Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

You guys must be in low tech fields, that's all I can think.

so what field are you in. I am an IT consultant now, but my previous job was to administer the network telecom for a large multinational, and as such I used to be invited by some of the major telcos to their tech boards and I was involved when our company and a few other similar companies ended up building our own network by installing our own fiber. And even though it is not the field I am in any more, from time to time I am still invited by the telco's (though I don't bother with international ones any more) to them.

[Steedeel]

best answer of the day Anthony!!!!!

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by punkguy03

They need more quality like that now. Maybe more people would be willing to invest money on a new tv or format if they knew it would last longer.

No...they won't. Unfortunately, we've become addicted to Chinese-manufactured junk. People search the internet to buy electronics and they'll choose one store over the other for a $2000 product for a difference of less than a dollar. We complain about jobs, but we don't want to pay more so companies could manufacture in the U.S. (or Europe) and pay decent wages.

The fact that you can now buy a BD player for less than $100 and a DVD player for $30-$40 and that everyone along the supply chain- design, manufacturing, distribution, retail and overhead - makes a bit along the way is simply astonishing. You can buy a CD-ROM drive for $25 (yet a decent pair of Levis costs at least $40). Imagine if you had to setup a factory to manufacture a CD-ROM drive and all that would entail: all the plastic and metal parts, the drive mechanism itself, the electronics, etc.

On the Apple forums, people are always writing how Apple should move some manufacturing back to the U.S., but (almost) no one would be willing to pay the price. Chinese factory workers make about $130 a month. Even at minimum wage and without any benefits, U.S. workers would get $1276 a month and that's impossible to live on in most areas of the country.

In 1984, when the first Mac came out, it sold for $2495 with 128KB of memory and no hard disk. That's $5400 in 2011 dollars. Would you pay $5400 for a mid-range Mac?

Back in 1966, I bought a Fisher 500c stereo receiver. Very high quality, but certainly not "esoteric". It cost around $400, which is $2775 in 2011 dollars. Most people today expect to pay around $500 for a mid-range receiver and that's one with 6 channels and all kinds of digital processing.

I have a relatively high-end Sony CRT TV that was manufactured in 1982 either in Japan or California. I think it cost around $700, which is $1630 in 2011 dollars. At 29 years old, it still works and it still has a great picture. But I would never expect a modern Sony TV to last as long and I'm not sure it needs to because the technology is evolving so quickly, you probably wouldn't want to keep a set today any longer than five years.

And the technology is such that most components are impossible to repair because the circuit board wires are so small, it's almost impossible for a human to solder those circuits. So we've become more than ever, a disposable society. So we buy cheap stuff and then we throw it into the landfill and then buy more cheap stuff. We do for everything: clothes, furniture, electronics, etc.

[Steedeel]

I will always buy quality!

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

let m ask you this. BD has 1080p, why does it need 40mbps if there is no difference? the reality is that due to the way TCP/IP works and that the overhead is part of the stream, streaming would need roughly 1.5-2 times as much as BD to have the same quality. If it is DL to watch later, then it is still substantial but less then 1.5x. When Netflix is streaming 1080p@>60mbps then you can make a point.

How do we know it actually needs 40mbps? How much of that 40mbps is actually just diminishing returns? At what point does the speed of delivery actually represent a perceptable difference in picture quality? Just like sitting 10' away from a 60" 1080P set should technically provide a more detailed picture than sitting 6' away from a 32" 720P set... how many people are in practice actually able to see a real difference in detail?

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

so what field are you in. I am an IT consultant now, but my previous job was to administer the network telecom for a large multinational, and as such I used to be invited by some of the major telcos to their tech boards and I was involved when our company and a few other similar companies ended up building our own network by installing our own fiber. And even though it is not the field I am in any more, from time to time I am still invited by the telco's (though I don't bother with international ones any more) to them.

I didn't ask what you did, I asked what the guy who doesn't seem to know about digital data. Digital Medical imaging. Which includes IT functions with networking, database management and working with super HD monitors for accurate display of exams. I did go down the formal IT training path and am a Microsoft Certified Professional, stopped just short of MCSE because I really didn't need it. I am also, as I noted an early electronics adapter, and Amazon invited me years ago into their Vine program where they send me items like LCD TVs, and other new, advanced electronics and software for review.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by robinandtami

How do we know it actually needs 40mbps? How much of that 40mbps is actually just diminishing returns? At what point does the speed of delivery actually represent a perceptable difference in picture quality? Just like sitting 10' away from a 60" 1080P set should technically provide a more detailed picture than sitting 6' away from a 32" 720P set... how many people are in practice actually able to see a real difference in detail?

I've tried pointing that out. Some don't seem to get it. Its the same thing with "normal" size 4k TVs.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I will always buy quality!

You'd buy a TV based on specs even if you could see no difference. Marketing departments love people like you. Go back to the video I posted of the 720p vs 1080p blind test. Everyone didn't think the "full HD" was worth more then double the price and wouldn't buy it regardless if they could tell which was which. Let me guess what you would do, lol.

[Steedeel]

Slick1ru2, didn,t microsoft back the wrong horse in the hd format war? In my opinion, it would certainly explain your posts and your general dislike of the bluray format. Ummmmm..... As i expected!

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Slick1ru2, didn,t microsoft back the wrong horse in the hd format war? In my opinion, it would certainly explain your posts and your general dislike of the bluray format. Ummmmm..... As i expected!

What does that have to do with anything? You totally missed the point. You jumped for joy that someone asked what I did and I obliged. I have experience in networking, database and image quality. And what do you do for a living? You come out with these statements with no backing at all from any source and don't make sense technologically at all.

[Steedeel]

I am an accountant.

[Steedeel]

Slick1ru2, can i ask you a question? How would you react if it was announced that all HD formats were to be made obsolete?
Bluray, cable or satellite, streams and downloading (fake HD anyway) If all those sources were confirmed to be standard def only from now and for the future what would your stance be?

[Steedeel]

You asked someone else what they did for a living. You seem to think you are above other people and some sort of guru. Well i have a better home cinema setup than you so i feel better judged to talk about image quality and what it means to me.
Also how do my posts not make sense? I have stated that bluray is far superior to streaming and streaming is a poor mans dvd format. Is that untrue?

I stated watching any form of streaming will result in blockiness and picture break up is that untrue?

I stated bluray has excellent sound and picture quality, is that untrue?

I stated streaming technology is a backwards step for true movie fans, is that untrue?

I stated that streaming looks UGLY on a 50 inch plasma (top of the range) is that untrue?

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Slick1ru2, can i ask you a question? How would you react if it was announced that all HD formats were to be made obsolete?
Bluray, cable or satellite, streams and downloading (fake HD anyway) If all those sources were confirmed to be standard def only from now and for the future what would your stance be?

4k in a normal TV would be great if I were an eagle and could see the difference. 1080p is not going to be replaced in normal TVs, there isn't any reason for it. Its like replacing 480i with 576i, you wouldn't see much of a difference and its not worth the cost of replacement.


4k is the 1:1 ratio scan of a film master of a movie. So 4k is the amount of data from a digitized analog format made to be projected on a huge movie theater screen. Most don't need that kind of resolution.

If you want to see what its like on your computer try this little demo. Go to youtube and with one browser window open a 240p movie and in another a 720p or 1080p movie. Then minimize both and as you go smaller, you will eventually get to the point where you can't tell the difference in the quality of the two. So with large screens, yes, you can see it. You can see the difference between 1080p and 4k on a theater size screen down to 10' or so projector size but as you get smaller, the difference gets less and less until its not seen at all.

[Steedeel]

No, that is not what i asked. How would you react. What would your feelings be? No more HD sources, no 4k. JUST standard definition. Please just answer the question if you dont mind.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

You asked someone else what they did for a living. You seem to think you are above other people and some sort of guru. Well i have a better home cinema setup than you so i feel better judged to talk about image quality and what it means to me.
Also how do my posts not make sense? I have stated that bluray is far superior to streaming and streaming is a poor mans dvd format. Is that untrue?

I stated watching any form of streaming will result in blockiness and picture break up is that untrue?

Yes

I stated bluray has excellent sound and picture quality, is that untrue?

No

I stated streaming technology is a backwards step for true movie fans, is that untrue?

Yes

I stated that streaming looks UGLY on a 50 inch plasma (top of the range) is that untrue?

Yes

Obviously you think that the average YouTube 260 or 360p is what I am talking about and it most certainly is not. I could not believe the 720p that NetFlix was initially streaming on the PS3, the 1080p is simply goregous. There is ABSOLUTELY NO blocking, pixilization, studdering, stopping, etc. AT ALL.

I could fill a Blu-ray disc with SD content and say that all BD is crap. That is what you are doing, making a generalization that all streaming is some low frame rate, pixilized garbage when its absolutely not at all.

Yes

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

No, that is not what i asked. How would you react. What would your feelings be? No more HD sources, no 4k. JUST standard definition. Please just answer the question if you dont mind.

I would be disappointed but I could live with it. What would your response be to no more electronic spreadsheet programs and you had to go back to ledgers? I have an accounting degree btw, was going to go the CPA route but stayed in medical imaging, the pay was better. Then of course there was the huge scandals and the huge accounting firms going belly up left and right and the field was flooded with accountants where I lived (Arthur Andersen had a large hub there) so I backed the right horse on that one.

[Steedeel]

slick1ru2 i worry for you if you think Netflix at 720p is superb quality i really do.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

slick1ru2 i worry for you if you think Netflix at 720p is superb quality i really do.

Not as much as I worry for you and your knowledge of optical physics and human acuity. You do know that ESPN and Fox broadcast in 720p right? Again, go back to the blind test, most can't tell which is which. I doubt you can either.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Obviously you think that the average YouTube 260 or 360p is what I am talking about and it most certainly is not. I could not believe the 720p that NetFlix was initially streaming on the PS3, the 1080p is simply goregous. There is ABSOLUTELY NO blocking, pixilization, studdering, stopping, etc. AT ALL.

I could fill a Blu-ray disc with SD content and say that all BD is crap. That is what you are doing, making a generalization that all streaming is some low frame rate, pixilized garbage when its absolutely not at all.

Yes

Funny that on my $1200 Best Buy priced 60" LCD, Netflix is not the "goregous"
experience you claim. And that is 1080P through a PS3. There is a marked difference between their streams and almost any BD I've watched. It is what it is.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

slick1ru2 i worry for you if you think Netflix at 720p is superb quality i really do.

From CNET:

Whether you're dealing with 1080p/24 or standard 1080p/60, doesn't alter our overall views about 1080p TVs. We still believe that when you're dealing with TVs 50 inches and smaller, the added resolution has only a very minor impact on picture quality. In our tests, we put 720p (or 768p) sets next to 1080p sets, then feed them both the same source material, whether it's 1080i or 1080p, from the highest-quality Blu-ray player. We typically watch both sets for a while, with eyes darting back and forth between the two, looking for differences in the most-detailed sections, such as hair, textures of fabric, and grassy plains. Bottom line: It's almost always very difficult to see any difference--especially from farther than 8 feet away on a 50-inch TV.

Read more: http://reviews.cnet.com/720p-vs-1080...#ixzz1MWO2Scog