Blue Ray

[Gary Sisco]

I know just about nothing of these things. Do "blue ray" disks require their own player or will they play also on standard issue players?

[steve(thelil)]

Gary Good questio0n. You got me curious so I did some net research and found the following:

A conventional DVD player cannot play Blu Ray discs. A manufacturer of a blu ray disc might include both formats in the same package for the price of just the blu ray, but I don't believe this is the norm.

[Gary Sisco]

Thanks.

Well, in the same way I didn't replace my turntable and will keep my CD changer and burner, a-and my cassette deck as well, I won't switch to a different dvd-format, either. I don't care about tubing that much.

[Chris D]

Whole new technology that's not compatible. Comes in the PlayStation III, though.

[Gary Sisco]

Geez, just today, two technologies I won't be dealing with!

[Borat Pri Hagafen]

Originally Posted by Chris D

Whole new technology that's not compatible. Comes in the PlayStation III, though.

Yeah, like Chris said, the PS3 plays Blu-Rays as well as regular DVD's. Blu-Rays will only play on Blu-Ray players though, not standard DVD players.

The advantage of Blu-Ray is that if your TV outputs 1080p programming, Blu-Ray is the format to use to take advantage of that. If you have 1080i or lower, it's less of a big deal.

It seems pretty clear at this point that Blu-Ray is going to win the format war over HD-DVD though.

[Gary Sisco]

Already has from what I've seen in headlines. I don't follow these things much, obviously.

We have only a small, one-piece tv/VHS player. The screen's 14 inches. Maybe only 12. We got an inexpensive DVD player when the rental store switched primary formats, so Bronwyn could watch movies on it. We plug the player into the portable's input jacks. That's it for our tubal world.

[Borat Pri Hagafen]

Yeah, the format war is pretty much over, but in case you or anyone was looking to buy either an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player, I wanted to make sure they knew that.

I'm pretty sure Blu-Ray only connects either via HDMI or component cables, so if your TV doesn't have component input, you can't use it.

It doesn't seem like it'd be worth getting on a small screen anyway though, even if you did have component input. Blu-Ray players are pretty much geared towards the people who have big screen HDTV's, or who want to play PS3 games.

[lazarus]

In the last 5 years I have been paying big bucks for my dvd collection with my favorite directors (many expensive Criterions and so on). Shall I now replace them with blue ray or hd dvd? No way!!!!

[Borat Pri Hagafen]

That's why i got the PS3. It'll play all my regular DVD's, and upconvert them, and in the future if I have a choice, I'll get the Blu-Ray version instead of the regular DVD.

[clinthopson]

I loved it when Ray sang the blues.

[Noj]

From what I understand Blu-Ray is capable of holding much more information than a normal DVD, hence the improved image. A friend of mine who likes to be on the cutting edge of such technology has a huge HDTV and Blu-Ray machine. I watched a few movies on his system this past weekend, and it was definitely a beautiful image.

I imagine all TVs will eventually be big screen HDTVs, and they will phase out tube and projection units. Once that happens and the factories are only churning out those sort of TVs, the technology will be affordable. As will the Blu-Ray discs.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Borat Pri Hagafen

That's why i got the PS3. It'll play all my regular DVD's, and upconvert them, and in the future if I have a choice, I'll get the Blu-Ray version instead of the regular DVD.

Awesome. I can see it now: "But honey, this way we can play *all* types of DVDs on *one* player. What's that? Games? Yeah, I think it'll play those too, but I'm not sure....."

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Borat Pri Hagafen

Yeah, the format war is pretty much over, but in case you or anyone was looking to buy either an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player, I wanted to make sure they knew that.

I'm pretty sure Blu-Ray only connects either via HDMI or component cables, so if your TV doesn't have component input, you can't use it.

It doesn't seem like it'd be worth getting on a small screen anyway though, even if you did have component input. Blu-Ray players are pretty much geared towards the people who have big screen HDTV's, or who want to play PS3 games.

What do you think is the minimum size with which to enjoy HDTV? 36"? 42"? Larger?

I bought a $200 20" CRT TV 2-3 years ago, waiting until the HDTVs dropped price and for the switch to all digital, which I think is next year.

So, I will be in the market in 12-18 months.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by rollhead

What to you think is the minimum size with which to enjoy HDTV? 36"? 42"? Larger?

I bought a 20" CRT TV 2-3 years ago, waiting until the HDTVs dropped price and for the switch to all digital, which I think is next year.

So, I will be in the market in 12-18 months.

Quite honestly, unless it's in a large room, I don't think you really need a large screen TV. Most sub-32 inch flat screen LCDs have such a good picture, and are inherently so bright, you can see them from pretty far away.

That being said, I ended up with a 50" screen, but it's in a large room over my garage, and it was a replacement for a defective 40" CRT.

[Borat Pri Hagafen]

My first HDTV is coming later this week, so I don't have an opinion on that. My feeling was that I wanted to buy something that I won't want to upgrade for years and years, so i wanted a TV that had 1080p capability and was big enough that I wouldn't want something bigger anytime soon.

[jaka]

Treated myself with a 42" LCD HDTV last week to replace my 12-year old 30" CRT TV and have been enjoying some good movie time since. Didn't get any BluRay player yet, I'm playing standard DVDs with a "1080p upscaling" DVD player and the image quality is just awesome.

As for the screen size, 42" is good to feel immersed like in a theater. This + picture quality and Godard's Contempt was just like I remembered it from viewing it on a movie screen.

A friend of mine lended me his PS3 and a couple of BluRay discs for testing, and the picture quality is breathtaking. I guess this will be the next step but I wait for BluRay players to become affordable, and I have no use of a PS3 at this point, I suck at ANY video game.

My 2 cents.

[clinthopson]

Originally Posted by rollhead

What do you think is the minimum size with which to enjoy HDTV? 36"? 42"? Larger?

I bought a $200 20" CRT TV 2-3 years ago, waiting until the HDTVs dropped price and for the switch to all digital, which I think is next year.

So, I will be in the market in 12-18 months.

Rollie, I think the screen size depends on the distance you are watching it from. We are about eight feet from the tv which is in a small former bedroom. We got a JVC 42" LCD which is very satisfactory for us. I think a bigger screen would be too much.

We have had all digital signals for years as we have been on satellite. First we had Dish and then changed to Direct about three years ago because of the crappy Dish customer support. We've been generally satisfied with Direct's service. Well, just as satisfied as you can get these days. At least we always get a call center in the U.S.

We didn't go to LCD until our 20 year-old Sony crt set died.

The HD picture is fantastic, especially for sports.

[jaka]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

Rollie, I think the screen size depends on the distance you are watching it from. We are about eight feet from the tv which is in a small former bedroom. We got a JVC 42" LCD which is very satisfactory for us. I think a bigger screen would be too much.

I would think an 8 feet distance is the minimum for a 42". I have something like 11 feet to the tv and wouldn't want a bigger screen.
A friend who has a smaller room with approx. 8 feet too tested both a 37 and a 42" at his place, finally went for the 42" but the 37" one was really sufficient too (I saw this one while visiting him).

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

Rollie, I think the screen size depends on the distance you are watching it from. We are about eight feet from the tv which is in a small former bedroom. We got a JVC 42" LCD which is very satisfactory for us. I think a bigger screen would be too much.

We have had all digital signals for years as we have been on satellite. First we had Dish and then changed to Direct about three years ago because of the crappy Dish customer support. We've been generally satisfied with Direct's service. Well, just as satisfied as you can get these days. At least we always get a call center in the U.S.

We didn't go to LCD until our 20 year-old Sony crt set died.

The HD picture is fantastic, especially for sports.

We've got crappy reception, using rabbit ears. No cable. No dish. No Verizon broadband with TV. I do have Netflix and a DVD player, which is good because I mostly get just snow or fuzz on network TV.

I am thinking of going whole hog, with some kind of dish (my rural area doesnt' have cable), and a flat panel. A 42" sounds good..

Oh, yea, almost forgot. I want an old-fart chair like a Laz-E-Boy that I can stretch out and scratch my balls in. Right now I am sitting in an old easy chair with springs that poke my ass.

Don't know if I can get this by my wife though, she is an ascetic and a Luddite, to boot, and thinks Trappists lead a life of luxury.

[Dan G]

There are tons of home theatre sites on the web that say 5-10 feet away is good for a 42" television, depending on the quality of picture. Obviously, the better it is, the closer you can get. I have a 42" sony wega rear projection lcd, that's about 2 years old, and the front of our couch is about 7 feet from it - so eyes around 8' back, 8 1/2 if reclining (its one of those ones that the ends recline...). It's pretty much perfect at that distance. Could be a bit closer, wouldn't want to go back much farther.

I think that you should be completely immersed in the picture - not seeing walls, etc too much. When in a movie theatre, the screen occupies your whole field of vision, so why shouldn't a television.

Haven't moved up to Blue Ray yet; dvds still look pretty good to me. And I watch a lot of movies on satellite, which is also sufficient.

[clinthopson]

Originally Posted by rollhead

Oh, yea, almost forgot. I want an old-fart chair like a Laz-E-Boy that I can stretch out and scratch my balls in. Right now I am sitting in an old easy chair with springs that poke my ass.

Don't know if I can get this by my wife though, she is an ascetic and a Luddite, to boot, and thinks Trappists lead a life of luxury.

ROFLMFAO

I have a big fat Laz-E-Boy which is essential for someone of my advanced years. It's perfect for naps during golf or PBS documentaries.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Dan G

I have a 42" sony wega rear projection lcd, that's about 2 years old, and the front of our couch is about 7 feet from it - so eyes around 8' back, 8 1/2 if reclining (its one of those ones that the ends recline...). It's pretty much perfect at that distance. Could be a bit closer, wouldn't want to go back much farther.

Sounds like we have the same TV.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

Awesome. I can see it now: "But honey, this way we can play *all* types of DVDs on *one* player. What's that? Games? Yeah, I think it'll play those too, but I'm not sure....."

Hahahahaha................

We men folk are so fucking transparent.


Interestingly enough I don't have any desire for any of this horseshit. There's no way I'd pay $600 for a video game machine, I have no immediate plans to upgrade from my 29 inch flat screen tv w/S-video input because I simply don't watch enough tv to justify it, therefore I have no want for Blu-Ray cuz it wouldn't fucking matter anyway.

Kelly, of course, is over-joyed with all of this.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

ROFLMFAO

I have a big fat Laz-E-Boy which is essential for someone of my advanced years. It's perfect for naps during golf or PBS documentaries.

Does it have one of those cup holders , too?

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

There's no way I'd pay $600 for a video game machine ....

yea, well, we know Pootz is going to need one pretty soon.

[Borat Pri Hagafen]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

There's no way I'd pay $600 for a video game machine

The PS3 is "only" $399 now for the 40 GB version. It'll be my primary DVD player, with the gaming aspect just a nice bonus.

[Scott Dolan]

I ain't gonna pay $400 for it either.

And yes, Mr. Pootz mentions how much he wants a PS3 at least three times a week. I told him I'd think about a Wii later this year, but that's a far as I'm willing to go.

[Borat Pri Hagafen]

No one's asking you to pay $400, or anything, for it. I was just saying that calling the PS3 a "$600 video game machine" is wrong on one count, and misleading on another.

Obviously the PS3 isn't for you, my point was that it makes sense for some people, depending on what they want. For me, spending $250 on a Wii would be a silly purchase, whereas this makes sense because it'll be my Blu-Ray player, my DVD player, and my gaming system.

But to each their own, of course.

[Chris D]

I've got a Wii tee time at 5:30.

[Scott Dolan]

Tiger Woods Golf?