Is Blu-ray here to stay?

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by Scunny_Collector

Haha. Jesus some people enjoy a good show off about there home cinema. I was just generalising I for one have 37" . but I would say the majority of us have between 28" and 50" by which my point is based. I never once said everyone had 32" ( even thou you read it somewhere ).
I only base my post on studies I have researched in this field.

No no, you specifically singled out 32 inches in your original post when talking about being able to see the differences between 1080p and 4k, which indicated to me that you believe the majority own that size display. Then only after I questioned you about it you changed your tune from that to saying that the majority own between 28-50" tv's, which is a pretty big discrepancy from what you originally said. My comment had nothing to do with bragging, though when people like yourself take such innocent comments that way, it just shows that there is some level of insecurity. Moving on, since you have now made mention of larger sized panels such as 50 inches, at a reasonable viewing distance with a 50+ inch display (I would argue with smaller sizes as well), you should be able to see a difference between 1080p and 4k, provided you don't have poor eye sight.

Originally Posted by Scunny_Collector

That has to be one of the most ridiculous comment I have ever read. Honestly why have you made that statistic up???

This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever read. Wormraper is correct, based on the last data I have seen (which was posted by someone on this site), currently 55 inches is the most popular sized display that people buy. You are out of touch by a few years, because that's about the last time 32" displays were the most popular size amongst the majority.

[3DForLife]

Originally Posted by Scunny_Collector

I'm inclined to agree with clarky on this point although maybe your referring to demo's of 4K in the cinema were 4K belongs. Your eye can not differentiate between 1080p and 4K on your home 32" ( I will post the link were I have read this later. ).

Wormraper proves (w/ his own experience) that clarky is wrong. When he said, " NOBODY can see the difference".

Yet, you still agree with clarky.

(In bold).

Who says? It comes down to a person's own eyes. Person A may see a difference clearly on a 32" screen. But person B may hardly see a difference(or no difference at).

Look at the iPad 2 and 4. Even on a small screen( 9.7"). There are lots of people that can tell the difference in resolution. (And it is a smaller jump, than 1080p to 4k.)

[Cinemave]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

...currently 55 inches is the most popular sized display that people buy. You are out of touch by a few years, because that's about the last time 32" displays were the most popular size amongst the majority.

I’m guessing the difference between what size screen people buy now, and the average size screen people have already at home already could be great. The average car people probably buy now are 2013 models, but I would suspect the average car people already own would be something quite a few years older. It’s 2 different things.

[Chris_Shelley]

There were an amazing number of comments from people who clearly didn't read the article at all. Let me make this pithy and clear: The 4K resolution is awesome, but 4K televisions are stupid. Your eye has a finite resolution, and at the distance that most people sit from their TVs, it's unlikely you'd be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, let alone 4K (roughly 4,096x2,304 pixels). Countless comments were some variation of "well, I sit closer" or "I have a huge projection screen." Yes, if you sit closer than the average (9 feet) or have a huge screen (as I do), then 4K may be beneficial. I explicitly say this in the original article. I also mention 4K would be great for passive 3D.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7...-stupid-still/

I stand by the fact that somebody mentioning 'o 55inch is the new average' is not common place for a fact to be based....

Please see what people say they have this month and tell me what the average of such people is..??

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1782581

I was also just using 32" as a general as in a mean value... of course some people have bigger and some people have smaller....

[Chris_Shelley]

like i also said in my previous posts i based my argument on articles i had read, the same way in which you base your argument that 55" is the average tv size. In reality the price decrease amoung tv's these days makes 32" size and sizes close to this size, must be whats purchased on average also.... many people (Who are not technically minded) buy there tv'sfrom supermarkets.... Which i personelly have never seen stock 55" plus sizes..... Average 55" also means that many are purchasing well above this size.... I would say an average size of 55 could be based on..

Rich / Famous buying - 70"
Middle Class buying 40"

Still makes 55" doesnt mean people are purchasing such sizes......

Now if the 'mode' value of tv's being purchased was 55" then that would mean what you are trying to get across to me....

Its also nothing to do with me ' being out of touch'

[Chris_Shelley]

Also just to let you know..... i do love a good discussion

[Chris_Shelley]

Originally Posted by 3DForLife

Again, it it not "One Size fits all".

Let me ask you this question. If you could compare a megapixel camera to describe how good a human eye is. How many megapixels would your eye have?

* A 10 megapixel camera = 3648 x 2736

i wouldnt compare the quality of a picture on the megapixel rate..... i would compare it on the capacity for the shutter to take in the best light for the picture that i was taking...... better megapixels does not mean better quality picture.....

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Scunny_Collector

That has to be one of the most ridiculous comment I have ever read. Honestly why have you made that statistic up???

it's not the most common size IN houses right now, but the most commonly BOUGHT tv is around 50 ish inches right now. the prices have come down so much that 50 ish inches is the average sized TV's being bought right now.... that means the baby 30-40 inch tv's are gonna be pushed out as the majority of televisions sooner than later... prices have dropped. 32-42 inch tv's are no longer the "budget" tvs any more.

[Chris_Shelley]

Originally Posted by wormraper

it's not the most common size IN houses right now, but the most commonly BOUGHT tv is around 50 ish inches right now. the prices have come down so much that 50 ish inches is the average sized TV's being bought right now.... that means the baby 30-40 inch tv's are gonna be pushed out as the majority of televisions sooner than later... prices have dropped. 32-42 inch tv's are no longer the "budget" tvs any more.

What size sorry...... 50 ish or 55

and i explained what average ment earlier....

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Scunny_Collector

like i also said in my previous posts i based my argument on articles i had read, the same way in which you base your argument that 55" is the average tv size. In reality the price decrease amoung tv's these days makes 32" size and sizes close to this size, must be whats purchased on average also.... many people (Who are not technically minded) buy there tv'sfrom supermarkets.... Which i personelly have never seen stock 55" plus sizes..... Average 55" also means that many are purchasing well above this size.... I would say an average size of 55 could be based on..

Rich / Famous buying - 70"
Middle Class buying 40"

Still makes 55" doesnt mean people are purchasing such sizes......

Now if the 'mode' value of tv's being purchased was 55" then that would mean what you are trying to get across to me....

Its also nothing to do with me ' being out of touch'

you've never seen 50 inch tv's in walmart??? over HALF of the tv's on the wall at my walmarts are between 47 - 65 inches (the 70's are off to the side on display but they don't have display models of that size out yet)

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Scunny_Collector

What size sorry...... 50 ish or 55

sigh... 50-55 ish is ONE category (includes the off size models like 51 inch and 53 inch, but those are usually samsung).... you don't go by one specific size number ,stats are done in ranges it's done in 50-60 inch ranges, 70+ and 32-40 40-49 inches etc.

[3DForLife]

Originally Posted by Scunny_Collector

i wouldnt compare the quality of a picture on the megapixel rate..... i would compare it on the capacity for the shutter to take in the best light for the picture that i was taking...... better megapixels does not mean better quality picture.....

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

Scroll down to the 3rd question

[Chris_Shelley]

Originally Posted by wormraper

sigh... 50-55 ish is ONE category (includes the off size models like 51 inch and 53 inch, but those are usually samsung).... you don't go by one specific size number ,stats are done in ranges it's done in 50-60 inch ranges, 70+ and 32-40 40-49 inches etc.

Sigh... tell me about it.... Agree to disagree as it aint going to much further.... I understand that tv's in homes over the next 5 years will start getting bigger.... or

[Chris_Shelley]

Originally Posted by 3DForLife

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

Scroll down to the 3rd question

Weve all quoted can my quote and your quote go hand in hand and just smile and move on... its been great to chat to you guys.. i enjoy it alot more then i dislike it but i have to get back to watching eastenders on my 19" Portable TV

God we would be here all night if i told you what i thought of 3D mr 3D for life...... Jokes jokes....

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Scunny_Collector

I stand by the fact that somebody mentioning 'o 55inch is the new average' is not common place for a fact to be based....

Please see what people say they have this month and tell me what the average of such people is..??

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1782581

I was also just using 32" as a general as in a mean value... of course some people have bigger and some people have smaller....

Your comment does not make any sense

1) it is not the 1990's everyone I know owns at least one TV that is >32" actually I don't know anyone who's primary display is <42". So I don't know where you found all these people that don’t own a TV >32” in order to make it so small.

2) your argument of "who cares what people are buying now" does not make any sense unless you assume people in the future will start buying smaller TVs, something that has never happened in the history of TV. Anyone that will own a 4k TV will either buy it in the future or just bought it recently where there is none that is 32". When these people with the 32" TV they bought a couple of decades ago or more go out and buy a new 4K TV it won't be a 1990's size but the 2010's or 2020's size.

[Chris_Shelley]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Your comment does not make any sense

1) it is not the 1990's everyone I know owns at least one TV that is >32" actually I don't know anyone who's primary display is <42". So I don't know where you found all these people that don’t own a TV >32” in order to make it so small.

2) your argument of "who cares what people are buying now" does not make any sense unless you assume people in the future will start buying smaller TVs, something that has never happened in the history of TV. Anyone that will own a 4k TV will either buy it in the future or just bought it recently where there is none that is 32". When these people with the 32" TV they bought a couple of decades ago or more go out and buy a new 4K TV it won't be a 1990's size but the 2010's or 2020's size.

We've moved on mate.....

[Noetic Hatter]

I have been going almost all digital for the last year or two, buying nearly 100 movies on itunes (plus lots of TV), as well as a few films on amazon and Google Play. And then there's viewing on netflix and Hulu Plus.

But the reason I am coming back to discs is that you just can't get the level of special features on a download. iTunes does a decent enough job with a lot of their new movies, adding features. But it's just not the same. Then, along with the features, there's often the inclusion of a box set or a digibook. (Think about the books that come with most Criterion releases, compared to if you just buy them on itunes or watch them on Hulu+, for example.)

Streaming video is a great way to rent movies. And it's a great way to put something "into print" that's no available anywhere else. But for now, I don't intend to buy anymore films electronically. I want a disc, with a case that I can hold.

And BD is the best format for now, to get me what I want.