Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyre
It would be nice but I would hate to have to invest in 100 inch display to get the benefit of a bd
|
Actually a 100" FP and screen doesn't cost all that much more than a conventional 50" display. FP just doesn't work in as many environments, due to light and user considerations, it being less plug-and-play.
I know yours seems like a logical assumption, but it depends on the experience you're looking for; a submersive movie experience in a dedicated home theater environment or a community like living-room atmosphere. They're very different. If you want the fullest movie experience at home, sitting ten feet from a 60" plasma with the light on or more obvious distractions doesn't cut it as well as a picture that practically, if not literally wraps around you, sucking you into the film itself (even more so in 3D.) And with well done BDs you can sit that close without disappearing returns. It's also better for your eyes, despite the old adage, than focusing more tightly on a smaller area of your field of view. It's almost comparable to listening to an 6 or 8 channel DTS Master Audio track thru your tv's stereo speakers in simulated surround mode. It might subjectively look or sound great, but comparatively it's farther from full fidelity.
The size of the screen is going to be more revealing of mediocre discs, but also more rewarding for reference ones if you're really into movies. 1080p BD is capable of preserving film at a quality suitable for cinema sized projection, far bigger than the largest HT. I've seen BD projected side by side with the masters on screens that make my 92" FP setup seem like the tiny 17" laptop I'm typing on now. So trust me, at 100" we're just beginning to see what 1080p can really do. Even at 200" you won't get the full affect, notice every detail, appreciate every nuance that went into the cinematography, some of which can have a direct bearing on one's appreciation of the story.
Regardless of display resolution, it could be successfully argued that the format itself is overkill for most conventional screen sizes (at the moment anyway), which is why you see so many posts implying such and such BD looks no better than the DVD. When they both come from the same master or the BD is even taken from a newly updated one, how else would you not see a difference in five times the resolution, unless the display is a limiting factor? Not to mention with BD you're getting a direct copy of the master that's sent directly from disc to display without extra processing steps if the display is 24p compatible. DVD is not a direct copy of the masters, it's down res'd 480i from a 1080p master that then must be deinterlaced and upscaled to the resolution of the display, processing that both adds artifacts and is deleterious.
Not all masters offer reference 1080p. Some films were mastered in the 90's and even early 00's using equipment not adequate for a 1080p format. Even so, unless the film itself was shot on video at a resolution far below 1080p - like 28 Days Later, there should be measurable improvement in detail. And even with films like 28 Days Later clarity should be improved simply by avoiding the lossy process of conforming a 1080p source to a 480i format, which aside from blurring picture information, also induces ringing and aggravates random noise. DVDs necessity for higher compression ratios aggravates these affects even further.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
V for Vendetta
Linear Mode
