 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
170.22.76.10
In Reply to: RE: Sony had this great hope posted by DavidLD on September 18, 2007 at 05:02:39
Wow. Does a 480p DVD at home really look as good to you as film in a theater? I thought MY eyes were bad!
I had a PS3 for about a month, decided I wouldn't be able to live with the fan noise, and returned it. However, neither SD DVD nor BD looked as good as a film in the theater. Sure, the BD looked much more film-like than SD, but it still looks digital. If I find a BD player I like, I will enjoy BD discs much more than SD.
Doug
Follow Ups:
Actually the DVD at home looks better to me than the film in the theatre.
My last three trips to a theatre were to see '300', 'Curse of the Golden Flower, and the latest Harry Potter. Each time I felt the picture was dull, low contrast, and slightly out of focus. The quality was definitely below what I see at home with standard def DVDs (576p since Australia uses PAL) on a 32" LCD TV.
A couple of weeks after seeing the Harry Potter, I had my eyes tested again and mentioned my movie experiences to the optometerist, an audiophie friend of mine. He said 2 things to me: my pupils are relatively small so they don't let much light in which puts me at a disadvantage in a low light situation like a theatre, and he could see the start of cataracts on my eyes.
I got a new prescription for my spectacles and the standard def DVDs of '300' and 'Curse of the Golden Flower'. '300' definitely looks better on my system at home but the difference with 'Curse' was amazing. Those over the top coloured sets in the palace were suddenly clear, detailed and precise—not only in a way that they had never been in the theatre but that I would never have imagined.
I'll still go to the theatre every now and then, and enjoy it, but for sheer visual spectacle what I see at home on my LCD screen is significantly better. I'm 60 and my eyes are deteriorating, and that does make a difference. Watching films at home is a much more visually rewarding experience for me than it is in the theatre, but the theatre offers other advantages such as a much bigger screen and the ambience of the setting. There will be films I definitely want to see in the theatre but they will be films I also want to see at home so I can see those things I now miss in the theatre, and they will also be films which really interest me strongly. For many films I'll simply go the DVD route at home and avoid the theatre.
And the sound quality is usually better at home. Theatres tend to set their levels too high for me.
David Aiken
and good luck with the cataracts. I'm 49 and my eyesight is worsening. Even with contacts, in my usual chair from 12' away, the 42" plasma is not as clear as it could be.
Anyway, I agree with your statements about the generally poor PQ and overly loud sound in theaters. Here in the Washington DC area, we're lucky to have two new chain theaters opened locally. I've only been a few times, but every time the picture quality has been excellent and the sound was at a reasonable level. The last time I went, I thought the picture was out-of-focus, but I realized I was sitting too far from the screen! Anyway, it still looked better than any SD or BD I've seen at home.
My point is that a good theatrical presentation of actual film is still better than a well-done SD or even BD. However, I enjoy BD more than SD. After seeing BD, even the best SD still has some color bleeding and other artifacts that aren't so obvious in BD.
Doug
Doug,
Part of my point, though I didn't really state it, was that the picture quality in the theatre for those 3 movies may not have been bad. While I saw the first 2 on my own, I saw the Harry Potter with a friend who said she didn't find have of the problems I did with the picture quality. Now that may be partly due to her being 'less discerning' than a perfectionist b******* like me, but not all of it is going to be that. A 32" LCD screen at 8' is always going to be brighter than a theatre screen for me given my eyes.
I don't have a hi-def player and my screen is only 1366 x 768, but I've been impressed by the picture quality of the BD demos I've seen in shops and I'm contemplating getting a player sometime in the next few months. Despite its cost, the coming Denon player is tempting since I'm very impressed with my Denon 2910 DVD player.
David Aiken
For picture and sound quality. I not sure it is whether who sets up the theater is not very knowledgeable, they don't have the right equipment, or what have you.
It is the biggest reason why I don't go very often. What comes to film has alot to do with that also I suppose.
The mere size of the theater screen over what I have at home (50" RPTV) is really the only big plus. Watching King Kong, Titanic, etc. on my display leaves me wanting much more obviously.
Stadium seating, SOTA DLP screens, etc... maybe I'm fortunate. I'll agree my nearest theater makes any of the older theaters look so mediocre. I don't bother going anywhere else except the occasional IMAX movies.
I pretty much stopped going to the theaters by me. After all of the hassle of parking, high priced tickets, crowds etc., my theater experiences match yours-the PQ and AQ just aren't what they should be.
Jack
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
