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

All Darc

  • Posts: 1061
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

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

PostWed Jan 11, 2017 5:55 pm

Am I the only person on the surface on Earth that notice how LCD and LED (LCD with backlight by LEDs) destroyed dynamics range, contrast and view angle ?

Honestly, people accept every shit media and marketing push to them.

-They buy TVs that even if you turn 30 degree to the side the image got distortion.
-They accept IPS or LPC screens, sold as suposed solutions to angle view distortions, but that in reality have the same problems but only in a little bit reduced intensity.
-They accept to watch a film with fadded image, while on CRT the images was lustruous and with detais on shadows and highligh
-They accept that if increase contrast the tones near white will "explode" (get clipped) and became a pure white mass with no intermediary tonalities. They also accept that shadow tone near black will get crushed killing the tonalities, became a pure black mass.
-They accept that media and marketing talk about cristaline image but delivers images with high compression, a lot of artefacts, blur (lost of details) during even low motion.
-They accept digital fails, like poor gradients, like a sky with artefacts shaking instead of a good gradiente. You can even count hoiw much tones there are, cause the digital gradientes are poor, even in 4K.
-They accept HDR as a solution to dynamics range, but it also clipped bright tone and also have a faded image if adjusted to avoid clipped tones. CRT display was not HRD and never screw up contrast.
-They accept thing push by marketing advertising as 4K, but that in reality it's not like even a uncpompressed 2K. They accept HD (1080p) broadcast that manytimes it's worse than a prime DVD.

I wil neve accept LCD technology. NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a piece of garbage, irritating, a lie, and the codecs and standarts of 1080p or 3840p are a lie, the details disappear in almost every encoded film.

Digital became a hoax. It have bits, but no cristaline image. If itr have artefacts, if it have poor gradientes, it's not crystaline, it's not good. And the screens available are all crap (maybe OLED it's a exception), making the whole thing even worse.
Last edited by All Darc on Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:50 am, edited 4 times in total.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline
User avatar

Mike Gebert

Site Admin

  • Posts: 5474
  • Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:23 pm
  • Location: Chicago

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

PostWed Jan 11, 2017 6:17 pm

Let's keep obscenities out of subject lines, at least.
“Sentimentality is when it doesn't come off—when it does, you get a true expression of life's sorrows.” —Alain-Fournier
Offline
User avatar

boblipton

  • Posts: 4845
  • Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
  • Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

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

PostWed Jan 11, 2017 6:26 pm

Thank you, Mike. To answer the question, given the poor condition that prints and transfers are often in, I find looking at a clean, sharp print in perfect condition far more remarkable than random variations, chips, bubbles, scratches and artifacts of the TV -- or even a torn and stained movie screen.

Bob
Last edited by boblipton on Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
His plagiarism was limited only by his faulty technique.

-- Peter Schickele
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1061
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

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

PostWed Jan 11, 2017 6:32 pm

Sorry some Strong words, but sh... and garb... it's not obscenties.

I'm not talking about 35mm or 16mm film defects like scratchs, dirt or dust... Heavy grain or soft fovus due overduplication.

I'm talking about the great lie of HD digital cristaline image and the great lie of digital Tv and digital displays. Even a film shot yesterday will look bad in all LCD/LED TV and in all HD broadcast.

I went to 10 stores and I can't find one single decent TV to watch films. LCD technologys destroyed the televisions. All models looks like crap.
It's revoltant !!!
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline
User avatar

boblipton

  • Posts: 4845
  • Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
  • Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

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

PostWed Jan 11, 2017 6:54 pm

I understand. I am afraid that, contrary to your standards, I don't notice imperfections unless they render something unwatchable. Contrariwise, when the visuals are superlative, I notice that.

Bob
His plagiarism was limited only by his faulty technique.

-- Peter Schickele
Offline
User avatar

LouieD

  • Posts: 1519
  • Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:57 pm

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

PostWed Jan 11, 2017 7:50 pm

Why do people tolerate such asinine posts like this on Nitrateville??
Offline
User avatar

boblipton

  • Posts: 4845
  • Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
  • Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

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

PostWed Jan 11, 2017 7:54 pm

Because, Louie, the world is divided into people who are at least occasionally grateful and the perpetually aggrieved. Who was the Senator who defended a Supreme Court nominee on the grounds that the mediocre deserve representation? I think the cases are similar, if not equal.

Bob

Later: A little Googling turned up the quote. It was Senator Roman Hruska (R-Neb) referring to G. H. Carswell.

Bob
His plagiarism was limited only by his faulty technique.

-- Peter Schickele
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1061
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

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

PostWed Jan 11, 2017 8:42 pm

I tried to post in Tech Talk, but people rarely check that area.
I didn't wanted to offend anyone of you ! If I did so, I sincerely apologize for any excess of mine.

Maybe you didn't saw the "quality" of HD broadcast in my country.

Well, I just don't like lies. If a company said that IPS don't distort image, and other company said the same about PLS, I get angry to be fooled, in the same way you would be angry if a car seller bring you a car stating it will render a given number of kilometers in the city, and in the end it don't even get closer.

It's just true that the contrast, the aspect, the tonalities for highlights and shadows are way better in a old Flat Sony Trinitron than in any LED/LCD screen. I really don't like to watch highlight and shadow details be killed in LED/LCD.

Bob, a mediocre would not notice so much fails and so much lies of manufacturers.
My anger and some choice of words I did was mediocre, ok, sorry for that, but not my analyze.
Last edited by All Darc on Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:24 am, edited 2 times in total.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline
User avatar

Donald Binks

  • Posts: 2609
  • Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:08 am
  • Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow

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

PostWed Jan 11, 2017 9:14 pm

If rubbishy programmes are sent out they are still going to look like rubbishy programmes whether transmitted in Hocus Pocus or Super-Douper Whatchamacallit Thingummy. Take for instance what most of us go on about here on Nitrateville - old pictures. Most of these are in black and white - and some are even silent. (Dear Me!). Hardly the stuff of the gimmelauts and POQ's of the 21st Century!

When I first went to the pictures, back in about nontoon, foofty-tree, the screen was square, the sound came out of probably one speaker behind the screen and the film was in black and white. We managed to enjoy ourselves.

Progressing through Cinemascope, Vistavsion, Panavision, 70mm and Imax- the screen today is dominating an auditorium. It is now combined with about 350 loudspeakers making up something called Sensurround which goes a long way to giving an accurate sensation of a Jumbo Jet landing in the orchestra pit. The films are now all in colour too and we are told that everything "is more real than ever before". Yes, but, I say, timorously, if the product is still rubbish - it doesn't matter much how it is presented. It's not going to alter the actual content.

High Definition is on my TV set. Well, it is on a couple of channels, for a lot of them have changed over to something called MPEG2 which I haven't got and didn't know I needed to have. So, what if I could see something a bit clearer than ordinary definition? With my short-sightedness I don't think I would really be able to note the difference. Same with my recorded fillums. I watch them on DVD's still. They are good enough for me. I don't need a Blue Ray, an 8K or a 501BXD with doodads.

Now if you'll excuse me I must wind the gramophone and put another record on.
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: 1061
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

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

PostWed Jan 11, 2017 9:33 pm

Donald, thanks for your imput.

I'm not fool to demand a program recorded in super VHS resolution or betamax resolution, to look like true HD. Of course I know the channels and the atraction captured in HD.
HD broadcast, at least here, It's mostly a fake resolution, almost unable to capture any fine details unles the detais (character with it) it's nearly frozen for a entire second. It's a bit disturbing to watch someting go in and go in out with any very little slow moviment, be dependent of it. DVDs well mastered had not this problem.

In a 4K clip the scene I got on web and put on a pen drive, a scene was recorded with the camera stopped, unmove. There was only clouds moving in a small top portion of screen, and it have square artefacts during this motion.


And a gramofhone don't lie, it is what is it is. :wink:
The same to B&W, silents, records in mono from 40's and 50's. I have no problem with any of these.
I can't say the same about IPS, LPS, view angle, HD broadcast... because most are lies somehow.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline
User avatar

bigshot

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:59 pm

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

PostThu Jan 12, 2017 12:30 am

I've got an HD projection system and I would NEVER go back to CRT. Not even if you paid me. I've been waiting my whole life for technology to get to this point. If everything looks bad to you on your system, there is probably something wrong with your system.
Offline
User avatar

Changsham

  • Posts: 787
  • Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:34 pm

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

PostThu Jan 12, 2017 12:35 am

All Darc, I believe you have to be patient. This year there will be more OLED TV makers with Sony and others starting to make them. They are still expensive but more availability and competition will help drive the prices down. The big problem I have read about the OLED screens is the high failure rate of manufacture forcing costs up. I have a discontinued 1080p OLED which I bought at a good price but it is more than satisfactory in watching DVD's and Blurays. Quite outstanding overall. From what I have read the latest LG models are continuing to improve though all are now 4K models. They are superior in brightness, black uniformity and motion blur to the already excellent older models. Once OLED become cheaper there will be smaller sizes than the current 55 inch and 65 inch models which will be ideal for watching lower grade DVD's. They will be the death of LED's soon.
Offline
User avatar

bigshot

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:59 pm

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

PostThu Jan 12, 2017 2:29 am

I live in Los Angeles and I have a "leaf antenna"... a little plastic square that picks up digital TV broadcast. I plugged it into my media server so I can watch TV on my projection system. On New Years, I watched the Rose Parade live on a ten foot screen and it looked fantastic. The problem isn't necessarily the equipment, it's the quality of the broadcasters. I get excellent Netflix quality here in LA too.
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1061
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

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

PostThu Jan 12, 2017 5:47 am

Thanks Bigshot. But I did'nt complain about HD projector or about OLED TV. I complain about LCD&LED(backlight) TVs , IPS & PLS lies about view angle stability, and about poor encoding poor compression.

bigshot wrote:I've got an HD projection system and I would NEVER go back to CRT. Not even if you paid me. I've been waiting my whole life for technology to get to this point. If everything looks bad to you on your system, there is probably something wrong with your system.


Yes, you are right, the broadcast quality makes a lot of difference. I explained that most HD boradcast here are crap.

bigshot wrote:I live in Los Angeles and I have a "leaf antenna"... a little plastic square that picks up digital TV broadcast. I plugged it into my media server so I can watch TV on my projection system. On New Years, I watched the Rose Parade live on a ten foot screen and it looked fantastic. The problem isn't necessarily the equipment, it's the quality of the broadcasters. I get excellent Netflix quality here in LA too.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1061
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

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

PostThu Jan 12, 2017 6:00 am

I heard OLED have a 50% life expectancy compared to LED/LCD TVs. And that it can have some burn in effect(like plasma TV have) if images was frozed for too long or if something on screen no not change for much long.

The TV I refer as bad is the latest model of Samsung. 4K, HDR, 50 inch un50ku6000. Most people said it was a bit better than LG 49 inch 4k. It have not much motion blur from TV refresh rates, it's more from codec compression, artefacts etc....

I believe that manufactures today build TVs and computer monitors with the same contrast standart. Years ago, in the end of CRT era, CRT TVs and CRT computer monitors was different, and the monitor had a different contrast standart making impossible to get pleasant images on a PC DVD kit to look glossy and vivid like the same DVD looked on TV.
Today appears that the same fadded image of video signal on computer monitor (now LED/LCD) are in the TV screen. If you try to correct the images adjusts (contrast, brightness, color...) you end with crushed shadows and clipped whites.

On a CRT when adjust contrast, not just the gamma (light curve response on graphic) changes, but the light intensity of the CRT tube get stronger, and that's why you didn't clip with tone, cause the pure whites get more bright as the light of the tube get stronger. On a LED/LCD when you adjust contrast the maximum white stay fixed, and the tones that was somehow near white tends to reach the maximum white value, making a lot of bright tones degrades and get clipped.

On LED/LCD you control maximum white intensit in the backlight adjust control, separated form contrast. But usually even with backlight adjust in maximum you can't get a nice image without clip highlights or crush shadows.

And also the way the gamma curve it's changeed in some LED/LCD TVs when you increase contrast adjust, making things even worse. I did a bit exagerated examples to show what I mean:

Image

Full size: http://i65.tinypic.com/wmmgzs.jpg


The dumb adjust made the image more glossy, but killed tones, while the wise adjust helped preserve tones. If you computer LED/LCD monitor are adjusted to high contrast the wise adjusted image (center of image) will not look very good or much different compared to the dumd adjusted image. Also if your monitor have a poor reproduction of shadows.

Changsham wrote:All Darc, I believe you have to be patient. This year there will be more OLED TV makers with Sony and others starting to make them. They are still expensive but more availability and competition will help drive the prices down. The big problem I have read about the OLED screens is the high failure rate of manufacture forcing costs up. I have a discontinued 1080p OLED which I bought at a good price but it is more than satisfactory in watching DVD's and Blurays. Quite outstanding overall. From what I have read the latest LG models are continuing to improve though all are now 4K models. They are superior in brightness, black uniformity and motion blur to the already excellent older models. Once OLED become cheaper there will be smaller sizes than the current 55 inch and 65 inch models which will be ideal for watching lower grade DVD's. They will be the death of LED's soon.
Last edited by All Darc on Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline
User avatar

bigshot

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:59 pm

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

PostThu Jan 12, 2017 11:59 am

There were good TVs and crummy ones back in the CRT days too. You just have to shop and decide what works best for you. The same goes for content. If your local broadcasts are bad, try streaming or physical media. Perhaps you can rent blu-rays by mail.

You can also get a Spears & Munsil calibration disc and go in to the advanced settings and calibrate your output. I've done that myself.
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1061
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

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

PostThu Jan 12, 2017 1:02 pm

Thank you, but this model is considered top quality among LED TVs.
Funny, it have a screen área about 3 times larger than the old 29 inch 4:3 CRT. But the energy compsumption it's 195W while the CRT is 100W. I imagine LED TV should be more economic in terms of energy.

Calibrations can help, but are quite limited, since any image calibration that preserves all highlights and shadows values end up in a faded image. HDR vídeos (I downloaded a few to test) are better, but even thse vídeos have some loss of highlights when I try to set a image to look like quality CRT contrast.

In CRT times a good model have no headaches like: view angle distortion, clipped whites and crushed shadows after médium or high contrast adjust, refresh rate creating some motion blur, low response time in games, center of screen more bright than the edges if watched from close distance.
LED TVs with PLS or IPS screen get a darker image even if moves only 20 degrees from center of screen, despite they said IPS and PLS avoid distortion in lower angles.

bigshot wrote:There were good TVs and crummy ones back in the CRT days too. You just have to shop and decide what works best for you. The same goes for content. If your local broadcasts are bad, try streaming or physical media. Perhaps you can rent blu-rays by mail.

You can also get a Spears & Munsil calibration disc and go in to the advanced settings and calibrate your output. I've done that myself.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline

goldenband

  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:47 pm

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

PostThu Jan 12, 2017 6:21 pm

People will always prefer convenience and low price over quality, and will always gravitate to whatever's the most "in your face" even if it means loss of information, detail, and subtlety. Hence things in music like the loudness wars and the general indifference to lossy compression -- even tech-savvy kids often don't know or care about the difference between an MP3 and a WAV/AIFF.

I think HD projection looks great and many plasma TVs looked quite good as well, but most LCD TVs are horrific for pre-digital content -- or for gaming, for that matter. A high-quality CRT is still the best way to play Atari or watch reruns of Maude.
Offline
User avatar

David Alp

  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:58 am

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

PostThu Jan 12, 2017 8:56 pm

Donald Binks wrote: I don't need a Blue Ray, an 8K or a 501BXD with doodads.




!!

Don don't tell me you've not upgraded to the FULL 501BXD with Doodads!! Oh my Goodness!! How do you cope without it... Since then, have you heard that they've actually produced a fully upgraded version of it recently and its called the 601BXXXXD with Doodads DeLuxe !!

Apparently you get 100 more pixels per Television!! And (you won't believe this) 8 more Doodads!! Not to be missed!
Offline
User avatar

Donald Binks

  • Posts: 2609
  • Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:08 am
  • Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow

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

PostThu Jan 12, 2017 9:17 pm

David Alp wrote:
Donald Binks wrote: I don't need a Blue Ray, an 8K or a 501BXD with doodads.




!!

Don don't tell me you've not upgraded to the FULL 501BXD with Doodads!! Oh my Goodness!! How do you cope without it... Since then, have you heard that they've actually produced a fully upgraded version of it recently and its called the 601BXXXXD with Doodads DeLuxe !!

Apparently you get 100 more pixels per Television!! And (you won't believe this) 8 more Doodads!! Not to be missed!


No, I'm still on an early model Baird 4 inch 30 line mechanical TV. Mind you I'm getting sick at looking at that Ventriloquist's Dummy's head.
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

wich2

  • Posts: 1268
  • Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:11 am

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

PostThu Jan 12, 2017 9:58 pm

Sir Donald, when it comes to audio, I listen to Edison cylinders that I spin by hand, using a sewing needle inserted between two front teeth!

Nyah, nyah - beat ya!

-Craig
Offline
User avatar

Donald Binks

  • Posts: 2609
  • Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:08 am
  • Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow

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

PostThu Jan 12, 2017 10:14 pm

wich2 wrote:Sir Donald, when it comes to audio, I listen to Edison cylinders that I spin by hand, using a sewing needle inserted between two front teeth!

Nyah, nyah - beat ya!

-Craig


A photograph of you performing this feat would, I am sure, be most welcomed by your fellow Nitratevillains! Similarly my own lesser feat of hand-cranking a motion picture projector whilst playing the Wurlitzer organ accompaniment to the film thus projected, utilising my tongue, elbows, forehead and feet, pales into insignificance.
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: 1061
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

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

PostThu Jan 12, 2017 10:43 pm

At least a sane sould on Earth.
Einstein blass you man and your eyes!!!

That's what I say, people don't give a damn to quality today. They heard low quality mp3 worse than a LP vinyl from 80's. Download encoded films in suposed HD but with real details worse than a DVD. Get LCD TVs with all crap problems aforementioned. If people complained more the manufacurters would be forced to improve quality to something decent instead of all these garbage satured of hoax.

I didn' bought this LED TV, people in home got it, I warned to don't cause it wasn't good, and I said I will not watch it anyway cause it disturbs me a lot to look it. If I move 10 centimeters to side I notice variations on screen brightness, and it irritates me. I will try to fix the CRT TV.

I found today this Samsung LED TV it's not PLS (like IPS) but a advanced VA panel that try to get some benefits of TN (refresh rate & time response) and some benefits of IPS (view angle & colors) at same time, and trying to avoid the dowsides of each one, but not as good as the benefits of each one alone.
But in stores even the LG IPS panels have some view angles distortions too, not much different of this Samsung VA panel. This shit takes 195W. And people says LED are econmic and helped to save the environment :lol: :lol: :lol: That's not economic anyway.
The Sony Trinitron 29 inch CRT it's about 1/3 of screen area and spents only 100W. The LED TV have 3x the screen area and take 200% of energy. Not a great economy. And people that had mediun screens CRTs today have large LCD/LED screen, so today they take as much or even more energy than their old TVs.
Another thing is that most LED screen are edge-lit LED TVs, so they are iluminated by LEDs on the edges. This system spent the same energy in a very dark scene than in a very bright scene. CRTs spent less energy in dark scenes. So I conclude that most LED TVs, given the new large size on most homes today, are spending more energy today than the people CRT TVs on home in the 90's.

goldenband wrote:People will always prefer convenience and low price over quality, and will always gravitate to whatever's the most "in your face" even if it means loss of information, detail, and subtlety. Hence things in music like the loudness wars and the general indifference to lossy compression -- even tech-savvy kids often don't know or care about the difference between an MP3 and a WAV/AIFF.

I think HD projection looks great and many plasma TVs looked quite good as well, but most LCD TVs are horrific for pre-digital content -- or for gaming, for that matter. A high-quality CRT is still the best way to play Atari or watch reruns of Maude.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline
User avatar

bigshot

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:59 pm

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

PostFri Jan 13, 2017 2:12 am

I had a 29 inch Sony Trinitron and a monstrous JVC monitor. I forget what it's measurements were, but I'll never forget how much it weighed hauling it out to the trash. In their day, both of those sets were the best of the best.

I replaced the JVC in my living room with an HD Epson projector and a ten foot screen. No contest whatsoever. The screen is like seeing a film in a theater. Immersive, sharp, great contrast. Not cheap, but worth every penny. I replaced the Sony in my bedroom with a $140 no-name 32 inch Amazon 1080p Chinese cheapie TV. It blows away the Trinitron. Since it's opposite my bed, off axis doesn't matter. But the color, sharpness and contrast is significantly better than the Sony. I did need to buy a $75 w00t! sound bar to go with it though, because the speakers were cheap. It sounds fantastic now. But even factoring that added cost in, it's still a LOT less than I paid for the Sony.

I have no idea what equipment you have, but your experience isn't typical. If you are shopping for equipment again soon, I'd be happy to give you some tips to help you find a better solution than you have now.

By the way, when it comes to watching SD on an HD system, quality has less to do with the monitor and more to do with how the player is upscaling to 1080p. If you watch a lot of DVDs, you want to find a player that has good deinterlacing and upscaling schemes. It isn't difficult to find a player that can do that (Sony makes inexpensive blu-ray players that are great at upscaling and deinterlacing) but some other brands figure that doesn't matter and sluff off that feature. I've got an Oppo player that wasn't inexpensive by any stretch of the imagination, but it has Darbee and sophisticated deinterlacing that can make really well mastered DVDs look just as good as blu-rays.
Offline
User avatar

bigshot

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:59 pm

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

PostFri Jan 13, 2017 2:30 am

wich2 wrote:Sir Donald, when it comes to audio, I listen to Edison cylinders that I spin by hand, using a sewing needle inserted between two front teeth!


Ha! Ha! Better use a cactus needle so you don't wear out your brown wax cylinders!

I remember back when my dad was alive listening to him chat on the ham radio with his old cronies. Their conversations were never terribly important... "How is the weather? "My wife's at the store." "Seen any good movies?" One day I overheard them talking about the internet. They were convinced it was a flash in the pan. "I don't need a COMPUTER in my house!" "A friend of mine got one of those things and it kept breaking down!" "It'll never fly Orville!"

That next Christmas, my brother and I pitched in and bought my parents one of those aqua iMacs. My mom had Parkinsons and never got comfortable with the keyboard, but my dad grabbed onto it and figured out how to surf the web. This was back before there was instant messenger, but I bet if he had lived a little longer, he would be texting all his chums and typing LOL instead of "CQ! CQ! CQ!"
Offline
User avatar

boblipton

  • Posts: 4845
  • 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 4:43 am

Donald Binks wrote:
David Alp wrote:
Donald Binks wrote: I don't need a Blue Ray, an 8K or a 501BXD with doodads.




!!

Don don't tell me you've not upgraded to the FULL 501BXD with Doodads!! Oh my Goodness!! How do you cope without it... Since then, have you heard that they've actually produced a fully upgraded version of it recently and its called the 601BXXXXD with Doodads DeLuxe !!

Apparently you get 100 more pixels per Television!! And (you won't believe this) 8 more Doodads!! Not to be missed!


No, I'm still on an early model Baird 4 inch 30 line mechanical TV. Mind you I'm getting sick at looking at that Ventriloquist's Dummy's head.


Brasso really polishes up that Nipkow disk!

Bob
His plagiarism was limited only by his faulty technique.

-- Peter Schickele
Offline

All Darc

  • Posts: 1061
  • Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
  • Location: Brazil

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

PostFri Jan 13, 2017 7:42 am

Bigshot, I went to sereral stores, saw dozens of models, and couldn't find a single one LED/LCD model that I judge as decent.
This Samsung 50KU6000 4K HDR Smart had very good reviews everywhere. But for me it's a crap, garbage like all LCD/LED technologies I ever saw in my life. I don't like LCD technology and will never like.
Maybe most people don't care about destruction of dynamic range, destruction of bright tonalities (clipped tones), destroction of shadow tonalities (crushed shadows), motion blur, but I care and can't accept these things anyway. I also can't accept distortion, even little, with view angle change.

When I say the word "contrast" I do not refer about contrast ratio (1000:1 ; 10.000:1 etc...) I refer about the aspect of image, the capability of display a glossy image without screw-up dynamics range, without clip/destroy bright tones, without crush dark tones.

I tested several High quality HD clips, and even a lot of 4K HDR clips, and still don't like it.

I found a list of LCD panels used in industry, and they all have disavantages. When it's almost good in something it's bad in many other things.
LCD have no future, it's a technology that deserves to die.
Last edited by All Darc on Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
Keep thinking...

Image
Offline
User avatar

boblipton

  • Posts: 4845
  • 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 8:04 am

Then don't buy one.

Bob
His plagiarism was limited only by his faulty technique.

-- Peter Schickele
Offline

Marr&Colton

  • Posts: 699
  • Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:17 pm

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

PostFri Jan 13, 2017 8:17 am

I have ALWAYS recommended other displays rather than LCD---especially in digital projectors. I've never seen an LCD display that can replicate the film experience like DLP. THAT is my experience in the last 15 years anyway.

Upstairs from my home theatre, I still use a 36 inch RCA CRT and it's just fine.

As in any endeavor, purists are always inclined to disappointment and lack of contentment, so I have avoided being a purist---at least in this present corrupt world.
Offline
User avatar

oldposterho

  • Posts: 422
  • Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:05 am

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

PostFri Jan 13, 2017 9:18 am

Marr&Colton wrote:s in any endeavor, purists are always inclined to disappointment and lack of contentment, so I have avoided being a purist---at least in this present corrupt world.


Very true. I thought poster collectors were the kings and queens of nitpicking...

This seems to be time that would be better spent tilting at windmills. I love my LED and would never go back to the boat anchors. I only sit directly in front of it so side-viewing issues aren't issues for me. I don't even know what OLEDs are and until my current set gives up the ghost, probably won't bother to find out.

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.

--Peter
Next

Return to Tech Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests