my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray? (Page 67)

This topic comprises 105 pages: 1  2  3  ...  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  ...  103  104  105

Author Topic: Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray? Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-24-2008 11:15 AM                     One of the purposes of HDTV is to deliver the illusion of a continuous tone image -just like what you see with good 35mm film projection. No visible scan lines. No visible pixel grid. A 1080p native resolution TV monitor (showing native 1080p video) has a superior ability to deliver a sharper, more continuous tone image than a monitor with less than half the native pixel count in its display. Viewers are going to sit varying levels of distance from a TV monitor. Some will not back away at distances of 10' or more from a modestly sized HDTV monitor. Some viewers are going to sit at closer distances than that. Not every living room or TV viewing area is even big enough to accommodate those viewing distances. 1080p allows HD monitors to grow to pretty large sizes while maintaining the illusion of a continuous tone image. 1080p allows a lot more flexibility in viewing distances. You can sit fairly close to the TV and still see what looks like a continuous tone image. If I'm watching something in 720p on my TV set, the pixel grid is more obviously visible -especially when elements like type and graphics are displayed on screen. The pixel grid is far less visible in 1080p.  |  IP: Logged Larry Myers Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: Herndon, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 02-24-2008 01:56 PM                 Another way to look at this. If one moves from 10 ft to 5 ft in viewing an object, then the difference in resolution or what is called "object resolved distance" increases by a factor of two. So if we see a bug on a lamp across the room and want to know what kind of bug it is, we get up from the chair and move towards the bug. If the chair is 10 ft away and we get up from the chair and move to 5 ft to the bug, that bug is now twice the Object Resolved Distance. In other words, the Bug LOOKS twice as big at 5 ft then 10 ft. It's twice as big in the X direction and twice as big in the Y direction. One might say "hey that looks like a spider". Move in to 2.5 ft and the bug is again twice the object resolved distance again. Then one might say "damn that's a spider". The same for a billboard. As we go from 300 ft to 150 ft the billboard gets bigger in both directions by a factor of 2. So if that's the case, a display that has 100000 pixels at 20 ft needs 400000 pixels at 10 ft and 1600000 pixels at 5 ft in order for the display to look exactly the same at all 3 distances. [ 02-24-2008, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 02-24-2008 06:03 PM                        quote: David Stambaugh A 1,920-by-1,080 display would have to measure more than 70 inches diagonally before you start testing your eyes' limits on the display's resolution (at least at 10 feet). That's reeeaally interesting, because I can notice jaggies in 1080i on my 34-inch set from 8-10 feet away.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 02-24-2008 06:11 PM                     Area is confusing, and different people see changes in area in different ways. If I have a 1" square, and then add another 1" square to its right, I have doubled the area (I have two one-inch squares), but I have only doubled the horizontal length, not the horizontal and the vertical. Worrying about numbers for the sake of numbers isn't very useful. I'll just wait for my 2160p monitor so I can display 1080p (x2) and 720p (x3) without scaling artifacts. Can I interest you in some supertweeters? --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 02-24-2008 06:55 PM                        To answer the original question, my wife bought me a Sony BDP S 300 player for my birthday. I hooked it up via HDMI through my Denon processor to my Optoma HD70 projector. Spiderman 3 came with the Sony. It looks and sounds excellent - though we haven't watched the whole movie yet. Standard DVDs look better than they did on the DVD player. The Sony takes about 5 minutes to get going. That is no problem, as we go into our home cinema to watch a movie and, by the time we arrange drinks and phone answering systems, the system is ready. Last movie we watched was Howel's Moving Castle (dvd, dubbed version, belonging to a relative) and it was visually and aurally impressive. Liked the movie too. I think the average Joe would be happy enough with a decent dvd player but Blu-ray players are now about the same price as a high-end dvd player so that is probably what they will replace their good dvd unit with when it plays up.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 02-24-2008 08:59 PM                        Note that I'm not responsible for that earlier quote. Some guy named Geoffrey Morrison wrote it. I'm just saying. Jaggies can be an issue on any display no matter what its resolution or underlying technology (CRT, fixed pixels). Video hardware reviewers take great pains in testing for and reporting on jaggies on even the highest-end hardware. Usually they blame jaggies on bad scalers, not the number of pixels in the display. All this stuff interacts. More pixels isn't necessarily always better. Jaggies can be caused by bad scalers or bad encoding. Viewing distance is relevant to our ability to resolve detail. Everyone thought 2K D-Cinema would have to suck because "it doesn't have enough resolution". I don't recall anyone here who has seen 2K D-Cinema saying it sucks, even people (like myself) who kinda wanted it to suck. Hey, it's complicated!  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-24-2008 10:02 PM                     quote: David Stambaugh Jaggies can be an issue on any display no matter what its resolution or underlying technology (CRT, fixed pixels). That sounds like a matter of poor quality artwork and/or imagery and not a matter of a lower resolution display somehow being better than a higher resolution display. Bringing up the issue of scalers -which implies scaling an image to something other than its original native resolution- is also irrelevant. A very well produced 35mm film image has a lot more native resolution in it than what any HDTV monitor or 2K digital cinema projector can show. A 1080p-based display has the capability of showing more of that original image's detail than a monitor capable of only 720p. quote: Everyone thought 2K D-Cinema would have to suck because "it doesn't have enough resolution". Hey, guess what, I don't recall anyone here saying the 2K material in theaters sucks. 2K does show its limitations with certain subject matter. Things like type, graphics and scrolling end credits can easily reveal the pixel grid of 2K projection even at significant distances from the screen -especially if the digital projector is properly focused. In print graphics, many of those kinds of items are stored as vector-based objects so they can be reproduced at the highest possible resolutions of the output device (image setter, large format printer, etc.). We do that even if the logo or type is floating over a photo with more limited native resolution. Items like graphical/striped patterns in clothing and other objects can be problematic when shown in lower digital image resolution. Moire, shimmering and other common image problems are harder to fight in coarse pixel grids. There's not enough pixels in the hardware to properly resolve the detail and display it properly. If the display hardware has higher hardware resolution those common image issues will be less of a problem.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 02-24-2008 11:23 PM                        quote: David Stambaugh Jaggies can be caused by bad scalers or bad encoding. So my 1080i set is scaling 1080i to 1080i?  |  IP: Logged Scott McGuire Film Handler Posts: 94 From: Elmira, NY/United States Registered: Oct 2007 posted 02-25-2008 01:25 AM                     must be bad encoding or a cheap tv joe  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 02-25-2008 02:09 AM                        Bad encoding on the top Blu-ray movies playing on the much-celebrated Sony KV-34XBR960? Bad encoding on videogames that are, well, NOT encoded at all? Hell, I don't even have 20/20 vision. I think I just notice things which most people don't (or can't). Notice that people in this thread couldn't quite figure out why 120Hz TVs with that motion enhancement looked "different". I think most people are just ignorant. They don't even notice compression artifacts in DVDs. I think the reason for that is that they don't know what to look for.  |  IP: Logged Larry Myers Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: Herndon, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 02-25-2008 07:59 AM                 A change in perspective will change reality. Example. A unruly child is on a bus and everyone is upset. A person sitting across the isle asks the mother why she can't control her child. The mothers says that the reason the child is so upset is his father just died at the hospital 2 hours ago. With the new information, the reality changes on the bus because of the different perspective. Photography works the same way. It's called the Level of Forgiveness or Circle of Confusion.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 02-25-2008 10:57 AM                     |  IP: Logged Mike Heenan Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1896 From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 02-25-2008 11:14 AM                     This would be more appropriate.  |  IP: Logged Scott Jentsch Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1061 From: New Berlin, WI, USA Registered: Apr 2003 posted 02-25-2008 12:09 PM                        Whether it's 720p or 1080p, the big thing is to get people weaned off SD (hereby known as substandard definition.) I have two 720p displays in my setups right now, and while I would like to upgrade to 1080p on at least the 100"-wide front-projection setup, the cost of doing so is an obstacle I have yet to overcome. In no way do I think that the HD experience is compromised, and I would be hard-pressed to say that 1080p is necessary on the 50" diagonal RPTV in my living room. When I bought that set last April, the equivalent 1080p units were at least $400 more, and the price difference wasn't justified for a secondary system that is primarily used for watching television programs and kids' movies. And that's what I think it boils down to: cost of going to 1080p vs. 720p. For a primary display that is 50" diagonal or larger, I recommend to people that the upgrade might be worth it. But appreciating the difference between the two HD resolutions has to be quantified by how much that upgrade is going to cost. Displays are getting better and cheaper very rapidly, so investing a large percentage of the purchase price into an increase in resolution that may not be appreciable may not be wise. If the budget is getting squeezed, I'd rather take that money and put it towards getting source material that was better than broadcast HD. Even though they are pricey, Blu-ray players present movies in a much better experience than HBO and HD VOD are going to. Taking that $12 per month and putting it towards a Netflix or Blockbuster Online subscription is money better spent, and so is skipping 1080p for 720p (within reason, of course) if doing so means that someone can afford getting a Blu-ray player as a result.  |  IP: Logged Larry Myers Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: Herndon, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 02-25-2008 12:09 PM                 Well I did say it was the Circle of Confusion. That CIRCLE could be this thread or then again all this could be  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 105 pages: 1  2  3  ...  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  ...  103  104  105

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.