Why most people I know don’t have Blu-ray yet.

One thing to bear in mind for resolution is that in terms of appearance, distance to the screen and screen size are important factors as to how much is necessary.
 
One thing to bear in mind for resolution is that in terms of appearance, distance to the screen and screen size are important factors as to how much is necessary.
how true.
in a certain av forum i use the following for a signature-

"13' from 108" screen".

when 'talking' about video issues with my or others projector and hdtv, it helps to make my POV more easily understood by others.

i wish more people would do the same.
 
Yup.....have a JVC 32" I bought in 93. Paid 1299.00 and be dammed if I am going to get a new TV just to watch BlueRay. Come to think of it, I have never had a breakdown or repair on this TV since I bought it. :scratch2:
If it ain't broke don't fix it.


In a way this is one reason why Blu-Ray hasn't had the impact that the studios had hoped on the buying market. CRT TVs seem to last forever...and forever....and forever. I got rid of two bubble screen Panasonic CRTs that had good pictures and lots more life in them simply because I was ready to go to a big screen in my living room and CRT flat screens in other parts of the house. I have NO doubt my CRT flat screens will outlast their desirability, just as the bubble tube models did.

If manufacturers had made it a more practical upgrade for the mainstream I think they would sell better.... upgrade your player then your TV when it is financially practical. Yeah, I realize that technically the player owners wouldn't be getting the benefits of HD in the deal, but they wouldn't have to buy two new pieces of electronics at once this way. In a sense, the standard DVD has proven to be TOO successful for the studios, and the best way for them to combat this would be to ease the production of the DVD medium off the shelves altogether, forcing people to upgrade. When the CD took the place of vinyl, they sure didn't give us much of an option. Unfortunately I don't see that happening either, because of the potential loss of sales involved at the outset.



My gf is a TV-aholic in a BIG way, and I bought her a JVC 32 inch flat CRT TV last year for her birthday. Her birthday has rolled around once again, and she's still using it happily. She's not dying to go HD or Blu-Ray. If I didn't fire up her DVD player then she'd never use the thing.... she's content with the Food Network and reality shows. The manufacturers need more good ways to market the medium to women - hell, if they weren't thin and more aesthetically pleasing many women wouldn't care much about the LCDs or plasmas either.
 
Troubleshoot - I like your last paragraph. My wife has a 14 inch CRT TV in her sewing/hobby room with a VHS machine hooked up. Probably one channel sound but is hooked to cable. She is content with that.
Twenty feet away on the same floor is our home theater setup with plasma TV and six speakers. She says "sometime you'll have to show me how to run those 4 remotes." I can't complain - we're not fighting over the same TV.
 
Troubleshoot - I like your last paragraph. My wife has a 14 inch CRT TV in her sewing/hobby room with a VHS machine hooked up. Probably one channel sound but is hooked to cable. She is content with that.
Twenty feet away on the same floor is our home theater setup with plasma TV and six speakers. She says "sometime you'll have to show me how to run those 4 remotes." I can't complain - we're not fighting over the same TV.

Thanks Punman.....its an age old dilemma for the common man. Guys love to go after new technology but most women don't care about it. Is it like shoes? I've got three pair.... the gf can buy that many in one afternoon. When my sneakers are filthy and worn beyond reproach I buy a new pair. I think women see audio and video equipment the way we see shoes ;)
 
I'll consider Blu-Ray when someone takes this $3,000 worth of LD's off my hands. Not to mention all the DVD's and VHS tapes.
 
Sorry, I never meant to suggest bluray is necessary. I was just suggesting that in my observations it can be better.

I'm perfectly happy watching any media, whether it be standard comcast though my 90's 27" tv, or dvd's through my 50", or hd content / Bluray on my projector.

Upgrading is not necessary. I can say for certain, that there is still comcast programing that can not be watched through my projector. I actually still spend most of my viewing through my 15 year old 27" sony. If thats all I had,
I would be happy with it. I still think my sony vega looks good.
 
I'll consider Blu-Ray when someone takes this $3,000 worth of LD's off my hands. Not to mention all the DVD's and VHS tapes.



Well...a BD player does play regular DVDs, plays them quite well too, I might add.

I'll almost certainly watch more DVDs through my BD player than I will BD discs, just because I generally don't buy movies and DVDs are still much more common in these parts.

I don't believe anyone is suggesting to anyone they scrap their previous collections of stuff and replace it all with Blu-ray, it's merely the next step/progression.
 
for anyone who doesn't know, use of a blu ray player to play and watch hi def blu ray discs in hi definition also requires having a high definition tv (hdtv)-entailing additional expenditures of anywhere from ~$200 (polaroid 15"er) to $10k and higher.

they will work with regular legacy standard definition tvs also, but what would be the point. a good regular (and less expensive) dvd player would pretty much accomplish the same thing.
 
My Sony computer and my PS3 are my only Blue Ray players. My main TV set is a 52 inch Sony 1080p LCD. My secondary TV is a 42 inch Panasonic 720p Plasma. While Blue Ray does offer a better picture quality over DVD's; in my opinion, the difference in picture quality between 480p, 720p, and even 1080p, is not huge. Sure, 1080p looks great, but 480p looks very good as well. As long as the picture is displayed in Progressive Scan, it will be a good picture.
In fact, I prefer the picture of my 720p Panasonic Plasma over my 1080p Sony LCD. There's more to picture quality than just the number of lines displayed.

I also own a Wii video game system and find it rather amusing that so many gamers say that it's 480p picture is horrible. Since I own the Wii and the PS3, I can say that while the PS3 does have a slightly better picture, it's not the huge difference that so many gamers talk about.
 
I also own a Wii video game system and find it rather amusing that so many gamers say that it's 480p picture is horrible. Since I own the Wii and the PS3, I can say that while the PS3 does have a slightly better picture, it's not the huge difference that so many gamers talk about.

I selected this quote, not to pick on its author, but because it is the latest to espouse this view point. What all of you are saying is totally subjective. And the equivalent of a "normal" person saying that a properly setup separates system with a dedicated power line, and acoustical room treatments only sounds slightly better than the iPod they are used to listening to. The differences are that big between the formats. In audio, the analogy is often made between just hearing the music and "being in the room." Well with video the difference, quite literally, is between being able to see the pattern of a dress (standard dvd), being able to see the intricacies in the pattern (up conversion), and being able to tell what materials the dress is made of-and the difference in texture between the different materials, for example lace fringe on broadcloth, or the stitches in embroidery (blu ray). If video isn't your thing, so be it, but what kind of hypocrisy does it take for audiophiles to crack on videophiles for buying a component they see as only giving modest gain? My question is: modest on whose scale? I know that all of you weren't being disparaging, video just isn't your thing, and apologize to you for the rant. But some people need to take a step back and look real hard at their own hobbies before making pokes at others. just my 2 cents.
 
Put me down for "I just don't care".

I briefly caught the HT bug and then realized I don't use it enough to justify the real estate and sold it all.

I watch TV on a 25" widescreen PC monitor with two little Acer speakers hooked up to a digital cable box and all I ever watch are the History and Science channels with a smattering of HGTV thrown in.
 
I selected this quote, not to pick on its author, but because it is the latest to espouse this view point. What all of you are saying is totally subjective. And the equivalent of a "normal" person saying that a properly setup separates system with a dedicated power line, and acoustical room treatments only sounds slightly better than the iPod they are used to listening to. The differences are that big between the formats. In audio, the analogy is often made between just hearing the music and "being in the room." Well with video the difference, quite literally, is between being able to see the pattern of a dress (standard dvd), being able to see the intricacies in the pattern (up conversion), and being able to tell what materials the dress is made of-and the difference in texture between the different materials, for example lace fringe on broadcloth, or the stitches in embroidery (blu ray). If video isn't your thing, so be it, but what kind of hypocrisy does it take for audiophiles to crack on videophiles for buying a component they see as only giving modest gain? My question is: modest on whose scale? I know that all of you weren't being disparaging, video just isn't your thing, and apologize to you for the rant. But some people need to take a step back and look real hard at their own hobbies before making pokes at others. just my 2 cents.


I can only speak for myself, but I certainly was not disparaging videophiles. I too enjoy good quality video. I like my PS3 for it's games and the fact that it plays Blue Ray. I just don't see this amazing difference between it and my Wii system. In fact, we own more Wii games than PS3 games and my family uses the Wii much more often for games. In my opinion, the way the Wii controls is a better improvement for gaming, compared to the slightly more detailed picture that the PS3 provides. But that's just my preference, others will see things differently.

A videophile is similar to an audiophile, and will spend more money for an improvement that they feel is worth the extra investment. That person may feel that the improvement is huge, while someone else, will feel that the improvement is small. In my opinion, when a speaker reaches the $1000 to $2000 per pair pricepoint, there are only minor gains in performance beyond that price. Yet, people still buy speakers that cost $30,000 or more and feel that they are worth every penny spent. I've heard some of these very expensive systems and they do indeed sound good, but to my ears, they are not a huge improvement over a pair of speakers costing 10 times less.
 
Last edited:
In my experience, the Wii graphics on the standard included cable...suck. Buy a replacement component cable and that little white box comes alive.
 
In my experience, the Wii graphics on the standard included cable...suck. Buy a replacement component cable and that little white box comes alive.

Yeah, I agree. 480p is the way to go on the Wii. Progressive Scan makes for a better and more solid looking picture. The Wii's graphics are not as detailed as the PS3, but they certainly don't look bad. The same thing can be said about DVD vs. Blue Ray. Blue Ray gives a better picture, but a progressive scanned DVD, will also give a nice picture. Heck, it wasn't too long ago that we were all enjoying 240i from our VHS tapes. Many people still have no problem with that level of picture quality.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom