Kevin's Watch

I need to hit the lottery. The Harley eats up all my disposable income, I can't afford to toss big bucks into the home theater.......

DAMMIT!

Get rid of the Harley?

Yeah, that's not gonna happen.

I thought "letter boxing" was normal for movies shown on a 16:9 TV. Not every movie is shot in the same aspect ratio. I don't think many at all are 16:9. So if you want to see all of the movie's image, you're going to have black bars even on widescreen TVs. The only footage I can think of off-hand that filled up 100% of my TV was the inserted Imax footage in the Dark Knight Blu-ray.

As far as some disks not playing, you might need a firmware upgrade. The Blu-ray format is still updating. Most players have an ethernet hook-up in the back, and (at least with mine) it's a breeze to hook it up to the internet and update it. This should fix your problem with disks not playing.

Can't help with the bookmarking.

Cail, have you seen your Pany hooked up to a Blu-ray player, yet? I forgot if you had one or not. I still think plasmas look better for movies, but I haven't seen the one you're talking about, yet. You've also got to take into account calibration and lighting conditions.

Blackhawk wrote: I hear they have new DVD players that will enhance the DVD to look as it did on a standard TV ..(no pixelation) but it sounds like it also is part of the Blu ray players ability.

I think you're talking about up-scaling. DVDs are 480p resolution, so when you put them on a TV with higher native resolution, there is the problem of the image matching the TV when it doesn't have enough information to send video output to every one of those pixels. Up-scaling "stretches" the picture in a way that minimizes artifacts, I believe. Most new DVD players and TVs have this function built in. I think it's standard with Blu-ray players, too. It used to be a bigger deal, but any new HD TV should do this fine, with all content, even if your player does not.

Malik23 wrote:Cail, have you seen your Pany hooked up to a Blu-ray player, yet? I forgot if you had one or not. I still think plasmas look better for movies, but I haven't seen the one you're talking about, yet. You've also got to take into account calibration and lighting conditions.

Yeah, I've got a PS3, and everything's hooked up via HDMI. Even though I didn't care for the movie, it makes me want to go and buy Transformers just to see how my TV reproduces it.

Cail wrote:Yeah, that's not gonna happen.

I knew that was gonna be your answer...

Malik wrote:I thought "letter boxing" was normal for movies shown on a 16:9 TV. Not every movie is shot in the same aspect ratio. I don't think many at all are 16:9. So if you want to see all of the movie's image, you're going to have black bars even on widescreen TVs. The only footage I can think of off-hand that filled up 100% of my TV was the inserted Imax footage in the Dark Knight Blu-ray.

Well then, I'm confused, because I thought all movies today WERE shot in 16:9. Surely movies like "Casino Royale" are. What's the purpose of a widescreen TV, if you still have to watch a letterboxed screen with an overall smaller image?

As far as some disks not playing, you might need a firmware upgrade. The Blu-ray format is still updating. Most players have an ethernet hook-up in the back, and (at least with mine) it's a breeze to hook it up to the internet and update it. This should fix your problem with disks not playing.

Someone else was suggesting this the other day - I'll check my blu-ray to see if there is an ethernet connection in the back. However, I don't have an ethernet cable in my living room, so I would have to bring the blu-ray into my home office to hook it up. Does the update happen automatically, or does it require prompting?

Cail, if your TV is calibrated properly, I'll bet you find Transformers on your PS3 to be outstanding. CGI-heavy movies are mind blowing in HD. The special effects in Sunshine blew me away. I still haven't seen Transformers, since the theater. So I can't comment on that particular Blu-ray disk.

Have you seen Dark Knight on BD? The Imax footage on my Pany was outstanding. One of the best images I've seen on my TV.

Well then, I'm confused, because I thought all movies today WERE shot in 16:9. Surely movies like "Casino Royale" are. What's the purpose of a widescreen TV, if you still have to watch a letterboxed screen with an overall smaller image?

No, the 16:9 standard for TVs is a compromise between movies and 4:3 cable programming many of us still watch. If your cable programming was stretched to fit the aspect ratio of movies, it would be almost unwatchable. We're finally starting to see programming that fits 16:9 TVs better, but that's still no where close to the aspect ratios of movies.

In addition, many movies are shot in different aspect ratios. No single TV could ever be perfect for all of them, so the 16:9 is a compromise.

But you should be able to stretch the image with your TV remote. Mine has a one-button solution for this. However, many video purists will scoff at your need to get rid of black bars, and insist that you see the full vision of the director instead--even if it means seeing a slightly smaller image. Just take heart that the image is a LOT bigger than if you had a 4:3 standard definition TV.

TDK looks good on Blu-Ray. Still, Transformers was mind-blowing.

Nearly nothing you get other than TV shows is going to fit your screen perfectly DLB. I refuse to enlarge (and thereby crop) the image so that it fits the screen.

What I need to do first is get a new receiver that will allow me to get the audio through the HDMI. The stereo cable out of the PS3 barely gives a decent Pro-Logic signal. The sound is really disappointing.

But you should be able to stretch the image with your TV remote.

For TV shows coming across the satellite, I can stretch the image to fill the screen, but I can't do that with the blu-ray. Changing the aspect ratio on blu-ray simply stretches the image within the letterboxed area, which of course looks terrible.

Nearly nothing you get other than TV shows is going to fit your screen perfectly DLB. I refuse to enlarge (and thereby crop) the image so that it fits the screen.

<sigh> You guys obviously aren't nearly as blind as I am - I'm perfectly willing to cut the image on the sides so that I can see the overall image much more clearly.

dlbpharmd wrote: <sigh> You guys obviously aren't nearly as blind as I am - I'm perfectly willing to cut the image on the sides so that I can see the overall image much more clearly.

But then you'll miss all the kinky stuff at the sides...

Two words.....

Donkey sex.

Back when BluRay won out, their player prices went up by at least $100 each. Classic gouging, that. Nice... So I said screw that and bought myself a very nice upscaling DVD player by Oppo. I bought that model because it had good reviews and there was a hack available to make it region-free, in other words, it can play DVDs from anywhere in the world. It does an excellent job making those DVDs look good on my big screen (61" DLP). But yes, I can tell the difference between it and the stuff that comes over my HD channels. I love the NBA on HD...

Haven't been back in the stores recently so I don't know where the BluRay player prices are now.

You can get an excellent BD player for $250. Sony BDPS350.

You can get the best (PS3) for $400.

Cail wrote:You can get the best (PS3) for $400.

It's a great value, considering its gaming capabilities (etc.), but it's not the best Blu-ray disc player. Don't get me wrong, it's quite good as a BD player, but for someone who doesn't play games or someone who has an older receiver (i.e. without HDMI), it would be misleading to suggest that one is getting "the best" when he could get a better player with more audio options for less money. Once you add in the cost of a new receiver with an HDMI input (in order to get the hi-res audio new to Blu-ray), you're in the range of $700 with the PS3.

Granted, the player I posted doesn't help you if you have an older receiver, either. For that you'd have to go with the Sony 550, like mine, which is going for around $300.

CNET recommends this one:

The Samsung BD-P3600 is the standout player of the bunch, going beyond the basic features to include Netflix and Pandora streaming, 7.1 analog outputs, 1GB onboard memory, and an included Wi-Fi USB dongle. We were also very impressed with its operational speed, as it's the only player we've seen that is generally as fast as the Sony PlayStation 3. Mix in its excellent image quality on Blu-ray Discs and its sleek design, and you've got one of the best Blu-ray players we've laid our hands on.

The streaming Netflix and Wi-Fi USB are really cool features. But this one is about as much money as the PS3.

According to Cnet, the PS3 is still the player to beat. Granted, you may not be able to appreciate everything it's got if the rest of your system isn't up to snuff (as mine isn't), but nothing's knocked it out of the top spot yet.

I think CNET recommends it for the reasons I listed: great value, considering it's "extra" features (if you can consider gaming "extra" on a gaming system ). But if *both* highest quality video and highest quality audio are your main concerns, and you don't want to spend an additional $300 (at least) on a new receiver, then I felt like people should know this.

Of course, your old receiver must have 5.1 analog inputs.

Hey, I'm happy with it. Can't figure out the games to save my life, but that's OK.

Oh, I'd be happy to have one, too! After rereading some of those CNET reviews, and realizing that I could have had a PS3 for $80 more, I feel like kicking myself . . . until I remember the receiver issue. But still, if I were a bigger gamer, I would be tempted to give up the hi-res sound for the hi-def games.