Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display?

Technically-oriented discussion of classic films on everything from 35mm to Blu-Ray
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

syd

  • Posts: 611
  • Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:55 am

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostFri Jan 13, 2017 10:09 am

I like a balanced picture on my TV just like anyone else does
but I think contrast is overrated. Think about it. Our eyes
continually adjust what we're looking at and usually renders
everything in midtones. Even in the dim light, our eyes lighten
the image using any available light. Complete darkness turns
to grey once our eyes adjust to it.

Contrast usually obscures fine detail and is usually increased
in sets on the showroom floor to give the perception of detail.

CRTs were not perfect. LEDs usually die quickly. CRTs would
fade gradually into an unwatchable image. I saw people hold
onto CRTs with green, washed-out images and thought the
image was okay.
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostFri Jan 13, 2017 10:31 am

What a individualist technology... requirering one person in front of it (90 degree), and anyone else on side will not see a good image. :?

For me even in front 90 degree I notice the sides are darker than the center. Only if very get far aways this is almost solved. But don't adress dynamics range...

Again, I don't refer about contrast ratio, I refer about the image look faded if adjusted to avoid crushed shadows and clipped highlights.

What you said about eyes adjust to light is somewhat true, but only if you watch TV in a dark room.
Last edited by All Darc on Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline

Paul Penna

  • Posts: 496
  • Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:02 am

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostFri Jan 13, 2017 11:21 am

oldposterho wrote:My only gripe with my el-cheapo (Sony) Blu-Ray player is it always stretches 1:33 DVDs to widescreen so I started just ripping them to files to play via USB. Been deep in the menus and can't seem to find a way to fix that. I still have my old DVD player which I'll hook back up one day since my VCR (!!) finally died, so I imagine that should cure that problem.


Bear in mind that there are aspect ratio settings for both your player and your display, and they must both be set properly. Finding what "properly" means will involve experimenting with combinations of player/display settings, but unless something's malfunctioning there should be no reason you shouldn't be able to get 1:33 images to display correctly.
Online
User avatar

bigshot

  • Posts: 796
  • Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostFri Jan 13, 2017 11:28 am

Sony's menu options are not always described well. Try going to Settings > Screen Settings > Screen Format and select Fixed Aspect Ratio

When I was in Jr High School, the school district bought us a half inch B&W reel to reel video recorder. It was a monster with glitches galore, but I thought it was amazing. I later had a Beta machine and a VHS and a laserdisc and a DVD player, then a blu-ray and ultimately a media server computer with an attached disk array. There is a learning curve as technology advances, and if you don't keep up with how to use it, it can be frustrating. But I would NEVER want to go backwards. At this point, I'm living the dream I had as a kid of having my own movie theater in my home with a huge collection of movies.

There are plenty of things in modern life that aren't as good as the old days, but technology ain't one of them. Technology is one of the few things that are better than the old days.

All Darc wrote:What a individualista technology... requirering one person in front of it (90 degree), and anyone else on side will not see a good image.


Everything has advantages and drawbacks. It's just a matter of determining how you plan to use it and pick one that works best for your purposes. I have my bedroom TV at the foot of my bed. I only watch it lying in bed. Viewing angles are not an issue for me at all, so LCD works fine. In my theater room, the couches are arranged in a horseshoe shape around the screen. That would require a different solution. There is no one size fits all... you just have to define how you are going to use it and play to the strengths of the equipment.

Like I said, next time you are shopping for equipment, I would be happy to help you find the system that would work best for you.
Offline
User avatar

Donald Binks

  • Posts: 2773
  • Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:08 am
  • Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostFri Jan 13, 2017 2:01 pm

bigshot wrote:....
There are plenty of things in modern life that aren't as good as the old days, but technology ain't one of them. Technology is one of the few things that are better than the old days. ...



That's all very well if you are a nerd and interested in all things electronic, but for some of us, it's all an uphill battle. Instruction books may as well be written in Hindustani - and there are just so many buttons!

As an example. I had a "stupid" mobile (cell) 'phone, which did what I wanted - i.e., took 'phone calls and allowed me to make them. When it finally died I had to replace it with a "smart" 'phone. I am yet to understand how to work it all properly and can just about manage to ring up on it. Why do I need to access the internet on an object the size of which I can barely see?

Like our other poster, I had a dickens of a job finding where the button was to alter the aspect ratio on the TV/DVD so I could watch pictures that didn't contain fat people.

I too had a home theatre in my former home before I downsized - the instruction book to work one of the pieces of equipment in it was larger than a 'phone book! Luckily I had the guys who installed everything run me through about four or five times on what I had to do in order to be able to work things. I left everything on their settings basically and was therefore able to manage. - but one pays extra for this service.

Whilst I am in awe of what we are able to do now in the 21st Century - I find a lot of it not very user friendly - and I don;t know about driverless cars.....
Regards from
Donald Binks

"I was in love with a beautiful blonde one time. She led me to drink. It's the only thing I'm thankful to her for."
Online
User avatar

boblipton

  • Posts: 5076
  • Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
  • Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostFri Jan 13, 2017 2:07 pm

Donald Binks wrote:
bigshot wrote:....
There are plenty of things in modern life that aren't as good as the old days, but technology ain't one of them. Technology is one of the few things that are better than the old days. ...



That's all very well if you are a nerd and interested in all things electronic, but for some of us, it's all an uphill battle. Instruction books may as well be written in Hindustani - and there are just so many buttons!

As an example. I had a "stupid" mobile (cell) 'phone, which did what I wanted - i.e., took 'phone calls and allowed me to make them. When it finally died I had to replace it with a "smart" 'phone. I am yet to understand how to work it all properly and can just about manage to ring up on it. Why do I need to access the internet on an object the size of which I can barely see?


Clearly, for a large portion of our population, the Singularity has already taken place.

This reminds me of dealing with a Christian, who kept threatening me with what would happen to me after the Rapture. I told him it had already taken place.


Bob
Last edited by boblipton on Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To remain ignorant of what occurred before before you were born is to remain forever a child.
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero
Online
User avatar

bigshot

  • Posts: 796
  • Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostFri Jan 13, 2017 2:40 pm

You have to learn to drive a car for it to be better than a horse and buggy!
Offline
User avatar

Changsham

  • Posts: 789
  • Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:34 pm

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostFri Jan 13, 2017 3:33 pm

Law suits will kill driverless cars before they ever become mainstream.
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSat Jan 14, 2017 12:00 pm

How many times you hit your car or had a accident with it?
How many times you PC got bugg or got error during a task?

Even the decoder of digital SAT TV get a lot of mistakes.

That's why I dod not trust in suposed safer "digital drivers". It will another digital crap with lots of accidents just like anything in this damn digital world.

Changsham wrote:Law suits will kill driverless cars before they ever become mainstream.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSat Jan 14, 2017 1:14 pm

Interesting how tecnician, sellers, or manufacturers try to create stupid excuses to justify crap image or crap screen, making use or dated arguments from VHS times. In VHS times all very big TV (like rear projection TVs--that was crap) really had to be watched very far away in order to do not looked blur, pixeleted, such sort of thing, due the low resolution.

If you double just the resolution in a screen of a given size, this should suposed to reduce minimal distanse from the display to 50%.

Now lets see the resolution evolution, better saying "resolution evolution" (since the image have more percentual loss of true detail, from master tapes untilo reach screen, today than in 90's analogyc era) :

Image


VCD in this image it's like VHS resolution, I could take it as example for a 20 inch screen watched 1 meter away. But let's take Super-VHS resolution, that was broadcast resolution in the 80's, and in this image is a intermediar between VCD and DVD. Or better, let's take the DVD resolution, and remamber how close we could watch the display with it and until get fine image.
in a 4K TV you can't enjoy the resolution cause you have to come relatively close, and such distante make you see distortion of LCD technology. If you went far enough to hide the distortions you will not see al details of 4K.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline
User avatar

Donald Binks

  • Posts: 2773
  • Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:08 am
  • Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSat Jan 14, 2017 1:33 pm

I have been reading all that All Darc has been writing here. I find it interesting although I must admit I haven't a clue what it all means as I am not technical. What I would like to do though is respectfully suggest that he only attend live shows where he can actually see performances in the flesh. If he did that he would not have any problems with recorded or transmitted renditions.
Regards from
Donald Binks

"I was in love with a beautiful blonde one time. She led me to drink. It's the only thing I'm thankful to her for."
Online
User avatar

bigshot

  • Posts: 796
  • Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSat Jan 14, 2017 1:57 pm

All Darc wrote:If you double just the resolution in a screen of a given size, this should suposed to reduce minimal distanse from the display to 50%.


You have that backwards. Increased resolution is so you can increase the size of the screen, and the larger the screen, the further back the viewing distance should be. VHS looks OK on a 12 inch TV from a few feet away, but if you blow that up to a ten foot screen viewed from 13 feet away it will look terrible. 1080p at that size and distance is optimal.

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-siz ... lationship

There is also a recommended viewing angle, left to right so that the edges of the screen don't fall into your peripheral vision. You may be able to sit closer with an ultra high resolution screen, but the screen then needs to be smaller so you don't have to turn your head to see action at the sides.

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/view ... lator.html

Do you know anyone who is a home theater enthusiast in your area? You might be able to learn a lot about this and figure out how to get more out of your own system if you asked a few questions and had them explain the basic principles to you. It is a bit of a learning curve, but if you apply the principles properly, you can achieve a home theater in your home as good as at the theater. (I know, because I've done just that!)
Online
User avatar

bigshot

  • Posts: 796
  • Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSat Jan 14, 2017 2:13 pm

I just ran the specs on my theater through that calculator in the second link (100 inch horizontal screen viewed from 14 feet with a 16:9 aspect). My viewing angle is within 3 degrees of optimal and my viewing distance is about a foot from ideal according to THX specs. I'm just within the sweet spot for viewing distance and visual acuity at 1080p too.

I ran the specs on your setup too (20 inch diagonal 4:3 aspect 3 foot viewing distance). Your viewing angle is close to the THX specs for the back row of a movie theater- 10 degrees from optimal (which is to be expected with a 4:3 ratio because it isn't as wide as 16:9), your viewing distance is a foot too far away (which again is OK because a 2 foot viewing distance would be uncomfortable), and your rating on visual acuity would be optimal for 720p, but is still within range for 480p. (1080p would be a waste of time for this setup though.)

That calculator is very handy!
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSat Jan 14, 2017 4:46 pm

Donald, today I told my brother that if they created a modern toilet, like a digital toilet, people will get trouble and require assistence, while still sit on it, to activate the discharge, just because there would be a advanced MENU to reach the discharge function.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

The modern toilet would also have many kinds of massage functions (like shaking beds have but more advanced and with infra red thermal LEDS), and radical feminists unifamiliar with technology would be accidentaly be "rapped", and would sue the companies.

I hate mobile phones too. A physiotherapeut told me today many teens are already with carpal tunnel syndrome due type in that sh... small screen.

Donald Binks wrote:
bigshot wrote:....
There are plenty of things in modern life that aren't as good as the old days, but technology ain't one of them. Technology is one of the few things that are better than the old days. ...



That's all very well if you are a nerd and interested in all things electronic, but for some of us, it's all an uphill battle. Instruction books may as well be written in Hindustani - and there are just so many buttons!

As an example. I had a "stupid" mobile (cell) 'phone, which did what I wanted - i.e., took 'phone calls and allowed me to make them. When it finally died I had to replace it with a "smart" 'phone. I am yet to understand how to work it all properly and can just about manage to ring up on it. Why do I need to access the internet on an object the size of which I can barely see?
.....
Last edited by All Darc on Sat Jan 14, 2017 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline
User avatar

Donald Binks

  • Posts: 2773
  • Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:08 am
  • Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSat Jan 14, 2017 4:58 pm

All Darc wrote:Donald, today I told my brother that if they created a modern toilet, like a digital toilet, people will get trouble and require assistence, while still sit on it, to activate the discharge, just because there would be a advanced MENU to reach the discharge function.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

The modern toilet would also have many kinds of massage functions (like shaking beds have but more advanced and with infra red thermal LEDS), and radical feminists unifamiliar with technology would be accidentaly "rapped", and would sue the companies.

]


You obviously are yet to encounter a Japanese toilet! :D
Regards from
Donald Binks

"I was in love with a beautiful blonde one time. She led me to drink. It's the only thing I'm thankful to her for."
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSat Jan 14, 2017 5:08 pm

Bigshot, what I mean is that a ok small screen to S-VHS, or a 20 inch screen to DVD, and the distance necessary to be ok, and them you just get larger screen due the resolution increase, without enlarge pixels, like the colored image comparisom I posted. The relative size to watch 4K would be very close., but in reality you can't be that close due LCD crap aspects.
With people far away from a large TV, they will not see al resolution and also will not see all artefacts of crap caompression. So one lie helps to hide another lie.

I don't talk about eye's lateral range, I talk about the LCD getting crap you you stay closer to it, even if the resolution it's ok, even without see large pixels. If you go too far the extra resolution became less relevant since you will not be able to see all details of 4K (when it don't "blur away" in motions) by distance.

3 degrees of tolerance??? Individualist home vídeo... :lol:
Maybe a conjoined twins, like the two head girls (in a single body), are the only two people on Earth than can watch LCD together, relatively close to the screen, without get a distorted image.

Image

I had some channels on open TV broadcast, still in a analogic option, and the very same channels also on a signed SAT TV The analogy channels, most, have a good image, but with some noise, some very little faint ghost image here and there sometimes, but it still have better textures than the signed SAT digital TV (that have the same resolution). I could change from analogic to digital in a second, so I know what I'm talking. The digital compression killed more textures than the analogyc broadcast.
That's what I'm trying to say: Digital quality it's a f... lie.
And the more you advance in resolution, worse is the compression. HD digital broadcast have a relative loss, of details and textures, much worse then the SD digital compression. Many HD (full HD) channels lost most textures with very low motion, becaming worse than a very good DVD.
If I phone the company to complain they said: "But it's digital quality, there is nothing wrong, it can't be any wrong"
Digital quality it's a hoax in home vídeo and TV brodcast. That's it. WHen digital started, in music, with computers, they talked about crystaline quality, no degradation of quality if make a copy. But today... it got worse than analogy loss.

If you take 4K DVD I bet it have a good deal of texture loss. I downloaded a very large clips, they have about 1GB for each 1:30 or 2 minutes, and I saw a lot of artefacts and texture loss even in scenes with low motion, like a camera stead still, and just the sky clouds and tree leaves moving.
Last edited by All Darc on Sat Jan 14, 2017 5:56 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSat Jan 14, 2017 5:17 pm

Maybe I would prefer the old japanese version over a digital mess that exploits human's basic necessity.

Image

Science said such toilets make the "work" easier due angle of body, and it also help to increase muscles vigor.

Image

https://vw-squattypotty.storage.googlea ... Simple.png

:lol:

Donald Binks wrote:You obviously are yet to encounter a Japanese toilet! :D
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSat Jan 14, 2017 5:35 pm

A bit subject change, to the sociologic side.
The power of media today and their work, endeavor to make people feel miserable and sad, stating that they need a lot of things to be happy, it's "depatrymonializing" people, making them spent more than they have or do not save money.

In my contry importation are extremelly taxed, and anything to buy in stores have double prices due internal taxes. Minimum wage here it's not high. Even so people spent a lot with things they don't need, just becase marketing states to have this or that. They also buy to to show they can buy, even if they really can't. They pay for foulishes but don't pay for a private doctor when need or don't pay for a school for their kids.

And many of them can't even differentiate a mono from stereo :?

Depression is the disease of century. The more you need to be happy, more probable is that you will not be happy.
I doin't need a digital lie, a HD that it's not really a HD, or a large screen to watch 2 blocks away to look acceptable. I prefer DVDs on CRT over that.
I don't accept lies.



Toilet update:

Image

Image
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... ac1c10.jpg" target="_blank" target="_blank

A scene from 2001, a Space Odyssey.
Dynamic reading will be mandatory in future schools. :wink:
Last edited by All Darc on Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:37 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline
User avatar

Donald Binks

  • Posts: 2773
  • Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:08 am
  • Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSat Jan 14, 2017 6:12 pm

All Darc wrote:. Even so people spent a lot with things they don't need, just becase marketing states to have this or that. They also buy to to show they can buy, even if they really can't. ]


Perhaps more of the populace should take on board one of my rules - don't plug anything more into the electric lest the whole lot blows up!
Regards from
Donald Binks

"I was in love with a beautiful blonde one time. She led me to drink. It's the only thing I'm thankful to her for."
Online
User avatar

bigshot

  • Posts: 796
  • Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSun Jan 15, 2017 2:00 am

All Darc wrote:The relative size to watch 4K would be very close., but in reality you can't be that close due LCD crap aspects. With people far away from a large TV, they will not see al resolution and also will not see all artefacts of crap caompression. So one lie helps to hide another lie.


You're still misunderstanding look at the graphic I posted and play with the calculator. It doesn't go up to 4K, but in order for 4K to be useful and still maintain the proper viewing angle, the size of the screen would need to be the size in a typical movie theater, and the viewing distance would have to be dozens of feet back. Higher resolution means the screen has to be *larger* and you have to sit further away. If you have a smaller screen and you sit closer, resolution doesn't matter as much. The resolution of 4K is designed for theatrical projection, not really TV sets. But 4K is more than just resolution. The contrast levels and color accuracy are actually more important to why 4K looks better than just resolution. That's why they make 4K screens at 50 inches... not for resolution.

Also if you check the links I posted, you'll see that there is optimal, minimum and maximum for THX specifications. Look at the graphic that shows the movie theater layout and you'll see what I mean. There is a fairly wide latitude, but if you are designing a theater for your home, without having to consider audiences that number in the hundreds, you can design for the optimal range, not the extremes. Any seat in my theater room is within THX specs, but my seat is dead nuts on perfect. (as it should be!)

Broadcast TV and Netflix streaming in Los Angeles is as good as blu-ray. It isn't heavily compressed. But we have fiber optic internet to homes here so our bandwidth is better than it might be where you live. Give it a few years, and hopefully they will run fiber optic to you too. Digital isn't the problem. Obsolete infrastructure is. Here in LA, we are a little ahead of the curve, that's all.

If you ever get to Los Angeles, look me up and I'd be happy to demo my theater for you. You'll see then what digital is capable of.
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSun Jan 15, 2017 8:44 am

If you refer about 4K HDR, maybe, but 4K with no HDR will not render better contrast.
And even HDR TV clipped highlights and crushed shadows, despite less than normal signal.

And view angle specifications are a lie in all LCD display. No mater if you are 5 or 6 meters away, the image if you look even 25 degrees from the center will always be darker than frontal image.

bigshot wrote: But 4K is more than just resolution. The contrast levels and color accuracy are actually more important to why 4K looks better than just resolution. That's why they make 4K screens at 50 inches... not for resolution.


Well, 50 inches it's not enough to get distant (to avoid screen distortions) and still see all the resolutuion of 4K, and as result you get something between ful HD and 4k, in terms of what details you can see by distance.
And if you get a larger screen, like 65 or 70 inchs, the distance required to avoid LCD undesireble effects (distortions etc...) will be higher. So that's is a problem with no solution. For me that's the proof LCD technology screw-ups thing once again.
And manufacturers wants to push 8K TV down the troat of people, using the same sh... LCD technology . If with 4K the problem it's unsulved, imagine with 8K. It will be a even bigger waste of resolution.

bigshot wrote:Also if you check the links I posted, you'll see that there is optimal, minimum and maximum for THX specifications. Look at the graphic that shows the movie theater layout and you'll see what I mean. There is a fairly wide latitude, but if you are designing a theater for your home, without having to consider audiences that number in the hundreds, you can design for the optimal range, not the extremes. Any seat in my theater room is within THX specs, but my seat is dead nuts on perfect. (as it should be!)


Well, one TV channel broadcast here get the signal by fiber optics, and it's not good, not like Blu-Ray. And the best 4K clips I got, to test the 4K TV, have about 1GB for just 2 minutes or less, and still have artefacts even in scenes with stead still camera, with minor things shaking or moving on screen.

Blu-Ray (full HD), even the well mastered, have poor encoding in shadows. I can't enhance screen captures of Blu-Ray for shadows like I do for DVDs.
I bet 4K Blu-Ray are even worse and creates more artefacts than full HD Blu-Ray.

I'm sure your theater it's the best technology can offer. But encodind and LCD are still a limitation.
DILA projector are probably great but I never saw one.
This makes think: Will most cinema theater die when 4K DILA projector became affordable ?

bigshot wrote:Broadcast TV and Netflix streaming in Los Angeles is as good as blu-ray. It isn't heavily compressed. But we have fiber optic internet to homes here so our bandwidth is better than it might be where you live. Give it a few years, and hopefully they will run fiber optic to you too. Digital isn't the problem. Obsolete infrastructure is. Here in LA, we are a little ahead of the curve, that's all.

If you ever get to Los Angeles, look me up and I'd be happy to demo my theater for you. You'll see then what digital is capable of.


Image

https://s27.postimg.org/y9hhpa6cz/Picar ... maniac.jpg
Keep thinking...

Image
Online
User avatar

bigshot

  • Posts: 796
  • Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSun Jan 15, 2017 11:23 am

The 4K standard has higher bitrate color, which could solve the banding issues you refer to. But I suspect that your black levels are a little off, revealing banding that is supposed to be all the way down next to black.

Here in Los Angeles, we get Verizon FIOS, which is a fiber optic connection in your home. It allows for tremendous bandwidth. I'm sure that sort of thing will reach you eventually.

Viewing angles aren't an issue with projection. You might want to look into that instead of a flatscreen. It takes a larger room, but it's wonderful.
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSun Jan 15, 2017 12:24 pm

This 4K TV I refer, as far as I know have just 16 million colors, which means 256 tonalities for red, for green and for bluer. Combined is 256x256x256=16 milion colors. Some 4K TVs have 1024 tones per channel (RGB), rendering more than a billion colors. 256 tones in a large screen, even in a uncompressed image, would cause blocks if in a gradiente from black to white.

Usually vídeo signals are even inferior, since there is a basic B&W channel and the color information (saturation and HUE) are in lower resolution. So it's like you overly a color channel of lower resolution over a B&W channel of full resolution.

bigshot wrote:The 4K standard has higher bitrate color, which could solve the banding issues you refer to. But I suspect that your black levels are a little off, revealing banding that is supposed to be all the way down next to black. ]


I don't believe they would expent so much money here, if people here accept any crap and thinks it's great.
I went to a photo digital servisse searching for 35mm scanning for restoration of old fotos, and they were restoring images in JPG. I could hang someone there that day...

bigshot wrote:Here in Los Angeles, we get Verizon FIOS, which is a fiber optic connection in your home. It allows for tremendous bandwidth. I'm sure that sort of thing will reach you eventually.


Do you have both in your room, a LCD and D-ILA projector ?

What about sound quality? Most people talk in 3D, but if you display a 3D system with crap speakers timbre, they will be impressed only because it's 3D.
I prefer mono with great timbre quality over a crap timbre in 3D.
Creative Lad 4.1 low cost kit for PC was one of the most disgusting sounds I ever heard in my life.

bigshot wrote:Viewing angles aren't an issue with projection. You might want to look into that instead of a flatscreen. It takes a larger room, but it's wonderful.
Keep thinking...

Image
Online
User avatar

bigshot

  • Posts: 796
  • Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSun Jan 15, 2017 1:37 pm

Re: Color - I was referring to the 4K UHD disc standard. Different TVs are going to have different specs. Cheap ones won't take advantage of all of the benefits of UHD. I never see banding on my projector with plain vanilla blu-rays though, so it isn't a problem for me.

My projector is an Epson 7500ub. Not sure what format it is- probably LCD. My 5.1 system consists of four mains- custom made 15 inch six way studio monitors and JBL towers, Klipsch reference series center channel, 12 inch Sunfire TrueSubwoofer and Klipsch bookshelf rears. It's calibrated to play music as well as it plays movies. You can see photos of my theater room here (although they are several years old- I've upgraded several of the speakers since then.) http://www.blu-ray.com/community/gallery.php?u=123216

When it comes to quality of image and sound, you get what you pay for. But when I compare the bang for the buck I get from current equipment to the stuff I was buying back in the 80s, it's no contest. The quality I get now is as good as going to a good movie theater.
Offline
User avatar

Mike Gebert

Site Admin

  • Posts: 5614
  • Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:23 pm
  • Location: Chicago

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSun Jan 15, 2017 2:09 pm

I've often said that I doubt now I could sit through half the prints, at least, that created my interest in old movies in the first place.

We live in the best of all possible times for quality of film viewing at home. There may be some formats you don't care for-- I bought DLP because I liked its slight softness far better than Plasma and LED, the other choices when I bought my present set a decade ago-- but I'm sort of agog at the pages and pages of disdain and even righteous fury prompted by modern video quality in this thread. To me it's like complaining about a full cellar of wine or a really fast sportscar.
“Sentimentality is when it doesn't come off—when it does, you get a true expression of life's sorrows.” —Alain-Fournier
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSun Jan 15, 2017 3:04 pm

People's review of the Tv I refer, on Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN50KU63 ... B01E69VEE6
65% gave 5 stars. People are completely crazy... :?

For me the the screen distortions and uncapability to show glossy image without blow-up whites (clipped bright tones) and crossed shadows, it's the main faul. I can't accept that the image distorts a bit if I move the head 8 centimeter, I can't accept corner darkers, and I can't accept aforementioned contrast limitations about dynamics.
I don't care very much about contrast ratio, but I'm intolerante to limited hability to show wel highlights and shadows .

bigshot wrote:Re: Color - I was referring to the 4K UHD disc standard. Different TVs are going to have different specs. Cheap ones won't take advantage of all of the benefits of UHD. I never see banding on my projector with plain vanilla blu-rays though, so it isn't a problem for me.


Very impressive room !
Interesting, you are probably the only avid movie fan on USA with huge collection that do not have any prop of Star Wars or Star Trek. Let's call Guinnes Book and talk about you. :wink:

bigshot wrote:My projector is an Epson 7500ub. Not sure what format it is- probably LCD. My 5.1 system consists of four mains- custom made 15 inch six way studio monitors and JBL towers, Klipsch reference series center channel, 12 inch Sunfire TrueSubwoofer and Klipsch bookshelf rears. It's calibrated to play music as well as it plays movies. You can see photos of my theater room here (although they are several years old- I've upgraded several of the speakers since then.) http://www.blu-ray.com/community/gallery.php?u=123216" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank


The quality for HD Blu-Ray are better than VHS or super-VHS times; I never said the contrary. I said the 1080 quality most times it's a lie, cause broadcast compression kills most of it. Bad HDDigital broadcast it's worse than a good DVD, at least here. I said loss of textures are higher with digital technology when it have imagem comrpession, than with analogic technology for broadcast.
Think with me. You have a film print in projector that was cursed by a witch. The print in 85% of times shows dupe 16mm quality and only in few instants, with almost o moviment of objects or characters, shows something close to 35mm. That's how I feel watching HD broadcast here. It makes me sick.

View angle limitations, noticeable distortion when move just a bit to one side, also makes me sick. I could accept to computer monitor, after some angry period, to read, write, use web, but I can't accept for entertainment.

And I even forgot to talk about crap grain reduction used in most BR masterings from few years ago, that killed details before the disc get final mastered. Waxed textures sold as HD .

bigshot wrote:When it comes to quality of image and sound, you get what you pay for. But when I compare the bang for the buck I get from current equipment to the stuff I was buying back in the 80s, it's no contest. The quality I get now is as good as going to a good movie theater.
Keep thinking...

Image
Online
User avatar

bigshot

  • Posts: 796
  • Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostSun Jan 15, 2017 6:08 pm

All Darc wrote:People's review of the Tv I refer, on Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN50KU63 ... B01E69VEE6" target="_blank" target="_blank
65% gave 5 stars. People are completely crazy...


Ah! I get it now... That monitor isn't typical. It's better to get a good quality monitor with less features than to spend the same amount of money on a bargain one with lots of features. In this case, you most certainly would have done better with a good quality 50 inch 1080p TV than to get a bargain 4K one. The difference in resolution between 4K and 1080p at 50 inches doesn't add up to much. I think Sony makes a very good set in that price range that you would probably have been much happier with.

Compression is applied by the broadcaster and can be either good or bad. When I first got Netflix streaming, it was terrible, but over the past few years, it's gotten better and better. It all depends on your local area. I'm very lucky to be in LA where people care about stuff like this.

I like the original Star Trek TV series, but I don't care for effects movies generally. Behind the monster bar is a disk array with about 80TB of music and movies all organized in Plex. All kinds of movies and TV shows. I buy DVDs and blu-rays from other countries and convert them to play in NTSC too. I operate a non-profit digital archive that is a reference library for film makers.
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostMon Jan 16, 2017 9:00 am

I did not choose it, relatives got it. I watched this and many other TVs in different stores. All models looked like crap to me. All models!! Even LG IPS panel had distortions of view angle, and if looked close have the screen sides darker, despite the lier f... advertisse on web and youtube states the oposite.

If it was a 75 inch screen for 4K, the required distant to watch with no relevant distortion would be higher and we would end up in the same place: Too distant to see all 4K details. Now imgine for 8K LCD screen. You would see less than 4K in a 8K screen, thanks to the sh... LCD technology.
And even If I could accept watch by far distance, the dynamics range sucks (crushed shadows and clipped highlights) and irritates me. All the other models on stores also have crap dynamics fos highlights and shadows.

bigshot wrote:Ah! I get it now... That monitor isn't typical. It's better to get a good quality monitor with less features than to spend the same amount of money on a bargain one with lots of features. In this case, you most certainly would have done better with a good quality 50 inch 1080p TV than to get a bargain 4K one. The difference in resolution between 4K and 1080p at 50 inches doesn't add up to much. I think Sony makes a very good set in that price range that you would probably have been much happier with.


Today people here got a HD SAT Digital TV decoder of a signed TV service, to replace the old SD decoder, with more than 100 channels. But the image it's worse than DVD, and very faded. All QUiet in the western Front (1930) in 1080 ripped to just 3GB, looks better than this garbage HD service.
No kidding, HD broadcast can be worse thanb a prime VHS sometimes in certains conditions. Remamber when you record a VHS (SP speed) from a DVD disk when DVD arrived on Market, how VHS was good on CRT, diferent from a VHS film bought in stores?
Well, in some HD broadcast here, if the reporter had not a very good HD camera, and the scene (set) was not bright, and it got compressed and recompressed some few times, it losted so many textures, since HD compression it's increadible dumb and mediocre, that the image was completely waxed, worse than a prime VHS recorded from DVD and interpolated to HD.

That's it folks, I just quit to watch TV !!! I quit because everything here I look makes feel very angry, anoyed, details disappering all the time, garbage contrast. No more TV for me. There is no longer a single decent image signal to watch in my country in any digital device.

And the analogic signal here will ceased this year, so if I got a digital conversor to convert from digital to analogic to watch on a CRT screen, the image will be worse because it will be converting from the sh... "HD" (washed up waxed textures) to analogic SD, and as result the image will be worse than the original analogic transmission.
And then people who saw a CRT TV will say: "How analogic was bad..." But they will be seeing another image, not original analogic.

People here accept be made of full. Idiots. It's like eat dog's food thinking it's tuna's pâté. It's like get 250g of meat paying for 1 kg. That's HD on Brazil. Pure sh...

bigshot wrote:Compression is applied by the broadcaster and can be either good or bad. When I first got Netflix streaming, it was terrible, but over the past few years, it's gotten better and better. It all depends on your local area. I'm very lucky to be in LA where people care about stuff like this.


Incredible.
Congratulations for the fine quality archivist work.

Could you please tell Star Trekdiretor J.J. Abrams that cortisone would not be used in 23 century, that future medicine should have something much better thans this old crap. :wink:

bigshot wrote:I like the original Star Trek TV series, but I don't care for effects movies generally. Behind the monster bar is a disk array with about 80TB of music and movies all organized in Plex. All kinds of movies and TV shows. I buy DVDs and blu-rays from other countries and convert them to play in NTSC too. I operate a non-profit digital archive that is a reference library for film makers.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline
User avatar

Mike Gebert

Site Admin

  • Posts: 5614
  • Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:23 pm
  • Location: Chicago

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostMon Jan 16, 2017 10:31 am

That's it folks, I just quit to watch TV !!!


I think this is a wise choice.
“Sentimentality is when it doesn't come off—when it does, you get a true expression of life's sorrows.” —Alain-Fournier
Online
User avatar

bigshot

  • Posts: 796
  • Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Why people tolerate [poor] quality on home video display

PostMon Jan 16, 2017 12:56 pm

I don't understand why if you care so much and your family males all the wrong choices in their own system, why you just don't go out and get a good rig for yourself. I always thought that if you didn't have to pay for something yourself, you shouldn't complain about quality. But maybe I was wrong in that.

If you care, save your money and buy a quality monitor and blu-rays for yourself. It isn't impossible to get great image and sound quality. You just won't get that if you go out and buy the absolute cheapest TV you can find and use a satellite system that is notorious for having heavy compression artifacting. And you sure aren't going to get quality by converting HD digital broadcasts to analogue SD. If you're really trying to get good picture and sound, you're approaching it all wrong.
Last edited by bigshot on Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Return to Tech Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests