Tweet Overtaken by technology

Netflix is traveling inexorably toward download rather than shipping dvds, so it looks like I'll have to upgrade my old Big-O-Vision television to an HD flatscreen, whether I want to or not.

I'm currently feeling all cozy about a Sony Bravia or the Panasonic equivalent, probably a 40" to 46" screen. Or even one of the other brands if recommended, I have no brand-name loyalty. There are lots of them, though! I'm stepping out on a limb here and assuming "faster refresh rate is better." Please correct me if that is wrong.

I don't have television reception and I don't watch sports. My viewing will remain the same: movies, documentaries, some series television, except that I'll now be downloading. I'll also be rewatching the dvds I already have. So given those criteria, what bells and whistles do I absolutely need, and what are extraneous?

When forming your helpful responses, please remember that I'm tech-phobic.

[Christopher Jacobs]

Sony and Panasonic are both good. Avoid Samsung. And I've said it in other threads, but a 40-inch or larger screen should be adequate; just make sure that it is 1080p rather than 1080i or 720p (some of which are selling quite cheaply these days). Most 1080p sets today should include the capability to play 24 fps (usually advertised as 24p), but some may not. You'll want to be sure it says 1080p AND 24p somewhere. Besides a higher refresh rate, the higher the contrast ratio, the better most pictures can look, but in a completely darkened room a somewhat lower contrast ratio can still look pretty darn good.

Some sets are now also "internet ready," so you just need to plug in your ethernet cable. Others may need you to do that through your Blu-ray player, which means you'd need to have an internet-capable Blu-ray player. If you take digital stills, you might want to be sure your new set has a USB port. A few sets and/or Blu-ray players may even let you watch digital movie files or stills from an SD card. I'd say a 3-D TV is pretty much a waste of money unless Sony, Universal, and Warners all release a bunch of their 1950s 3-D titles in the new 3-D Blu-ray format and Flicker Alley decides to come out with the 3-D Melies shorts that have been making the rounds of festivals.

My problem is that my internet is still dialup, so streaming Netflix, YouTube, et al. are all out for me. If it's not on Blu-ray or DVD (or VHS or Beta or Laserdisc), I don't watch it on my TV or video projector. At this point, streaming HD still has a long way to go before it approaches what a Blu-ray can deliver, which still isn't quite up to a good, well-projected 35mm film print (though it often comes pretty close).

--Christopher Jacobs
http://hpr1.com/film
http://www.und.edu/instruct/cjacobs
http://www.und.edu/instruct/cjacobs/Old ... BluRay.htm

Perhaps someone could discuss advantages of LED over LCD.

My condolences, Fred. I'm think of upgrading from my steam-power computer myself.

Bob

My condolences, Fred. I'm think of upgrading from my steam-power computer myself.

Bob

I just went wireless. And I installed it myself. How scary is that?

Perhaps someone could discuss advantages of LED over LCD.

Yes, what is that?

So I looked at the tech specs on a Panasonic, and it says this:

Aspect Control: 480i/p: Full, Just, 4:3, Zoom
1080i/p: Full, H-Fill, Just, 4:3, Zoom

Panel: IPS LCD 1080p (WSXGA)

Is that what I'm looking for? Or is that something I should avoid? I'm taking copious notes.

You're getting some great advice, just to mention a couple of things about screen size:

A couple of years ago some friends of mine replaced their 32" (I think) CRT with a 42" flat screen. BUT the 42" has a wide-screen aspect ratio. So it added area on the sides, but not so much vertically. -- The picture was not very much taller, if at all, than the old TV.

Added to that, the new TV was flat, and was pushed closer to the wall. Without moving the seating, the picture was not looking "big screen" at all.

They were able to buy another flat TV, 46" screen this time, and were much happier.

The 42" went into the bedroom...

Rick

Perhaps someone could discuss advantages of LED over LCD.

Yes, what is that?

So I looked at the tech specs on a Panasonic, and it says this:

Aspect Control: 480i/p: Full, Just, 4:3, Zoom
1080i/p: Full, H-Fill, Just, 4:3, Zoom

Panel: IPS LCD 1080p (WSXGA)

Is that what I'm looking for? Or is that something I should avoid? I'm taking copious notes.

LED is just a replacement of the traditional CCFL backlight, it's still LCD. The advantages of LED backlight are less power consumption among other advantages:
Produce images with greater dynamic contrast.
With Edge-LED lighting they can be extremely slim. Models on the market can be approximately one inch thick.
Offer a wider color gamut, especially when RGB-LED backlighting is used.[6]
Less environmental pollution on disposal.
Higher price.
Generally 20-30% lower power consumption.

But a cheap LED LCD will still suck very much.

The LCD mentioned in the previous post has an IPS panel. This is the best type of panel (TN-panels are the worst, PVA/MVA panels are also very good). Too bad they don't always list the type of panel in the specification of TV's. Also, I don't know which type of panel is common in TV's. In cheap LCD computer displays it's almost always a crappy TN-panel; I don't know if this applies to TV's as well.
Things you can ignore pretty much are the dynamic contrast ratio and brightness specifications. My pricy Eizo monitor has a static contrast ratio of 900:1, and the contrast is much better than my almost-high end Philips LCD TV which has a dynamic contrast ratio of over 10000:1. This is very apparent in dark scenes in films for example. I have to crank up the brightness on my TV with its "amazingly high contrast ratio" otherwise I can't see nothing. On my monitor I can still see almost everything on a lowest brightness setting.

As with any other electronic equipment, the more expensive stuff is mostly better...but not always. Try to find some reviews on the internet to compare different models.

I hate to throw in an extra wrinkle (and forgive me if this was already mentioned) but you'll probably want to have a blu-ray player or an upconverting DVD player to go along with your new TV. HD LCD sets don't cope well with standard def material.

You also may want to hang on to your old CRT for laserdisc and VHS viewing. Unless you have a line doubler, those formats are likely to look pretty harsh on your new TV.

I hate to throw in an extra wrinkle (and forgive me if this was already mentioned) but you'll probably want to have a blu-ray player or an upconverting DVD player to go along with your new TV. HD LCD sets don't cope well with standard def material.

You also may want to hang on to your old CRT for laserdisc and VHS viewing. Unless you have a line doubler, those formats are likely to look pretty harsh on your new TV.

What??? WHAT??? You mean I would have to have TWO Big-O-Vision sets, Old Big and New Big?

That is just not happening. No way. Zen Master says NO.

[Christopher Jacobs]

Well, getting an HDTV these days all but requires getting a Blu-ray player, especially if you don't subscribe to HD cable or satellite services. There's absolutely no point to getting a high-definition set if all you will be watching is standard definition, and streaming HD video (or broadcast HD video) is rarely anywhere near as sharp as a well-authored Blu-ray. All HD is not created equal! Nor is all SD!

Standard DVDs will usually (not always) look somewhat better to much better when played on a Blu-ray player or upscaling DVD player to an HD monitor than when played through an old DVD player. A lot of it depends on how the DVDs were mastered, compressed, and authored. Recent (past five years) DVDs may look almost as sharp as a Blu-ray and even sharper than some (badly DNR'd) Blu-rays. DVDs from the late 1990s and early 2000s may look soft and/or blocky, depending on how the master files were compressed. Those are the DVDs that often appear better-looking on old standard-definition TV sets, which don't have enough resolution to reveal their flaws and also often soften things to give the illusion of a smooth picture, which from a distance looks just fine.

The answer is, if you have DVDs (or VHS) that look visibly and unbearably worse on a new HD monitor, is to keep an old "mini-vision" standard-def TV set with about a 19 to 27-inch screen connected to your old standard DVD player. Use the big-o-vision HD set for most things and for all HD (and get that Blu-ray player connected through an HDMI cable or it won't show its full potential either). Then, of course, there's your 7.1 surround sound system to discuss (again requiring HDMI to work properly)...

--Christopher Jacobs
http://hpr1.com/film
http://www.und.edu/instruct/cjacobs
http://www.und.edu/instruct/cjacobs/Old ... BluRay.htm

[Danny Burk]

I'll defer to the others' answers on specs, since I'm not all that up to date on the tech issues, but my main point = you really do want to see Blu-Ray on the New-O-Vision. I wouldn't agree with folks on some forums who announce that they can no longer bear to watch standard DVD after seeing Blu-Ray - that's silly and unrealistic - but there IS a dramatic difference that you'll see for yourself at once.

The other biggie that I'd stress is that you get the largest TV that's at all possible. As mentioned above, a non-widescreen film will be considerably smaller than the "official" size of the TV. I have a 70", and 4:3 films are more like 50" on it. I thought 70" sounded enormous when I got it, but guess what? I'm always wishing it were bigger! I'd love a 90-100", but would have to go to a projector for that.

Others will disagree with me, but I get along just fine with sound coming from the TV itself. No extra speakers and such. However, I have a tin ear when it comes to sound quality (mono vs stereo is about the limit of what I can distinguish), and this would surely vary for others.

So now I have to have two televisions AND a blu ray player AND a sound system? All this to download stuff from Netflix? (Flummoxed.)

That certainly makes Zen Master's purchasing decision a whole lot easier.

:shock:

So now I have to have two televisions AND a blu ray player AND a sound system? All this to download stuff from Netflix? (Flummoxed.)

That certainly makes Zen Master's purchasing decision a whole lot easier.

Play around with this to see how big 4:3 material would be on various sizes of widescreen TVs:

http://tvcalculator.com/

You don't necessarily need to keep your old TV. See how your tapes and/or laserdiscs look played through the new one. If you're happy, get rid of the old one.

You don't need a sound system if you're happy without one now. If you've been getting your sound through your old TV, chances are you new one will sound better. You certainly don't need an audio system to stream Netflix. Easiest way would be to get a TV that has that ability built in, or see below.

I'd definitely recommend a Blu-Ray player; you can get one cheap, and even one that will do the Netflix streaming by itself, so you wouldn't need a TV that could do it. It would also most likely upscale your regular DVDs better than an older DVD player, definitely so if the old one didn't output a digital signal (via HDMI, the standard way connections are made these days). Most of my DVDs look very good indeed, even blown up almost 8 feet wide.

Well, getting an HDTV these days all but requires getting a Blu-ray player, especially if you don't subscribe to HD cable or satellite services. There's absolutely no point to getting a high-definition set if all you will be watching is standard definition

Well, I've never had any cable TV service, but the free broadcast HD here looks great on my Magnavox HDTV (37", 720p).

DVDs, especially those shot on film, look very nice also. Some laser discs look DVD-like, and some don't.

DVD player is not upsampling as far as I know.

:shock:

So now I have to have two televisions AND a blu ray player AND a sound system? All this to download stuff from Netflix? (Flummoxed.)

That certainly makes Zen Master's purchasing decision a whole lot easier.

Play around with this to see how big 4:3 material would be on various sizes of widescreen TVs:

http://tvcalculator.com/

You don't necessarily need to keep your old TV. See how your tapes and/or laserdiscs look played through the new one. If you're happy, get rid of the old one.

You don't need a sound system if you're happy without one now. If you've been getting your sound through your old TV, chances are you new one will sound better. You certainly don't need an audio system to stream Netflix. Easiest way would be to get a TV that has that ability built in, or see below.

I'd definitely recommend a Blu-Ray player; you can get one cheap, and even one that will do the Netflix streaming by itself, so you wouldn't need a TV that could do it. It would also most likely upscale your regular DVDs better than an older DVD player, definitely so if the old one didn't output a digital signal (via HDMI, the standard way connections are made these days). Most of my DVDs look very good indeed, even blown up almost 8 feet wide.

I think we've just separated the boys from the Zen Master. I don't have any laserdiscs or vhs tapes, I transferred everything to dvd. I have a lot of dvds, and I want to be able to play them. They're not blu ray discs, I assumed I would not need a blu ray player and that my current dvd player would suffice until it croaks. At that point, I'd buy something to replace it. I rarely buy films, all I'll be doing is downloading and playing my old dvds.

Zen Master's square footage is small, she doesn't have room for two Big-O-Visions. She is only sitting about 6 feet away from the operating Big. A sound system would be very nice, but Zen Master has to consider her neighbors, and she doesn't like sound that is too loud anyway. She is also disturbed that she has started referring to herself in the third person. Clearly even the thought of having extra stuff sitting around has upset her. Tonight she may try to throw her refrigerator out. Fortunately she cannot lift it.

Is there an advantage to having the blu ray player function as the download thingie, as opposed to the television itself performing that function?

Technology must sneak up on the Zen Master.

Now now Grasshopper, relax.

Master Po has talked Fred down, she's no longer hyperventilating over the big-O-vision and all the options.

Now who amongst you can snatch the pebble from my hand?

[Mike Gebert]

You don't need two large TVs.

If your dvds burned from VHS matter to you, try playing them in a blu-ray player with a line doubler. If you can tolerate their YouTube-like blotchiness fine, watch them that way. Move the chair back if it helps.

If you can't, go spend $100 or so and get one of these. (Not recommending that particular model, though I do recommend spending a little extra to go above 7".)

Sit in your Adirondack chair with this and a glass of wine on a summer night and watch your blotchy dvds on a tiny screen balanced on your knees, where you can't see their blotchiness. Or take them on vacation and watch them there. And save the blu-rays and conventional DVDs (which usually look really good on my HDTV) for the big screen.

Sit in your Adirondack chair with this and a glass of wine on a summer night and watch your blotchy dvds on a tiny screen balanced on your knees, where you can't see their blotchiness. Or take them on vacation and watch them there. And save the blu-rays and conventional DVDs (which usually look really good on my HDTV) for the big screen.

Couldn't I just use my laptop?

[Danny Burk]

Ah, that makes a big difference if you're 6 feet from the TV. I'm more like 12 or so.

[Mike Gebert]

Couldn't I just use my laptop?

Well, sure. For me, with kids, investing $100 in one of these devices is an investment in laptop protection.

Ah, that makes a big difference if you're 6 feet from the TV. I'm more like 12 or so.

Yes. On the advice of Harlett, I'd planned on going to a local Big emporium and standing about 6 feet away from each television, to see what size works best.

Couldn't I just use my laptop?

Well, sure. For me, with kids, investing $100 in one of these devices is an investment in laptop protection.

That makes sense. So far, my kitteh has not shown much interest in television, although he sometimes lays down on my computer keyboard.

I'm still in the technology dark ages at home, but at work we have a blu-ray player and a small HD screen (we sit directly in front of it since all we do with it is look at film credits). I don't use it much, but i was shocked the other day when i popped in the Criterion blu-rays of Easy Rider and The Last Picture Show and found them incredibly grainy. Would there be a setting wrong somewhere? (we have a switch box thingie because we're always having to switch the source settings since we have a VHS and a DVD player also hooked up to the HDTV--don't know if that could have anything to do with it)

thanks
greta

Well, from what I remember, those two movies in 35mm are pretty grainy; a good transfer should be, too. You could get a calibration disc like Digital Video Essentials or a disc with the THX Optimizer and play around with that. It's pretty easy. If the picture looks too harsh, turn off or lower sharpness settings. You can lower the sharpness to near-zero, and the picture will still look sharp.

Thanks to all. I am now armed for my upcoming shopping excursion.

Well, from what I remember, those two movies in 35mm are pretty grainy; a good transfer should be, too. You could get a calibration disc like Digital Video Essentials or a disc with the THX Optimizer and play around with that. It's pretty easy. If the picture looks too harsh, turn off or lower sharpness settings. You can lower the sharpness to near-zero, and the picture will still look sharp.

Grain is something people who played DVDs on a standard definition TV find it hard to get used to. Because the image quality and resolution of those old TVs was so low, it was forgiving of very low quality sources. Even VHS looked good. But when you up the quality of the TV you're going to spot many more deficiencies of the source material. The resolution of Blu-Ray is so good you'll notice film grain too. There are Luddites who feel that any grain is bad and want to rub it all away with digital noise reduction (DNR) but that will also remove details in the image and if you push it too hard make all textures look like plastic. I actually like a reasonable amount of grain, it gives a nice film like look in my opinion.

BTW if you're going to buy an HDTV, you really should look into buying a Blu-Ray player. They don't cost that much these days. All Blu-Ray players have upscale functionality so your DVDs will look better than ever (yes, far better than if you keep using your old non-upscaling DVD player) and you'll be able to enjoy high def movies on Blu-Ray.

I jumped aboard Blu-ray in early 2008 because I couldn't wait. However, prices dropped in half almost immediately afterwards. And now even more so. My BR player is still acting fine so I don't see a need to replace it, and I don't need an internet connection with it. Otherwise, any big pluses with the latest players other than smaller and lighter?

I'll add my two cents... I own a 40" widescreen LCD set (Sony Bravia) that I love. It fits nicely in the space I have (a corner of the room). I might fit a 46" set there, but I didn't want to spend any more. I've noticed that the people who complain the most about "poor" picture quality on Blu Rays have TV or projector/screen combinations over 46", so I think there's a point of diminishing returns... if you go large, you have to accept that there may be some degradation of image quality. I don't live in a house with huge rooms, so it's not a possibility for me anyway.

I have a basic Sony Blu Ray player. I stuck a small Flash drive (USB drive/thumb drive) on a port in the back, because some Blu Rays go looking for the extra memory space. If they don't find it, they take forever to load (and one wouldn't load at all until I added the Flash drive).

I don't do Netflix or other Internet streaming. Don't do cable or broadcast TV, either. I simply watch DVDs and Blu Rays.

The sound on my Sony seemed a bit thin (flat screen, small speakers), so I added a Sony soundbar that includes a subwoofer. Now I can shake the floor and scare the cat.

I've noticed that the people who complain the most about "poor" picture quality on Blu Rays have TV or projector/screen combinations over 46", so I think there's a point of diminishing returns... if you go large, you have to accept that there may be some degradation of image quality.

Well, if you follow tech-oriented video forums like The Home Theater Forum and Blu-Ray.com, you'll find a lot of the users are, not surprisingly, techno-geeks, and many of them are chronic complainers, nit-pickers and contrarians. Relatively minor issues are raised to the level of religious dogma; long back-and-forth arguments occur over a missing frame, the absence of a lossless audio track for a low-fi 60-year-old mono film soundtrack, rants over logos. With older films in particular, ignorance of film technology prompts irate complaints about such things as the lower image quality of scenes that are obvious optical effects. My screen is nearly 8 feet wide, and Blu-Rays look great, the leap in quality from standard-definition DVDs quite plain. The fact is that the smaller the screen, the less the apparent difference.

I just got Quo Vadis at a price I was finally willing to pay for it, and the image practically leaps off the screen. With Bridge on the River Kwai, the near-total absence of video transfer limitations resulted in my quickly losing all awareness of technical issues, so that I got thoroughly into the film in a way I'd never been able to on video before. That's really the beauty of Blu-Ray. It doesn't make me go, "Wow, this a great image!," but rather "Wow, this is a great film!"