Reply to Topic
Honestly, any tv you get recently has HDMI ports....unless you bought a used TUBE tv. 
Pros and Cons of Blu-ray
Ok. Anyone who said the picture quality is the main advantage of a Blu Ray disc, is crazy.
It is an advantage, but not a very big one.
The big advantage is sound, and you need a surround sound system to notice it. However if you have a surround sound system, it sounds like you're going to get crushed by a dinosaur in Jurassic Park. Sound is the far superior quality in Blu-Ray, and always has been. Picture is different, but not if you go from DVD to Blu-Ray consistantly. I only noticed a difference if I watched several Blu-Rays in a row, then went back to DVD. The worst is watching a DVD in a Blu-Ray player, because it does enhance the image, including the lack of pixels.
I'm a movie fanatic. I have a Blu-Ray Player, a 5.1 channel surround sound system, and a LED LCD TV. If you don't have a surround sound system, don't bother. If you have DVDs and don't want to buy the Blu-Ray version, don't bother. If your TV doesn't have HDMI, don't bother.
It is a worthy investment long term, but you need to be committed. I've bought several of my DVD releases on Blu-Ray. I own Back to the Future, 3 times. On VHS, DVD, and Blu-Ray.
If you're still buying DVD's, it's a waste of money.
It is an advantage, but not a very big one.
The big advantage is sound, and you need a surround sound system to notice it. However if you have a surround sound system, it sounds like you're going to get crushed by a dinosaur in Jurassic Park. Sound is the far superior quality in Blu-Ray, and always has been. Picture is different, but not if you go from DVD to Blu-Ray consistantly. I only noticed a difference if I watched several Blu-Rays in a row, then went back to DVD. The worst is watching a DVD in a Blu-Ray player, because it does enhance the image, including the lack of pixels.
I'm a movie fanatic. I have a Blu-Ray Player, a 5.1 channel surround sound system, and a LED LCD TV. If you don't have a surround sound system, don't bother. If you have DVDs and don't want to buy the Blu-Ray version, don't bother. If your TV doesn't have HDMI, don't bother.
It is a worthy investment long term, but you need to be committed. I've bought several of my DVD releases on Blu-Ray. I own Back to the Future, 3 times. On VHS, DVD, and Blu-Ray.
If you're still buying DVD's, it's a waste of money.
If you don't have the sound system, it's still fine and dandy to buy a blu-ray player, you still have the amazing picture quality and this is certainly not a waste of anything if you buy blu-rays for it.
The picture quality is a huge difference(and I'm not saying the sound isn't). As I said, if you can't see much of a difference, then see my past posts...
The picture quality is a huge difference(and I'm not saying the sound isn't). As I said, if you can't see much of a difference, then see my past posts...
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Totally agree. I didn't hook up my AV receiver for 3 or 4 months after I moved house last year and my Blu Ray enjoyment wasn't exactly dimmed.
I love my DTS-HD and Dubly TrueHD but put it this way - HD picture + SD stereo sound > SD picture + SD stereo sound.
I love my DTS-HD and Dubly TrueHD but put it this way - HD picture + SD stereo sound > SD picture + SD stereo sound.
__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The picture may be different but what's the implication? That regular dvd's look poor? It seems just like the visual aspect of video games, it's something that can't get any better than it is and it truly isn't making the games any better, so it seems futile.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I wouldn't say poor, just not as good. The resolution of Blu Ray isn't even as great as a reel of 35mm feature film (apparently) but it's going on for 3 times greater than DVD.
Unless something's recorded on video (like 28 Days Later, for example) you'll notice the difference.
Unless something's recorded on video (like 28 Days Later, for example) you'll notice the difference.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
^ I agree. I got a LED 120hz 60" Smart tv recently, my dvds even without a bluray is amazing. All the movement is hypersensative, especially in regards to the camera movement, even on these dvds. It's freaking me out, FUTURESHOCK!
I'm interested in how a 120hz TV deals with video - My 60hz will drop to 24hz for Blu Ray and 50hz for PAL DVDs. It only displays the full 60hz for games and NTSC DVD.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
^ When this hd thing first started, I had a Samsung Projection tv, often the newer the technology, the shorter the life of the product. It was a good thing I got the warranty with the Samsung, repair people came out so often as to be obligated to replacing the television. With the warranty I got a 42" Polaroid lcd hdtv, lcd tvs were a new thing back then. Polaroid of course, is known for those instant pictures from way back when, it is a well known name, hence it possibly being a sustainable generic. I'm surprised at how long the Polaroid lasted, matter of fact it is still working and I put it in a different room. After all this time, it's main problem is leaving it on a frozen screen too long, it doesn't make a perminent impression, but a long lasting impression which becomes annoying. The whole WIFI Smart thing is what made me get the 120hz tv, I was tired of watching a great many things on my 22" desktop screen. Streaming technology was too tempting. I must say, the main reason I've been so adverse to bluray is the older 42" Polaroid lcd generic tv wasn't the best judge of its possibilites; Outside of picture detail, my antenna High Def wasn't all that impressive.
Until this new Vizio 120hz, I had'nt the slightest idea how much more realistic the viewing is with movement quality itself. Me of all people sounding like an advertisement is just too much!
I'll now soon have to get a bluray of course, but with streaming, satellite, and redbox, it could take a minute.
Until this new Vizio 120hz, I had'nt the slightest idea how much more realistic the viewing is with movement quality itself. Me of all people sounding like an advertisement is just too much!
I'll now soon have to get a bluray of course, but with streaming, satellite, and redbox, it could take a minute.
I'm interested in how a 120hz TV deals with video
It took me about a month to finally see what I was watching on television as not being recorded on a home video camera with a high frame rate and horrible depth of view.
The first film I watched at 120Hz was Up BluRay and it was so smooth and you could see so much of the movement it was unearthly..
^ Somewhat like what you are saying robVILE, this was most notable while watching an original Star Trek episode, even with all the low tech effects, it was even more like you saw the stage and the acting etc. Homevideo-like wouldn't be my way of saying it though, not that I'd find the words.
No problems with depth though, if anything the depth is better.
No problems with depth though, if anything the depth is better.
^
I saw a film couple years back that was shot with what seemed only a home camera, the only thing I remember about it was the high-frame rate.
As far as this constant 120hz rate. By sattelite, all the major channels are hd, though several local channels I get are digital but nor hd, these channels simply do not use the 120hz, but my dvds do, wtf.
As far as the constant 120hz, could it possibly be that the antenna signal on these non-hd channels simply isn't compatible with, or doesn't have the necesssary data for utilizing the 120hz? Or if I record at a lower definition rate on my dvr, would I get the same result?
I saw a film couple years back that was shot with what seemed only a home camera, the only thing I remember about it was the high-frame rate.
As far as this constant 120hz rate. By sattelite, all the major channels are hd, though several local channels I get are digital but nor hd, these channels simply do not use the 120hz, but my dvds do, wtf.
As far as the constant 120hz, could it possibly be that the antenna signal on these non-hd channels simply isn't compatible with, or doesn't have the necesssary data for utilizing the 120hz? Or if I record at a lower definition rate on my dvr, would I get the same result?
Most video is broadcast at 60hz, I believe, and as 120 is a multiple of 60 (or whatever is the right term ) then it should display perfectly on a 120hz TV. For it to display Blu Ray as intended the TV will also need to display 24hz or a multiple of it.
When I hooked my TV up via HDMI to my PC I was interested that this 60hz set had a maximum refresh rate of 72hz. Then it dawned on me that 72 is a multiple of 24.
My current monitor displays at 23, 24, 50, 59 and 60hz in comparison. 24, 50 (for PAL) and 60 I can understand, but 23 and 59? I think it might be for gaming as I've heard that people having smoothness problems with games at 60hz can sometimes find a solution setting the game to 59. But that's little more than a guess.
) then it should display perfectly on a 120hz TV. For it to display Blu Ray as intended the TV will also need to display 24hz or a multiple of it.When I hooked my TV up via HDMI to my PC I was interested that this 60hz set had a maximum refresh rate of 72hz. Then it dawned on me that 72 is a multiple of 24.
My current monitor displays at 23, 24, 50, 59 and 60hz in comparison. 24, 50 (for PAL) and 60 I can understand, but 23 and 59? I think it might be for gaming as I've heard that people having smoothness problems with games at 60hz can sometimes find a solution setting the game to 59. But that's little more than a guess.
X
Favorite Movies
X