Blu-Ray Players

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If you are even in a war, you will be shooting at the people standing next to you.
What I KNOW is learned honestly, not through some press release.

Please be standing next to me, pleeeeeeeze.

If I learned what I have learned from press releases, then I need to hand them over to you. You don't know dooookey about audio or video.

[pixelthis]

Please be standing next to me, pleeeeeeeze.

If I learned what I have learned from press releases, then I need to hand them over to you. You don't know dooookey about audio or video.

I KNOW audio AND video from actually using and working with it on a daily basis.
MY first HD set, a 47" rptv PANNY, I went into, worked over with the service menu,
you name it.
I HAVE INSTALLED sat tv, home theater, studied volumes on resolution, how
video actually works, took a three year class, have taken sets apart and reassembled
them.
The problem you have with me is that you are a total ignoramus on all things video,
you know just enough to come across as a complete buffoon, you don't know
an oscillator from an escalator. NOR do you understand the basics of how a
set displays resolution, which is why you buy into cons like "motion" resolution,
etc.
YOU, SIR, ARE a perfect example of someone who has had the common sense
educated out of them. If there is an instruction book you might be okay, but try
to color outside the lines and you will be lost at sea, because you have never
been educated in the basics, you just know what your masters tell you, which
is not surprizing for a PR HACK.
I AM A LAYMAN with quite a bit of experience in these things, don't pretend to be nothing
else.
YOU ARE a lawyer or other kind of PR type that has been trained in just enough
basic electronics to understand elemental terms.
WHAT gets your goat about me is that I SEE RIGHT THROUGH YOU, you are a
fraud, a creation of a corporation, and you know just enough, with the help of a search
engine, to fool the ignorant most of the time.
But you don't fool me , I HAVE never pretended to be more than I AM.
You have, and thats why you're FAKE.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I KNOW audio AND video from actually using and working with it on a daily basis.
MY first HD set, a 47" rptv PANNY, I went into, worked over with the service menu,
you name it.
I HAVE INSTALLED sat tv, home theater, studied volumes on resolution, how
video actually works, took a three year class, have taken sets apart and reassembled
them.
The problem you have with me is that you are a total ignoramus on all things video,
you know just enough to come across as a complete buffoon, you don't know
an oscillator from an escalator. NOR do you understand the basics of how a
set displays resolution, which is why you buy into cons like "motion" resolution,
etc.
YOU, SIR, ARE a perfect example of someone who has had the common sense
educated out of them. If there is an instruction book you might be okay, but try
to color outside the lines and you will be lost at sea, because you have never
been educated in the basics, you just know what your masters tell you, which
is not surprizing for a PR HACK.
I AM A LAYMAN with quite a bit of experience in these things, don't pretend to be nothing
else.
YOU ARE a lawyer or other kind of PR type that has been trained in just enough
basic electronics to understand elemental terms.
WHAT gets your goat about me is that I SEE RIGHT THROUGH YOU, you are a
fraud, a creation of a corporation, and you know just enough, with the help of a search
engine, to fool the ignorant most of the time.
But you don't fool me , I HAVE never pretended to be more than I AM.
You have, and thats why you're FAKE.

WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.,.....heheheheheh eheheheheheheh.. gotta pee......LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Pix, after saying all of that, lets revisit one of your stupid comment in this thread.

SO WHY DON'T we abandon 1080p since its so much easier to produce 1080i sets?
PRODUCTION houses use CRT because they are cheap, and as these wear out they will be replaced by panels. but anybody who thinks 1080i is even close to 1080p
needs to have their head examined, as well as their eyes..

1080p and 1080i have all of the same information just presented differently. 1080i presents the information in two fields, and 1080p presents it in one field. At common viewing distances you will not see any difference between the two. The resolution is exactly the same, no difference.

Post houses still use CRT's because they are more accurate than the current professional panels on the market. The grey scale is more accurate, color rendition is more accurate, blacks are blacker, and there is no motion trails. The professional CRT's used in post houses costs far more than your panel costs - which means there is nothing "cheap" about them.

So if you think there is such a dramatic difference between 1080p and 1080i, YOU need to get YOUR head examined.

Somebody needs to call the men in the white coats. Pix is so delusional, he is dangerous to himself.

Good joke Pixie, I hope you have fully convinced yourself that you are a legend in your own empty head. Whatever you are taking, stop.

[pixelthis]

WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.,.....heheheheheh eheheheheheheh.. gotta pee......LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Pix, after saying all of that, lets revisit one of your stupid comment in this thread.

SO WHY DON'T we abandon 1080p since its so much easier to produce 1080i sets?
PRODUCTION houses use CRT because they are cheap, and as these wear out they will be replaced by panels. but anybody who thinks 1080i is even close to 1080p
needs to have their head examined, as well as their eyes..

1080p and 1080i have all of the same information just presented differently. 1080i presents the information in two fields, and 1080p presents it in one field. At common viewing distances you will not see any difference between the two. The resolution is exactly the same, no difference.

Post houses still use CRT's because they are more accurate than the current professional panels on the market. The grey scale is more accurate, color rendition is more accurate, blacks are blacker, and there is no motion trails. The professional CRT's used in post houses costs far more than your panel costs - which means there is nothing "cheap" about them.

So if you think there is such a dramatic difference between 1080p and 1080i, YOU need to get YOUR head examined.

Somebody needs to call the men in the white coats. Pix is so delusional, he is dangerous to himself.

Good joke Pixie, I hope you have fully convinced yourself that you are a legend in your own empty head. Whatever you are taking, stop.

this is an exelent example of your ignorance in basic knowledge of anything video.
THANKS for the demo of your ignorance, outmatched only by a dino walking into a tar pit.
No "difference"? THEN WHY CAN'T YOU BUY a 1080i anywhere?
BECAUSE side by side there is a marked difference between 1080i and 1080p.
You just have to compare the two, basically.
This is because a 1080p picture has twice the information at any given time
onscreen than a 1080i.
This is because the two "fields" in a 1080i picture are deinterlaced to create a
progressive picture with a true 1080 lines, as opposed to the 540 lines that are on a
1080i screen at any given time.
ALSO 1080p has few artifacts, while 1080i loses up to half its resolution everytime
theres' movement. This is common knowledge, but of course you don't have
a clue about it. This is why the entire industry went progressive, because you don't
lose res when theres movement, and there are fewer other artifacts.
Any progressive image is going to be more solid than any given interlaced pic.
THIS is why the computer industry went to progressive scan displays early, so
that text could be read easier on computer screens.
A system has gradually evolved where the broadcast standard for HD is 1080i, which
saves bandwidth, then 1080p sets deinterlace the two fields for complete frames in
a progressive 1080p picture, which looks outstanding.
EVENTUALLY THERE WONT be any interlaced displays, they are obsolete.
Anything else you care to display your ignorance on?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

this is an exelent example of your ignorance in basic knowledge of anything video.
THANKS for the demo of your ignorance, outmatched only by a dino walking into a tar pit.
No "difference"? THEN WHY CAN'T YOU BUY a 1080i anywhere?

Its is not because 1080p is better than 1080i. Its because most of the sources we use are progressive, and progressive going to a progressive reduces the amount of processing you have to include in the set.

BECAUSE side by side there is a marked difference between 1080i and 1080p.
You just have to compare the two, basically.
This is because a 1080p picture has twice the information at any given time
onscreen than a 1080i.
This is because the two "fields" in a 1080i picture are deinterlaced to create a
progressive picture with a true 1080 lines, as opposed to the 540 lines that are on a
1080i screen at any given time.

If I am refreshing each field 30 times a second, you are not going to see 540 lines - our eyes do not process the information that fast. If they did, you would see flickering as each field is sequentially painted on the screen. Painting the screen with each field 30 times a second, to the eyes we see exactly the same thing as a progressive screen painting the screen 60 times a second. Its one thing to talk about theory, its another to see how that theory works with the eyes and brain.

Learn something:

http://www.hometheater.com/geoffreym...061080iv1080p/

Notice these words from the article

There Is No Difference Between 1080p and 1080i

I supposed you are going to claim he doesn't know what he is talking about as well.

ALSO 1080p has few artifacts, while 1080i loses up to half its resolution everytime
theres' movement. This is common knowledge, but of course you don't have
a clue about it. This is why the entire industry went progressive, because you don't
lose res when theres movement, and there are fewer other artifacts.

Even progressive displays lose resolution when there is movement.

http://hdguru.com/will-you-see-all-t...exclusive/287/

Note this line:

An HDTV may resolve a stationary test signal at full bandwidth, displaying all the detail within the 1920 individual pixels that appear across the screen, but not necessarily when motion is introduced, which on some sets causes a resolution drop.

So you are wrong again!

Any progressive image is going to be more solid than any given interlaced pic.
THIS is why the computer industry went to progressive scan displays early, so
that text could be read easier on computer screens.
A system has gradually evolved where the broadcast standard for HD is 1080i, which
saves bandwidth, then 1080p sets deinterlace the two fields for complete frames in
a progressive 1080p picture, which looks outstanding.
EVENTUALLY THERE WONT be any interlaced displays, they are obsolete.
Anything else you care to display your ignorance on?

Actually, based on the links its you that is displaying the ignorance. Your the kind of idiot that does not know how to separate hype and theory from real world conditions. Theory is one thing, how our eyes and brain process that theory is another.

Here is some more information for you if you can actually understand it.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/26585312

[BobB]

I will look at Best Buys line up and go from there. Thanks for all of your replies.

[Hyfi]

I will look at Best Buys line up and go from there. Thanks for all of your replies.

Bob, it's a shame a few guys crapped all over your post but if you read every other response there is a lot of good info to be had.

I know from your original post your budget was not at $500 but if you can swing it, the OPPO 93 is a killer universal player that will have great Blu playback as well as 3D and awesome DLNA streaming capabilities from over the network and attached drives.

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE]

Its is not because 1080p is better than 1080i. Its because most of the sources we use are progressive, and progressive going to a progressive reduces the amount of processing you have to include in the set.

1080P IS "better, has twice the information onscreen at any given time.
AND AS FAR AS "processing" goes, stitching two fields together is hardly processing at all.
AND most of the sources we use are interlaced , the only native progressive is
a few pay-per-view choices and BLU ray.
PROGRESSIVE simply uses too much bandwidth.

If I am refreshing each field 30 times a second, you are not going to see 540 lines - our eyes do not process the information that fast. If they did, you would see flickering as each field is sequentially painted on the screen. Painting the screen with each field 30 times a second, to the eyes we see exactly the same thing as a progressive screen painting the screen 60 times a second. Its one thing to talk about theory, its another to see how that theory works with the eyes and brain.

If there is movement in an interlaced pic, the illusion falls apart, and resolution drops,
sometimes fifty percent.
I USED to wonder at how still images looked so good on old 480i NTSC, reason is
that they are still images, and a true 400+ lines of resolution.
AND, NO, our brains do not process information that fast (our eyes don't process
anything), but on an interlaced pic the illusion of res thats not there falls apart
whenever there is movement, and the drop in res is noticeable



Learn something:

http://www.hometheater.com/geoffreym...061080iv1080p/

Notice these words from the article

There Is No Difference Between 1080p and 1080i

I supposed you are going to claim he doesn't know what he is talking about as well.

DEPENDS on what hes talking about.
If hes' talking about a 1080p pic and a 1080i pic that has been deinterlaced there
is no difference. HOWEVER, the non-deinterlaced pure 1080p pic that BLU delivers
does seem better to me than the deinterlaced pic from cable, although technically
they are the same(or close).

Even progressive displays lose resolution when there is movement.

SOME, but its nowhere near the almost (or more) fifty percent that an interlaced pic loses

Note this line:

An HDTV may resolve a stationary test signal at full bandwidth, displaying all the detail within the 1920 individual pixels that appear across the screen, but not necessarily when motion is introduced, which on some sets causes a resolution drop.

So you are wrong again!

Not really. THE RES DROP of a 1080p or other progressive picture is slight compared to the almost fifty percent of an interlaced pic.
APPLES AND ORANGES, really.

Actually, based on the links its you that is displaying the ignorance. Your the kind of idiot that does not know how to separate hype and theory from real world conditions. Theory is one thing, how our eyes and brain process that theory is another.

Our "eyes and brains" don't process "theory", but theory explains what our eyes and brains see under certain circumstances.
AND YOU ARE THE one displaying "ignorance", as your "quotes" back up what I'm
saying, not you. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND that because of your ignorance.

Here is some more information for you if you can actually understand it.

I could teach them a thing or two.
WE HAVE ARGUED ABOUT THIS FOREVER, AND ALL IT BOILS DOWN TO
is your inferiority complex over your antique CRT based projection system,
which is quite obsolete.
Maybe you will figure that out one of these days.

[pixelthis]

BTW the LG "42 that passed your weird little "motion" res test in your gamespot link
(the only one that passed) is the same model I HAVE.
i didn't need some fake "test" to see what an excellent pic it produces , I could tell
by eyeballing it in the store.
THANKS for verifying the basic goodness of my panel, knew you'd be good for
something one of these days.
AND what does it say about my "expertise" when the set I picked out by eyeballing it
is the only one that passed your little "motion" res test?