Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 128

Thread: Videophile Thread

  1. #51
    Member Emeritus (A.M.P.) rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,232
    "Mastered in 4k" has a parallel I think in CDs that claim to be "mastered in 96/24" and then pressed onto a normal 44/16 Compact Disc. You can't put more resolution onto a Blu-ray Disc than it's designed to read, which is 1920x1080.

    True UHD is 3840x2160.

    Your earlier point that a decent 35mm film print can be scanned in 4k and result in a higher quality transfer than SD (640x480) or HD (1920x1080) is a good one -- the resolution of film is estimated to be in the neighborhood of 6k, before processing. In the real world, projected, 2k appears to be the practical limit and so 4k scans from raw 35mm film stock are indistinguishable to experts.

    But if you play them back on Blu-ray you're still only getting HD resolution.

  2. #52
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    "Mastered in 4k" has a parallel I think in CDs that claim to be "mastered in 96/24" and then pressed onto a normal 44/16 Compact Disc. You can't put more resolution onto a Blu-ray Disc than it's designed to read, which is 1920x1080.

    True UHD is 3840x2160.

    Your earlier point that a decent 35mm film print can be scanned in 4k and result in a higher quality transfer than SD (640x480) or HD (1920x1080) is a good one -- the resolution of film is estimated to be in the neighborhood of 6k, before processing. In the real world, projected, 2k appears to be the practical limit and so 4k scans from raw 35mm film stock are indistinguishable to experts.

    But if you play them back on Blu-ray you're still only getting HD resolution.
    Please read the article below on mastered in 4k. The process of converting from a higher resolution and dynamic range to lower reduces noise significantly. Another factor is that HD is actually compressed and the amount of compression varies. So even Netflix claims a stream in 4k, but the bit rate is half what UHD Blu Ray will be capable of. Some of the best 1080 p movies I've seen came from restored 70 mm film.

  3. #53
    I think there's a difference between transmitted HD (which is definitely compressed) and HD discs.
    The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone.

  4. #54
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by ronmac View Post
    I think there's a difference between transmitted HD (which is definitely compressed) and HD discs.
    Well yeh, broadcast and cable HD is 1080i or 780p, and HD Bluray is 1080p. Both are compressed.

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    Well yeh, broadcast and cable HD is 1080i or 780p, and HD Bluray is 1080p. Both are compressed.
    I suspect that we're talking about two different things. You're referring to resolution. Compression isn't the same. Broadcasts are compressed to reduce bandwidth and avoid buffering and delay. If one looks at an HD broadcast, you can clearly see static areas (in the background, for example) where pixels are frozen to avoid needlessly transmitting redundant data. I don't have Blu-Ray, but I can't imagine that would be the case, since there's no need to compress the signal for transmission.
    The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone.

  6. #56
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by ronmac View Post
    I suspect that we're talking about two different things. You're referring to resolution. Compression isn't the same. Broadcasts are compressed to reduce bandwidth and avoid buffering and delay. If one looks at an HD broadcast, you can clearly see static areas (in the background, for example) where pixels are frozen to avoid needlessly transmitting redundant data. I don't have Blu-Ray, but I can't imagine that would be the case, since there's no need to compress the signal for transmission.
    I know what I am talking about, do you? Both are compressed, and perhaps to different degrees. Even different cable companies have different levels of compression. 1080i creates its own artifacts, and is a reduction in bandwidth.

  7. #57
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    2,155
    1080i video is "interlaced." 1080i video plays back at 60 frames per second, but that's a bit deceptive, because it's actually broadcast at 30 frames per second. The TV then displays those frames twice, in a way—the first pass is 1,920-by-540 for the even scan line field, and the second pass is 1,920-by-540 for the odd scan line field. The process by which this occurs is called interlacing. It contributes to a sense of motion and reduces perceived flicker.
    1080p video is called "progressive scan." In this format, 1,920-by-1,080-pixel high-definition movies are progressively drawn line after line, so they're not interlaced. On paper, that may not seem like a huge deal. But in the real world, what you end up seeing looks sharper and more defined than 1080i, particularly during scenes with a lot of fast motion.
    Sometimes 1080p is termed "full HD" or "true HD," to distinguish it from 1080i or 720p video. Blu-ray discs contain 1080p video at 24 frames per second, and then, using a method known as 3:2 pulldown, display it at 30 frames per second on screen.
    Data compression can confuse the issue. Sometimes cable companies will deliver a 1080i picture, but then compress the data significantly in order to use up less bandwidth. The result can mean smeared details or pixelated color gradations in certain scenes. It's still technically HD, and still looks better than standard-definition cable, but it's not as good as it could be.
    This also happens with 1080p streaming Internet video, but in that case, it's usually dependent on the speed of your data connection. In fact, Blu-ray is currently the only practical format for watching lots of pure 1080p content. Even the latest Apple TV, which supports 1080p streaming, does so in a compressed format that loses a bit of quality (although it still looks quite good).

  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    I know what I am talking about, do you? Both are compressed, and perhaps to different degrees. Even different cable companies have different levels of compression. 1080i creates its own artifacts, and is a reduction in bandwidth.
    Tell me if I'm wrong here. You're talking about compression between formats, whereas I'm referring about compression between signal delivery.

    My point is that you can take the exact same format and view is through your local hard-wired interface (player-to-display) and then view it through a streamed HD service and see their further compression that's done to conserve bandwidth.
    The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone.

  9. #59
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by ronmac View Post
    I suspect that we're talking about two different things. You're referring to resolution. Compression isn't the same. Broadcasts are compressed to reduce bandwidth and avoid buffering and delay. If one looks at an HD broadcast, you can clearly see static areas (in the background, for example) where pixels are frozen to avoid needlessly transmitting redundant data. I don't have Blu-Ray, but I can't imagine that would be the case, since there's no need to compress the signal for transmission.
    As you notice here, there 3 data compression techniques used on Blu ray, and these are not lossless. In reality, if compression was not used, it would take ~144 Mbytes per sec or ~ 1 terabyte for. 2 hour movie on a BD.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc

  10. #60
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by ronmac View Post
    Tell me if I'm wrong here. You're talking about compression between formats, whereas I'm referring about compression between signal delivery.

    My point is that you can take the exact same format and view is through your local hard-wired interface (player-to-display) and then view it through a streamed HD service and see their further compression that's done to conserve bandwidth.
    Bandwidth is one factor in information capacity of a communications channel.

  11. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    As you notice here, there 3 data compression techniques used on Blu ray, and these are not lossless. In reality, if compression was not used, it would take ~144 Mbytes per sec or ~ 1 terabyte for. 2 hour movie on a BD.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc
    I never suggested that Blu-Ray was lossless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    Bandwidth is one factor in information capacity of a communications channel.
    Yes, I'm quite aware of that. I've actually worked with telecommunications clients for more than 15 years.
    The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone.

  12. #62
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by ronmac View Post
    I never suggested that Blu-Ray was lossless.



    Yes, I'm quite aware of that. I've actually worked with telecommunications clients for more than 15 years.
    You said that you did not see a need to compress the data for tranmission into a Bluray. Bluray is effectively a communications channel with a limited bandwidth, and the bandwidth is proportional to a bit rate.

    Another aspect to be considered in 4k is whether each pixel is 8 bits or 10 bits.

  13. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    You said that you did not see a need to compress the data for tranmission into a Bluray.
    Not quite.

    I stated, "I don't have Blu-Ray, but I can't imagine that would be the case, since there's no need to compress the signal for transmission." Period.

    "Into a Blu-ray" changes what I said. I was specifically referring to the transmission of the signal to the device. One is a direct, non-network-based transmission to the display, whereas the other is a network-based broadcasted or streamed transmission to the display.
    Last edited by ronmac; 02-07-2015 at 04:29 PM.
    The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone.

  14. #64
    Member Emeritus (A.M.P.) rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    Curved hurts off axis viewing, off axis is a strong point for plasma.
    Its a funny thing, I have my new TV in the corner of the living room. The couch and love seat are arrayed in front of it, in an arc of maybe 35 degrees. I was initially a little worried about my new curved TV. My old one was on a swivel, and I had to rotate it to wherever I was sitting.

    But with the new TV I don't have to. It looks the same from anywhere in the living room. Frankly I'm a little surprised.

  15. #65
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by ronmac View Post
    Not quite.

    I stated, "I don't have Blu-Ray, but I can't imagine that would be the case, since there's no need to compress the signal for transmission." Period.

    "Into a Blu-ray" changes what I said. I was specifically referring to the transmission of the signal to the device. One is a direct, non-network-based transmission to the display, whereas the other is a network-based broadcasted or streamed transmission to the display.
    Got it.

  16. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    Got it.
    The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone.

  17. #67
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    2,155
    The UHD and high end LCD TVs have off axis viewing improvements. The curved screen may or may not be better on off axis up to a point. However, neither approach the off axis quality of plasma or OLED.

  18. #68
    Member Emeritus (A.M.P.) rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,232
    One thing I have noticed about my new TV which is kinda annoying, it really points up bad lighting. TV news anchors who sit in front of direct lighting have all sorts of reflected light on their face. I guess the standard is to grossly overlight most stages to compensate for poor TVs. On nice backlighting and reflected lighting everything looks nice and natural, and subtle or marginally-lit scenes really look great.

    But that's rare on the news.
    Last edited by rcarlberg; 02-11-2015 at 07:48 PM.

  19. #69
    Member Emeritus (A.M.P.) rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    The UHD and high end LCD TVs have off axis viewing improvements. The curved screen may or may not be better on off axis up to a point. However, neither approach the off axis quality of plasma or OLED.
    Your information is out of date.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    In late 2006, analysts noted that LCDs overtook plasmas, particularly in the 40-inch (1.0 m) and above segment where plasma had previously gained market share.[55] Another industry trend is the consolidation of manufacturers of plasma displays, with around 50 brands available but only five manufacturers. In the first quarter of 2008 a comparison of worldwide TV sales breaks down to 22.1 million for direct-view CRT, 21.1 million for LCD, 2.8 million for Plasma, and 0.1 million for rear-projection.

    /Until the early 2000s, plasma displays were the most popular choice for HDTV flat panel display as they had many benefits over LCDs. Beyond plasma's deeper blacks, increased contrast, faster response time, greater color spectrum, and wider viewing angle; they were also much bigger than LCDs, and it was believed that LCDs were suited only to smaller sized televisions. However, improvements in VLSI fabrication have since narrowed the technological gap. The increased size, lower weight, falling prices, and often lower electrical power consumption of LCDs now make them competitive with plasma television sets.
    Last edited by rcarlberg; 02-11-2015 at 08:36 PM.

  20. #70
    Member Emeritus (A.M.P.) rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,232
    I visited a showroom in Los Angeles sometime around 2002 and saw a lot of state of the art plasmas. They ranged from about 60" up to almost ten feet, and prices went from $10,000 to several hundred thou. They were impressive.

    But modern UHD screens wipe the floor with them.

    Poking around online, frankly most of the reviews online agree with you -- curved TVs are a gimmick, off axis viewing is compromised, plasma still gives a richer picture.

    I can only say, in my experience, that's not true.
    Last edited by rcarlberg; 02-11-2015 at 08:59 PM.

  21. #71
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    Your information is out of date.
    BS
    “[They] agreed that it was neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never questioned anything.”

  22. #72
    Member Firth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    I visited a showroom in Los Angeles sometime around 2002 and saw a lot of state of the art plasmas. They ranged from about 60" up to almost ten feet, and prices went from $10,000 to several hundred thou. They were impressive.

    But modern UHD screens wipe the floor with them.

    Poking around online, frankly most of the reviews online agree with you -- curved TVs are a gimmick, off axis viewing is compromised, plasma still gives a richer picture.

    I can only say, in my experience, that's not true.
    2002 was 13 years ago. The plasmas produced in 2013 can not be matched by 4k LCD today, OLED perhaps. The only feature LCDs have over plasma and OLED, is performance in bright light. This is getting boring, but quantum dot pixel TVs will eventually put the LCD in the trash in the next 3 years. I can't stand LED/LCD color, except for QD. I stayed at a hotel last week which had an LED/LCD in an AV room. So glad to get back to my 2011 plasma.
    “[They] agreed that it was neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never questioned anything.”

  23. #73
    Member Brian Griffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    0
    More importantly, my 5 year old 19" Dynex LCD died a quick death last week

    Started making an intermittent hiss and a couple of hours later would not get a picture at all

    Replaced with a new Samsung, $149 at Bestbuy

    I have this one in my cabinet next to my plasma so I can watch a second game on it when I have the plasma on, and as I work out of my living room I keep it on all day while working so it logs more hours than any TV in the house

    Interesting how quick it happened, as stated earlier in this thread

    BG
    "When Yes appeared on stage, it was like, the gods appearing from the heavens, deigning to play in front of the people."

  24. #74
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Re-deployed as of 22 July
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ronmac View Post
    However, I'm not interested for any reason but curiosity. I am 100% satisfied (in fact, blown away) with my plasma. In fact, I was just remaking to my kids last night about it. It's stunning. I can't see the need for anything else.
    +1

    I really can't see that any improvment a new unit would provde over my 42" plasma would be so great as to justify buying it for about 3 times the price.
    I went from a Sony "fat" TV to my plasma and was blown away! I then went from DVD to Blueray and was impressed but not to the huge extent as changing from a cathrode ray tv to a plasma. So I think any further improvements would be so minimal as to be almost undetectable.

  25. #75
    Member Emeritus (A.M.P.) rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,232
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    So I think any further improvements would be so minimal as to be almost undetectable.
    Seeing is believing.

    And prices have come WAYYY down. I bought my 55" curved UHD screen for $1500, and I think I paid $1600 for my 46" HD flatscreen three years ago. I sold it to a co-worker yesterday for $300. You can buy new 46" flatscreens for $550.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •