Blu-ray

[demonAfro]

How did people stand watching movies at home before blu-ray? Not sure I could ever go back to dvd

Just sayin'

[res0nat0r]

Re: Blu-ray

No kidding. I'm an HD snob now. I won't even watch a show on TV if it isn't on an HD channel

Check out this experimental ultra hd format in talks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Television

[Micko]

Re: Blu-ray

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Television

[demonAfro]

Re: Blu-ray

I even get a little annoyed when the blu-ray has a bad transfer and looks no better than dvd quality.

UHDTV looks awesome. More pixels can never be a bad thing. And the sooner they start pushing super mega ultra high def, the sooner that pixel density on monitors can start going up again too.

[Shpira]

Re: Blu-ray

crazy...what teh hell are to watch that on??? I have never even seen a monitor that can support that.

[Kamal]

Re: Blu-ray

7680 × 4320

I think it'd be about 6-8 years before that comes into existence

[mnbvcxz]

Re: Blu-ray

I bought my 42" quite some time ago and it only outputs 720p. This for me is totally fine quality.

UHD? That seems a bit extreme. Will the human eye even recognise the difference?

[demonAfro]

Re: Blu-ray

720p

Even my laptop is 15 inches of 1080p. Right now I can easily tell the difference. In a few years, maybe not so much

[mnbvcxz]

Re: Blu-ray

Even my laptop is 15 inches of 1080p. Right now I can easily tell the difference. In a few years, maybe not so much

720p is still HD... it's just not full HD. In fact most HD channels will only output 720p (or 1080i). It's not THAT uncommon at all so not sure why the "Hm".

Of course you can tell the difference... I didn't say otherwise.

To be honest, I appreciate an awesome sound system more than picture quality.

[Kamal]

Re: Blu-ray

UHD? That seems a bit extreme. Will the human eye even recognise the difference?

most definitely. Even at 1080p (which mind you is a resolution of 1920 x 1080) still has a certain pixel density. You can take a 300 x 300 image and blow it up to 1920 x 1080 but you'd be left behind with absolute gutter image quality. It's the same reason why standard definition 480p looks crap at 1080p. If you get something that is so high, it has to be packed with data, to be able to deliver a crisp image.

Heck even if you get 11 gig 1080p rips on the interwebz and an untouched blu-ray 37 gb iso and the difference is day and night.

[mnbvcxz]

Re: Blu-ray

most definitely. Even at 1080p (which mind you is a resolution of 1920 x 1080) still has a certain pixel density. You can take a 300 x 300 image and blow it up to 1920 x 1080 but you'd be left behind with absolute gutter image quality. It's the same reason why standard definition 480p looks crap at 1080p. If you get something that is so high, it has to be packed with data, to be able to deliver a crisp image.

Heck even if you get 11 gig 1080p rips on the interwebz and an untouched blu-ray 37 gb iso and the difference is day and night.

I see how this can hold true for large screen sizes that aren't on the market now, but without comparing the screen size to the number of pixels discussing UHD is somewhat meaningless. I'm assuming that we're discussing standards TV sizes for this day and age (for example 50") - in which case UHD is not going to provide much benefit. Even seating distance starts to play a part when looking at the noticeable viewing difference of these ultra high resolutions.

The same reason why on my 42" TV 1080p does not provide much benefit over 720p. Although viewing the difference on a 50" you can definitely tell!

Interesting read... http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

There's no doubt 1080p is the way to go... not for a second am I saying it is not. But there are other factors involved before concluding a higher resolution (in this case better than 1080p) is going to be immediately "better".