Opinions on big screens and 3-D

Yeah, Blu Ray has a few "quirks"... it takes some time to learn the different menu systems.

Have you noticed the sound quality difference, yet? Just throwing your regular DVDs into the BR player will improve the sound, I think... and on BR discs, it will blow you away! Think Matrix, or Labyrinth, or some other music-heavy movie.

 

It's worth it just to see what Blu-ray can do! I thought the story itself was good, not spectacular, but seeing it on Blu is pretty mind-blowing, IMO.

Yes. It's awesome.

If you don't want to watch any of those, AVS forums has a pretty good list going:
The New PQ Tier Thread for Blu-Ray - Rankings - AVS Forum

I don't always agree with the rankings (for instance, "Hot Fuzz", while completely awesome, doesn't really knock you on your butt with the visuals), but in general it's a good guide.

Push "menu" (not "top menu"). It depends on the disc, but most not only have a visual chapter select, but also have it as a pop-up on screen so the movie keeps playing while you make the selection.

As for fast forward, try pushing it multiple times. On my player (Sony) it goes from slow fast forward to 30x fast forward depending on how many times you press the button.

Just give in and watch "Avatar". I promise the experience won't disappoint.

At any rate, the intensity of the color depends on the movie.

 

Which one did you get?

 

I had a Samsung BD-C6900 but the firmware was really buggy. It would freak out and take 10 minutes to load a disc sometimes (less than a minute should have been normal).

I ended up going for a Sony BDP-S570 which has best-in-class load times and can be operated via a remote app for iPhone. It's pretty nice.

 

Some news about 3D. LG will be releasing a 2 engine passive 3D single body projector CF3D sometime this year. This projector is THE 3D projector to get. I've seen the performance and it is amazing, full 1080P pictures for both eyes 120hz smooth motion and no jerkiness. You do need to use polarization preserving screens such as the Da Lite 3D Virtual Black or Vutec Silverstar 3D-P screen. Passive 3DTV will be releasing to the US from many manufacturers sometime this year Vizio being one of the first. Once it hits the retail stores and you can compare passive and active side by side, I can pretty much guarantee you that you'd want the active 3DTV due to its 1080P picture. Also coming soon are the 3D camcorders from many manufacturers. JVC will release one for $2,000. Panasonic already has one for $1400. SONY will have one too. Many of the 3D camcorders will utilize glasses-free 3D screen similar to the Nintendo's 3DS screen.

 

I think your improved audio quality is not specifically due the BD format, but more because you changed the player. With a TV 7 years old that likely has 2 or 3 speakers, you can't really use the advanced audio streams that BD supports (which include discrete rear channels on the newest movies).

So what I would guess is going on is that your previous player would choose the Dolby Surround or stereo audio stream, which was fed analog to the TV. The new player is now sending an AC3 (5.1) stream via HDMI, which the TV is able to downmix using its virtual surround algorithm. That algorithm will give better results than the generic downmix used in the DVD production process.

All of this discussion reminds me that I never installed the rear speakers after we moved 3 years ago.. can't say I've missed them. While we don't watch too many action movies, I've come to consider surround as more of a gimmick or distraction. I also hate the new 60 hz/240 hz/1 billion hz refresh rates, so maybe I'm just old fashioned.

 

I'm sure he'll answer for himself, but I've heard a lot of people hate on faster refresh times because they think the smoothness of the image makes it look unnatural.

Blu-rays represent a movie that plays at 24Hz so what a 240Hz TV does is fill in the gaps. Essentially, if you have a ball in the upper-left portion of the screen in one frame, then it appears in the lower right portion of the screen in the second frame, then the TV will create 10 frames (or whatever) in between to make the movement of the ball look less jerky.

Technically, such processing isn't part of what's captured in the movie itself, but I think it looks a little truer to life. The real wold doesn't move at 24Hz and jerky panning shots tend to take me out of the movie watching experience when I notice it.

As for 3DTV being a flop in 2010: it was. Manufacturers wanted a revolution, but passion for the new technology wasn't there.

I think the problems are numerous.

First, you have a chicken vs. the egg problem with hardware vs. content. Last year, people would have had to buy $3,000+ worth of TV, glasses and A/V equipment to watch 3D when the number of titles available in 3D were a few cartoons. Is it really worth the money to watch "Monsters vs. Aliens" in 3D?

Second, glasses are expensive, which means it's difficult to afford 3D TV watching for a family (the kind who would watch the limited number of kids' cartoons, which were the only titles available).

Third, it's first generation hardware and people are afraid of being early adopters. Indeed, on 3D LCD sets, you had problems with ghosting.

The new crop of TVs a lot of the problems are solved: prices will hopefully come down, there are sets where you can buy passive glasses to spare without breaking the bank, and a lot of the kinks are being worked out with 3D LCD sets.

Plus, a few worthwhile titles are now hitting the market ("Avatar" being the big one) with more and more titles expected soon.

In 2011, I don't think the 3D TV market will explode, but I think it will pick up momentum. I'm personally considering upgrading if some of the newer sets review well.

On a side note, did anyone notice the Vizio passive LED set? The coolest thing I noticed about it is that you could have two video gamers play against each other, each seeing a different image on the screen depending on whether they wore the "left eye" or "right eye" 3D glasses.

That's an innovation I hope the video game industry picks up on and supports!

 

Yeah, the smoothness just doesn't seem right, and it pulls me out of immersion. I don't think unnatural is the right word, because as boulder says, it's really more natural. I think it's because it reminds me of the old pan-and-scan versions of movies.

 

Oh Daniel you crack me up! lol

I'm never sure if you're being serious or have a really dry sense of humour.

 

Regarding the title of this thread;

1950's 3D movies flopped

1980's 3D makes a come back (for a month or two in 1984) and flopped

2010 3D makes a come back (with improved glasses) and flops


Every generation someone thinks its a good idea but 3D is too much hassle.

 

The 3D movies I have watch so far are bothersome, not entertaining. I finally have figured out what really bothers me is a lot of small effects combining into an unpleasant experience.

1) The 3D is wildly exaggerated in too many scenes. It makes for a real attention getter. It also alerts you that some is "unnatural" about what just happened.

2) The movies are not actually 3D. They are 2D with the objects of interest being given a perspective effect. Everything else is flat as can be. Again there is something "unnatural" about a few of the objects being clearly 3D but the majority of the background details being totally flat.

3) I notice that I will move my head on occasion and the scene does not shift accordingly. Bang-The "unnatural" feeling comes back again for every head movement.

Thank goodness 3D is failing. Two of the three issues above are simple faulty source material, not the technology. It's sort of like expecting a sweet candy and getting a mouthfull of pure sugar. One is enjoyable, the other is pure overload.