First, Quick Impression - BR Surprisingly good! - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 12:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kschmit2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 2,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/2...080p0hb.th.jpghttp://img453.imageshack.us/img453/2...080p2zi.th.jpghttp://img423.imageshack.us/img423/2...080p1eh.th.jpghttp://img423.imageshack.us/img423/6...080p9px.th.jpghttp://img409.imageshack.us/img409/4...080p4yi.th.jpghttp://img409.imageshack.us/img409/4...080p0zz.th.jpg
kschmit2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 12:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kschmit2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 2,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/3...080p0gi.th.jpghttp://img504.imageshack.us/img504/2...080p1qn.th.jpghttp://img504.imageshack.us/img504/1...080p3si.th.jpghttp://img504.imageshack.us/img504/8...080p8xp.th.jpghttp://img328.imageshack.us/img328/4...080p3sc.th.jpghttp://img328.imageshack.us/img328/7...080p9xs.th.jpg
kschmit2 is offline  
post #95 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 12:43 PM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,764
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by kschmit2
At least comparing this screenshot, as ineffective as that may be, it's no contest. Who is your source for HBO?
CPanther95 is offline  
post #96 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 12:56 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,097
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2
Have you actually compared them? If not, I wonder about your motivation. A group of us (including a couple of people who many around here would consider video experts or close to it) compared the HBO-HD version of T5E playing in the HD DVD player to the BD playing in the BluRay player to the same input on a 1080p Sony Ruby (VW100). There was nobody there who didn't think the HBO version looked better. For instance, there was quite a bit of detail missing in faces with the BD version.

If you've actually seen both versions of T5E and compared them I would like to hear why you believe the BD version is clearly superior and if you haven't then I wonder why you made that statement.

--Darin
No, I had said earlier that I did NOT see T5E on HBO - I was responding to some blanket statement here on this forum that ANY cable HD was better than BluRay HD. That's not true from my perspective.
thrang is offline  
post #97 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 01:05 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,097
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95
At least comparing this screenshot, as ineffective as that may be, it's no contest. Who is your source for HBO?
My cable provider is Cablevision in northern NJ

I don't know what the contest was. I wasn't posting the images to say that T5E on BR was better than on other sources - I've said I had not seen those sources.

The point of my original post was the BR was NOT anywhere nearly as bad as all the naysayers here, and is arguably on par with HD-DVD (at this early juncture for me - more viewing and more titles will flesh that POV out) - and the point of posting the images was to give some crude conveyance that there weren't all these horrific, unwatchable artifacts. That's not true, at least not through my 1080p upscaling JVC 70" D-ILA.
thrang is offline  
post #98 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 01:17 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,097
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew P
I do agree that Blu Ray is not crap, but it does not compare to HD DVD at this time. It may in the future, but anything else is clearly misleading. You may not notice the difference and that is perfectly fine, but there is a difference that ranges from small to major dependin upon the disc.

Just because you cant tell the difference does not mean that there isnt a difference. For example, audio. I am not an audio person. If you played me CD and SACD I may not be able to tell, but clearly to the audio experts one sounds better. Same logic applies here.
It's not misleading - its his opinion, mine, and it seems as more people post, others as well.

I wonder how much the different displays (brands/technologies) are factoring into these different opinions? Someone posted here they are using a 50 inch commercial Panny... I have a 50" Panny Onxy with a 1366 native res...after getting the JVC D-ILA, I can barely watch that set anymore - the apparent PQ of all my sources is so much better on the JVC. Different sets do different things with signals too, right? So, in a certain sense, maybe NOBODY here is wrong, as long as they shooting straight and not with a hidden agenda. I have a discrminiating eye, I know what I'm seeing with both technologies, and the success of one or the other is really immaterial to me.
thrang is offline  
post #99 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 01:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AV Doogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 2,253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang
I wonder how much the different displays (brands/technologies) are factoring into these different opinions?

Probably more than you think. I don't know many people who have ever had a professional calibration of their projector/television. Without proper calibration, how do you know that you are getting the best possible picture from the unit?

My Home Theater Site:

DJ-Theater
AV Doogie is offline  
post #100 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 01:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FrantzM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Southeast FL, USA
Posts: 2,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi

I have not yet seen the BR, but am by now very familiar with HDDVD and so far it is the best source of HD I have seen, the second one is the D-VHS...

Just curious, Could the differences due to the CODECS? ... I am under the impression that HD DVD uses a different (better) CODEC.

Frantz
FrantzM is offline  
post #101 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 01:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Andrew P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,594
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang
It's not misleading - its his opinion, mine, and it seems as more people post, others as well.

I wonder how much the different displays (brands/technologies) are factoring into these different opinions? Someone posted here they are using a 50 inch commercial Panny... I have a 50" Panny Onxy with a 1366 native res...after getting the JVC D-ILA, I can barely watch that set anymore - the apparent PQ of all my sources is so much better on the JVC. Different sets do different things with signals too, right? So, in a certain sense, maybe NOBODY here is wrong, as long as they shooting straight and not with a hidden agenda. I have a discrminiating eye, I know what I'm seeing with both technologies, and the success of one or the other is really immaterial to me.
I have a Sony Ruby conencted via HDMI. I have a discriminating eye too and I can clearly see the problems with BD as do 90-95% of the people reviewing these discs. Im not sure why you cant see these deficiences, but to each his own.
Andrew P is offline  
post #102 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 01:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Andrew P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,594
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang
The point of my original post was the BR was NOT anywhere nearly as bad as all the naysayers here, and is arguably on par with HD-DVD (at this early juncture for me - more viewing and more titles will flesh that POV out) - and the point of posting the images was to give some crude conveyance that there weren't all these horrific, unwatchable artifacts. That's not true, at least not through my 1080p upscaling JVC 70" D-ILA.
The BD Fifth Element is that bad! In fact, quality and this transfer do not belong in the same sentence. This BD is closer to the SD Superbit version than anywhere near the same quality as reference HD.
Andrew P is offline  
post #103 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 01:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Penton-Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,758
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
First, let me say Ray that this was a great post. Good observation of what is going on. And part of the problem of using MPEG-2 for HD. Let me explain.

MPEG-2 simply does not have the efficiency for the application being used. That is, even ATSC at 19 Mbit/sec (CBR) does not have enough headroom to allow difficult camera pans to be reproduced artifact free or even close to it. MPEG-2 doesn't really become transparent until you are well into 30+ Mbit/sec.
Geez, Amir…..the mileage seems to vary every two months.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ly#post7449289

How much will it be in August ?

Perhaps Ben should have said “somewhere north of 25â€.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...mm#post7445860

thrang, I'm amazed you're still here and not at a Yankess or Mets game. My God you've got staying power.
Penton-Man is offline  
post #104 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 02:07 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,097
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penton-Man
Geez, Amir…..the mileage seems to vary every two months.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ly#post7449289

How much will it be in August ?

Perhaps Ben should have said “somewhere north of 25â€.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...mm#post7445860

thrang, I'm amazed you're still here and not at a Yankess or Mets game. My God you've got staying power.
I'm heading to my mother's soon for her world famous meatloaf, so I will be out of here within the hour :)

I wonder if by discriminating, others mean they have their eyeballs pressed up against their screens analyzing errant pixels? I'm not that discriminating, since it's a meaningless exercise. I can't imagine Star Wars in 70 MM at a THX theater looks very good from three feet away either (and having said that, there is no macroblocking evident from even a foot away watching T5E on my JVC. There are dust and film defects, yes - but that's a transfer issue, not a codec/technology issue)

The bottom line is T5E looks like a number of HD-DVD titles - better than several. worse than several. But an abomination like some would lead you to believe? Sorry, there's something else at work here then if there is a forceful insistance that that's the case...
thrang is offline  
post #105 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 02:14 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,097
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew P
The BD Fifth Element is that bad! In fact, quality and this transfer do not belong in the same sentence. This BD is closer to the SD Superbit version than anywhere near the same quality as reference HD.
There are numerous dust and film marks, yes. But the overall PQ from a resolution/color fidelty perspective is comparable to numerous HD-DVD titles. I don't care about the DVHS version, or HD broadcast, or masters, or whatever. That's a different, and certainly valid discussion, but not the point of my thread.
thrang is offline  
post #106 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 02:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Penton-Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,758
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang
As an aside - I'm nominating T2 as the most "repurchased" title in our collections...between LaserDisc, DVD, D-VHS, and now BluRay (and all the special and ultimate edition versions therin), I feel I've invested as much in this film as Carolco did...
That should make Cameron happy :) (collecting on T2 royalties) in his quest to save Hollywood from declining sales and rampant piracy………………

http://research.techkwondo.com/blog/julian/211
Penton-Man is offline  
post #107 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 02:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Andrew P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,594
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang
There are numerous dust and film marks, yes. But the overall PQ from a resolution/color fidelty perspective is comparable to numerous HD-DVD titles. I don't care about the DVHS version, or HD broadcast, or masters, or whatever. That's a different, and certainly valid discussion, but not the point of my thread.
We will have to agree to disagree, because TFE looks closer to SD than HD in almost all areas in my humble opinion. Sony should be ashamed that they released this disc.

I am not blaming BD nor do I think BD will fail because the first 4 titles are atrocious, but I cannot agree with TFE BD resembling anything close to HD in any way, shape, or form.
Andrew P is offline  
post #108 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 02:32 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,097
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew P
We will have to agree to disagree, because TFE looks closer to SD than HD in almost all areas in my humble opinion. Sony should be ashamed that they released this disc.

I am not blaming BD nor do I think BD will fail because the first 4 titles are atrocious, but I cannot agree with TFE BD resembling anything close to HD in any way, shape, or form.

Here's where I cannot understand something - you trash all 4 titles, when more than a few people have said The Terminator looks suprisingly good for it's age and low budget, and that Underworld looks VERY good (haven't watched it yet, so I won't include myself in that assessment). You want to state it like it's fact.
thrang is offline  
post #109 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 02:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Andrew P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,594
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang
Here's where I cannot understand something - you trash all 4 titles, when more than a few people have said The Terminator looks suprisingly good for it's age and low budget, and that Underworld looks VERY good (haven't watched it yet, so I won't include myself in that assessment). You want to state it like it's fact.
Those titles look good compared to the other BD titles not reference HD. If someone sets the bar at '0' I cannot them credit for getting higher than that. That is how I look at it though and once again this is all my opinion (im not sure if this has been clear or not, but my opinion is definitely not fact) :)

Maybe I am overly tough?
Andrew P is offline  
post #110 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 03:05 PM
Member
 
Doyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Unless Samsung, Sony, and all the other members of the BD camp work in secret and independently of each other they have been aware of problems with software and/or hardware for some time as they built up inventory. But, they still chose to release today instead of addressing these problems.

This may be why it is next to impossible to do a side by side comparison of HD-DVD and BD in store. If a prospective buyer without much previous knowlege were to do a direct comparison he might find it hard to justify the higher cost of BD.

After reading other posts about the tactics used by Best Buy to discourage HD-DVD sales in anticipation of this launch and the speculation that Sony is behind these tactics it seems even more clear that the BD camp is aware of these problems. Obviously they think the average consumer is enough of an idiot that the release of an inferior product, whatever the reason, makes good business sense.
Doyle is offline  
post #111 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 06:10 PM
Member
 
friedman232's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Doogie
Probably more than you think. I don't know many people who have ever had a professional calibration of their projector/television. Without proper calibration, how do you know that you are getting the best possible picture from the unit?
I'm so glad to hear viewing sources being called into play here. Considering how discriminating folks are here, I'm amazed that there is seemingly so little interest in hearing what model (or even size screen!) folks are viewing on.

Quick analogy...seems like we're arguing about which set of tires is best but one is on a porsche and the other is on a honda.

Note 1: I'm not picking sides...just curious if anyone else feels similarly?
Note 2: clearly anyone that is reviewing both HD-DVD and BD on the exact same set is immune from my observation/point. (course even that is a bit tough since we don't have same titles on both)

Ben Friedman
ben@ben.org
friedman232 is offline  
post #112 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 06:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mikeewing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ewing Twp, NJ
Posts: 1,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
I like the fact that we are now reading real world postings from folks who are evaluating both systems at home side by side. It sounds like Blu-ray is not as bad as initial postings would indicate.

However, what scares me is that we may see history repeat itself, as in Beta vs. VHS. Beta was better tech, but we all know howthat turned out...
mikeewing is offline  
post #113 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 07:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
Wesley5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 656
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks to Thrang, Plazman, and kschmit2 for taking time to post screen shots and HD capture.

Instead of debating a rather subjective matter with just words, why don't we all focus on something more tangible, these pictures. After checking them out carefully, it's rather clear to me that BD 5E is clother to SD rather than HBO HD, even taking into consideration that BD pictures were taken with a camera, not a direct screen capture. Looking at these face shots, and how much more details are there in HBO HD.

I suppose Thrang's standard of great picture is obviously different from most people here. Again, BD movies can be great, just not matching the standard set by HD DVD, in the case of 5F, not even matching HBO HD.

Thrang, it would be more helpful if you can post higher resolution of pictures you took, I would say at 2 megapixels to match 1080p.
Wesley5 is offline  
post #114 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 08:13 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,097
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 119
I just finished watching Underworld - the PQ is OUTSTANDING. As good as Serenity, better than Bourne. Perhaps even better than Serenity, since Underworld seems to exhibit greater dynamic range and color, but that could simply be intended differences as to the look of each film by each director.

What do people who don't like BR "see" or don't see? For example, Underworld:

- was extremely sharp without any ringing/edge enhancement
- exhibited virtually no pixelation/macroblocking, even looking at the screen from a foot away.
- exhibited no compression/gradation aritifacts
- exhibited no break up/shudder during fast pans.
- exhibited rich color without over saturation
- exhibited great detail from highlight to shadow
- maintained excellent black level througout.

A fews scenes were mildly softer (the lovemaking scene in the middle for example), and I experienced one brief audio drop out a the end of that scene. But that's it. The film itself seems to have been shot with a very low grain stock, which helps elevate it beyond T5E and The Terminator PQ as well.

Enough of this mickey mouse elitist pontificating implying "pedestrian" standards if you like BR - my standards are extremely high. I like HD-DVD very much as well, but the commentary here my several regarding BR is beyond objective - people are saying no BR title is better than FMJ (or The Fugitive for that matter?)? It's already been posted that FMJ and some other titles suffered from a mistake/poor decision during the transfer process that has resulted in some realllt subpar HD-DVD PQ.

If anyone wants to drive to Wyckoff NJ and is serious about seeing what I'm talking about, PM me. And it would help if people remember the original intent of this thread.

Thanks


PS - and the meatloaf was GREAT!
thrang is offline  
post #115 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 08:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,053
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 283 Post(s)
Liked: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang
T5E and the first 15 minutes of The Terminator are clearly superior to HD HBO, at least as presented by Cablevision on my SciAtl 8300 HD DVR box in NJ. For people to start making this claim...I'm REALLY beginning to wonder about the motivations here...
Well you'd have to question the motivations of long-time Blu-Ray supporters on this forum who, upon seeing the picture first-hand, were seriously disapponted. You'd also have to question the motivation of a number of outside reviewers and many others. Having seen the demo material myself twice, you can add me to that list too. No, I don't think there's any "motivation" other than people being very disappointed by sub-standard picture quality for a format that's gotten hype like no other I can recall.

In fact, most here are actually questioning the 'motivation' of some 'professional' reviewers that 'refuse' to discuss BD picture quality on their sample units because of the "early stage of BR". Of course these same reviewers had no problem commenting on the Toshiba at the same early stage of release.

But I'm seriously happy you're enjoying your unit. I sincerely hope this format can improve.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #116 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 08:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Andrew P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,594
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang
I just finished watching Underworld - the PQ is OUTSTANDING. As good as Serenity, better than Bourne. Perhaps even better than Serenity, since Underworld seems to exhibit greater dynamic range and color, but that could simply be intended differences as to the look of each film by each director.

What do people who don't like BR "see" or don't see? For example, Underworld:

- was extremely sharp without any ringing/edge enhancement
- exhibited virtually no pixelation/macroblocking, even looking at the screen from a foot away.
- exhibited no compression/gradation aritifacts
- exhibited no break up/shudder during fast pans.
- exhibited rich color without over saturation
- exhibited great detail from highlight to shadow
- maintained excellent black level througout.

A fews scenes were mildly softer (the lovemaking scene in the middle for example), and I experienced one brief audio drop out a the end of that scene. But that's it. The film itself seems to have been shot with a very low grain stock, which helps elevate it beyond T5E and The Terminator PQ as well.

Enough of this mickey mouse elitist pontificating implying "pedestrian" standards if you like BR - my standards are extremely high. I like HD-DVD very much as well, but the commentary here my several regarding BR is beyond objective - people are saying no BR title is better than FMJ (or The Fugitive for that matter?)? It's already been posted that FMJ and some other titles suffered from a mistake/poor decision during the transfer process that has resulted in some realllt subpar HD-DVD PQ.

If anyone wants to drive to Wyckoff NJ and is serious about seeing what I'm talking about, PM me. And it would help if people remember the original intent of this thread.

Thanks
PS - and the meatloaf was GREAT!
You lose all credibility by making your statements about The Fifth Element. You are definitely happy with your purchase and I am happy for you. I just expect more from HD and that includes your commentary on Underworld of which I still disagree (it looks better than the other 3 BD titles, but once again it is not reference quality.)
Andrew P is offline  
post #117 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 08:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,053
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 283 Post(s)
Liked: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitz6speed
thrang

Wonderful thread. I just read the whole thing, and i knew from the start that a lot of people just want BR gone in fear of having a 500 dollar paperweight, so i didnt beleive a lot of the reviews as well. You arent the first person ive seen say T5E looks good, and the amazing backlash of it is now truely comming into light. Thanks also to the other posters who've seen how good BR actually looks. I still have to go see BR in action, been so busy havent had a chance to go see for myself. But again, i enjoyed everything you've wrote and please, post those pics up!
I'm not sure why you'd dismiss the posts of the overwhelming majority of people (many many of them Blu-Ray supporters) and reviewers because one or two people differ with the conventional wisdom. But each to his own.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #118 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 08:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,053
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 283 Post(s)
Liked: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang
I've posted some Samsung screen captures at:

http://web.mac.com/gbastug/iWeb/AV/BluRay%201.html

I'll reprint my preface from the web page:

"The process of shooting screen images with a camera is fraught with many opportunities for degradation, including blowouts of highlights and clogging of shadows, loss of detail, motion blur on freeze frames, color inaccuracy, vignetting, jpeg compression, etc. Still, for those that can “subtract†those factors, these images may help a bit in understanding why I was very surprised about all the BluRay bashing. The “real†quality is appreciably better than these capture. The light dropoff toward the top is due to the close proximity of the camera to the screen.

Images were shot on a Canon 5D, RAW, 50 mm lens about 6 feet from the screen - no post processing other than cropping. The close proximity of the camera to the screen artificially emphasizes the natural film grain and the one detriment of the JVC D-ILA - the screen door effect."

Greg
Having posted screen shots from my plasma a few years ago, I know the issues involved in getting an accurate representation with a digital camera. However, with that said, I surely hope there is a quantum difference in what I'm seeing in these shots and what you're seeing on-screen. To me these shots continue to support the majority consensus.

BTW, you might want to try putting the Samsung in freeze frame for your shots to rule out any motion blur. The lack of sharpness in almost all these shots may be due to that.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #119 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 08:34 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,097
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew P
You lose all credibility by making your statements about The Fifth Element. You are definitely happy with your purchase and I am happy for you. I just expect more from HD and that includes your commentary on Underworld of which I still disagree (it looks better than the other 3 BD titles, but once again it is not reference quality.)
What aspect of my last comment about T5E causes me to "lose credibility?"

When did I ever say anything on either platform was reference quality?

By "disagreeing" with my assessment of Underword, are you saying you saw one or more of the artifacts in my list that are absent from my experience? Or you don't believe my statemements?
thrang is offline  
post #120 of 165 Old 06-25-2006, 08:38 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,097
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross
Having posted screen shots from my plasma a few years ago, I know the issues involved in getting an accurate representation with a digital camera. However, with that said, I surely hope there is a quantum difference in what I'm seeing in these shots and what you're seeing on-screen. To me these shots continue to support the majority consensus.

BTW, you might want to try putting the Samsung in freeze frame for your shots to rule out any motion blur. The lack of sharpness in almost all these shots may be due to that.

There is a major difference - I'm just not sure how to best capture it. If by freeze frame you mean pause, I am doing that. But with a lot of action, you're freezing blur.

What did you find was the best method for capturing? Should I position the camera further back, at the seating area, and zoom in the fill frame? I have some excellent quality Canon L zooms - my inital posts were done with the Canon 1.4 prime at about 5 to 6 feet from the screen
thrang is offline  
Closed Thread Blu-ray Players

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off