Whats the best way to experience Blu-Ray??

At an average of 6-8 feet you really do need a 50+ to really have cinematic impact. On a 50" 2.35 aspect ratio extra wide film is only 18" tall in height on a 50", its a strip of image not more than a foot and a half in height, way smaller than most paintings or posters you'd look at on the wall. If that were right in front of you on your desk it wouldn't be half bad, but from 6-8 feet back on the average couch thats looking at not much at all. At 40" it drops down to about 14-15" of image height in that aspect ratio, very very small. You'd need sharp eyes to see the sharp image ;)

Sizing your tv based on your sd tv doesn't work either, sdtv's were so small, it didn't matter because the picture was garbage and thus justified not much in the first place. Any half decent scaler will make it look ok on a big hdtv, it just won't be crisp, anyways most things actually worth watching closely will be in hd now or soon enough. Viewing distance and all that nonsense really didn't apply back then, it was all compromise, people bought the sdtv crt that would fit, it was based on price and the fact that the things didn't scale well, they were down right unwieldy. A 40" crt was like having a small boulder parked in your room. So it was a practical consideration that kept people from wanting or being able to buy a screen size actually worthwhile for watching movies on. Some people are still stuck in that mental minRABet after over a decade of being stuck under that limitation. But even they will find out for themselves how small a 42" really is once they get it. People adapt pretty quick after all, it wasn't that long ago that all phones had corRAB, now people throw a fit if their micro computer cellphone drops a call while they barrel down the highway. People aren't rolling around on the ground overwhelmed by the sheer awesomeness of the tech they have in their hanRAB these days, the bar just gets set at the new normal very quick and they start to complain;). So those who say 50-60+ are too big just need to really experience it in a normal room for a little while;)
 
Only a "pratt" would ignore my link and thx recommendations so quickly. If you don't believe that sitting 12 feet away dimishes your ability to see detail on a small screen, you must think you can read a newspaper from across the room. Perhaps you need to rationalize what you can afford by pretending it is optimal, but thats not logical.
 
See this here is a fallacy, and it annoys me to see this myth spread primarily by people who have never actually owned a small TV in their lives.

We have a 37" Sony Bravia in our living room, and a 22" Samsung in my bedroom, hooked up to the PS3. Even on the 22" screen (sat about 3-5ft away), the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD is staggering.
 
Sizing your tv based on your sd set is easily the best way to work out whats best for HD.

If people are happy with their 28"crt for sd viewing they are not going to want to watch the crap that passes for sd on a 50" set which is what they will see as they are likely to be too close.

Far too often people just think bigger is better when changing tv's and you get the quite common occurrence of those with quite small rooms sitting in front of ridiculously oversized screens watching awful sd digital tv .

Sadly , many don't have a clue about quality and will view this quite happily and only get a large screen because its the latest thing

Choosing a screen size on its own is sheer stupidity.
The size of the room and the distance from the screen are as equally important.

So someone in a box room sitting about 3 foot from a 19" will be able to see HD clarity just as well as someone watching a 50" from 12 foot away.

My sister in law has a 50" in her living room and it looks ridiculous - however , her and her husband would not know a quality image if it jumped out of the tv and bit their arse
 
Could somebody tell me what the Phillips BDP 2500 is like or just Phillips Blu Rays in general I only ask because I saw an offer for The Phillips DBP 2500 and Hot Tub Time Machine for
 
Okay well I put the xbox up to HD the other day and stayed the same (42" TV with a seating distance of 10-12ft) and the picture was more than clear. I don't think getting a large screen is an option but there is enough room to move closer so I guess that is what would have to happen
 
I think that screen size does effect how much benefit you will get from HD broadcasts.

I have a 32" Full HD TV and a 42" HD ready TV. The difference between SD and HD on the 32" is less impressive than on the 42" screen. On the 42" the difference is huge, like night and day with a good HD broadcast/Blu ray disc. On the 32" there is a diference but it isnt that great.
 
That's the thing, people weren't happy with a 28", they settled for it, there was little justification to fight for anything more at the time. They didn't even have media to feed anything larger, for a long time it was vhs, then at best dvd. Now we have bluray, hdtv primetime us shows, bbc hd shows and documentaries like planet earth that exploit hd's capabilities to the fullest. At the time when 28" was popular it cost about the same as a 46" did today. The back-end on a 28" is quite large and the furniture you'd need to house it esp if it weren't in a corner was a huge consideration as even a 28" would remove 3' of depth from your room alone, its depth simply intruded into the room. It's these kinRAB of considerations that made image size totally secondary back in the sdtv crt days, you cannot apply that reasoning or mentality to todays tv's. Back then it was true, choosing a screen size on its own was stupid, it was unaffordable for one, and it was impractical, those were tv's it would take a team to lift for even 40".

Now its just a picture on the wall. So choosing a screen size appropriate for film is now practical and achievable. It's not stupid at all. The size of the room is only a marginal consideration as I"ve said, I'm talking about a reasonable 6-8 foot average seating distance, and from that distance, no easily affordable tv is really too large. Its why people turn to projectors to really get a cinematic experience. As I said, a 50" is not that big, at 12" you'd need much much larger. At 3 foot you wouldn't be able to see hd clarity on a 19", that's a computer monitor, even at 3 feet aka on your desk the experience would be dismal for watching films. The distance viewing isn't scaling as you are making it out to be. There are practical considerations, you cannot hold an ipad to your forehead and pretend you are experiencing imax, just as you cannot ever sit close enough to a 19" for it to be anything other than sad.

Things might look ridiculous to you the first time. But as i said, humans adapt to new baselines quickly. That 50" only provides 1.5" tall image in wide-screen films, and from 6-8 feet back it doesn't look ridiculous, just kind of small.
 
The xbox runs at 720p actually even if it is set to 1080p, its just scaling lower resolution content up, so yes its got half the actual detail to deliver to the screen, an in actuality it delivers even less in many cases as the game actually renders in something closer to 630p or so in order to maintain a playable frame rate on years old hardware. Both ps3 and xbox have resorted to such tricks.
But if its fine to you, its fine to you.
 
What is the difference between 1080p HD Ready and Full HD?
I checked the Richer SounRAB website myself and they have no tv's listed as Full HD which would seem to indicate the other poster is right.
 
What part of BD can be enjoyed on any screen size and IMO there is an optimum size to start with - I wouldn't go any smaller that 37" did you not understand?

The viewing distance will be quite close on very small screens to get the best out of HD. HD is wasted on a 32" if you are sat 12-15ft away. There's nothing wrong with smaller screens, just so long as the seating distance is within the recommended distance. My point was, not many will be sat 2-3 ft away from much smaller screens in their front room, it will be any where from 8ft upwarRAB.

FYI - I own a 19" HDTV, it's in the kitchen, it's perfect for that environment. I couldn't watch that in my front room.

I own a 32" HDTV, it's in the bedroom, it's perfect for that environment. I couldn't watch it in my front room.

So 37" would be the smallest screen I would consider for optimal viewing in my front room.
 
So you think all SD on large HDTV's is acceptable?

I take it you've had no experience of football on ITV Ch103 on a large screen then - it was horrendous, often referred to as youtube quality.

There are plenty of other examples of low bitrate SD on satellite - not surprising really when it's not even full resolution, it's only 544x576.

DVD is much better, especially as it has full resolution and you can use progressive scan. But it starts to show its limitations as soon as you increase screen size.

What is perceived as good quality will be down to the individual, everyone has their own benchmark - what you think is good quality may be classed as sub standard by others.
Don't think anyone has claimed the images on a 37" is optimal/cinematic. All they are claiming is they are getting just as much out of BD on their screen as someone would be on a larger screen, which is x5 detail.

It makes no difference whether you view BD on a 32" (1080) @ 4ft or on a 60" (1080) @ 7.5ft. Field of vision will be identical and the eye will be able to resolve all the detail BD has to offer on both screens. Not even you will be able to dispute that.

Who said you need 50-60"+ to view BD at it's best?

All you are doing is exhibiting that BD can be viewed on bigger screens, purely because the format allows you to do this. It doesn't mean you have to have a massive set to appreciate it, that's just your preference.

The cinematic experience is a whole different matter.
 
Maybe honest, but not practical for everyone.

There are two members here that have proven that...

One has a 42" screen and sits 10-12ft away, a bigger screen is not an option, but moving closer is. They're not in your 6-8ft bracket.

The other member considers 42" to be a big screen. They're not in your anything under 50-60" TV is small bracket.

I've not seen one member agree with you on this front yet.

I'm not saying you're wrong, it's your opinion but, it's not something everyone will agree with, it's just too extreme for the average viewer. Not everyone here has the same view as you and me, I like big screens, but understand there are other people out there that just want a more modest setup. You have to account for this. Pointless me suggesting everyone gets a 10ft screen because that's the best way to experience BD, just because that's my preference. Hell, you can get a HD PJ and screen for
 
Buy the Sony.
Philips gear is always a pain and unless it's dirt cheap there is no reason to go for Phlips over Sony - ever .

And I hate Sony
 
Most people didn't just tolerate it, they were happy with the size of the screen.

I had a 28" which was fine for the size of the room.

I switched to a 32" then later got a 37" simply because the smaller cabinet allowed for it but I would never get a larger screen with the current setup as it would look stupid and take over the room .

Although the amount of HD available is increasing , I still spend more time watching dvd's soI don't want to lose quality on sd for the sake of the HD programming.

If you sit 12 feet away you could try a larger screen , however it depenRAB on the size of the room.

As you already have a 42" you can buy Bluray and see if the improvement is noticeable and if it's not get a larger screen.
 
It's not my bracket, it's the suggested maximum viewing distance from thx and from common sense. If you can't afford better or are limited in some other fashion then there's nothing to be done about it. But the question at hand was what is the best way to experience bluray, and as such those setups cannot be considered optimal. You weren't suggesting compromise, but claiming that you get the true benefit of bluray from smaller screens when in fact you are getting a compromised experience.




It doesn't matter what they consider big, when you lose the ability to see all the detail present in the bluray picture, you aren't getting the full experience. If you think the picture looks big from 12 feet, yes fine, that's your subjective opinion, but when it comes to answering if that is the best way to experience bluray, you'd have to say no. I've explained affordability from the start and how things might end up compromised. You are now changing your position oddly enough when you were originally claiming you get full benefit of bluray from small screens.




General advice is general, based on reasonable assumptions for most people. Sure some crackpot might want to have his knees against the wall to watch his 19" tv, but it's just really pointless to go that far. Most main rooms have at least 6 feet between the couch and the tv. Sitting closer does not really solve the problem, it only gets ridiculous. As I said, you can hold an ipad close to your face all you want pretending that the viewing arc is as big as a larger tv, but it will feel nothing like the same experience at all. If you have no choice but to sit against the wall, then fine, but in general discussions its absurd to go that far. Anyways, if you live in such cramped quarters one would seriously question your decision to splurge on bluray equipment in the first place. There is no basis for you saying that a 10 foot screen is ideal for 10 feet @ 1080p bluray, even by thx standarRAB. So really..don't go there.




It is not, even for your own constantly switching position. There are screen sizes where distance becomes pointless as it's totally compromised and fixating over the bs of changing your seating distance is simply a waste of effort. sitting with your knees against the wall to see the detail in bluray for a 20" is not good advice, so really, it doesn't matter where you sit at that point. You shouldn't even be suggesting bluray at that point to begin with. So your simplistic notions of distance and screen size without taking into consideration other factors just reduces it into absurdity.





You really can't stop at just distorting history can you. You concocted a fantasy past where crt rear projection tv's were common in order to justify your view that past "viewing distance" recommendations were more than marketing nonsense. You made claims that there were as many models of rptv's back then as there are large flat panels today, and that they were a common item in order to justify your claims that what applied back then applies to today and vice versa. Now you back track and pretend you were only talking about high street retail parks? I'm sorry, that just doesn't fly.



Actually you did, and your argument on distance calculators being valid back then was based on this assumption..your original assumption of course before you thought better and began to back track and tried to limit your claims to saying you thought those rptv's were common in shops lol. You dance around now trying to cover your mistake, its poor form. Dont even try to narrow the range to the early 2000's to try to grasp for something, the rptv's were out long before that, and so were the bs marketing "viewing distance calculations" which had no application to the average person who could only really choose between a 20-32" tv at those times. As I said, beyond a certain point small is small. It doesn't matter at what arms length you hold an iphone to watch something, it's just small, it's not going to get better, you only do it because its better than nothing at that point. Never mind this is a very poor road for you to even attempt to go down in the first place when you seem to be very against the idea that big flat panel tv's are compatible with most homes and rooms. Rptv's of the past were far larger and worse in every way imaginable in terms of practicality which is why they were neither common, or really much desired.





Lol not at all, that's what you were saying or else your argument makes no sense at all. You were implying that the situation with rptv's of that past was the same as it is today with big flat panels in order to imply distance recommendations applied equally as much back then as it does now, totally discounting the simple fact that back then rptv's were both totally impractical, expensive, and uncommon in homes. You are concocting a fictional past to support your argument. Sure there were some niche market tv's, there are niche market 20k+ sound systems even today, and cars costing several times more than that quite easily, but they have no relation to how normal people make their decisions on affordable products. Its like pretending that normal people should base their car purchasing decisions on a speed/time track race utility scale that includes ferarri's and lambos. It misses the point entirely when all the cars in their actual purchase range are economy vehicles which are judged by other standarRAB as they are all simply slow. Racing is totally not a rational consideration at that point.



Actually I do, I'm just honest about it. As I said, smaller tv's are a compromised situation, and pretty much every post from the start I've said this, if you can't afford better, then its a compromise, that is the best you can do. What you cannot do is post rationalize by pretending you are getting the best experience or even seeing all the detail you paid for when you bought bluray. You are the one ignoring the real world with your slavish following of distance viewing recommendations. Which on small screens results in recommending ridiculously close seating positions. Arguing that bluray delivers the best experience on such smaller tv's when you have to resort to that nonsense is just absurd.



Pretending you can sit with your knees against the wall to fully experience bluray on a 19" because it fits your distance viewing chart recommendation is discounting all practical considerations.



You've already failed to follow up on this.




HD ready includes 1080i, which is effectively 1080p when properly deinterlaced. Further more the recommendation for buying buying a bigger 1080p screen is reasonable considering the question, which is part of the point of the thread. And of course even a 42" 720p tv at 10-12 feet is too far.




Well not really, when the maximum recommended is 7, and in actuality its closer to 4-5 feet for such a small tv, she'd have to move the couch quite far from the current 10-12 foot distance. And at best she'd only experience half the resolution of bluray. Its still only tolerable and not the best way to experience bluray.
 
Are you referring to the Sony KV-40XBR800?

A 40" 4x3 HD CRT TV that was only available in the states (2002)?

What's that got to do with the UK/European market?

That set would have gone down a storm here - not. The UK had moved over to widescreen by then, where 36" was the largest CRT available.
 
Back
Top