Gameguru Mania

Csimbi · Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:29 am Post subject:

Meh, I did not get that.

Sabot · Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:38 pm Post subject:

gx-x · Elite Member Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2683

granted, it's convenient to have more space and pack more things then you would be able with hddvd format, but it comes with the price. Actually, 20GB hddvd would be enough for 3D true-HD movie as well. PS3 was mentioned in context that it represented the means for BR to win the format war.
I personally couldn't care less for either of them, I get all my movies in digital format without physical medium. I don't need standalone players, and if I did, I would opt for something like WDTV and plug a network cable in it or just an external HDD. Razz

edit: I either go to the theater or download movies from the internet, I have no desire to pay for that stuff, with the theater being an obvious exception Very Happy

Baconnaise · Elite Member Joined: 22 Jun 2010 Posts: 710

gx-x · Elite Member Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2683

Sabot · Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 4:36 pm Post subject:

[quote="gx-x"][quote="Baconnaise"]

gx-x · Elite Member Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2683

download 1080p 3d, not 720p hd 3d. BR is in 1080p.

As for 3D, I meant that I don't like it too much unless it's in the movie theater on a really really big screen. Looking 3D into the box is just silly, at least to me. 2D gives me less distraction and better immersion.
So, I wasn't talking about which TV is better for 3D, I was talking about the experience in general. I had a chance to view 3D movie on 2x1080p projectors giving some 4x3 meters picture on the wall using polarization lenses, like in the cinema and I find that satisfying 3D. 3D TV's are just way to small (again, it's my impression) and IMO waste of money if you are not looking at them from a very short distance, under 2 meters. Also, I find shutters unacceptable, only polarization glasses for me, thank you Razz

All in all, if I want to view something in proper 3D, which is a rare occasion, I simply go and watch it in cinema for ~10$

Now don't get me wrong. If you enjoy it at home, if it is satisfactory to you I can understand that. To me, it's just way overrated. I'd rather go with virtual boxes and LCD goggles for full immersion.

PS. LCD screens have response time. I assume you know what that means. There is no LCD panel in the world that can fire up and shut down pixels at 600Hz. They can't even keep up with 60Hz at this time. You can force the signal to refresh them 1200000 times per second (120000Hz) but nothing is going to happen, they are still going to "fire up" as fast as they did on 60Hz. 600Hz is just a gimmick, an effect that is being processed by TV which basically averages the time between two frames in the signal and then adds more frames in between, thus giving you the "soap opera" series show effect. There are plugins for some video players (KMPlayer for example) that do the same thing and turn your screen into amazing 120Hz screen Razz

(it makes videos into 60fps) although, you cannot use that plugin for 3D, or maybe you can, hm, I haven't tried it. Razz

PPS. You need to hear audio systems where only fronts cost ~5000$ and then be the judge of your amazing 7.1 sound for 2000$ Razz

I think youwill find one more thing that you can shell your money into, and the difference will be bigger than 2d vs 3d movie Razz

Baconnaise · Elite Member Joined: 22 Jun 2010 Posts: 710

gx-x · Elite Member Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2683

I use MPC-HC but with LAV filters and MadVR renderer. Also ffdoshow raw video renderer for deringing and I bitstream the sound to my Yammi AVR and from there to...well, whatever you want Smile

in PC room to small JBL control setup with addition of a 12" 300W RMS JBL subwoofer. In other rooms, well, it depends, stuff comes and goes in my house so...

anyway, you can also download full BR rip with all the 40gigs of content if 1080p mkv is not enough, but I am yet to see any difference between the two from the same source.
BR might become useful (finally) with this new 2040p content (how retarded is that for anything smaller than 100" ?! ).

AS for display types, well, both LCD and plasma have some advantages and disadvantages over each other. I for one don't like plasma's flickering, buzzing and burning. Dunno about Panasonic but on LGs and samsungs it's the same thing, it's barely noticeable but it's there, and I saw some 4 or 5 of them. I really like the depth of black compared to an IPS LCDTV.
In 2 years both will be a thing of the past with amoled screens in every new TV and neither plasma or LCD can compete with that. 0.01ms response time, wide gammut, no angle dependency...They will be available this summer, if not before, but they are still very pricy. LG 55" is said to be ~8000$, I think it's 3D capable (without glasses) and is 2040p, but I am not sure. Too much scarce info on CES, it's a bit confusing :/

Sabot · Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:45 pm Post subject:

gx-x · Elite Member Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2683

obviously plazma is a different matter. I thought it was one of those XYZ refresh rate LCDs that use some movement recognition to try and make up frames in between bla bla

Csimbi · Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:50 pm Post subject:

Here's a little perspective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZadCj8O1-0

You might want to post that on the web page.

Baconnaise · Elite Member Joined: 22 Jun 2010 Posts: 710

Samsung plasmas seem fairly good from what I've seen. I've always had a panny plasma though. If the 120 led lcd wasn't 340 bucks I would have bought a cheaper panny plasma which are superb for the cost. 50-55" is about as big as I can go in my house due to remodeling and needing all the space for a large family. The other is a price point constraint where over 1500 bucks I can't justify any performance or visual increase to the cost. It's hard to save money if you keep writing checks or spend it on superfluous items. If I had one or two kids or none at all though I'm sure I would have more leeway :p.