Pioneer Elite BDP-LX500

[smithb]

Originally Posted by wxman2003

Heck, I remember when movies first came out on VHS, and waiting for them to go on sale for $79.

I'm thinking you are referring to the initial pricing of new releases listed for rental store purchase? I don't recall ever seeing those prices in general stores. Early, on, I'd purchase catalog titles from Tower Records for typically $20 to $30. Then new releases I would sometimes get from a rental store used for $10.

[IITravel01]

Originally Posted by smithb

I'm thinking you are referring to the initial pricing of new releases listed for rental store purchase? I don't recall ever seeing those prices in general stores. Early, on, I'd purchase catalog titles from Tower Records for typically $20 to $30. Then new releases I would sometimes get from a rental store used for $10.

I worked at a video store in the mid to late 80's and yes, the retail price of most VHS new release movies was around $79.95.

[smithb]

Originally Posted by IITravel01

I worked at a video store in the mid to late 80's and yes, the retail price of most VHS new release movies was around $79.95.

I knew rental stores paid high prices to be able to rent new releases, but did not realize they were also available to general consumers. I wouldn't have been able to pay that much in the mid-80's anyway. When I purchased at Tower in the late 80's I do not recall any new releases for sale, only for rent. However, I did purchase catalog titles regularly for as previously stated $20-$30.

[Scottishguy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1Xg...ature=youtu.be

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by smithb

A techno-geek enthusiast, probably not, but a film enthusiast is focused on the content and will watch on whatever they can afford. Some are both, some are one or the other. I think there is too much emphasis in forums like this some times in trying to say a film enthusiast has to also be a techno-geek.

You mistake my intention, sir. I didn't specify which 'enthusiast' I meant which left it open for such interpretation as the above, but it just so happens to be my firm belief that most "film enthusiasts" (to use your parlance) don't give a fook about quality, or should I say that there is a 'good enough' mentality at work and that's fine; no-one's opinion of a film means any more or less to me if they're watching it on iPhone or IMAX.

It's when people proffer an opinion on a specific disc presentation - which to most users is literally what this site exists for - without having a decent display, or worse a decent one that's been set-up to "pop" because that's just how they like it, is when I wheel out the ol' elitist snobbery because in that case some opinions do matter more than others. Why? Because while film appreciation is almost entirely subjective there are genuine technological benchmarks in play when it comes to video appreciation, i.e. actual objective measurable standards to which these things are mastered and intended to be displayed.

Taste still matters even in that case, yes: people don't have to like what they see just because they have an accurate display, but if they've got the standards in place and I still disagree with their views then at least then I'll know to disregard their taste rather than their setup. Samsung have always done things their own way, it's why they're so successful at what they do, but they also introduce hurdles to accuracy for the sake of dat crowd-pleasing "pop" and no sane video enthusiast should go near one.

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Some may have missed the point. Some of us tech types could care less about how another enthusiast views/listens to their content. An example, the rub comes when an enthusiast says there is little difference between the DVD and UHD BD of title xyz when there is clearly a big difference to those that know what to look/listen for. I have no problem when the viewer says the DVD is good enough for them and leaves it at that.

If some of you just knew the amount of ridicule aimed at some of us because we like OAR. I believe to this day some hate the black bars on 1.78 displays of widescreen content.

There are regular contributors to this forum who still zoom away the black bars on their TV. But yes, if someone says that something is "good enough" for them while acknowledging that further gains are beyond their divination or budget then fine, I'm happy to leave it there. It's when, as just said, people proffer their definitive opinion on what x disc looks like without much idea of what it's supposed to look like, e.g. cranking up the DNR and sharpness, putting the colour temp on cool, putting the scene select on Vivid, turning the motion interpolation on etc etc etc. Then their opinion is worthless to me.

[Member-425016]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Taste still matters even in that case, yes: people don't have to like what they see just because they have an accurate display, but if they've got the standards in place and I still disagree with their views then at least then I'll know to disregard their taste rather than their setup. Samsung have always done things their own way, it's why they're so successful at what they do, but they also introduce hurdles to accuracy for the sake of dat crowd-pleasing "pop" and no sane video enthusiast should go near one.

I will never understand Samsung's desire to deprive consumers of Dolby Vision as most feel it is essential for top tier 4K viewing, that being said it is clear you find them to be a "lesser" company than say Sony, or LG.
And while you will probably find this post as more "background noise" I would appreciate your thoughts on the F8500 Plasma.
I still think it is the best plasma set ever created.
Thanks.

[BijouMan]

Originally Posted by Filmfan73

I will never understand Samsung's desire to deprive consumers of Dolby Vision as most feel it is essential for top tier 4K viewing, that being said it is clear you find them to be a "lesser" company than say Sony, or LG.
And while you will probably find this post as more "background noise" I would appreciate your thoughts on the F8500 Plasma.
I still think it is the best plasma set ever created.
Thanks.

I thought everybody loved Pioneer's KURO plasma displays.

[Member-425016]

Originally Posted by BijouMan

I thought everybody loved Pioneer's KURO plasma displays.

Well, they do/did. For the time it was the best.
Fast forward 5 years and
the F8500 was more aesthetically pleasing, it was brighter, and it was 3D (great 3D), better up-conversion of SD sources.
A better plasma TV set overall.

[wxman2003]

Originally Posted by Filmfan73

I will never understand Samsung's desire to deprive consumers of Dolby Vision as most feel it is essential for top tier 4K viewing, that being said it is clear you find them to be a "lesser" company than say Sony, or LG.
And while you will probably find this post as more "background noise" I would appreciate your thoughts on the F8500 Plasma.
I still think it is the best plasma set ever created.
Thanks.

I had both the 64F8500, and a Pioneer 5020. Although the F8500 was brighter, in fact the brightest consumer plasma ever made, its blacks were not as good as the Pioneer. Still a really good tv. Samsung screwed the owners over twice. First by not upgrading the evolution kit after 1 year, even though they said they would keep upgrading for 5 years, and 2nd, they stopped making replacement parts after 2 years. Their heat sink in that tv was so bad that if you didn't add external fans on the back of the tv, you risked capacitor failure due to overheating. And since they stopped making replacement boards, if you couldn't fix the boards yourself, you were out of luck. That's why I will never buy another Samsung. 13 years later, the 5020 is still running just fine at a friends house. The F8500 I sold in 2015, lasted another 2 years and died in 2017. So it only lasted 5 years, from when I bought it in 2012.

[smithb]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You mistake my intention, sir. I didn't specify which 'enthusiast' I meant which left it open for such interpretation as the above, but it just so happens to be my firm belief that most "film enthusiasts" (to use your parlance) don't give a fook about quality, or should I say that there is a 'good enough' mentality at work and that's fine; no-one's opinion of a film means any more or less to me if they're watching it on iPhone or IMAX.

Then I apologize, sir. I've ended up in a few 4K UHD threads where some have overly indulged in telling others that they must not really be a "film enthusiast" (not my term but that is how it was put to me) if they didn't upgrade to 4K UHD capabilities. For a time, it even delved into a "those projector people" vs. the 4K UHD flat screen crowd.

I had to finally bail when I was told I should scrap my projection system, take the loss, and move up to a 4K UHD flat screen. Even if it meant starting out with an inexpensive panel at first. The real hypocrisy came when someone asked whether a sound bar is good enough, and one of those same people said, Yes, if you've never experienced a true surround system you won't be missing anything.

For me the video capabilities, while a major component of a system, are not the be all end all to the overall experience. Other factors, such as screen size, audio, room dynamics, and presentation are all important factors as well. When I designed my HT I tried to balance all aspects.

[LexInHD]

Originally Posted by Filmfan73

I will never understand Samsung's desire to deprive consumers of Dolby Vision as most feel it is essential for top tier 4K viewing, that being said it is clear you find them to be a "lesser" company than say Sony, or LG.

Samsung is focused on the markets in Asia, Europe, and South America. HLG, HDR10, and HDR10+ are the dominant HDR formats in those markets, primarily through streaming. DV would just be extra cost and headache for them to implement, for a small market share of customers.

[BijouMan]

Originally Posted by LexInHD

Samsung is focused on the markets in Asia, Europe, and South America. HLG, HDR10, and HDR10+ are the dominant HDR formats in those markets, primarily through streaming. DV would just be extra cost and headache for them to implement, for a small market share of customers.

HDTVTest is in the United Kingdom and he uses Dolby Vision (and HDR10+) all the time.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by smithb

Then I apologize, sir. I've ended up in a few 4K UHD threads where some have overly indulged in telling others that they must not really be a "film enthusiast" (not my term but that is how it was put to me) if they didn't upgrade to 4K UHD capabilities. For a time, it even delved into a "those projector people" vs. the 4K UHD flat screen crowd.

I had to finally bail when I was told I should scrap my projection system, take the loss, and move up to a 4K UHD flat screen. Even if it meant starting out with an inexpensive panel at first. The real hypocrisy came when someone asked whether a sound bar is good enough, and one of those same people said, Yes, if you've never experienced a true surround system you won't be missing anything.

For me the video capabilities, while a major component of a system, are not the be all end all to the overall experience. Other factors, such as screen size, audio, room dynamics, and presentation are all important factors as well. When I designed my HT I tried to balance all aspects.

Here's the thing about me: I don't have an external sound system. At all. Just the TV's built in speakers. Used to have an AVR with loads of speakers all over the room for about 20 years, but it's wrecked my hearing to the point where even if the TV is turned up too loud it makes my eardrums rattle and sets off my tinnitus.

All I have to do is say this and *poof*, I magically encounter the exact same snobbery that I seemingly perpetuate on the visual side of things, that I cannot possibly be getting the full experience and that I'm not able to enjoy films on the same level as others who've got 57 speakers crowded around their heads. Oh, sweet irony.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Here's the thing about me: I don't have an external sound system. At all. Just the TV's built in speakers. Used to have an AVR with loads of speakers all over the room for about 20 years, but it's wrecked my hearing to the point where even if the TV is turned up too loud it makes my eardrums rattle and sets off my tinnitus.

All I have to do is say this and *poof*, I magically encounter the exact same snobbery that I seemingly perpetuate on the visual side of things, that I cannot possibly be getting the full experience and that I'm not able to enjoy films on the same level as others who've got 57 speakers crowded around their heads. Oh, sweet irony.

Snobbery from people who only watch Blockbusters is a bit rich. Arthouse and indie film's, which is 9/10 dialogue. You don't need surround sound.

Indeed many of those film's come with 2.0 tracks.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Snobbery from people who only watch Blockbusters is a bit rich. Arthouse and indie film's, which is 9/10 dialogue. You don't need surround sound.

Indeed many of those film's come with 2.0 tracks.

Eh, try telling that to the people who won't buy a UHD unless it comes with Atmos.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Eh, try telling that to the people who won't buy a UHD unless it comes with Atmos.

I don't want to be that guy who saids watch more than Marvel. But they should watch more than Marvel.

[smithb]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Here's the thing about me: I don't have an external sound system. At all. Just the TV's built in speakers. Used to have an AVR with loads of speakers all over the room for about 20 years, but it's wrecked my hearing to the point where even if the TV is turned up too loud it makes my eardrums rattle and sets off my tinnitus.

All I have to do is say this and *poof*, I magically encounter the exact same snobbery that I seemingly perpetuate on the visual side of things, that I cannot possibly be getting the full experience and that I'm not able to enjoy films on the same level as others who've got 57 speakers crowded around their heads. Oh, sweet irony.

So true. We all have our own priorities, some as simple as personal preference, and other for easily understood legitimate reasons. As I believe you referenced earlier (paraphrasing here so I don't have to look it up), when someone makes a claim that can be technically refuted they should be called on it, but when they reference a personal choice for whatever reason, it should be respected.

Your limitation is audio for the stated reasons. Mine is a lack of interest in 4K UHD due to limited availability of content of current interest and cost to upgrade that ensures I am moving forward, not sideways (i.e., it would need to be a true 4K UHD projector).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

I don't want to be that guy who saids watch more than Marvel. But they should watch more than Marvel.

I think we've established by now that the only reason many people get into newer formats is for the "pop", be it for audio, video or both. Even your man Vincent is guilty of falling into that trap and perpetuating that kind of cart-before-horse narrative, demanding that HDR give him a tan every time and if it doesn't then it's "fake". But then he knows what plays to his audience, there's nothing like a good controversy to generate them clicks, likes and subscribes.

I mean, it's not that I've upgraded from VHS to LD to DVD to DVHS to HD DVD to Blu-ray to 3D Blu to UHD Blu over the last 30 years because I don't want to see what improvements those formats can provide, of coursh I do, but at the same time I'm no longer greatly disappointed if those editions are technically competent but don't provide the maximum objective specifications possible for their respective formats.

The content is what justifies the repurchase first and foremost for me, not that that excuses actual technical botch jobs because even I have limits e.g. T2 on UHD, but if it ends up being "demo material" it's just a nice bonus. I don't have to have my system running at 110% all the time to justify its existence, but other people think differently. It's why they do things like zoom away black bars and must fill the screen, because they don't feel they're getting their money's worth if part of the image is blank. And there are more of these people out there than ever.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

[Show spoiler]I think we've established by now that the only reason many people get into newer formats is for the "pop", be it for audio, video or both. Even your man Vincent is guilty of falling into that trap and perpetuating that kind of cart-before-horse narrative, demanding that HDR give him a tan every time and if it doesn't then it's "fake". But then he knows what plays to his audience, there's nothing like a good controversy to generate them clicks, likes and subscribes.

I mean, it's not that I've upgraded from VHS to LD to DVD to DVHS to HD DVD to Blu-ray to 3D Blu to UHD Blu over the last 30 years because I don't want to see what improvements those formats can provide, of coursh I do, but at the same time I'm no longer greatly disappointed if those editions are technically competent but don't provide the maximum objective specifications possible for their respective formats.

The content is what justifies the repurchase first and foremost for me, not that that excuses actual technical botch jobs because even I have limits e.g. T2 on UHD, but if it ends up being "demo material" it's just a nice bonus. I don't have to have my system running at 110% all the time to justify its existence, but other people think differently. It's why they do things like zoom away black bars and must fill the screen, because they don't feel they're getting their money's worth if part of the image is blank. And there are more of these people out there than ever.

The reason I got into HD Blu-ray was because I wanted to own a better standard of home video quality than DvD, but I'm not as exacting as some folk when it comes to that quality.

People thought I was nuts when I said HD Blu-ray will eventually become the standard for the majority of film's, the usual responses of oh only blockbusters will take advantage of it ect ect. Well HD Blu-ray has well and truly cemented itself as the standard.

When it comes to UHD Blu-ray, i see that as more of an enhancement than something other.

Even if film's are eventually offered digitally in 8K 1000 nits, I'm tapping out with just 4K UHD.

[R3P0]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

The reason I got into HD Blu-ray was because I wanted to own a better standard of home video quality than DvD, but I'm not as exacting as some folk when it comes to that quality.

People thought I was nuts when I said HD Blu-ray will eventually become the standard for the majority of film's, the usual responses of oh only blockbusters will take advantage of it ect ect. Well HD Blu-ray has well and truly cemented itself as the standard.

When it comes to UHD Blu-ray, i see that as more of an enhancement than something other.

Even if film's are eventually offered digitally in 8K 1000 nits, I'm tapping out with just 4K UHD.

I 100% agree with you here im not upgrading past 4K thats it for me, Maybe if 8K becomes standard some must haves ill upgrade but for the most part im building my theater and im out.