AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was watching the new BD of 'Gone With The Wind' last night, and the PQ just blew me away. Simply put, I have never before seen a picture look this stunning on my Panasonic PJ. Looking at the picture it seemed absolute perfection, I could see no way at all that it could be improved, and it made me realize that the source material is overwhelmingly the thing that is going to determine your PQ more than any other factor. So you could spend megabucks on a PJ and if the source material is only average you are not going to get that much of a better picture than with a modestly priced PJ (garbage in-garbage out). But if the source material is superb, as in the case of GWTW, the PQ with your modestly priced PJ is probably going to look pretty close to the top end models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,131 Posts
You just figuring that out?

Quote:
But if the source material is superb, as in the case of GWTW, the PQ with your modestly priced PJ is probably going to look pretty close to the top end models.

It will just look that much better on top models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
310 Posts
Your system will look and sound only as good as its weakest element. The best projector can't clean up poor source material. Perfect source material will still look bad on a low-quality projector. etc.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,227 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by taffman /forum/post/18277635


the PQ with your modestly priced PJ is probably going to look pretty close to the top end models.

Comes back to the point of...a person doesn't know, what they don't know. So, until you've compared your Panny, IMHIO I wouldn't make such broad based statements.



What I mean by the quote is can the Panasonic 4000 or any other top quality entry level projector be topped by a higher end projector...Of course. Will the higher end cost more..of course. Will the higher be worth it the additional cost....depends on the individual and their overall prorities relative to their disposable income. But, it's certainly not accurate to infer that the Panny will come "close" to matching in all aspects of an image (that would substantiate the "pretty close" comparison)vs the latest higher end projectors.


My Planar 8150 is a terrific projector. But will it come "pretty close" to a three chip DLP projector? No way. Does it make my Planar a bad choice for me or any other owner. No way. Would GWTW look better on the 3 chipper vs my Planar....yes, it would.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,131 Posts
Well I suppose there is some merit to the though that bad sources can look comparatively less bad on a poor projector than on a reference one that doesn't hide any of the issues


Quote:
Originally Posted by rboster /forum/post/18279463


My Planar 8150 is a terrific projector. But will it come "pretty close" to a three chip DLP projector? No way.

You know, that's a very interesting question, and I think I might have had a bit of a revelation regarding it since getting an 8150. What's that you say, well it's that the differences I think become less "smack you in the face" as you move up the quality rungs.


When I went from my InFocus IN76 to my BenQ W5000, there was definitely a "smack you in the face" difference, most notably in how the colors jumped out more (green no longer undersaturated).


When I went from my W5000 to my 8150, I was not immediately impressed by the 8150, it just didn't jump out as doing anything "spectacular". But as I watched it for a couple days, I began to notice things it did better, or realize that I was no longer noticing things the W5000 had done not so well.


In the end, I'm very happy with my 8150 and it's a clear and worthwhile improvement over the W5000. I'm sure I'd find something similar with a C3X or something. I'd guess my socks would not be knocked off, but as I viewed it I'd realize how great it was.

Quote:
Does it make my Planar a bad choice for me or any other owner. No way. Would GWTW look better on the 3 chipper vs my Planar....yes, it would.

It would be nice if people would come to accept that and stop trying to disparage any "high end" device as being a waste.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,227 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 /forum/post/18280504


It would be nice if people would come to accept that and stop trying to disparage any "high end" device as being a waste.

I agree it does get old. If it's a waste for them...fine, no one will argue that point. But, it's (almost) every post trying to drive home the point that "it can't be" a worthwhiled difference between their set up and another person's more expensive projector and lens. The differences are too small.


I am not a "car person", so a "ride is a ride". Do I really appreciate the difference in steering control and handling between my nissan and a higher end car....no I really don't. Does it mean they are not there....no it doesn't.


I am not going to bang the drum that the differences are not present. Or, if there are differences, they are so small that it can't be worth it to someone who appreciates and understands the differences in control and handling of a more expensive car.



It's interesting you mentioned going from a BenQ5000 to the Planar 8150. That was my upgrade path too. Here's a link to my observations;

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post16491985
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,958 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 /forum/post/18280504


You know, that's a very interesting question, and I think I might have had a bit of a revelation regarding it since getting an 8150. What's that you say, well it's that the differences I think become less "smack you in the face" as you move up the quality rungs.

The law of dimishing returns
10x the price does not give 10x the performance....Maybe 9.5x
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
PQ is in the "eyes" of the beholder. My wife says she can't see what the big deal is..."we don't have a highend projector or screen in every room", so for the amount of time we watch "good PQ" vs watching our other TV's.....is it about PQ or my toy is better then yours? Sometimes I wonder if she's not right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,008 Posts
Videophiles are videophiles.


We can see the 10-15% difference that cost us 5K more. Is it worth it to you or not is the question?


Same thign in the audiophile world. 15% will cost you $$$. A $300 speaker can compete with a $3000 speaker if you're willing to give up that 15%.


Many audiophiles and videophiles aren't.


In a maybe unrelated note, I thought forrest gump transfer was pretty bad in some parts but considering it's an older film..I am wondering how gone with the wind looks on my system.


-ELmO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
The question is...what makes one a audio or video phile?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,953 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbase1 /forum/post/18281498


The question is...what makes one a audio or video phile?


Good question but, in this context, I believe we can agree it is a person who seeks the best performance in their equipoment and will spend the time, energy, and money to obtain that. This is to satisfy themselves primarily, without regard for what others consider good enough.


Most are probably clear out on the buds at the tip of the longest limb.



Art
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,836 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn /forum/post/18281560


Good question but, in this context, I believe we can agree it is a person who seeks the best performance in their equipoment and will spend the time, energy, and money to obtain that. This is to satisfy themselves primarily, without regard for what others consider goods enough.


Most are probably clear out on the buds at the tip of the longest limb.



Art

Your latter statement was what most need to be mindfull of when they down what one see as the apex of their setup, because after all....it's only a movie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,866 Posts
I too was impressed at the PQ of Gone with the Wind as I'd rented it for my OH (not my cup of tea personnally), the only issue I had was having to stretch the 4:3 image twice over to make it fill my 2.35:1 screen...I didn't realise Scarlet was so fat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,958 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S /forum/post/18283454


having to stretch the 4:3 image twice over to make it fill my 2.35:1 screen...I didn't realise Scarlet was so fat.

NOOOOO!!!!!


Ok I am done for now



So given that that is film would have been 1.37:1, is it actually presented that way on BD or is it modified to 1.33:1?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,008 Posts
Just had this conversation with coworkers about what an audiophile is.


They were liek "What's an audiophile?" - they hadn't heard the term before.


I tried to dumb it down and said someone who possibly listens to music hours at a time.


They said "Maybe I'm an audiophile, you know I listen when I'm exercising" - so I said no, I mean someone who is critically listening to music - and that's all they're doing.


They looked at me with strange faces. The audiophiles and videophiles are never failed to be laughed at.


I also tried to explain room acoustics and bass traps with similar facial results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,958 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc /forum/post/18283713



I said no, I mean someone who is critically listening to music - and that's all they're doing.

Someone that sits centre between their speakers so they can hear the "phantom image" (for 2CH).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,836 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX /forum/post/18283748


Someone that sits centre between their speakers so they can hear the "phantom image" (for 2CH).

That could be someone the has on earphones.
Seriously.....it's comes down to how good you see and hear. So...someone that has 20/20 and great hearing have the tools to be an video and audio phile. The rest of us see it and hear it based on our hearing and sight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,945 Posts
What does any of this have to do with Constant Image Height?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,131 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbase1 /forum/post/18284616


That could be someone the has on earphones.
Seriously.....it's comes down to how good you see and hear. So...someone that has 20/20 and great hearing have the tools to be an video and audio phile. The rest of us see it and hear it based on our hearing and sight.

I don't agree, I think the Art hit the best definition, someone who seeks the best performance they can get, for their own enjoyment. Doesn't matter how well or poorly you can see/hear, if you enjoy the art and the science and you pursue high performance and accuracy, you're a audio/video-phile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z /forum/post/18284784


What does any of this have to do with Constant Image Height?

Nothing, but neither did the OP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
A videophile (literally, "one who loves sight") is one who is concerned with achieving high-quality results in the recording and playback of movies, TV programs, etc.


Similar to audiophile values, videophile values may be applied at all stages of the chain: the initial audio-visual recording, the production process, and the playback (usually in a home setting). As with audiophiles, videophiles are generally criticised with being able to recognize differences that are usually imperceptible to most other people; however, video has many more objective ways to measure quality (though one's opinion over what is more favorable can vary), expanding the range of debate substantially.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top