New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CES 2013 - Page 11  

post #301 of 412
1/12/13 at 8:53pm
I dunno about you guys, but I for one can't wait to hear these magnetic fluid speakers in action for myself. I wouldn't personally use them if I could afford a set like these high end XBRs, but I have to imagine the tech will trickle down to the other TV lines in the coming years.

I do wonder if the maginetic fluid tech can be used in smaller devices like phones and tablets, and if it can I wonder how much it'd be an improvement over current tech, if any.

AVS Top Picks

post #302 of 412
1/12/13 at 9:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

I miss the classy look of the XBR2-5, I still regret not getting one even though they are quite out dated.
I would agree with you until I saw them up close. The clear border is too thick, and I seem to remember it being perspex instead of glass? It's an older style LCD with an inset panel, and a black plastic frame. They look great at a distance though, and I still think a silver TV design can look good.

Didn't like the design once they switched to a black bezel, and I'm not sure I liked the gun metal bezel any better. They're all models from LCD's infancy when image quality was crap though, and one of the first models where uniformity started to get really bad. (a new generation of Samsung panels I think) That's the case with most Sony designs though. I think they tend to get it right the first time, move those designers onto the next big redesign, and just have some less important designers iterate on it for the next couple of years until that's ready.

I still really like the original monolithic design aesthetic, though I am somewhat biased. They spent a lot of time getting the proportions right there, and I feel it was a mistake to make the bezel thinner simply because they could, once they introduced Gorilla Glass. The sets were definitely less distinctive as being a Sony set at a glance, compared to a lot of their older designs, but when you get up close to them, you start noticing the attention to detail that went into them, such as the front glass being inset into a black aluminum frame, rather than just having a flat pane of glass over the entire front of the display. The glass being bonded to the LCD panel, rather than just overlaid etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoozthatat View Post

I'm aware how many people use TV speakers, and I guess excessive was poor wordage, I should've said clunky.
I think what you mean to say is that you would rather they didn't have speakers. I think they are better integrated into the design of the set than pretty much any flat panel before it.

sony-4k-56-inch5cokr.jpg

Something I did not even realize until I saw this picture:
sony_ces_2013_4k_ultr7jrmr.jpg

When you watch letterboxed content (i.e. the majority of films) the image is framed nicely with an equally-sized bezel all around the edge of the image, rather than just making the picture look short.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoozthatat View Post

What I was saying that I guarantee an individual who's spending 20-25k on an FP, is not using garbage TV speakers.
Again, I think you would be surprised at how few people will be using even high-end flat panels with external speakers (especially a surround setup) and I was not aware that pricing had been announced for the X9000A range.

In fact, I would expect someone that is spending that much on a flat panel display to be more conscious of design, than someone that is happy to fill their room with speakers around a TV. Most people just don't bother with that unless they are building a dedicated theater room with a projector. (most people will not be visiting sites like this either)

A television is not the center of a home theater setup, no matter how high end it is - that's what projectors are for. Though I suppose you are maybe starting to enter that territory with the 84" model.
post #303 of 412
1/12/13 at 9:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

I would agree with you until I saw them up close. The clear border is too thick, and I seem to remember it being perspex instead of glass? It's an older style LCD with an inset panel, and a black plastic frame. They look great at a distance though, and I still think a silver TV design can look good.

Didn't like the design once they switched to a black bezel, and I'm not sure I liked the gun metal bezel any better. They're all models from LCD's infancy when image quality was crap though, and one of the first models where uniformity started to get really bad. (a new generation of Samsung panels I think) That's the case with most Sony designs though. I think they tend to get it right the first time, move those designers onto the next big redesign, and just have some less important designers iterate on it for the next couple of years until that's ready.

I still really like the original monolithic design aesthetic, though I am somewhat biased. They spent a lot of time getting the proportions right there, and I feel it was a mistake to make the bezel thinner simply because they could, once they introduced Gorilla Glass. The sets were definitely less distinctive as being a Sony set at a glance, compared to a lot of their older designs, but when you get up close to them, you start noticing the attention to detail that went into them, such as the front glass being inset into a black aluminum frame, rather than just having a flat pane of glass over the entire front of the display. The glass being bonded to the LCD panel, rather than just overlaid etc.
I think what you mean to say is that you would rather they didn't have speakers. I think they are better integrated into the design of the set than pretty much any flat panel before it.

sony-4k-56-inch5cokr.jpg

Something I did not even realize until I saw this picture:
sony_ces_2013_4k_ultr7jrmr.jpg

When you watch letterboxed content (i.e. the majority of films) the image is framed nicely with an equally-sized bezel all around the edge of the image, rather than just making the picture look short.
Again, I think you would be surprised at how few people will be using even high-end flat panels with external speakers (especially a surround setup) and I was not aware that pricing had been announced for the X9000A range.

In fact, I would expect someone that is spending that much on a flat panel display to be more conscious of design, than someone that is happy to fill their room with speakers around a TV. Most people just don't bother with that unless they are building a dedicated theater room with a projector. (most people will not be visiting sites like this either)

A television is not the center of a home theater setup, no matter how high end it is - that's what projectors are for. Though I suppose you are maybe starting to enter that territory with the 84" model.

No, I applaud Sony for the quality speakers they're integrating into their 25k TV.
So groundbreaking.
post #304 of 412
1/12/13 at 9:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoozthatat View Post

No, I applaud Sony for the quality speakers they're integrating into their 25k TV.
So groundbreaking.
Who said they were groundbreaking, and where are you seeing a $25K price?
post #305 of 412
1/12/13 at 9:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Who said they were groundbreaking, and where are you seeing a $25K price?

Nobody directly said "groundbreaking" that was my interpretation of the marketing. But there has been the montra that they're something spectacular, which who knows, they very well may be. But regardless, they're still inadequate, cheap, TV speakers. Don't tout it. Nobody is buying these FP's because of the speakers, so focus less on that and more on price.

And the 25k price is from here:
http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&identifier=S_4KTV

Now granted this is for the 84", but still, the prices for the other size options will still be astronomical.
post #306 of 412
1/12/13 at 10:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoozthatat View Post

Nobody directly said "groundbreaking" that was my interpretation of the marketing. But there has been the montra that they're something spectacular, which who knows, they very well may be. But regardless, they're still inadequate, cheap, TV speakers. Don't tout it. Nobody is buying these FP's because of the speakers, so focus less on that and more on price.

And the 25k price is from here:
http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&identifier=S_4KTV

Now granted this is for the 84", but still, the prices for the other size options will still be astronomical.


Well at least with the 84" set the speakers are removable. I prefer that Sony give customers a quality option if they should choose to use the TV speakers, but also give them the option to remove them if they wish to use a seperate audio system. Of course that works out better for that set since it's so relatively thick. The 55" and 65" sets appear to be as thin as current gen 55" and 65" LED sets so designing removable speakers would likely be more troublesome. I do have to wonder just how visible those speakers are in normal room lighting conditions. I'd imagine they're invisible on the bezel in a darkened room and barely noticable in a medium lit room. Really, I can't wait to hear how they sound. The 84" TVs speakers were amazingly good when I had a chance to hear 'em and were by far the best TV speakers I've ever heard.
post #307 of 412
1/12/13 at 10:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by vivftp View Post

Well at least with the 84" set the speakers are removable. I prefer that Sony give customers a quality option if they should choose to use the TV speakers, but also give them the option to remove them if they wish to use a seperate audio system. Of course that works out better for that set since it's so relatively thick. The 55" and 65" sets appear to be as thin as current gen 55" and 65" LED sets so designing removable speakers would likely be more troublesome. I do have to wonder just how visible those speakers are in normal room lighting conditions. I'd imagine they're invisible on the bezel in a darkened room and barely noticable in a medium lit room. Really, I can't wait to hear how they sound. The 84" TVs speakers were amazingly good when I had a chance to hear 'em and were by far the best TV speakers I've ever heard.

I don't doubt they sound good, for TV speakers.

All I'm saying is that I feel as though its comical that both Sony and Samsung are putting emphasis on these speaker arrays.
post #308 of 412
1/12/13 at 10:20pm
It's comical that companies are emphasizing improvements on their devices??? ... riiiiiight

I know what you're point is, but imagine the backlash if these companies had put either subpar or no audio systems on these TVs! To laugh at somone because they're trying to do something better is silly. Now if the implementation is crap to you, then yeah laugh away. *CoughSamsung85"Cough*

Of course whether the newer Sony 4K sets look good with those speakers is subjective, just like pretty much everything else. I personally find them to look interesting and if their audio quality is anything similar to the speakers on the 84", they'll wind up being some of the best onboard speakers on any TV. Good on Sony for attempting to make an overall better package.
post #309 of 412
1/12/13 at 10:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by vivftp View Post

It's comical that companies are emphasizing improvements on their devices??? ... riiiiiight

I know what you're point is, but imagine the backlash if these companies had put either subpar or no audio systems on these TVs! To laugh at somone because they're trying to do something better is silly. Now if the implementation is crap to you, then yeah laugh away. *CoughSamsung85"Cough*

Of course whether the newer Sony 4K sets look good with those speakers is subjective, just like pretty much everything else. I personally find them to look interesting and if their audio quality is anything similar to the speakers on the 84", they'll wind up being some of the best onboard speakers on any TV. Good on Sony for attempting to make an overall better package.

Again I'm not bashing Samsung or Sony for their improvements.
I just believe that there is literally not a single person who is considering buying a 4K TV today, or in the near future, and is actually factoring in the audio performance of that FP before they buy.

However they might be considering chalk-based arts upon seeing the Samsung S9.
post #310 of 412
1/12/13 at 11:16pm
Since we're on the topic of magnetic fluid speakers, anyone had a chance to really test 'em out to hear how they compare to more conventional designs? It's nice that they're thinner, but do they actually sound any better?
post #311 of 412
1/13/13 at 7:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoozthatat View Post

Again I'm not bashing Samsung or Sony for their improvements.
I just believe that there is literally not a single person who is considering buying a 4K TV today, or in the near future, and is actually factoring in the audio performance of that FP before they buy.

However they might be considering chalk-based arts upon seeing the Samsung S9.

I could see young kids pulling out paint and putting a smiley face on it while you're asleep.
post #312 of 412
1/13/13 at 7:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoozthatat View Post

I also like how both Samsung and Sony have created these "innovative" new designs for their 4K displays, Samsung packs some speakers into that god awful chalkboard frame, and Sony adds these excessive speakers on the sides of their unit.

As if anyone, anyone, who will presumably own one of these FP's isn't going to have an external audio system. I'm sure these would be owners are going to just use the TV speakers.

Sony's design is certainly better looking than the Samsung easel. With that said, I think Sony would have been much smarter to have made a detachable design for those that will be using external systems. I know they probably didn't want to destroy the seamless look, but still, this may detract some buyers who will simply never use the speakers.
post #313 of 412
1/13/13 at 8:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Well, two things here Ken.

1) Samsung spent a lot of oxygen and decibels at CES telling the world how freaking beautiful the stand is. It was the inverse of listening to someone tell me how ugly Miranda Kerr is for like 20 minutes... Like I was in a parallel universe where up is down, ugly is beautiful and beautiful is ugly.

2) The frame of the TV is quite morbidly obese. It was designed for the stand. It will likely be wall mountable, but it's going to be tricky to get that right and you're going to want a purpose-built flush mount or else it's going to be about 6" from the wall. Samsung seems unlikely to provide that and the low volume might make it tricky to get what you want from a 3rd party.

It's all moot, if you want a huge 4K set, there will be other options, at least two of which are for sale today and there are likely at least 2 others coming to the U.S. this year.

Good points Mark, but $20,000-$25,000 for one of those other currently available displays is a bit rich for my blood. At some point you have to draw the line.

I'm exploring my options for a larger screen display at our new place and just don't know if this is the time to go 4K. I'm still seriously considering the 70" Elite (seemingly no longer considered a 'large screen' display wink.gif), but there's always the nagging issue of do you want to spend significant dollars for a 2K display when 4K is not that far off. Yes, it will be quite awhile before there's any significant 4K content and I still question how upscaled 2K content looks on a 4K display relative to pixel to pixel matching of a 2K display. Intellectually, I have difficulty grasping how that upscaled 2K picture will look 'better' on a 4K display than a 2K display.

Further, and more importantly, I've yet to be convinced that at typical viewing distances there will be much of a difference between 4K and 2K...at least in screen sizes below perhaps 80". Even my encounters with the 84" Sony did little to dissuade me from that line of reasoning. Certainly at closer than typical distances the display was absolutely awesome, yet I still have no idea as to how good the black levels are.

Things might clarify a bit over the coming months, we shall see.
post #314 of 412
1/13/13 at 8:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo 
They were pretty insistent at Samsung that it was full array local dimming.
HD Guru decided to change to full array local dimming, but will ''fact check'' one more time with Samsung on monday .
post #315 of 412
1/13/13 at 8:23am
How come no one seems overjoyed at the increased embracing of passive by such active-mainstays as Samsung? I find this a very positive step!
post #316 of 412
1/13/13 at 10:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

How come no one seems overjoyed at the increased embracing of passive by such active-mainstays as Samsung? I find this a very positive step!
With 4K, passive makes much more sense. Active 3D has a lot of drawbacks, but it is better than 540p. Passive 4K is 3840x1080, which is much more acceptable, and better than active 3D's drawbacks.
post #317 of 412
1/13/13 at 10:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

With 4K, passive makes much more sense. Active 3D has a lot of drawbacks, but it is better than 540p. Passive 4K is 3840x1080, which is much more acceptable, and better than active 3D's drawbacks.
Indeed, I believe this to be one of a handful of "good" reasons to get a 4K TV.
post #318 of 412
1/13/13 at 11:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Good points Mark, but $20,000-$25,000 for one of those other currently available displays is a bit rich for my blood. At some point you have to draw the line.

I'm exploring my options for a larger screen display at our new place and just don't know if this is the time to go 4K. I'm still seriously considering the 70" Elite (seemingly no longer considered a 'large screen' display wink.gif), but there's always the nagging issue of do you want to spend significant dollars for a 2K display when 4K is not that far off. Yes, it will be quite awhile before there's any significant 4K content and I still question how upscaled 2K content looks on a 4K display relative to pixel to pixel matching of a 2K display. Intellectually, I have difficulty grasping how that upscaled 2K picture will look 'better' on a 4K display than a 2K display.

Further, and more importantly, I've yet to be convinced that at typical viewing distances there will be much of a difference between 4K and 2K...at least in screen sizes below perhaps 80". Even my encounters with the 84" Sony did little to dissuade me from that line of reasoning. Certainly at closer than typical distances the display was absolutely awesome, yet I still have no idea as to how good the black levels are.

I just can't reconcile buying the Elite at all, unless you are convinced you are keeping it for the next 10 years. But then, I'm sitting here having returned from CES, talking with a lot of random people about TVs. Not one of them I chatted with didn't share my feelings that buying low at this point (but still buying good) was a better choice. Either we're going to get OLED or 4K in the next few years -- perhaps both -- and there are clear advantages. The Elite to me is offering the same excellent picture it has been, but at a price that still remains kind of "out there" without the future proofing I'd demand north of $5000. But YMMV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esox50 View Post

Indeed, I believe this to be one of a handful of "good" reasons to get a 4K TV.

Yes, passive 3-D is pretty compelling. But then, so is the resolution itself once you see it. We had this debate back in the 480/720/1080 days. There exists a distance where you can't really "see" the resolution, yet the higher resolution TV still looks clearly better. I'm not sure what's going on there. but it's obvious.

What's strange about AVSers is that when there is this thing that looks clearly better, they spend a lot of time and energy explaining why since it "can't" be doing that at this or that distance, we ought to disregard it. Yet it's doing it.

I draw a distinction here between things like "expanded color gamuts" that are irrelevant to source material that won't access them (because they are encoded for the real 709 gamut) and things that you can actually witness. I mean, look, the farther back you go, the less amazing the 4K is -- but it's still better.

Maybe on a 60-inch, that wouldn't interest me at all (although in a few years, every decent 60 inch will have 4K anyway) for a price premium. But above that, I'm not going to try to rationalize why I don't need it; I'm going to debate whether the price/performance is there and decide whether I'm buying a TV for 2-3 years or 6-8.

Whatever TV you buy today, if you are planning on having it around 2020 and it's not going to be 4K, well that TV is most certainly going to be "obsolete" for any enthusiast. It will work, it will look as good as it does today perhaps, but it will be "obsolete".
post #319 of 412
1/13/13 at 12:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

What's strange about AVSers is that when there is this thing that looks clearly better, they spend a lot of time and energy explaining why since it "can't" be doing that at this or that distance, we ought to disregard it. Yet it's doing it.
I'm glad to hear you say this, as I have been pushing that opinion for a while now (that 4K will show a clear benefit, far beyond what many sources claim) and it's nice to have it backed up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I draw a distinction here between things like "expanded color gamuts" that are irrelevant to source material that won't access them (because they are encoded for the real 709 gamut) and things that you can actually witness. I mean, look, the farther back you go, the less amazing the 4K is -- but it's still better.
For what it's worth, I'm hearing that the "Mastered for 4K" line of Blu-rays that Sony is putting out, are apparently also mastered to use the wider BT.2020 gamut that their new Triluminos LCDs (and Panasonic's ZT60) can display.

It's also interesting to think that any other 4K display on the market is actually going to be outdated once 4K content is widely available, as they have the same limited gamuts of any other White LED display. (fine for BT.709, inadequate for BT.2020)
post #320 of 412
1/13/13 at 5:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I just can't reconcile buying the Elite at all, unless you are convinced you are keeping it for the next 10 years. But then, I'm sitting here having returned from CES, talking with a lot of random people about TVs. Not one of them I chatted with didn't share my feelings that buying low at this point (but still buying good) was a better choice. Either we're going to get OLED or 4K in the next few years -- perhaps both -- and there are clear advantages. The Elite to me is offering the same excellent picture it has been, but at a price that still remains kind of "out there" without the future proofing I'd demand north of $5000. But YMMV.

That's exactly what I'm wrestling with. With what's out today, I still find nothing better than the Elite for PQ. The 84" 4K Sony? Sure, but I'm not looking to super size at this point or at that price, and I'm still not sure of its other attributes in terms of pure PQ.

I'm not sure there's an option for what I'm looking for at this point in terms of your 'buying low'. I want something bigger than 60" and I don't want to sacrifice PQ relative to what I've become accustomed to in the Elite. I'll take a close look at the 65" 4K Sony, but I wish it were 70" and I wish it had full local dimming.

The stars are not aligning thus far. wink.gif
post #321 of 412
1/14/13 at 12:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

That's exactly what I'm wrestling with. With what's out today, I still find nothing better than the Elite for PQ. The 84" 4K Sony? Sure, but I'm not looking to super size at this point or at that price, and I'm still not sure of its other attributes in terms of pure PQ.

I'm not sure there's an option for what I'm looking for at this point in terms of your 'buying low'. I want something bigger than 60" and I don't want to sacrifice PQ relative to what I've become accustomed to in the Elite. I'll take a close look at the 65" 4K Sony, but I wish it were 70" and I wish it had full local dimming.

The stars are not aligning thus far. wink.gif

I guess we differ on the Panasonic, which I find to have a very high quality picture and is a bargain and is 65". It seems to remain the choice of most videophiles, based on my on-floor chatter at CES, but not yourself. So be it. I don't believe the 65" Sony 4K will be a discount to the Elie 70", but I would consider it more "future proof". Also, won't it have full local dimming? Their existing 65" does.
post #322 of 412
1/14/13 at 12:42am
Everything I've read online about the new 55" and 65" XBRs say they're edge lit rather than full array LEDs. I guess you got to see them in person rogo, what were your impressions?
post #323 of 412
1/14/13 at 5:52am
Ken Ross: don 't sell out and buy LCD! If you buy LCD then the world is lost!
post #324 of 412
1/14/13 at 7:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

What's strange about AVSers is that when there is this thing that looks clearly better, they spend a lot of time and energy explaining why since it "can't" be doing that at this or that distance, we ought to disregard it. Yet it's doing it.

I'm glad to hear you say this, as I have been pushing that opinion for a while now (that 4K will show a clear benefit, far beyond what many sources claim) and it's nice to have it backed up.

I agree with you both. I actually the other day detailed over a page worth of why I felt this phenomenon (the "can't help" on paper) exists, but deleted it because I started descending into the minutiae of eye/brain optics. I started with how several feet away a single strand of spiderweb is invisible until it is moving, and then dropped like a rock to the neurology of edge detection, psychosomatic effects, etc., etc., and pretty soon decided the world was a lot nicer if it was deleted. LOL......

But there's pretty much two things going on. The magic of the eye isn't all about static resolution (this argument attempts to establish that 4K is nicer). And counter-intuitively, people will adapt to images as they go along (you become immersed in the movie, and that's that) and see the edges form on their own (this establishes why people will think that 2K is sharp "enough".) Both ideas at first seem at war with each other and it was a nightmare to try to sort out in a post.
Edited by tgm1024 - 1/14/13 at 7:15am
post #325 of 412
1/14/13 at 7:53am
I am guessing nobody here has spent time watching a 80 inch lcd.

They realy show macro blocking in high motion parts of bluray.

Without a true 4k delivery method for content these are a complete waste of money for any video enthusiasts.
post #326 of 412
1/14/13 at 9:16am
I know that when I went to Pauls and watched the 90" Sharp, at a viewing distance that was cinematic and immersive, that I wanted 4K. The picture breaks up to the degree that you tend to sit further back, which negates the whole point of a larger display.

And of course, even though there are many here who don't care for 3D, if you do, then 4K's advantage with the bright passive method is pretty indisputable.
This makes 4K attractive even for smaller panels.
post #327 of 412
1/14/13 at 9:33am
David B, do you have a particular BD movie in mind? I own an 80 inch Sharp, and have not seen any macro blocking. Now I will admit that I have not watched all that many BD titles on it. I watch mostly sports, but I did watch The Dark Knight Rises the other day. I didn't catch any issues.
post #328 of 412
1/14/13 at 9:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockaway1836 View Post

David B, do you have a particular BD movie in mind? I own an 80 inch Sharp, and have not seen any macro blocking. Now I will admit that I have not watched all that many BD titles on it. I watch mostly sports, but I did watch The Dark Knight Rises the other day. I didn't catch any issues.

Unfortunately if you can't see it in broadcast sports (where it is prevalent)  then you won't see it on Blu-Ray.  Consider yourself lucky. smile.gif

post #329 of 412
1/14/13 at 10:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post

I am guessing nobody here has spent time watching a 80 inch lcd.

They realy show macro blocking in high motion parts of bluray.

Without a true 4k delivery method for content these are a complete waste of money for any video enthusiasts.
Are you sure it's macroblocking that you are seeing, and not interpolation errors? (assuming they have the 240Hz or whatever mode activated) I don't recall having problems with Blu-ray on projectors putting out a far larger image.
post #330 of 412
1/14/13 at 10:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by vivftp View Post

Everything I've read online about the new 55" and 65" XBRs say they're edge lit rather than full array LEDs. I guess you got to see them in person rogo, what were your impressions?

I believe you on them being edge-lit; I honestly didn't look at them long enough to form any impressions. At Sony, it was too easy to keep gravitating back to the 4K OLED. It's a shame they are edge lit, but on the other hand, at least Sony has gotten better at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Are you sure it's macroblocking that you are seeing, and not interpolation errors? (assuming they have the 240Hz or whatever mode activated) I don't recall having problems with Blu-ray on projectors putting out a far larger image.

Lord knows what he's seeing, but you can definitely blow up a BluRay to 100+" inches without macroblocking. That isn't to say you don't want more resolution, but is to say that 1080 can go pretty big -- when well encoded and with enough bits -- without macroblocking. Heck, a fair amount of digital movie theater projectors are still 2K.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  

AVS Top Picks