|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.54.230.197
In Reply to: RE: It is a wonderful day for all Blu ray supporters posted by Ole Lund Christensen on February 21, 2008 at 04:15:23
Competition is good for the consumer, but all the FUD and propaganda thrown about by the fanboys did nothing but cause confusion and recrimination.>>Now we can move forward<<
So, does this mean you're going to cease your incessant propagandizing? :-)
Now that Blu-ray has won the initial battle, we can indeed move forward. The next challenge is whether Blu-ray will remain a niche product as hi-rez audio has been, or whether it will successfully compete with broadcasts, downloads, and HD on Demand for marketshare and consumer mindshare. A key factor in this success will be for the BDA and its members to deliver on the commitments they've made. Individually and as a group, their track record on living up to commitments hasn't been all that great. They will need to step it up. Perhaps you fanboys can do something useful this time - direct your abundant zealotry toward the BDA members in order to encourage them to increase the number of releases, improve the playback devices, and make the products more appealing to mass-market consumers.
>>Now we can move forward talking about different blu ray players, HDMI, TVs, projectors, receivers, processors and amps.<<
Great! This forum has been sorely lacking in those sorts of discussions as of late. Since the only mention you've made of these items as of late has been in relation to Blu-ray and PS3 sales figures, perhaps you can start talking about them now - from a personal perspective, rather than from a propaganda perspective. I'll say something along those lines to help inspire you:
Last month, while the fanboys were focusing on nothing but the format war, I bought a new HD projector, and I've been spending most of my free time playing with it. It's made Blu-ray and HD DVD discs even more enjoyable, and even does a wonderful job on DVD-V. If I didn't have HD media available as a comparison, I might think I wasn't missing anything. Have you bought, or are you planning to buy, a new display device that will better showcase HD media?
OK, now you try it. :-)
Edits: 02/21/08Follow Ups:
"all is fair in love and war" somebody said.
And now Blu ray have won, why should I keep on promoting it?
So let us forget the heckling, and move forward.
For my HT, I have an old Pannasonic PT-AE700E projector, 1270x720 pixel x 3 panels.
For me sound quality is more important than picture. The system is mainly set up for DVD/Blu ray/HD DVD concerts and multichannel SACD/DVD audio.
I use the small dimension of the room, to get a wider left to right room with more space left of left and right of right front loudspeakers. This is reversed of normal HT, but it set up is for my pleasure only.
The 36" tube TV is in another room.
So my picture is about 100" diagonal, and my viewing distance is selected, so that I barely see the lines. My room is blacked out, so light level is enough.
My PS3 40GB does DVD upscaling well, but that does not increase detail, it only make them look smooth, like vaseline on the lens do for playboy photos. Remember many of my DVDs are PAL, much better than NTSC. Still a good Blu ray is far better than upscaled PAL. Upscaled NTSC look dreadful bad. So I think, that you are sitting too far from your screen.
So far my main problem is the film source quality, many movies are less good than my current projector in terms of picture detail. This also makes me hesitate to get a new projector.
But someday I probably will, just to get a new toy. :-)
This graph say I will benefit from 1080p even on 100"
see link
*** Remember many of my DVDs are PAL, much better than NTSC. ***
Yes, PAL as a video standard has a higher frame resolution than NTSC, but unfortunately life is not quite so simple.
I have reviewed hundreds of PAL Region 4 DVDs (which are often the same as Region 2 DVDs), and in many cases compared them directly with Region 1 NTSC DVDs.
PAL DVDs theoretically should be better than NTSC DVDs, apart from the following issues, which are rather common:
1. Many PAL DVD transfers originate from an NTSC source. If you freeze frame many PAL DVDs, you may notice NTSC to PAL conversion artefacts - typically combing due to a two NTSC frames being composited onto a single PAL frame (as PAL has a lower frame rate than NTSC).
2. Many (in fact at one stage almost all) PAL DVDs are authored with the progressive flag turned off, which confuses many deinterlacing algorithms. Worse still, some PAL DVDs are encoded in interlaced mode even though the source is progressive. If you have a good DVD authoring tool, you can rip DVDs and inspect their encoding parameters. What you discover for PAL DVDs may shock you.
3. All PAL DVDs authored from 24 fps film suffer from a 4% speed up in audio. Many people, including myself, notice a difference in audio quality caused by this speedup. Even some DVDs that try to compensate for the pitch shift (eg. Lord of the Rings PAL version) introduce additional artefacts from the pitch normalization process (which is audible to people with good ears).
Because of the above problems, I generally avoid buying PAL DVDs unless they are really cheap and I'm not that fussed about quality. I have seen PAL DVDs that look better than the NTSC equivalent, but I have never encountered a PAL DVD that sounded better than NTSC, and sound is pretty important to me.
re 1
Often the DVD is made from the film, avoiding this problem. In case the source is the film, the PAL DVD picture is much better than NTSC.
I agree that if mastering is done from a NTSC tape, you get a very bad PAL DVD.
But that is mainly due to the NTSC basic low quality, which cannot be improved.
re 2
I prefer a normal PAL without any "improvement".
re 3. I am sorry, here you are clearly wrong. Not all PAL DVD are like that.
If the recording was done as PAL Video, there are no problems, and the sound is fine too, as it was not recorded as 24 fps. Please try some European sources, like TV concerts.
Some of the pitch changers are very good, some are bad. I spent some years selling these pitch changers. Some you might have missed hearing, just like me, because they hide the rare glitch in a transient.
I own nearly 2000 DVDs, from Regions 1-4.I have compared hundreds of Region 2 and 4 DVDs with their Region 1 counterparts. My reviews are posted on www.michaeldvd.com.au.
Apart from a few exceptions, my experience is that Region 1 NTSC DVDs tend to have superior audio and video quality, compared to Region 2/4 PAL DVDs.
There are a few other sites doing these comparisons. You will find on most of these sites, the reviews concur with my experience. Many include screenshots from the Region 1 and 2/4 discs and you can clearly see the difference (in many cases less macro-blocking, less mosquito noise, less HF filtering, often better colour/contrast for the NTSC transfers).
The reason why Region 1 tend to have better transfers is because of bitrate. NTSC has lower resolution so if both NTSC and PAL are encoded at the same bitrate, NTSC will have less encoding artefacts. Plus, Region 1 DVDs tend to have fewer audio tracks, so the video track is encoded at higher bitrates compared to PAL. A typical PAL DVD tend to have multiple language tracks (English, Frech, German, Hungarian, Polish, ...).
As for the 4% speedup, as I mentioned, this occurs on all transfers that originate from 24fps film. Yeah, there might be a few concerts and documentaries based on 50Hz sources, but these are very much in the minority. If most of your collection consist of these sources, well, good on you. Me, I prefer watching transfers from film.
He seems to agree with me.
Mainly due to the NTSC 3:2 pulldown problem.
Among Pro TV and Film people I have never heard anyone prefer the "Never Twice the Same Colour" format.
So I am puzzled with your experience. Please give a few names of DVDs.
Using two discs reduce the space problem.
The 4% is a problem. But playing back at 24fps solve that.
And Mozart used an A of 422 Hz, not the 440 Hz we often use today. The A have moved a lot in the history of music, and 422Hz is 4% below 440 Hz.
So these is not an absolute A, it is a compromise.
see link for Michaels view on PAL/NTSC
Last two weeks have been fairly busy for me.
First of all, Michael is not my *boss*.
Secondly, I don't quite see how the article implies "... seems to agree with me.". The article clearly states that it depends on many factors.
The point is if you actually sat down and compared NTSC (R1) vs PAL (R2,R4) titles side by side, as opposed to arguing about theoretical differences, then you can see that typically R1 DVDs tend to have superior picture quality to R2/R4. I have previously suggested that you actually read my reviews (there are hundreds on them on michaeldvd).
For additional information, please refer to the following link which contains comparisons, together with screenshots. You will find on most of the comparisons, R1 picture quality wins.
I'm sure you mean that from the bottom of your heart :-)
> > So let us forget the heckling, and move forward. < <
Good plan. Since you were the one who brought up "heckling," you know where to start!
> > For me sound quality is more important than picture. < <
I understand. That was how I proceeded for many years. When my budget was more constrained, I chose to spend my money on sound quality rather than on picture quality. On the audio side, due to my room and equipment I've finally reached the point where further improvements would be miniscule at best, but the financial outlay to make those miniscule improvements would be excessive, so it's time to focus on other things. I did just buy a new pair of subwoofers though!
> > I use the small dimension of the room, to get a wider left to right room with more space left of left and right of right front loudspeakers. < <
So you are using the long wall instead of the short wall? I did that for my 2ch system in my previous house. It worked well, but I didn't do HT in that room. I had a separate room. In my current house I was able to combine (and upgrade) my 2ch and HT systems.
> > My PS3 40GB does DVD upscaling well < <
This is completely relative. I'm sure it does upscaling better than a $50 upconverting player from Walmart, but there are better upconverting players on the market than the PS3. Nevertheless, my experience is that player-based scaling is only useful when the player does a better job of scaling than the display device. My current projector does a much, much better job of it than any upconverting player on the market. I've found that in my case it's better to feed the projector a non-upconverted, interlaced signal, and let it do the scaling. An upconverted signal to the projector is never as good as what the projector can do with a non-upconverted signal. Since you apparently do not have this luxury, I can see why your perception is different.
> > Remember many of my DVDs are PAL, much better than NTSC. Still a good Blu ray is far better than upscaled PAL. Upscaled NTSC look dreadful bad. < <
Interesting. Again, perhaps it's your player, or maybe it's the stuff you're watching. I have dozens and dozens of PAL discs (most of which are native PAL discs, not NTSC-converted-to-PAL discs made for the European market), and my experience is that while non-upconverted PAL looks noticeably better than non-upconverted NTSC, NTSC looks better upconverted to ATSC-compatible resolution than does PAL upconverted to ATSC-compatible resolution. Again, though, since the scaler in my projector is of high quality, I'd rather let it do the scaling than let an inferior player scaler do it.
> > So I think, that you are sitting too far from your screen. < <
Thanks for your concern, but I'm not.
> > So far my main problem is the film source quality, many movies are less good than my current projector in terms of picture detail. This also makes me hesitate to get a new projector. < <
The problem is: you'll never truly know how good or how bad picture detail is until you get a display device capable of showing everything that is (or isn't) there. Right now you're just guessing.
> > This graph say I will benefit from 1080p even on 100" < <
Absolutely. My screen is 100" diagonal, and I certainly get substantial benefits from my 1080p projector, regardless of source media. Larger screens can bring a whole host of problems. Bigger isn't always better.
I can agree to most of what your write.
Yes, transmitting normal signals and upscaling in display/projector can be the best solution, because it can be optimized to compensate for the display.
And most likely SONY have spent a lot of money on the upscaling in your projector. That projector is the sweet spot of the current market.
I am also puzzled about your and mine NTSC and PAL upscaling experience.
Could it simply be that SONY optimize US products for NTSC and EU products for PAL?
Size versus quality.
Yes, it is tough to get both.
In some ways, the best picture I have seen was my old 27" 4:3 SONY broadcast monitor. PAL worked very well on 27".
The ability to show light reflections sparkle from polished brass was superb.
My current 36" 16:9 SONY tube TV is less good, but have a bigger screen.
Still it is in some ways better than a projector, so I keep it.
But people are doll sized, that is not nice.
All the projectors do even less light, that is why we black out the room, and black resolution become important.
But size is essential for the cinema experience, people should be closer to life size, so I have a projector.
Going from 27" to 100" is 13.7 times more area, so I need 13,7 times more pixels. But full HD only give me about 5 times more pixels more than PAL.
So I do agree, going above 100" is causing too many problems, unless you need to seat many people.
Going to a good cinema, I get far more pixels than Blu ray offer.
Here I also see the same picture problems in some movies, as I do on my own projector, so rest asured, I am not guessing.
I have always said, that hardware investment should follow software investment. I have 40 years of excellent stereo music software, so I spend my money mostly on stereo equipment. Beethovens 9th will never be boring to hear again.
I never saw the point of spending much money on movies with DD sound and DVD picture quality, which I watch 2-3 times.
Due to Blu ray and concerts, I think this will change for me, but I need to build up a software collection, and currently there is only 35 concerts on Blu ray.
Currently I am developing some new stereo amplifiers and active loudspeakers, for the above Euro 200.000 market.
My clients are currently willing to spend much more on stereo, than on HT.
I feel the same way currently.
> > I am also puzzled about your and mine NTSC and PAL upscaling experience.
Could it simply be that SONY optimize US products for NTSC and EU products for PAL? < <In the US, nearly all video products other than front projectors (which are made for a world market) are hardwired and optimized for NTSC, regardless of manufacturer. People who are interested in non-US media get players/displays that support both NTSC and PAL, or do conversions between the formats, but I suspect that this group represents less than 1% of the US population. Most Americans don't even know (or care) that other parts of the world have different broadcast standards.
> > I never saw the point of spending much money on movies with DD sound and DVD picture quality, which I watch 2-3 times. < <
I understand. I did and do see the point though, because I do not find cinemas to be an enjoyable experience. I haven't been inside a cinema in Europe in a long time, but here in the US cinema theaters are very unpleasant. Everything is too loud - the movie, the patrons, everything. On top of that, most moviegoers no longer even try to be considerate of others in the theater, so people talk constantly or shout at the picture, cell phones ring, children scream and cry, etc. Because of this, I would rather watch movies at home where I can control the environment.
> > Currently I am developing some new stereo amplifiers and active loudspeakers, for the above Euro 200.000 market. < <
So, you're focused on the mid-market? ;-)
you suddenly made me understand the huge US market for expensive HT.
Naturally, with cinemas like that, plus trafic and parking problems, everybody with enough money want a good HT.
The Copenhagen cinemas compete on quality. And the Danish government funds a filmschool, a filmstudio, film production and technical education. This is considered needed for a part of our national culture.
Nordisk film run a chain of cinemas, and they on purpose set playback levels much lower than the THX standard.
Their most elegant cinema is Imperial.
Build as 1500 seats, improved seats reduced this to 1102 seats. 35 m (115 feet) screen to projector. Screen 15,7 m x 7.4 m (51x24 feet) Todd-AO curved.
2 pcs 40 year old Philips EL4001 DP80 "Todd-AO all-purpose projector for analog film 35 mm and 70 mm
Barco DP100 DLP projector from 2004
1998 THX checked 2 times pr year by THX.
Soundsystem JBL model 4675A-2. Playing Dolby Digital EX, DTS and Sonys SDDS.
Behind the Imperial screen are 6 loudspeakers. Paired to make L C R, each has 2x15" (model 2225H). JBL Bi-Radial constant coverage horn (model 2360A) and five JBL amps (model 6260).
Subwoofers are two 120 kilo (260 lbs) JBL (model 4788), driven by two JBL 6290 amps. Each subwoofer has 2x18" JBL K151.
Surround is 18 stk. JBL 8333 and 6 JBL pro 3.
If you go in the daytime, there might be 100 other people in the 1102 seats, no phones, no talking, nice sound levels. Evenings you can enjoy an elegant well stocked private bar before the show.
Re mid-market: Yes, I try to offer value for the money :-)
I saw a USD 450,000 pair of loudspeakers in stereophiles guide.
Both are areas of improvement I feel are far more visible and dramatic than the plasma's full 1080p capability (which is also visible and dramatic--don't get me wrong). You were more than welcome to participate in those threads, but you didn't. Congrats on your new projector.
As for Blu-ray, it would have been relegated to niche status if HD DVD stuck around. Now I believe it will have a good chance as long as we don't have an army of bitter HD DVD losers spreading misinformation all over the internet and claiming that BD is no better than upscaled DVD. I really hope we can avoid that.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
What Projector did you get?
Jack
I bought a Sony VPL-VW200. It was outrageously expensive, but ultimately it seemed like the best choice. I evaluated a bunch of projectors, and found that most of them were compromised enough that I wouldn't be satisfied for long. Since I did not want to join the Projector of the Month Club, I steeled myself for the financial blow :-) and bought a projector that I hope will maintain its utility for several years to come.
I've spent the last several weeks installing it, calibrating it, tweaking it, and enjoying the picture.
do these comments here match you experience?
see link
- http://reviews.cnet.com/projectors-presentation-devices/sony-vpl-vw200/4505-3180_7-32638534.html (Open in New Window)
I've periodically toyed with the idea of getting something for my family (music) room. Because of my stereo, it can't be bulky, and because of my viewing distance, 14' or so, its going to have to be large. That leaves a VERY large flat screen (70"+), or a projector. Both have their good and bad points. I'm not generally a big fan of FP, but in all fairness, I haven't really looked into it. I have to admit you comments aren't encouraging, but I appreciate your honesty.
Jack
PS. Welcome back-I always enjoy reading your posts.
If you can control the light in your room, a FP is a better choice for a 70+" screen than even the finest ultra-huge TV set, IMO. I wouldn't want a TV that big - too limiting.
When evaluating my comments about FP, there are a couple of things to keep in mind:
1. I resisted fixed-pixel displays for a very long time, because I'm absolutely fanatical about black detail. Not just black levels, but black detail. This is an area where fixed-pixel displays have done a horrendous job for the most part. This means I find fault in many fixed-pixel displays, especially almost every LCD-based projector, even the newest ones that most other people think are awesome.
2. I can't watch single-chip DLP. I am ultra-hypersensitive to RBE. Even with the latest-and-greatest Darkchip 4 I still see rainbows, and get a headache and eyestrain after an hour or so. The 3-chippers don't do this to me, but they are stupid expensive. I cannot justify that kind of cash outlay for a piece of consumer electronics equipment that is guaranteed to be obsolete before I've even begun to recover from the financial hit. The vast majority of people don't have the issues I have with single-chip DLP.
So this means that 95% of the reasonably-priced projectors on the market that would be more than good enough for most people are inadequate for me.
It's too bad for me that my choices are so narrow, because a good friend of mine is the regional manager for one of the big-names in LCD projectors. I had the opportunity to buy their highly-rated top-of-the-line projector for manufacturer's cost. I really, really wanted to like it, but just couldn't :-(
i agree with most of what you say. Weak blacks are one of the reasons I've been unimpressed with FPs. True, most fixed pixel displays don't do blacks well. Sony's SXRD technology does it (and other things) better than most. Thats why I got one of their 60" SXRD sets-pity they stopped making them. I also see rainbows, DLP is out for me too.
If I wish to upgrade, my options are extremely limited. This is why I am not in a rush. I doubt if I'll do anything this year.
I'm in no rush.
Jack
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: