Blu-ray picture problems

[ashlenrules]

So i have a PS3 and a 40' Sony Bravira 1080i, 720 P and i have been watching blu-ray movies on it and it looks amazing...sometimes....other times it looks really fuzzy...or pixilated. I was in wal-mart and it looked so much better, I dont know if it is because I have a 720p and they were 1080...or if i just have bad seetings...Anyone have any suggestions

[blackhawktraffic]

Originally Posted by ashlenrules

So i have a PS3 and a 40' Sony Bravira 1080i, 720 P and i have been watching blu-ray movies on it and it looks amazing...sometimes....other times it looks really fuzzy...or pixilated. I was in wal-mart and it looked so much better, I dont know if it is because I have a 720p and they were 1080...or if i just have bad seetings...Anyone have any suggestions

What connection do you have it with? I have a PS3 and a 46inch 1080p sony tv and it looks awesome. It also depends on what your watching and stuff to. Some BD movies will have grain with them, thats just the way they are. What things looked kinda bad when u watched them exactly?

[Maxell]

adjust your settings. Although some movies look better/worse than others. From my experience Pirates, Fantastic Four 2, and Day After Tomorrow look fantastic. While others like Click, Failure to Launch and some others look a bit grainy.

But the newer releases are getting much better than the old/first releases.

[kotton247]

Originally Posted by blackhawktraffic

What connection do you have it with? I have a PS3 and a 46inch 1080p sony tv and it looks awesome. It also depends on what your watching and stuff to. Some BD movies will have grain with them, thats just the way they are. What things looked kinda bad when u watched them exactly?

I think that he is watching 300, or he doesn't really have a blu player and is trying to start trouble. However, I have hope for this kid and say that he is just watching a movie with grain or House of flying daggers.

[blackhawktraffic]

Originally Posted by kotton247

I think that he is watching 300, or he doesn't really have a blu player and is trying to start trouble. However, I have hope for this kid and say that he is just watching a movie with grain or House of flying daggers.

Ah don't remind me that i bought House and didn't see the shit reviews it got beforehand


Also what cable do you have connecting it to your tv? HDMI is best of course.

[Copywriter]

Probably the TV/settings/etc.

I bought House of FD also despite the reviews. I haven't opened it yet.

[ashlenrules]

most recently it was on crash...i love my blu-ray...but half the movie its amazing and the letters are amazing and crystal clear, but sometimes it gets grainy...but thanks for the reply...I have HDMI connections

[foots]

Film isn't clear either.

Most movies are shot on film

You are seeing the quality of the source in most cases.

Not everything is going to look like the Discovery channel.

[BStecke]

Film is typically better than digital video, because technically a piece of film can have inifinite lines of resolution. So . . . just because a movie is shot on film doesn't mean it's lower quality, it's usually the opposite. That's actually why the last few minutes of 28 Days Later looks so much better, because it was shot on film.

I've heard Crash was a fairly poor quality release, BTW.

[foots]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Film is typically better than digital video, because technically a piece of film can have inifinite lines of resolution. So . . . just because a movie is shot on film doesn't mean it's lower quality, it's usually the opposite. That's actually why the last few minutes of 28 Days Later looks so much better, because it was shot on film.

I've heard Crash was a fairly poor quality release, BTW.

Yes, film is typically better than digital video in regards to resolution... especially standard definition digital video which is what was used in 28 Days Later. These are not the same digital video cameras used for things like Discovery's HD channel. Not to mention the video for 28 Days Later was processed further to degrade the video further for artistic reasons.

The OP complained of the image looking "fuzzy" or "pixelated" which I can only assume is referring to the grain inherent in the film. So while yes film has a higher resolution than HD cameras an HD camera can produce a "clearer" image when displayed at its native resolution because there is no grain.

[BStecke]

I'm pickin' up what you're puttin' down. HDD's review of Crash says it's soft in many places, so that may explain some of what you're seeing. Low budget, etc. I don't know about pixellation though, may be some artifacting going on?

[aristotles]

If your display has a native resolution of 720-768 vertical, you are better off setting your PS3 to 720p instead of 1080i. If your TV has a HDMI input, I would recommend getting a HDMI cable to connect your PS3 to the TV.

[ESUNintel]

Speaking of HDMI cables, what's the difference between a lower priced Phillips HDMI (Like $30), a Monser (like $120) and AudioQuest (like $300)?

Does AudioQuest mean a better picture?

[all_blu_man]

Use Monster 400 HDMI. I am not sure of AudioQuest so I will not get into that one but Monster one I sure know that the quality is better. Far as my knowledge goes, HDMI cable has 26 smaller cables inside and I believe Monster sauder each and every cable by hand to ensure full quality. Also the conductor inside is nice and bigger which means that it will carry that 100% signal strength through out. Keep in mind that Monster has different leves of HDMI. Such has 300, 400(the one I use), 500, 600, 700 and 1000. Trust me, good quality cable makes a difference in picture and sound.

[CGYBLU]

don't worry about the cable, especially with HDMI ...

monoprice.com and never look back.

[Maxell]

Originally Posted by ESUNintel

Speaking of HDMI cables, what's the difference between a lower priced Phillips HDMI (Like $30), a Monser (like $120) and AudioQuest (like $300)?

Does AudioQuest mean a better picture?

Not much, its more about the quality of the cable wrapping and wiring. Monster cables are better protected material. But picture quality is little to no difference, though Monster buyers will refute that to defend their $100+ purchase.

[JJ]

{-------refuting it to defend his $100 purchase

[Footloose301]

Originally Posted by JJxiv1215

{-------refuting it to defend his $100 purchase

Haha yes. My first HDMI purchase was a $130 6ft Monster. Then I heard good things about monoprice, bought a couple and have never looked back. The HDMI at monoprice are $16 for the SAME exact cable, it just doesn't say "Monster" on it. Monster cables are a waste of money. Do some searches around here and you'll see for yourself. Check some reviews.

[MouseRider]

Originally Posted by all_blu_man

Monster sauder each and every cable by hand to ensure full quality.

Wow, soldering by hand is now an item to ensure full quality? On pins the size of a needle and are spaced less than 40 mils away from each other?

I think if they said it was precision soldered by a robot I'd be more impressed, but that's just me.

There is something to be said about build quality and quality control but when it comes to digital signal cables, especially when you consider that monoprice and other "reasonably priced" cables are at least 3-5 times cheaper, and they too come with replacement warranties, I'll take the "reasonably priced" models any day.

Analog cables is another story altogether.

[Footloose301]

Originally Posted by MouseRider

I think if they said it was precision soldered by a robot I'd be more impressed, but that's just me.

This part made me laugh a lot! All I could think of is the phrase that I love saying, "I'm not even mad........ I'm actually impressed."~Ron Burgandy

HAHA If you've seen Anchor Man then you'll know what I'm talking about.