Eh, not really, especially in this day and age of corrective lenses and lasik. Unless you're blind, then you're right.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Will Yourself A Sharper TV Picture
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Eh, not really, especially in this day and age of corrective lenses and lasik. Unless you're blind, then you're right.
If you're not getting the best bang for your buck when there are plenty of options available, why bother?
Hell dude, I live in a pretty big city (Las Vegas). How big is your room? If it's even 10' x 10' it can be done. I've seen setups in rooms even smaller than that. It is possible. My room is only 13' x 13'. If anything a projector is an even better choice for a small area because you can maximize screen size without having to have a big bulky box or large appliance mounted on a wall. All you need is a tiny projector mounted on the ceiling and a pull down / electronic screen. Very unobtrusive. I just can't see why you think a TV takes up less space than a projector that weighs 10 lbs. and a screen that recoils into the ceiling.
First, I'm from the west coast and west coast cities are NOTHING like east coast cities in terms of city living. Second, I am limited as I do not own this place and cannot begin punching/drilling holes in the walls, ceiling, etc.
And what was my better $2k option? The part of the condo with the TV is small; I have a 6-6.5' viewing distance. What size screen do I need for that distance?
To even use a projector it would have to be directly dangling over the couch. I'd rather have a longer viewing distance and a bigger screen because obviously that is better than just sitting closer to a smaller screen... but I simply can't sit any farther away. I still don't get how we've shifted from "you can't see a difference on a TV" to "well maybe you can but my projector is better" I wouldn't gain anything in my current living arrangement by going to a projector and I would lose a lot: daytime viewing (it's still not as good) and longevity (the TV is on A LOT, as I use it to play music all day when I'm home... I'd say I slog through a good 2500+ hours of on-time a year, should have checked my DLP before I sold it).
My girlfriend LOVES watching TV on the projector and so do I. An HD show like House looks spectacular on it. Even SD content looks pretty good if the display has a good scaler. Since there are so many shows in HD these days how would it NOT look good on a decent PJ?
It wasn't a question of not looking good. Where did I say that?
It's that it is unnecessarily obtrusive. I'm the first to admit that even my TV is a bit obnoxious (given the viewing distance) when I am having people over to hang out and the TV is on more for background or a comedy. If your friends/gf like it, that's great. My don't Take them down, WTF? You could use a rail or even an electric drawing system... You're making it harder than it is. Oh well, it's your loss. I guess you're right, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
See above not being able to install... and they are also really fucking ugly, even pulled aside. Which means I'd need a front curtain as well. I still may do it but at this point content with my layout. I'm going to have to grab a camera and start taking pictures apparently to explain decorating decisions
Not sure where anyone is talking about a 32" screen... but see above about my point of what the people that I know think is obtrusive/obnoxious.
Well, first because I don't watch Lost so that's a big reason
And second, I hope you just have a crappy camera because that PQ looks awful and washed out. I'm hoping it's just because it's in the dark and you have a high ISO...
But seriously, I'm glad you guys are thrilled about your projectors. This is completely off topic though from the original point which was "when can you discern a benefit from HD programming?" I used to live in a house with a dedicated movie room (no windows at all, 110"+ screen, etc). We used it to watch 1) movies, 2) football, and 3) Formula 1. That was pretty much it; having people over to watch casual TV was done downstairs in a far more open, well-lit room with a standard, "reasonably-sized" TV. That's what I'm used to and what I like. Everyone has their preferences, glad you guys enjoy yours
computerpro3
LightningRod
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2003
- Messages
- 8,702
It was a non tripod shot by a noob photographer (me) with a borrowed 3.2mp Samsung
It's properly calibrated with DVE calibration disc and glasses and looks fantastic in real life.
computerpro3
LightningRod
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2003
- Messages
- 8,702
It was a non tripod shot by a noob photographer (me) with a borrowed 3.2mp Samsung
It's properly calibrated with DVE calibration disc and glasses and looks fantastic in real life.
Actually it might have been a canon I was borrowing...since I don't own a camera, the ones that I borrow tend to run together. Either way, I have no idea how to use it.
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
I've done side by side comparisons in many different locations. In home, in stores, in use of rented professional equipment, etc...
While I -can- see the improvement of picture quality due to increase in resolution on a monitor that actually supports said resolution, there's still a few drawbacks:
1) Viewing distance. Further back you go, the less important it really is. Jives with the quoted post.
2) Source of media mastered to disc. This is the big one, folks. So much stuff that is in High Def is still completely defeated by one common theme in movies: FILM GRAIN! The shot, either artistically done so or due to the kind of shot it is (natural lighting) results in film grain larger than the pixel size on many 1080p monitors.
Some BluRay vs DVD comparisons I did actually looked "worse" in BluRay because the grain became that much more obvious. When it's stretched across a movie theater screen, it's not quite as noticeable at times because it's not all of that film grain across 200+ inches concentrated down into a 40~ inch screen.
Because DVD is an older compression standard with a lower resolution... it masked the film grain a bit... but it's also the source of a lot of the keyframing artifacts that people also complain about. (Banding and background scattering)
3) Setup. Is it BluRay to Component? BluRay to SVideo or... *shudder* Composite? DVD to Component? DVD via HDMI with upscaling? So many variables. With HDCP, some people may have non complaint devices and not even realise the BluRay player is spitting out a standard definition image on their "amazing picture quality" High Def monitor. Then there's also the people who got 720p monitors and are trying to play 1080p on it where the player may only want to play it at 1080p or 480i because of what it is hooked up to as the software/firmware was initially released... *cough*PS3*cough*
In a truly controlled experiment, some people might be able to distinguish the difference between a good upscaling DVD player versus a BluRay source... provided that both versions of video have the same source master. Unless it's on a much, MUCH larger screen... most of the time it really is a wash.
It wasn't just that it was VHS to DVD that made it a big jump in quality, but that it went from analogue to digital. I saw the exact same thing happen when we finally switched from analogue broadcast TV to digital. Even if you had a perfect signal from one station, the analogue signal looked BAD once you saw the standard definition digital stream. Holy crap, what a huge improvement.
Standard Def digital compared with High Def digital? Not so much an improvement compared with analogue to digital. I suspect with DVD vs BluRay, it's pretty much the same deal.
computerpro3
LightningRod
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2003
- Messages
- 8,702
While I completely agree with you that the quality of the transfer onto blu-ray is the most important determination of quality (some can be worse than DVD's), I COMPLETELY DISAGREE about your film grain point. Film grain is infinitely preferably to overdone DNR, edge sharpening, and plastic looking fleshtones.
Look at the bluray of Star Trek TOS 1 - no grain at all but looks like shit because they tried to remove it. Then, look at Quantum of Solace - film grain is clearly present but it looks fantastic and you'd have to be beyond fucking blind not to notice the difference from DVD.
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
I said nothing of trying to remove film grain.
I merely pointed out that the size of film grain can exceed the pixel resolution of High Def mastering.
Any argument you're making based on opinion is responding to something you completely imagined. When I say "defeated", I mean "a grainy image is still a grainy image whether you duplicate it at 345k pixel or 2.07m pixel." Thus the purpose of the higher resolution can be badly defeated depending on the way the film was shot.
That said, the ending of Minority Report is another example of a movie that has film grain that even exceeds the resolution of DVD.
On my TV blu-ray is very clear to spot - even over 1080i. However part of that might be that I have time warner cable and while your TV might read 1080i then send a downgraded signal. Some "HDTV" channels will upscale low def content and then stretch it out to your screen. I rather watch the SD channel in that situation.
DVD and Blu-ray is very easy to spot as well. I think people make two mistakes with regards to TVs. First - they sit to far away from the TV. And secondly they buy too small a screen. This is why they can't tell those differences.
I learned alot from reading AVS forums about setting up my home theatre - I have a decent set up now. Blu-ray is amazing.. The principle difference between 1080i and Blu-Ray is that 1080i (from time warner) will look all "grainy" whereas Blu-Ray looks fairly close to a giant magazine picture.
People have worked out the equations I think but in a nutshell when your watching TV you want most of what you see to be the television. This is why movie theatres are so wide - because more of your visual field is horizontal instead of vertical. That leads to some very large sizes for TV screens for the best experience..
Pete
DVD and Blu-ray is very easy to spot as well. I think people make two mistakes with regards to TVs. First - they sit to far away from the TV. And secondly they buy too small a screen. This is why they can't tell those differences.
I learned alot from reading AVS forums about setting up my home theatre - I have a decent set up now. Blu-ray is amazing.. The principle difference between 1080i and Blu-Ray is that 1080i (from time warner) will look all "grainy" whereas Blu-Ray looks fairly close to a giant magazine picture.
People have worked out the equations I think but in a nutshell when your watching TV you want most of what you see to be the television. This is why movie theatres are so wide - because more of your visual field is horizontal instead of vertical. That leads to some very large sizes for TV screens for the best experience..
Pete
This is because HD signals from cable, satellite, etc, are heavily compressed. With Blu-Ray you are getting the least compression out there due to the amount of physical size of the media. Bandwidth is not a concern, while with TV channel providers it is a top concern because they need to cram so many channels onto their satellite signal, cable, etc etc.
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
Bingo. BluRay averages out to anywhere from 25 to 40 Mbps bitrate. Cable high def? 15Mbps, if you're lucky, for some of the more compressed channels. I've seen examples of Comcast trying to push some HD streams down to 10Mbps, which is just barely north of the upper average maximum bitrate for DVD. DVD is one SIXTH the size of a 1080 line stream.
Providers really should just remove always-on-wire channels and put everything as an on demand live stream. More bandwidth to go around.
A lot of people don't realize you can get uncompressed local HDTV channels using an antenna:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=453241
http://www.hdtvantennalabs.com/index.php
It is one of the things I actually like about Blu-ray. Movies feel like film again. Standard definition homogonizes and softens detail so much that you lose the physical quality of a print. I especially like it with black and white films, again, feels like film!
And yeah, excessive DNR is the worst, looks so bad. It is all about the encoding. You can have a movie on Blu-ray but a crap transfer and encoding will make it worthless next to a DVD.