AVS Forum banner
61 - 80 of 85 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
544 Posts
Oh for sure Bluray is slightly better in Detail , no arguement here. However, what I am beginning to realise, is that in order to fully appreciate Bluray, one must be ready to commit much more money.


With Apple TV, all you need is Apple TV and a 1080p TV about 60 inches or greater. Since you cannot really get the great audio as with Bluray, no need to purchase external speakers or an expensive 5.1 surround system.


No need for expensive audio receivers or speakers or cables or dedicated room, get the point?


Also no need to have space for all the shiny disks.


I agree that Bluray is slightly, just slightly better on new releases as far as detail. But if you factor in ALL of the costs associated with watching Blue ray to it's full potential.


You can have it.


I would state that at least 5000 to even 10k for a system and a dedicated room is needed to appreciate Bluray. This comes out to between 500 to 900 a month for a first initial outlay of cash, and then you get to purchase the content!


Nope sir, I do not like it.


I bought my 65 VT50 Panny on sale for 1999.99 at Best Buy, and Apple TV for 99.99 . Even if someone say paid 75 a month for a 105Mbps Internet connection, this is much cheaper and much more simpler solution.


My family and I enjoy movie night in the living room at night on our big screen and we rent Apple TV.


I mean how many times can you watch a film? Unless your just admiring the sharpness and sound of your expensive setups and missing the film all together.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,570 Posts
Not really.


55VT30 from about 8ft

Onkyo RC-360 $249

Hsu Sub $300

Athena point 5 speakers $150 (a deal from Amazon for 4 satellite and center speaker)


So maybe $700 for the audio - but it sounds so much better for ITunes, Vudu HDX, Netflix, DirecTV and yes especially Blu-Ray.


With this set up Blu-Ray definitely looks and sounds better - but the audio (especially Audyssey on the RC-360) - really improves the experience on all sources.


If you are willing to spend $2000 on a TV you will defintely improve the experience with another $500 - 1000 for audio
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,478 Posts
Even with plain dolby digital, tv speakers are robbing you of the sound quality you are already paying for in your media rentals. A modest receiver and speakers can do wonders for sound quality. Sound quality doesn't need to be loud to be good or expensive to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,801 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112  /t/1474847/star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan-blu-ray-vs-online-vs-dvd-vs-vhs/0_100#post_23409026


Oh for sure Bluray is slightly better in Detail , no arguement here. However, what I am beginning to realise, is that in order to fully appreciate Bluray, one must be ready to commit much more money.


With Apple TV, all you need is Apple TV and a 1080p TV about 60 inches or greater. Since you cannot really get the great audio as with Bluray, no need to purchase external speakers or an expensive 5.1 surround system.


No need for expensive audio receivers or speakers or cables or dedicated room, get the point?


Also no need to have space for all the shiny disks.


I agree that Bluray is slightly, just slightly better on new releases as far as detail. But if you factor in ALL of the costs associated with watching Blue ray to it's full potential.


You can have it.


I would state that at least 5000 to even 10k for a system and a dedicated room is needed to appreciate Bluray. This comes out to between 500 to 900 a month for a first initial outlay of cash, and then you get to purchase the content!


Nope sir, I do not like it.


I bought my 65 VT50 Panny on sale for 1999.99 at Best Buy, and Apple TV for 99.99 . Even if someone say paid 75 a month for a 105Mbps Internet connection, this is much cheaper and much more simpler solution.


My family and I enjoy movie night in the living room at night on our big screen and we rent Apple TV.


I mean how many times can you watch a film? Unless your just admiring the sharpness and sound of your expensive setups and missing the film all together.



I guess for me it's all about owning the disc. I just bought 10 BD's at Wallyworld, and 8 of them were less than $8. I watch them on a 42" screen but I can still see the difference over the streamed version. As far as the audio goes I'm set up in 5.1 and have quite a bit invested. Others have much more I know but my system is very revealing and can expose weaknesses of audio pretty easily. To me it's more about the audio than the video. I do see your point though
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,801 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthplanet  /t/1474847/star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan-blu-ray-vs-online-vs-dvd-vs-vhs/0_100#post_23410115


Even with plain dolby digital, tv speakers are robbing you of the sound quality you are already paying for in your media rentals. A modest receiver and speakers can do wonders for sound quality. Sound quality doesn't need to be loud to be good or expensive to do.



True, you can have a modest amount of money invested and do your ears a lot of justice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
850 Posts
When wrath of khan was released in theaters it used a 4.2 surround sound mix for 70mm versions and 4.1 for 35mm. The 70mm print that was recently shown at the cinerama dome in seattle was in bad shape. Youtube wrath of khan 70mm. Prints initially had no Roman numeral in the title but had it later.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,789 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic  /t/1474847/star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan-blu-ray-vs-online-vs-dvd-vs-vhs/30#post_23398333


Yes I spend my own money on the movies. Thanks for the support on the new format, it will be my standard going forward. I look forward to reviewing some current movies in this manner. I watched "Revenge of the Sith" and the detail I saw in that presentation reinforced the idea that I need to be reviewing the moving image, not comparing pixels among freeze-frames. I really wish those movies were available in some sort of online format.

Mark, did you catch Joe Kane's interview on HT Geeks a few weeks back, where he told a story about screen size? Video experts were unable to see flaws in the image, no matter how close they got to the screen, until he enlarged the picture sufficiently. I forget the numbers but the lesson learned was that screen size, not just viewing angle, is important for evaluating picture quality. I seem to recall a DVD review site years ago with the same philosophy.


Would the differences in Blu-ray vs streaming be more evident on a giant projection screen, you think?
 

·
Photographer
I have a nice display and a good sound system
Joined
·
17,760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #69 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottJ  /t/1474847/star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan-blu-ray-vs-online-vs-dvd-vs-vhs/60#post_23411993


Mark, did you catch Joe Kane's interview on HT Geeks a few weeks back, where he told a story about screen size? Video experts were unable to see flaws in the image, no matter how close they got to the screen, until he enlarged the picture sufficiently. I forget the numbers but the lesson learned was that screen size, not just viewing angle, is important for evaluating picture quality. I seem to recall a DVD review site years ago with the same philosophy.


Would the differences in Blu-ray vs streaming be more evident on a giant projection screen, you think?

I do not agree with the notion that screen size is much more important than viewing angle, when it comes to spotting artifacts. I don't find myself seeing tremendously (or even significantly) more detail when I go to a movie theater, as compared to my 55" HDTV. I can spot compression artifacts with ease on a 55" screen, and I can also see the benefits of 2160p on a 55" screen, sitting at a THX recommended distance.


I've also found that my Galaxy S4 can render 1080p video that's sharp enough to reveal artifacts as—even though it's impractical to view from a distance less than 2X the screen diagonal. With my TV, I'm at about 1.3X the screen's diagonal measurement.


I can't argue with the notion that a larger screen makes pixel-peeping easier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
544 Posts
Mark,


Is your 55 inch screen in line of sight when sitting? Or is it mounted on a wall so you need to look up at it?


Does this make a difference in the quality?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,570 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112  /t/1474847/star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan-blu-ray-vs-online-vs-dvd-vs-vhs/60#post_23412866


Mark,


Is your 55 inch screen in line of sight when sitting? Or is it mounted on a wall so you need to look up at it?


Does this make a difference in the quality?

See for recommended vertical placement (and viewing distance) http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/hdtv-set-up/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
544 Posts
Mark,


I think a watching of the Scott W. show Home Theater Geeks interview of Joe Kane is important.


I just watched it and learned a lot about watching 1080p content. The show was primarily about 4k and how it is a mess. One important thing that I got from the show is that, in order to fully see 1080p content as it was intended by the directors, a minimum 6 foot wide screen is needed with a well calibrated display.


Joe Kane used real science to prove this. It does not matter how close you are sitting to your 55 inch display. So for all of you like myself with less than a 6 foot wide screen.


All of these comparisions are meaningless. Even sitting at THX seating distances. I now understand why to my eyes on my 65 inch display from 7 feet away, I cannot tell the difference between BD and Itunes movies.


So for you that have a 6 foot wide screen, the MINIMUM needed for 1080p viewing, congrats!


Joe Kane also stated for 4k to take off, we need to change the television industry and we would all need 12 foot wide screens!


Wow!


I no longer will consider purchasing BD until I get a screen of at least 6 foot width. This is why I think you that hate streaming are seeing all the errors because you have larger screen sizes, however anything less that 6 foot width, it is all in your minds.


Hell, I may just do 720p for now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
544 Posts
So for my setup, I should be 6.5 feet away and since I do not have risers in my living room, LOL, I need to put my tv back on the stand.


Damn!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,789 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112  /t/1474847/star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan-blu-ray-vs-online-vs-dvd-vs-vhs/60#post_23413588


I no longer will consider purchasing BD until I get a screen of at least 6 foot width. This is why I think you that hate streaming are seeing all the errors because you have larger screen sizes, however anything less that 6 foot width, it is all in your minds.


Hell, I may just do 720p for now.

Took me a second to realize that you were joking. However, this is a straw man. What Joe Kane said is that some picture quality issues that are visible on a 6' wide screen will not be visible on a significantly smaller screen, no matter how close you get.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,168 Posts
I guess I'm ok with my nine-and-a-half-foot wide screen, then (and that is the width, not the diagonal), particularly since I sit barely 10 feet away (mini-IMAX territory)!


I can definitely see the difference between Blu-ray 1080 and even 720p, much less 480p.


For me, Amazon Prime's 720p is a way of auditioning films to decide whether to buy them on Blu-ray, without adding the price of a rental to the ultimate cost of the disk.


It's great for that, but not for being the main way to watch a film, particularly since in addition to 720p's slight softness, Dolby Digital can't hold a candle to a lossless soundtrack.
 

·
Photographer
I have a nice display and a good sound system
Joined
·
17,760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #76 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112  /t/1474847/star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan-blu-ray-vs-online-vs-dvd-vs-vhs/60#post_23413588


Mark,


I think a watching of the Scott W. show Home Theater Geeks interview of Joe Kane is important.


I just watched it and learned a lot about watching 1080p content. The show was primarily about 4k and how it is a mess. One important thing that I got from the show is that, in order to fully see 1080p content as it was intended by the directors, a minimum 6 foot wide screen is needed with a well calibrated display.

Joe Kane used real science to prove this. It does not matter how close you are sitting to your 55 inch display. So for all of you like myself with less than a 6 foot wide screen.

All of these comparisions are meaningless. Even sitting at THX seating distances. I now understand why to my eyes on my 65 inch display from 7 feet away, I cannot tell the difference between BD and Itunes movies.


So for you that have a 6 foot wide screen, the MINIMUM needed for 1080p viewing, congrats!


Joe Kane also stated for 4k to take off, we need to change the television industry and we would all need 12 foot wide screens!


Wow!


I no longer will consider purchasing BD until I get a screen of at least 6 foot width. This is why I think you that hate streaming are seeing all the errors because you have larger screen sizes, however anything less that 6 foot width, it is all in your minds.


Hell, I may just do 720p for now.
I watched that episode of HTG, and I also participated in the comments.


Simply put, the added detail of 2160p resolution is noticeable on a 65" screen, viewed from a "normal" distance, such as seven feet. When it comes to compression, artifacts are just as visible, regardless of screen size. Viewing angle is what matters.


Wait, were you being sarcastic? ScottJ thought so, and now I'm thinking the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112  /t/1474847/star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan-blu-ray-vs-online-vs-dvd-vs-vhs/60#post_23409026


Oh for sure Bluray is slightly better in Detail , no arguement here. However, what I am beginning to realise, is that in order to fully appreciate Bluray, one must be ready to commit much more money.


With Apple TV, all you need is Apple TV and a 1080p TV about 60 inches or greater. Since you cannot really get the great audio as with Bluray, no need to purchase external speakers or an expensive 5.1 surround system.


No need for expensive audio receivers or speakers or cables or dedicated room, get the point?


Also no need to have space for all the shiny disks.


I agree that Bluray is slightly, just slightly better on new releases as far as detail. But if you factor in ALL of the costs associated with watching Blue ray to it's full potential.


You can have it.


I would state that at least 5000 to even 10k for a system and a dedicated room is needed to appreciate Bluray. This comes out to between 500 to 900 a month for a first initial outlay of cash, and then you get to purchase the content!


Nope sir, I do not like it.


I bought my 65 VT50 Panny on sale for 1999.99 at Best Buy, and Apple TV for 99.99 . Even if someone say paid 75 a month for a 105Mbps Internet connection, this is much cheaper and much more simpler solution.


My family and I enjoy movie night in the living room at night on our big screen and we rent Apple TV.


I mean how many times can you watch a film? Unless your just admiring the sharpness and sound of your expensive setups and missing the film all together.

Bluray PQ is still better than streaming -- although the gap is shrinking. Perrsonally, I never want to give up on any improvement that I can afford, but that's me. Let me add however that,, SQ is at least as important as PQ -- and where SQ is concerned, the lossless audio codecs available via BD's are head and shoulders better than anything else. For me, the exponentially better sound is what makes me feel like I'm at the theater. YMMV (obviously).


Ooops. I see you had your tounge in your cheek with this one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,801 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by lflorack  /t/1474847/star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan-blu-ray-vs-online-vs-dvd-vs-vhs/60#post_23433254


Bluray PQ is still better than streaming -- although the gap is shrinking. Perrsonally, I never want to give up on any improvement that I can afford, but that's me. Let me add however that,, SQ is at least as important as PQ -- and where SQ is concerned, the lossless audio codecs available via BD's are head and shoulders better than anything else. For me, the exponentially better sound is what makes me feel like I'm at the theater. YMMV (obviously).


Ooops. I see you had your tounge in your cheek with this one.



+1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Thanks for this... always wondered. Have you ever noticed that the sharper/clearer and image is the more you look at the details and sometimes miss the plot twists of the movie? Maybe it's just me
 
61 - 80 of 85 Posts
Top