Best Blu-ray Movie Deals


Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | New deals  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Australia Netherlands Japan Mexico
Gladiator 4K (Blu-ray)
$16.99
5 hrs ago
My Fair Lady 4K (Blu-ray)
$22.96
 
Justice Society: World War II (Blu-ray)
$22.99
5 hrs ago
Castle of the Creeping Flesh (Blu-ray)
$15.98
1 day ago
Django 4K + Texas, Adios (Blu-ray)
$42.99
 
News of the World 4K (Blu-ray)
$29.99
 
Stagecoach (Blu-ray)
$19.53
18 hrs ago
Monster Hunter 4K (Blu-ray)
$24.96
 
Scare Me (Blu-ray)
$12.99
5 hrs ago
Big Fish 4K (Blu-ray)
$22.50
 
The Croods: A New Age 4K (Blu-ray)
$24.72
1 day ago
John Wick: Chapters 1-3 4K (Blu-ray)
$25.60
 
What's your next favorite movie?
Join our movie community to find out


Image from: Life of Pi (2012)
Old 12-29-2013, 12:25 PM   #21
Blu-Dog Blu-Dog is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
Blu-Dog's Avatar
 
Dec 2007
Lancaster, CA
9
1
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter View Post
I would not expect those extremely large screen flat panels (100" or more) to be large movers. First off, try and get one up a flight of stairs. Just to get my projector screen into my theater, I had to bring it in through a hole in the wall because it would not fit around the corners in the hallway. When they have screens that can roll up, I think you will see more people put in mega screens in their house.
For most modern developments, downstairs seems loaded for visiting and cooking, and dining only; upstairs is for bedrooms/office space, etc. Very illogical, but that's standard for modern American construction. Two story homes are terribly illogical, but cheap for builders - they'd rather buy wood than dirt, and have larger lots and fewer homes in developments. It's very odd. I refused to even look at two story homes when I was house-hunting, and have not spoken to one person who thinks they make sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter View Post
As for the idea of a $10k 150" plasma, I would have to see what it looks like. If it doesn't look like film, I would pass on that for installation in my theater. As for the people who would eschew a dedicated theater for a big plasma, that is their choice. There are people who skip on speakers for headphones. Everybody has different preferences and priorities and not everybody will vote with their dollars for a projector or set aside the square footage in their house for a dedicated viewing room, something I think you need for a projector to really perform.
The lighting control requirements for good projection systems is beyond most homeowners, who still want to use (and furnish) a room as something other than a dedicated theater. While all of the gimmicks - blacking out windows with various treatments, sound traps, compromising seating locations for speaker/subwoofer locations, those ridiculous "theater seating" clumped chairs, and so on - looks cute on this forum, it turns the room into something other than a general use or meeting area. If there is a solo-purpose location, such as a basement, or game room, or something, such indulgences are fine, but if it's a normal home with a family living in it, after a time it just becomes a nuisance.

The theater equipment should blend in, as art and not a pillar. This won't stop it from being imposing, so it can take up a wall, and seating can "float" around it. As unbelievable as this may sound to some "theater" types, it's pretty easy to turn a chair towards a screen when you're watching something, and move it back when you're done.

Once people get beyond the Imposing Grandeur phase, it will be easier to accept larger screens, and make them part of the décor.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2013, 02:50 PM   #22
Mr.Poindexter Mr.Poindexter is offline
Senior Member
 
Mr.Poindexter's Avatar
 
Jul 2010
29
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blu-Dog View Post
For most modern developments, downstairs seems loaded for visiting and cooking, and dining only; upstairs is for bedrooms/office space, etc. Very illogical, but that's standard for modern American construction. Two story homes are terribly illogical, but cheap for builders - they'd rather buy wood than dirt, and have larger lots and fewer homes in developments. It's very odd. I refused to even look at two story homes when I was house-hunting, and have not spoken to one person who thinks they make sense.
You might not have spoken to enough people then. 2 story houses are cheaper for builders because they are cheaper to build and as such present a better $/ft^2 value to the buyer. They are also more energy efficient and allow for a larger yard on a fixed piece of land. You can buy wood a lot easier than buying dirt, too because we can produce more wood, but they are not making much land these days.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2013, 04:52 AM   #23
Blu-Dog Blu-Dog is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
Blu-Dog's Avatar
 
Dec 2007
Lancaster, CA
9
1
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter View Post
You might not have spoken to enough people then. 2 story houses are cheaper for builders because they are cheaper to build and as such present a better $/ft^2 value to the buyer. They are also more energy efficient and allow for a larger yard on a fixed piece of land. You can buy wood a lot easier than buying dirt, too because we can produce more wood, but they are not making much land these days.
It took me three years of serious looking, within an eight hour drive of Los Angeles, to find a home. I can't tell you how often I heard that stuff about "cheaper to build" and "energy efficiency" and "value to the buyer". I have a 2900 Sq. Ft. home, as opposed to the two story houses on either side of me with 3400 and 3600 Sq Ft. They cost approximately 15% more than mine did.

They require dual air conditioning chillers, to my one; heaters almost twice the flow capacity of mine; and they took longer to build. I opted into my development when it was still in the first phase, and we got all brand new homes. The single story places went first - about 20% of the development. The rest were two-stories. They took a long time to sell. I got the nicest location for a one-story.

My heating and cooling costs are far below my neighbors - I know, my next door neighbor is a high-end A/C guy, and all of us talk about this stuff. All the heat goes upstairs, if you're downstairs in winter; and it's hard to pump A/C into the hotter upstairs areas in summer, when most people are downstairs anyway. It's easier to zone the house, with modern technology and controls.

Two story homes allow builders to divvy up lots into smaller parcels, pure and simple. Even one or two more lots can mean huge profits to developers, and everyone knows it, at least here in Southern California. In the city I live in, a one-story house can sell in as little as two days - the realtors keep lists of buyers who will take nothing else. A two story home can languish for months.

If you like running up and down stairs every time some joker is "working his way through college selling magazines", no problem. I've seen beautiful two story homes - too many to count - and they have an audience, but rarely a repeat audience.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 01:16 AM   #24
U4K61 U4K61 is offline
Special Member
 
U4K61's Avatar
 
Mar 2007
Connecticut
40
4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BluRoo98 View Post
It failed because only SOME movie content is widescreen 21:9. Most TV shows are 16:9 and MANY movies are 16:9. Until all content is the same aspect ratio, you will see 16:9 be most adopted.
I don’t think content will ever have the same aspect ratio, it's more of an artistic choice.

21:9 has a place in the computer world. It would make it easier to view three full pages at the same time. Deliver a curved screen, put two together, and I’ll be in an Avatar style internet nirvana.

Last edited by U4K61; 04-11-2014 at 01:18 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 06:58 PM   #25
Scarface32 Scarface32 is offline
Blu-ray Baron
 
Scarface32's Avatar
 
Oct 2012
New York
6
1096
335
4
3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeeman View Post
http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/27/31...9-hdtv-on-sale

Review: Philips Cinema 21:9 extra-widescreen TV - YouTube

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/28/32...s-discontinued

In theory this is every movie buffs dream isnt it?

I mean all they needed to do was release them a bit cheaper and bigger
lighter, thinner, and something like 80"-90" and it would be serious competition for home projectors wouldnt it? an all in one unit
nice for the bedroom!

why you guys think it failed?
people just want viewing diversity?

I couldn't take it, that guy in the video keeps saying BY. Anyone that's not a complete idiot knows that 21 BY 9 refers to a unit of measurement that is usually in inches or feet such as 21 inches by 9 inches, of which TVs are not. He should have said 21 TO 9.

21 BY 9 = 21x9 = moron
21 TO 9 = 21:9 = intelligent
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 06:34 PM   #26
PanamaJoe PanamaJoe is offline
Junior Member
 
Mar 2016
Default

So, you all just don't get it, 21:9 rules, and so what, if you have 16:9 content, you will not get blackbars if you stretch the video, you barely notice the difference between stretched and unstretched. I have been using 21:9 vizio cinemawide HDTV for five plus years and it is awesome, no matter what video format viewed, all videos are the same height, no black bars on top and bottom or 'smaller' video to fit the less wide screen. You all screwed up not supporting it, too bad about stupid ideology about 16:9 HDTV...
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2016, 02:07 AM   #27
PRO-630HD PRO-630HD is offline
Power Member
 
Oct 2009
1
Default

The problem with a 21:9 set is digital cinema is done at an aspect ratio of 17:9. That is the aspect ratio I wish UHD TV had gone too! So even with a 4K scan of a film 2160 x 4096 pixels is the most you will get. Someone wishing for 5040 pixels x 2160 is doing just that, wishing. Costco had the 21:9 58 in. set back in 2012-3 for $800. It seemed like a steal for that aspect ration. The problem is severe windowboxing for all other content. I never, ever stretch the picture to fill the screen!!! It creates geometric distortion and is sacrilege. The 16:9 aspect ratio is quite simply the happy medium for all content.

Two anamolies I have are How the West Was Won with a 2.89:1 aspect ratio and Beyoncé, live in Atlantic City which has at 3.29:1.

It does seem Europe has taken an interest in this aspect ratio more than the US except for the new computer monitors.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Displays > Display Theory and Discussion > New Display Technologies


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:09 PM.