Blu Bits

[pixelthis]

Have had a "Blu" player awhile now, heres a few observations
for your edification, information ridicule, etc.

BIT RATE, S**T RATE

More marketing BS, in order to save cash older titles arent using the full rate , and the rate of some is surprizing.
speed for instance is a pretty constant 25mbs.
Mosy surprizing is the highest bit rate I have seen yet, Cris Boti
live in concert.
Heres a guy blowing a horn, and teh bit rate is teh highest I have seen yet, 48MBS!!!
The LPCM is amazing, btw, best sound ever and that covers a lot of territory.
I HAVE BEEN A BIG sacd booster, but its almost dead, don't see how it
(or anything else) can compete with this.

RECYCLING CORPORATE STYLE.
I had one of those HD discs that play on the computer with a net connection, etc, TERMINATOR II.
The Blu VERSION is basically this disc. Like several older titles I have seen this is a current HD version recycled for the Blu format.
For instance, the same menu with the buttons "greyed" out, and the popup standard blu menu inserted over it. KINDA CHEEZY.
Total recall, same way.
Total recall is a total waste, BTW, they shouldn't have bothered, the bit rate is barely above that of DVD.
NExt up is the shining, even tho one of my favs I never bought it, the DVD sux big time, figure the Blu version cant be any worse.
Basically what I expected, slightly remastered (if at all) older versions
of older movies, however newer movies are simply amazing

DVD? FORGETTTABOUTIT
I was one of the ones posting on this board that purchase of something like an Oppo upconverter was an option to a new BLU
player, others have mentioned this option.
WELL, sorry, I was wrong, as was anyone offering this as an option.
Blu is evolution, not revolution, however the sound alone is worth the price of admission, the pic is a bonus. I AM SERIOUS.
Couldn't get my 5.1 channel to work properly, made the same
mistake on two installs, but once I got it going, well...


good god

I mean it, MR P and others weren't exagerating, this is good!!!
I love watching music vids and concerts, and this is the medium
for it, the sound is perfect.
And 1080p does make a difference.
And your regular DVDs upconvert nicely, better than a "regular" DVD
player, the wide bandwidth stuff is already in place, a plain jane
upconverter just cant compete.
And with the price as low as 249$ , nothing beats Blu for value, for that you get lossless audio, and 1080p at 24fps with no 3:2 pulldown.
Paying 300 bucks for a plain jane DVD player is quite silly, really.
And if you have 5.1 in on your receiver you're good to go, really,
all you need.

SIZE DOES MATTER
Resolution size anyway, as far as 1080p goes.
ESPECIALLY with 24fps.
Comparing my 1080p to my older 720p there is no contest.
NOT EVEN CLOSE.
If you are in the market for a new set, don't settle for 720p.
A really nice older set is probably worth keeping, but if you are in the
market, go ahead and pull the trigger for a 1080p.
Especially if you want the best there is.
My set is a bargain model, but peeps still give me a jaw drop
when they check it out.
And there are side benefits, like watching a 40yr OLD Cameron
Diaz date a much younger ASHTON in "Vegas".
SHE REALLY LOOKS FOURTY!
and the chintzy sets on some shows are fascinating also.

SO ON BALANCE
Blu looks like a good progression up from DVD, and a bargain to boot,
makes your old discs look great too.
AND UNLESS they promise a "remastering" dont bother replacing current DVD's WITH bLU VERSIONS, most likely after upconversion
you wont be able to tell the diff very much.
A PROGRAM NEEDS TO BE RE-AUTHORED in order to justify buying the "new" Blu version.

AND IN CONCLUSION
With Blu discs selling for 17 bucks or so (on sale at Circuit and target)
this is a good time to get a Blu player.
You will get the higher q usually built into early players of a format at a good price.
Don't pay over a 100 bucks for a "regular" DVDplayer, not worth the money, really.
Just my two cents...

[L.J.]

Huh? OK, Pix, time to lay off the coffee bro

[pixelthis]

Huh? OK, Pix, time to lay off the coffee bro

coffee?
Just a few sips here and there...

[captjamo]

Good post, Pix, Enjoyed it, and agree.

[kexodusc]

Yeah, people who argue against the merits of BluRay need to have their heads examined. When it's done even half-assed, there's no comparison to DVD. When you have over 50" of screen, you really appreciate the added resolution. I'm sure it's noticeable on screens much smaller too.

One thing I've been very surprised with - even the standard 640 kb/sec bitrate Dolby Digital is a big upgrade over the 448 kb/sec standard on DVD. I'm quite familiar with the impact of higher bitrates in other audio codecs: mp3, wma, aac, ogg, etc...This represents a 40+% boost in bitrate, and the sound quality is considerably better than I'd expect for that. More than you'd think. I wonder if the newest algorithms encode it better or something. I don't have any BluRays in duplicate of DTS DVD's but I'd love to do some a/b testing - I don't think it's far off.
Dolby always claimed their codec did more with less compared to DTS's 1.5 ...too bad they didn't insist on 640 kb/sec on DVD...given all the useless extras and sometimes DTS track, there's no excuse.
Anyway, anyone with a Dolby Digital receiver will notice improved audio quality with BluRay too...

[pixelthis]

And 1080p is 360 better than 720p.
Standard def used to be about 380i!
This is a larger gap than has been previously put foward

[RoadRunner6]

And 1080p is 360 better than 720p.

Sorry, but this is not true in a comparative sense in that it is not a linear relationship. You might understand this (or maybe you don't) but it probably gives newbies here the impression that 1080p is a 50% improvement over 720p. That of course is not even close to being accurate. The perceived visual resolution difference is a somewhat slight improvement and at some distances not even detectable by normal human vision.

Comparing the raw numbers as you imply above is like saying an amp with 150 watts will sound 50% louder than an amp with 100 watts, instead of only about 1.5 dB's (barely audible) as is the actual case. For a reverse analogy, it is like saying that a 6.0 earthquake is 50% stronger than a 4.0 earthquake.

Many who get involved in the specs races don't always understand the true relationships. Those that compare 720p/768p to 1080p sets even with Blu-Ray from the same brand/series models are frequently surprised at the small observable difference at short to normal viewing distances.

RR6

[GMichael]

Sorry, but this is not true in a comparative sense in that it is not a linear relationship. You might understand this (or maybe you don't) but it probably gives newbies here the impression that 1080p is a 50% improvement over 720p. That of course is not even close to being accurate. The perceived visual resolution difference is a somewhat slight improvement and at some distances not even detectable by normal human vision.

Comparing the raw numbers as you imply above is like saying an amp with 150 watts will sound 50% louder than an amp with 100 watts, instead of only about 1.5 dB's (barely audible) as is the actual case. For a reverse analogy, it is like saying that a 6.0 earthquake is 50% stronger than a 4.0 earthquake.

Many who get involved in the specs races don't always understand the true relationships. Those that compare 720p/768p to 1080p sets even with Blu-Ray from the same brand/series models are frequently surprised at the small observable difference at short to normal viewing distances.

RR6

A 1080p display is usually 1920x1080= 2,073,600 pixels.
A 720p display is usually 1280x720= 921,600 pixels.
That's more than twice as many. But it doesn't mean twice as good. That depends on how far away you are sitting and the size of your screen. If you are watching a 42" screen from 15 feet away, most people would not see much difference. If you are watching a 103" screen from 10 feet away, then it makes a huge difference.
It all depends on what you are doing with those pixels. Numbers alone don't tell the story.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Well, you guys can argue the merits of 1080p vs. 720p all you want, but I'll tell ya what, I played my newly purchased copy of "Iron Man" last night... , and I'm floored that my sub made it all the way through the movie. The opening scene scared the sh!t outta me (dropped some of my dinner on the carpet), PQ was...obviously... like nothing I've seen before, and I was even able to crawl out from behind the couch frequently enough to get a grip on the movie's content. I thought the world was coming to an end!

[kexodusc]

A 1080p display is usually 1920x1080= 2,073,600 pixels.
A 720p display is usually 1280x720= 921,600 pixels.
That's more than twice as many. But it doesn't mean twice as good. That depends on how far away you are sitting and the size of your screen. If you are watching a 42" screen from 15 feet away, most people would not see much difference. If you are watching a 103" screen from 10 feet away, then it makes a huge difference.

I have a 102" screen, 10 feet away...and yes, 1080p does make a huge, huge difference in resolution and detail.
Just for giggles though, I have tried 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i as well. 720p is still pretty good looking, and far better than 480p. The jump to 1080p is at least that much improvement again.

480i can be painful now...especially if it's a compressed signal or bad recording to begin with...

[pixelthis]

A 1080p display is usually 1920x1080= 2,073,600 pixels.
A 720p display is usually 1280x720= 921,600 pixels.
That's more than twice as many. But it doesn't mean twice as good. That depends on how far away you are sitting and the size of your screen. If you are watching a 42" screen from 15 feet away, most people would not see much difference. If you are watching a 103" screen from 10 feet away, then it makes a huge difference.
It all depends on what you are doing with those pixels. Numbers alone don't tell the story.

Its the law of diminishing returns.
Of course 1080p isnt a 100% improvement in PQ, but there is a more
pronounced effect than most would tell you.
ITS JUST an overall pleasing picture, more "solid" and realistic.
Sanyo has cheaper 1080p sets because instead of 1920x1080
its 13 sumptin by 1080, only one I have seen like that

[pixelthis]

Yeah, people who argue against the merits of BluRay need to have their heads examined. When it's done even half-assed, there's no comparison to DVD. When you have over 50" of screen, you really appreciate the added resolution. I'm sure it's noticeable on screens much smaller too.

One thing I've been very surprised with - even the standard 640 kb/sec bitrate Dolby Digital is a big upgrade over the 448 kb/sec standard on DVD. I'm quite familiar with the impact of higher bitrates in other audio codecs: mp3, wma, aac, ogg, etc...This represents a 40+% boost in bitrate, and the sound quality is considerably better than I'd expect for that. More than you'd think. I wonder if the newest algorithms encode it better or something. I don't have any BluRays in duplicate of DTS DVD's but I'd love to do some a/b testing - I don't think it's far off.
Dolby always claimed their codec did more with less compared to DTS's 1.5 ...too bad they didn't insist on 640 kb/sec on DVD...given all the useless extras and sometimes DTS track, there's no excuse.
Anyway, anyone with a Dolby Digital receiver will notice improved audio quality with BluRay too...

I GOT LAMBASTED by sir talky for proposing that regular DVD'S
sounded better on a Blu player, maybe its the "placebo" effect but it seems that way.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
Maybe its a new way of decoding or something, but regular DD sounds pretty fantastic

[kexodusc]

I GOT LAMBASTED by sir talky for proposing that regular DVD'S
sounded better on a Blu player, maybe its the "placebo" effect but it seems that way.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
Maybe its a new way of decoding or something, but regular DD sounds pretty fantastic

Haven't noticed a big improvement on DVD's in the BluRay player, but then again, I haven't really checked for one either - but when I compared the Harry Potter, Cloverfield, and Spiderman Movies BluRay Dolby tracks to my DVD's the extra bitrate really shined through.

I know subsequent versions of the mp3 codec have constantly improved the mp3's sound quality, maybe Dolby Digital algorithms are a bit better now too. The added bitrate is allows for a lot more sonic information for sure. Maybe 640 kb/s is closer to the "sweet spot" that maximizes the effeciency of the codec - highest quality per bitrate? Whatever it is, I'm liking it.

Anyway, I'm hoping to find a new processor or receiver in the next few months, can't wait to try out Dolby TrueHD and all the new audio goodies.

[Mr Peabody]

I can't remember if I was using analog yet but I rented Pearl Harbor on BR and was disappointed it only had a Dolby track where the DVD was DTS. The BR did not sound as good as the DTS on SD.

I bought Wyatt Earp on BR for $13.95. I've never seen the DVD but the BR had excellent PQ. Newer movie than Total Recall though.

I don't know if they still have any but Circuit City was blowing out the Sony s300 for $199.00.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Can someone tell me what pix is trying to say with that butt smiley?

[GMichael]

Can someone tell me what pix is trying to say with that butt smiley?

My guess? That he's ready for you.

[pixelthis]

Can someone tell me what pix is trying to say with that butt smiley?

You said you thought that "it was the end" so I showed you the end.
Dont get your hopes up chum, pixie dont roll like that.

[Rich-n-Texas]

By the way, somewhere in a thread I stated that BD Live was a Disney thing. It's not. It's a Blue-ray Disk Association thing. I saw a TV commercial about Snow White on BD which included mention of BD Live and some of it's features, so I mistakenly assiociated it with Disney.

That is all.

[pixelthis]

By the way, somewhere in a thread I stated that BD Live was a Disney thing. It's not. It's a Blue-ray Disk Association thing. I saw a TV commercial about Snow White on BD which included mention of BD Live and some of it's features, so I mistakenly assiociated it with Disney.

That is all.

HEY, I just assume everything you say is wrong so dont worry about it.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I'm sure there's a long line ahead of me. Besides GM, you know how much I hate sloppy seconds.

[GMichael]

Second? I'm thinking triple digits by now. He's what, 105?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Truthfully GM, I'm not sure if that's a male or a female butt, so we probably shouldn't jump to conclusions.

Your thoughts?

[GMichael]

Are you thinking that he's a gal?

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=GMichael]Are you thinking that he's a gal?

[pixelthis]

Are you thinking that he's a gal?

REDICULOUS.
As you can see by my pic its easy to tell what "sex" I am.
very miffed at you GM( does that stand for "girly man"?)