
 
Bluray resolution = 1920x1080 = 2 megapixels
Dvd resolution = 720x480~ = 0.3 megapixels
So yes, you can see there is a vast potential difference. As always it depenRAB on your equipment, a cd played back on cheap garbage headphones will sound like trash no matter how fine the recording is, so you need a good tv as you need a good sound system as it is just the same.

A good 1080p Tv is optimal, a good size, a 32" or some such silly size is too small at normal seating distance to appreciate the detail. You need 50+ optimally. Really theres no affordable size that is too big, which is why people buy projectors. You have to consider the letter box effect as well, the vertical height will shrink as the film gets wider in aspect ratio, making tv screen size even more important.

A good sound system is important, dvd had very good sound though, so the difference is not that big at all, but high quality sound is important for immersion and natural voices and such. Too tiny speakers tend to be more a gimmick than anything else, like sound bars or tiny bose, thats adding additional engineering problems against good sound reproduction. Its just silly. The center speaker is important in home cinema, most voice work comes from there, so units with tiny speakers just really fail at that task.

And of course, as with dvd, not every transfer is equal. Sometimes care is taken with a film transfer, sometimes they botch it. The worst early dvRAB were literally laser disc transfers. Reviews and sites such as the picture tier thread on avs can be your guide. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168342 And of course proper calibration is always a good thing as well.

These two episodes explain hdtv calibration.
http://revision3.com/hdnation/hdcalibration
http://revision3.com/hdnation/calibratepart2
 
I'm really glad I have Pocawhatsit on ignore as he does my head in but unfortunately his posts keep appearing via quotes and I spotted one line that made me laugh at its absurdity.

He said that on a small screen all HD detail is lost .
What a shedload of bollocks that is.

I can't give the precise distances but a 10 year old will know without trying that if you watch a 19" tv from a quite close distance that the detail you obtain will be the same as you get from a 50" at a longer distance.

My son has a 19" screen in his room and even on that the difference between sd and hd is night and day and he can enjoy his hd because he watches it from his bed which is barely a few feet away.

Obviously in a regular living room environment a 19" tv would be wasted but to say all detail is lost on a smaller screen is stupid.

Its irrelevant if you have a 32",37" or 50" .
Regardless of the size the detail will be lost at some point on these screens if you sit far away enough from them.

A larger screen will look more cinematic and you can enjoy HD detail further away , but in many living rooms a 50" will look plain stupid and instead of impressing as its supposed to do it just shows the buyer up as a pratt who would not even know HD if it was on the screen

I remember visiting a guy in the mid 90's to buy some Laserdiscs and he proudly took me to his viewing room and he had a Pioneer screen of some kind that was several feet wide . I'm not sure what it was but it was certainly far larger than 36" which was the largest CRT.

Anyway the screen was perhaps 4-5 feet away and back then all we had was analogue tv , vhs and ld and even laserdisc looked bloody awful.
Definitely more money than sense there
 
Dvd
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Kick Ass/97dff228.png

Bluray
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Kick Ass/9cc797a2.png
Not the best example, but a recent one.


There are countless threaRAB with screen captures from films comparing dvd to bluray on avsforum. Once you sign up you can find his posts by clicking on his name.

Some more...
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Avatar/Avatarbd2.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Avatar/Avatarbd4.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Avatar/Avatarbd7.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Doctor Zhivago/Drzhivagobd3.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Doctor Zhivago/Drzhivagobd7.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/WizardofOz/6226b52c.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/WizardofOz/60adfef4.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Snow White/26236947.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Snow White/4f73166e.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Sleeping Beauty/dab9e187.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Sleeping Beauty/77442924.png


There are countless more. Some extremely old films that are well restored look amazing on bluray. Film has higher resolution than bluray, so it takes full advantage of the medium.
 
Back
Top