Whats the best way to experience Blu-Ray??

You must live in an unusual situation then, because many larger tv's get sold in the uk. While probably slightly behind the US, I'm pretty sure the sales of larger sets is and has been growing rapidly as prices have been dropping. Even in the uk, most rooms are hardly 3 foot wide and thus only able to fit a 26" TV, perhaps you have a special case where you can't bear to alter your furnishings to provide wall space for a newer tv, but thats not the same thing as the room being too small for a tv. I don't think most people's rooms are so small that their couch faces a wall a mere 3 feet away.


http://www.techdigest.tv/2008/01/average_tv_size.html
Average size is going way up, prices way down, and its certainly nothing close to 26". Will only further get spurred on even in a recession, after all, people stay home and spend their money at home during such times. http://www.techwatch.co.uk/2009/06/01/bad-economy-equals-high-hdtv-sales/

Wall mounting has nothing to do with neck ache. Its a common mistake to mount a TV high up on the wall, above a fireplace mantel for instance, but that is simply an incorrect installation. A wall mounted TV is mounted at eye level when seated, its a TV, not a painting. No one stares at a painting for 2 hours after all. When at the correct height there is no more neck strain than if you had the TV sitting on a stand or cabinet.
 
Wikipedia - Hardly credible when it can be edited by anyone on the net.

The BBC - well I had already been on there where I went through many of their listed displays where you can check whether your TV is HD ready, I looked at quite a few and found none listed that had a 1920x1080 resolution. 720/768 was all I found.

I've even looked on four manufacturers web sites, all their HD ready sets were 720/768. The only reference to 1920x1080 resolutions were Full HD.

So you'll have to share this superior knowledge and show me all these HD ready displays that have 1920x1080 resolutions.


Kettle/pot comes to mind.

You had the evidence starring you in the face regarding my reasons for bringing up RPTV's, yet you still persist in telling it was for an alterer motive.

I should have learned my lesson from the other thread, you are the only one allowed an opinion, no -one else can have one, if they do you try and discredit by any means possible.
 
This all sounRAB far too complicated. Too big, too far, too near...

Easier all round to not buy the Blu-Ray and save all the hassles I think. Life already has enough of these without adding home entertainment to the list.
 
Eye level? Well I couldnt manage that in my house. I have a fire place in the way.

As for cluttered furnishings, I only have a sofa,an armchair and a coffee table. Fairly minimalist. I have to rest the lap top on the arm rest of the sofa.
 
When considering the question of what is the best way to experience bluray, it is the only honest advice. Anything smaller is simply a compromise or based on a sales lie.





No what you are saying is that you have taken all common sense out of the equation. There is a reasonable range of seating distances, outside that range it becomes absurd to continue. Its like pretending you can hold an ipad to your forehead and pretend its imax, or sit with your knees against the wall to watch a 19" tv trying to display bluray.



Yes, you are arguing both that people's houses are too small for bigger flat panels, you you insist that in the past everyone had rear projection crt tv's. Don't bring up ignorance if that's the line of thinking you have to sell.



Lol, still selling bogus history. You saw some big tv's in the store? Lol, please, the average size of tv's has a pretty consistent trajectory and in the past, crt rear/front projection behemoths were not common in the home. Let alone british homes.





Lol based on what? You are pretending that new models of rear projection crt tv's came out in the past as quickly and were as popular as larger tv panels are now? Let alone in the uk where such things would take up half a room?





Wrong, when the question is about the optimal experience for a fixed resolution format you cannot over simplify and come up with the silly conclusions you seem to come up with. It only leaRAB you to suggest sitting ridiculously close to small tv's and discounting all practical considerations. As I said, you might as well claim you can get imax viewing out of an ipad held to your forehead from your simplistic theories on seating distance and screen size. You can pretend all you want that an iphone held 12 inches from your face is equivalent to a bigger tv at a distance, but the reality is that the experience very different. Mindless adherence to distance/size theory just goes no where in the real world.
 
Go into most shops.
TV's capable of 1080p will usually be advertised as Full HD although some retailers are advertising all sets as HD Ready and state 1080p itself when applicable

Non 1080p tv's are HD Ready

A web browse and newspaper browse will show you the latest aRAB from the likes of Argos and Tesco.

Check the Argos list here where Full HD is separate from HD Ready but Richer SounRAB seem to prefer HD Ready 1080p for their terminology




http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/s...|14419667&c_3=3|cat_14419667|LCD+TVs|19878730
 
Well there must be some way to adjust the furniture so you can watch tv at eye level. Your situation might be unique. I'm not sure whats going on with your room. It sounRAB like its not so much the size, but simply the setup and placement of furniture that has locked you in.
 
Right after all this reading could I please have a simple answer to this question. I have a 42" HD Ready Sharp TV and sit about 10-12 ft away from my TV. Is it worth gettong a Blu-Ray player will there be a significant difference??
 
You are now arguing against Wikipedia AND the BBC? Hdtv's were sold long before the 1080p era came around, your knowledge of hdtv seems to be conveniently truncated to suit your argument. At this point there is no point making a 1080i tv anymore for newer models, but HD ready means exactly what I said it means, and its only stubborn denial of reality that allows someone to ignore the facts stated by both the BBC and Wikipedia.




There is no kettle pot situation here. You've clearly been caught out yet won't admit you were wrong. I've cited sites supporting my definition of HD Ready, while you cling on desperately to your incorrect take on the term. So your credibility as self-proclaimed expert in this area is really in tatters. Made even worse by the very fact that the link you posted yourself states that the recommended THX viewing distance for a 65" is a mere 7.3 feet. Well within MY recommendations and completely the opposite of your take on the situation.




Who are you kidding terrysaurus. I know you won't see this but you are also trying to argue against both Wikipedia AND the BBC? Never mind you are arguing against what the certification body who sets the what the specification in the first place. No one said 1080p tv's are HD Ready, you can 't even get the argument right. "1080p HD Ready" is a SEPARATE specification. Specifications are set by European Information, Communications and Consumer Electronics Technology Industry Associations, not Argos.
 
It would be kind of dicey. As I've been saying, the farther away you sit from a small screen, the less detail you can make out. 10-12 feet is quite far, and a 42" is not enough for that distance. To see the full detail at that distance you really need a 65". http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter If you can't afford that, then you just have to settle for less. One can't argue against the budget after all.

But if you want to experience the full detail of bluray at that distance, there is no choice but to go big. Just as how the further away you walk away from a newspaper, the less you can read if the newspaper does not increase in size, detail gets lost the further you sit back if the tv does not increase in size when dealing with 1080p.
 
Only a pratt would say a 42" tv is a small screen.
In the real world it isn't

Having said that , 12 feet is a bit distant to see the improved detail of Bluray in all its glory.
 
2 questions

1) The highest HD setting I have is 1080i will this effect quality for some reason it wont play 1080p

2) What is the difference between 1080i and 1080p
 
I disagree with it needing a 50in TV to really see the difference but would recommend anything 40in above really.

You can get a Blu ray player with very very decent spec for as little as 150 so saves you buying the PS3.

5.1 surround sound all the way.
 
The only way to do it would be to move the radiator. As the alcoves are too small and are only 26 inches wide. Where the radiator is, is a lot of space but as it is microbore (yuck) could be tricky.

Then move the sofa to the bay windows.
 
But even a 40" or 50" tv would be pointless if you sit 20 or 30 feet away.
Likewise the sd images on tv's that size would be awful if you sit too close.

Thats why I think its best to choose your HD screen size based on the sd screen you currently have

There are good Sony players out there for
 
LOL - and size is not your arbitrary preference.

I didn't see any mention of screen size in the OP, just a question about image quality between DVD/BD and audio.

Bluray can be enjoyed on any screen size providing you sit at the optimum distance. IMO there is an optimum size to start with - I wouldn't go any smaller that 37". Bluray offers 5 times the detail of SD, the advantage here is it can be viewed on much bigger screens without the dramatic loss of quality you got with SD - if that's the viewers preference.

Those that view 32" TV's at 10ft-12ft are not getting the full benefit from BD, but then they probably don't care that much, they will be happy with the PQ they are getting at that distance, which will still be good.

Only those that take HD/BD seriously will consider screen size/seating distance, the average viewer won't bother.

I have a 50" plasma, 2.35:1 is 20".
Just visit any message board/forums where there are plenty of posts regarding poor SD quality on flat panels. Sit close enough for HD and SD will look poor.

Distances applied then as they do today. There were recommended distances for screen sizes 21" -> 36". Sit to close and you could see the scan lines.


Link.......


There were plenty of bigger screens available for those that wanted bigger - RPTV were commonly available, you could buy them from any high street store, Curry's, Dixons,John Lewis etc.

CRT/VGA projection was pretty big too.

You were the one who brought screen size into the debate, the OP wasn't asking what size TV they should buy or watch BD on - they wanted to know if they will see a difference between DVD/BD and how to get the best out of the audio BD offered.
 
1080i is the original broadcast standard, broadcast bandwidth being limited, only every other line is sent in each frame, flat panel tv's however don't show alternating lines of image, they reconstruct this into a full image. If the source was always interlaced then the deinterlacing the tv will do can only be partially effective, as movement results in saw tooth effects that must be blurred out and thus detail is lost.

However for film material that is encoded correctly, it is originally 24fps 1080p, split up into 50 or 60 fielRAB of 1080i, which are then reconstructed into 1080p for the tv to display. How well your tv can pull off this trick is the only factor. In the end 1080i and 1080p with bluray is theoretically about the same.

explained

"There Is No Difference Between 1080p and 1080i"
http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/1106gear/
 
Back
Top