Projector Issues

[yrk1969]

+1 to that. (Without ever having downloaded a movie )

the rips from the net would be avc (with all options maxed while transcoding) while dvd rips would be mpeg2. at similar constrained bitrates; you can expect siginifcantly better quality from AVC.

+1 - but only to that I have never downloaded such a rip.

As in my previous post, difference in 20gb vs 30+ gb is noticeable to me on large screen, so 5-7gb vs 30+gb would be a no-contest, I am pretty sure.

 

[subhash]

vinay, most movie sizes on a BD is 35+GB removing all extra features etc ,so a downloaded size of 7-10GB cannot be compared
There will be a considerable gain in quality on an original which will make for atleast 30-40% better

As rightly and in best words put across by Reju ,Kapvin and others u shud invest in a BDP to make the most out of your HT. Afterall a good BDP shud not set u back by more than 12-15K

 

[sanjay0864]

Re: epson home cinema 8350 projector

One thing that bothered me was at 2.40:1 ratio there is a big reduction in screen size as the bars on the top and bottom are large and one cannot stretch or zoom (that is an irritating feature on the epson when using HDMI watching 1080p - not sure if other 1080p proj. have the same issue), but the pQ is so good that one forgets the bars.

I don't mean to tell you how to, or how not to watch your movies, but it is hard to believe that even people on this forum, would prefer to watch a larger picture at the expense of loosing out on the actual picture. A 2.40:1 movie is mena't to be watched in 2.40:1. Stretching or zooming the picture to simply fill up your screen is nothing short of destroying the movie. Not that I would still condone it, but if people who have smaller than 32" size TVs were to do this, I could still understand. But for someone, who has a large screen and who has invested in a good projection system to be doing this, is totally beyond comprehension. The ultimate objective of a good home theater is to try and replicate the experience of a good movie theater at home, with a primary objerctive of watching the movie as intended by the director. Any sort of stretching, zooming or cropping is an absolute no, no. Personally, I would only watch a movie in it's original aspect ratio, even if I only had a 21" 4:3 TV, let alone a front projection system.

 

[sanjay0864]

Indeed i will like to see the picture quality difference between the downloaded 1080P and the disc.

There is a substantial difference between a good blu-ray and a downloaded 1080p rip. I assure you, once you get used to the good stuff, you will never want to go back. But ofcourse, it is all subject to your actually creating the right viewing environement and settings.

I remember seeing the disc of some movie via 1080P projector, i had seen the same movie which i had downloaded and that too in 720P, i hardly noticed much visible difference.

I am sorry to say, but that is no way to make a fair comparison. If you really want to do a comparison, then you should watch the same blu-ray disc, make sure it is a good one, on the same projection system at the same time by switching the resolution via the blu-ray player between 1080p & 720p. Although, even this would not be a totally fair comparisonm, simply because your projector will be upscaling the 720p picture to it's native 1080p resolution. Bottom line is, that any comparisons must be made side by side or by switching between the two resolutions at the same time in the same place on the same equipment.

It could be true that lesser the distance is better, but i feel it is any day better to sit at more distance, i am in no way comfortable that such a big screen picture and one is viewing from near.

I am sorry to disagree, but sitting too far from the screen is in no way better and is in fact totally incorrect and sort of defeats the purpose of high definition. Given enough distance, the benefits of a higher resolution are totally lost and 1920x1080p looks no better than even 640x480i. My sincere suggestion to yo, would be to try and start watching from the 'correct' distance and believe you me, once you get used to it, you will never ever want to go back to watching from a distance. By the way, just incase you have any misconception, watching a big screen from close has absolutely no harmful effects, not even to your eyes.

PS: I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but it's no wonder that you have never been able to actually see or appreciate the rather substantial difference between blu-rays @ 1080p, 1080p rips and 720p rips.

If one sees around 400 movies/serials a year, it can never be practical to keep buying the blue ray discs, that too for a one time usage during most times.

There is always the option to rent the blu-rays too, you know. In any case, what I would suggest as a good balance, would be to watch the important movies on blu-ray and the lesser ones via 1080p rips. The 720p rips on the other hand, I would put to rest for good.

 

[sidvee]

Re: epson home cinema 8350 projector

I don't mean to tell you how to, or how not to watch your movies, but it is hard to believe that even people on this forum, would prefer to watch a larger picture at the expense of loosing out on the actual picture. A 2.40:1 movie is mena't to be watched in 2.40:1. Stretching or zooming the picture to simply fill up your screen is nothing short of destroying the movie. Not that I would still condone it, but if people who have smaller than 32" size TVs were to do this, I could still understand. But for someone, who has a large screen and who has invested in a good projection system to be doing this, is totally beyond comprehension. The ultimate objective of a good home theater is to try and replicate the experience of a good movie theater at home, with a primary objerctive of watching the movie as intended by the director. Any sort of stretching, zooming or cropping is an absolute no, no. Personally, I would only watch a movie in it's original aspect ratio, even if I only had a 21" 4:3 TV, let alone a front projection system.

I guess this point has been beaten to death in various forums around the world since the dawn of 16:9 back when first DVD's were introduced in 95. There are clearly 2 sides to the debate - the pan and scan crowd and the purist crowd. While I dont belong to either and i dont mind the bars I certainly am bothered by the wide 2.40:1 ratio which is really shrinking the picture on my 106" (16:9 screen). No two ways about it. I am considering a lens and wide aspect screen down the road - just to get rid of the bars.
cheers
Sid

 

[Dushie]

i feel its personal, some people like to watch in regular mode, some people like to fill up the screen and watch. I like to fill up the screen and watch, also what is important is the media that is being played and the quality of the media and the player chipset. On xtreamer i have never faced issues zooming and watching the movie.

About loosing original size and PQ, well PQ after zooming also is pretty good and i don;t face any issues with the same.

 

[santhosh]

I have a 16:9 screen simply for the practicality POV and prefer to watch the movie in its original format - as intended by the movie and never pan or zoom. I love watching movies in 2.35:1, 16:9 in that order and then only 4:3. I do not watch 4:3 unless the quality is atleast DVD quality and that too only for classics.

Having said that the letterbox or pillarboxes bother me to death when watching anything other than 16:9 format. In my initial days, I used to be so distracted by the bars that I could not enjoy the movie....but somehow it does not bother me as much today simply because I have decided it will be tackled in my next projector upgrade.

This is just my view and like Sid has mentioned, there are two schools of thought. This is me.

 

[spirovious]

Reju nicely put.Only problem is DL time with HD stuff as its 35gb around.

 

[sidvee]

I have a 16:9 screen simply for the practicality POV and prefer to watch the movie in its original format - as intended by the movie and never pan or zoom. I love watching movies in 2.35:1, 16:9 in that order and then only 4:3. I do not watch 4:3 unless the quality is atleast DVD quality and that too only for classics.

Having said that the letterbox or pillarboxes bother me to death when watching anything other than 16:9 format. In my initial days, I used to be so distracted by the bars that I could not enjoy the movie....but somehow it does not bother me as much today simply because I have decided it will be tackled in my next projector upgrade.

This is just my view and like Sid has mentioned, there are two schools of thought. This is me.

I agree - but what I noticed in the Epson 8350 (and it is cleary stated in the manual) - when using the HDMI connection and playing back a 1080p movie the projector disables all aspect ratio functions so one has no choice but to watch in the 2.40:1 ratio (or whatever ratio the movie is in), whereas in the panasonic ptae900 you could at-least get a better fill - the black bars were still there but not so big. I guess it has to do with the native resolution of the projector. Regardless the PQ of 1080p is so superb that I really do not mind but down the road I am looking to get a lens set up which may be a problem because the 8350 does not support an anamorphic lens, so I will have to look around. In the most extreme case I will have to figure out some masking method for my screen.
Cheers
Sid

 

[reju]

Reju nicely put.Only problem is DL time with HD stuff as its 35gb around.

1:1 can be 22-45gb. It takes 2-3 days for me at 2mbps.
So 2-3 DLs in a week is not bad is it?

It's only a matter of some time when normal internet speeds will be double or triple..

 

[santhosh]

Reju nicely put.Only problem is DL time with HD stuff as its 35gb around.

If one needs the quality, then they have to DL. Unlimited - High Speed internet is becoming cheaper by the day.

Also Spiro, you don't say ^. You have your own BD-ROM don't you? BTW, one of our members in Bangalore have a BD-ROM, for me it is the first accessible BD-ROM in Bangalore:yahoo:.

In the most extreme case I will have to figure out some masking method for my screen.

I have considered DIY masking, but in my case my HT room doubles as a listening room and since mine is not a fixed screen, it becomes too much of a hassle for me mask before a movie and unmasking after watching it. I have an idea using black velvet cloth, will share if I am successful.

 

[sidvee]

I have considered DIY masking, but in my case my HT room doubles as a listening room and since mine is not a fixed screen, it becomes too much of a hassle for me mask before a movie and unmasking after watching it. I have an idea using black velvet cloth, will share if I am successful.

Santhosh - I have the same idea using a frame made out of plywood and black velour or velvet, but just as you I have a pull down screen and dual purpose room so I guess I have to improvise. Do share your ideas.
Cheers
Sid

 

[sanjay0864]

How anyone can prefer distorting the picture, by stretching and making the actors look like they are in a house of mirrors, is beyond my comprehension. Or for that matter, how can the size of the picture take precedence over the actual content, is again really hard to comprehend. It's like preferring to watch a crappy movie instead of a great one, simply because the crappy movie has a better picture quality. Ultimately I would think, is it not about the content and making sure to watch the content in the way the director intended it. Spending money, time and effort in getting the best black levels, contrast, colors, brightness and resolution, but at the same time compromising the picture by making the actors look fat or skinny, seems rather counter productive, don't you think? Also, I hope you do realize that by zooming or cropping the picture, not only do you spoil the very painstakingly and carefully constructed picture composition by the cinematographer, but you actually cut out at times very important parts of the scene.

By the way, I am not sure what is it exactly that you have a problem with. Is it the black bars, or the reduction in picture size? Or is it simply a matter of feeling, that you are not getting the full utility for the money you spent on the screen? If it is simply a matter of the black bars, then 'matting/masking' or 'variable aspect ratio screens' with a compatible projector, are the solution. If it is simply the picture size, then getting a larger screen is the solution. As for the value for money, I am sorry to say that all the money spent on buying expensive equipment seems like such a waste, if one is in the end, going to intentionally degrade the picture.

Please take a look at the following links to get a better understanding of what you stand to lose by zooming, cropping, pan & scan or in other words by watching a picture in the incorrect aspect ratio.

The Letterbox and Widescreen Advocacy Page
Incorrect Aspect Ratios: A Huge Pet Peeve The Brain of Shawn
http://events.hometheaterforum.com/home/wsfaq.html
Aspect Ratios and Widescreen Movie Guide
http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_artists_rights.shtml
Labrynth
The Sound Of Music
Star Trek: First Contact
Lord Of The Rings: Fellowship Of The Ring
Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers
Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King

It is very important to keep in mind, that the examples shown in the links above are of very carefully panned & scanned presentations, wherein atleast the most crucial picture elements are retained. Whereas, zooming or cropping, results in simply cutting the sides which can result in even losing the most important elements and at times even the very subject of the scene. Imagine a 'high noon' shootout scene in a wild west movie, where the two subjects are on the extreme left and right of the screen. In such a scene, there is no way to retain both the subjects in the picture, no matter how carefully you pan & scan the scene. Worse yet, with simple zooming or cropping, you will actually be left with a picture that would be without either of the two subjects. I have actually seen movies that have been cropped to fill the screen, wherein the actors are not visible even as they speak while you stare at a static wall, table etc.

PS: Ofcourse in the end, everyone is entitled to their opinion and preference. But, it is also very important to present the facts to the many members of this forum, who may be ignorant to these facts. So as to let them make more informed choices.

 

[sidvee]

How anyone can prefer distorting the picture, by stretching and making the actors look like they are in a house of mirrors, is beyond my comprehension. Or for that matter, how can the size of the picture take precedence over the actual content, is again really hard to comprehend. It's like preferring to watch a crappy movie instead of a great one, simply because the crappy movie has a better picture quality. Ultimately I would think, is it not about the content and making sure to watch the content in the way the director intended it. Spending money, time and effort in getting the best black levels, contrast, colors, brightness and resolution, but at the same time compromising the picture by making the actors look fat or skinny, seems rather counter productive, don't you think? Also, I hope you do realize that by zooming or cropping the picture, not only do you spoil the very painstakingly and carefully constructed picture composition by the cinematographer, but you actually cut out at times very important parts of the scene.

By the way, I am not sure what is it exactly that you have a problem with. Is it the black bars, or the reduction in picture size? Or is it simply a matter of feeling, that you are not getting the full utility for the money you spent on the screen? If it is simply a matter of the black bars, then 'matting/masking' or 'variable aspect ratio screens' with a compatible projector, are the solution. If it is simply the picture size, then getting a larger screen is the solution. As for the value for money, I am sorry to say that all the money spent on buying expensive equipment seems like such a waste, if one is in the end, going to intentionally degrade the picture.

Please take a look at the following links to get a better understanding of what you stand to lose by zooming, cropping, pan & scan or in other words by watching a picture in the incorrect aspect ratio.

The Letterbox and Widescreen Advocacy Page
Incorrect Aspect Ratios: A Huge Pet Peeve The Brain of Shawn
http://events.hometheaterforum.com/home/wsfaq.html
Aspect Ratios and Widescreen Movie Guide
widescreen.org - The Letterbox and Widescreen Advocacy Page
Labrynth
The Sound Of Music
Star Trek: First Contact
Lord Of The Rings: Fellowship Of The Ring
Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers
Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King

It is very important to keep in mind, that the examples shown in the links above are of very carefully panned & scanned presentations, wherein atleast the most crucial picture elements are retained. Whereas, zooming or cropping, results in simply cutting the sides which can result in even losing the most important elements and at times even the very subject of the scene. Imagine a 'high noon' shootout scene in a wild west movie, where the two subjects are on the extreme left and right of the screen. In such a scene, there is no way to retain both the subjects in the picture, no matter how carefully you pan & scan the scene. Worse yet, with simple zooming or cropping, you will actually be left with a picture that would be without either of the two subjects. I have actually seen movies that have been cropped to fill the screen, wherein the actors are not visible even as they speak while you stare at a static wall, table etc.

PS: Ofcourse in the end, everyone is entitled to their opinion and preference. But, it is also very important to present the facts to the many members of this forum, who may be ignorant to these facts. So as to let them make more informed choices.

On the same token I prefer seeing a larger picture not a teeny weeny cowboy trying to shoot a teeny weeny gun - even if I miss the gunman entirely I do not care/in fact in the extreme widescreen ratio though one can see the actors as the director intends we tend to miss the gravity of the scene when their sizes are so reduced. My aim of having a projector is for the BIG PICTURE - simple. It is a personal opinion BTW - and like I said before there are proponents for and against it - even now on AVS forum there are discussions going on how to mask, stretch, pan and scan etc.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=117
There would not be so much debate by so many people if everyone was ok with the black bars and there would be no anamorphic lenses that optically stretch the picture so that there is no distortion and a 2.35:1 picture fills a 16:9 screen. Many people are going through elaborate settings to avoid black bars upto and including using 2 different screens with 2 different ratios
When i did home theater installations a few years ago - even people buying mega bucks gear wanted to know why there were bars when they spent $XXXXX.XX on their projector.
Also no director makes a picture knowing that it will be seen on a 80",90" or 100" screen. He is aiming for theatrical release where in the screen sizes are much, much bigger. So very fact that we are watching on these sizes or smaller screen is compromise to the directors vision. And no theater I know of has black/gray bars shown on the screen.
Also when I posted in my first post that the black bars annoy me was strictly my personal preference - I am not telling anyone else to do this, so I do not understand why the tone of the post is getting personal as if I am recommending pan and scan. Also I do not understand the allusion to value for money - If I spend my money then I am at liberty to decide how I want to enjoy my equipment - really I dont need someone else to tell me that I am not getting the requisite value. And finally I have been using a projector since 1996 (my first projector was a SONYVPLW400q) and the Epson 8350 is my 6th projector and I am still bothered by the black bars as I was when I first saw them - except that at a 2.40:1 ratio they are really big vs the 1.85:1 ratio that the first DVD's had - so I am not a newbie at this and nobody is going to convince me that all of a sudden I have to be worried about the directors vision and that black bars should not bother me.
Cheers
Sid

 

[vinay]

Assorted Posts

Sid,

In reference to picture quality (PQ), if you have a blue ray disc and a 1080P rip of the same movie, please watch side by side, and then tell me the PQ difference, is it more then 10/15%?

About screen fill reduction with 8350 , it is indeed sad, but i think the difference is not more then 10% compared to 16:9. In my 720P, i could adjust the screen to any size. I am not facing any distraction with the bars, because i have been using projector for a long time, so it is very easy for me to adapt.

I was trying a lot to use different aspect ratios but was not able to get with this 8350, so thanks so much for telling me that this is not possible, and i have to live with the ratio which it shows. It is good that Panasonic has an option for better fill, but in my case i am happy that the fill options are not there, so i will get used to their aspect sooner then later and i feel it is a clutter to shift with different aspects, i prefer getting used to a one way street, life becomes much simpler.

I will work on the good tips you gave about iris, fan power and color temperature, thanks.

Well the A/C noise will always be much louder then the fan of projector, to beat such situations would be to install a A/C like Daikan etc, on the other hand keep it on silent mode.

I am finding the picture quality good in 8350, there are two reasons for it, one being that it is a new technology projector that too with a 1080P, and secondly my old projector's bulb was getting weaker, and with this new one the bulb is fresh so automatically screen image is going to be much more crisper.

Svenkateshsmart,

Well i have been using since long the in-direct blue ray on basis of 720P rips.

Well to download a 17/20 GB file, that too near about for a one time usage is not worth it unless the picture quality is better by 25% compared to a 8GB file.

I agree that blue disc will beat the rips in PQ, but one has to see other bad factors before one jumps in buying 15 blue discs a month.

Reju,

I prefer to spend better monies on gadgets and room ambiance with acoustics because they are going to be with me for many years, while a blue disc is going to be often a one time usage.

From the time i have got this new projector my full preference is to download only 1080P, provided they are above 7GB, up to 11GB.

We can not achieve good results in all aspects, everyone has a different situation. If i was watching only 4 video contents a month and repeating them at least 3 times in a phased manner, then i would have stuck to the disc world.

I think even if internet speeds double or triple, most of them will be least interested to download a movie of around 45gb, keeping in mind that these are most of the times a one time view, like thermocal glass.

Kapvin,

I will be traveling any moment, once i return shall get in touch with you about the meet.

Yrk1969

The picture quality difference on a 100 inch screen is how much compared to a rip of 8gb and a disc? Is it more then 10/20% and have you seen the disc and rip side by side?

Subhash,

I am sure that the picture quality in a blue disc can never be better by 40/50% compared to a 8/10gb rip.

One of the reasons why i hate a disc is when they have the extra features, of which i will never watch, so i am paying more for nothing at all, plus the other reasons as said in this and earlier posts, which keeps me away from a disc on practical grounds.

For me the cost of blue ray player and disc is no material, otherwise i would have not spent so much on my mini theater. I will like to meet a person who is buying about 15 blue discs a month, that is a another story such people will rarely exist, for reasons we all know. I do not believe in the culture of hiring movies from library for various reasons, having said that i know with many of them it is fine to rent, and it is a good idea.

Sanjay0864

I also used to watch movies earlier in larger format and that was the way to go forward after all a projector is bought for seeing larger images, once Reju, was at my place and he told me that i should see movies in format as intended to of which i ignored but later i realized that he was right.

After so much of writing's by you'll, even i am now convinced that a disc is better then a rip, but my core question is always one, i need to know how much per cent is the picture quality better then a rip. I have a dynamic viewing environment with related factors like a high end screen, which makes up a lot in terms of not using a disc, for me the relief rally is that the gadgets will always remain, but a disc is going to be thrown away after a usage, so i always say why should i put so much money in a thermocal glass.

Indeed a fair comparison is to do side by side when it comes to a 10/12gb rip and disc in terms of picture quality.

Well i will soon consider to start moving for a shorter view distance, thank you so much for explaining me at length, but the problem will be the surrounds which are at my original sitting area. It was Santosh, who has been saying from day one, that 15 feet viewing distance is perfect, and now many of you'll are saying the same thing, which shall mean that now i have no choice but to try the 15 feet world. On the other hand you have guessed it right that i have always thought that watching from a close distance has harmful effects, including the eyes.

I have watched only one movie in 1080P, so it is too early to get the correct view feel between 720p & 1080p.

I do not prefer in renting from library, because i can not be time bound that i should finish watching the movie by so and so time, then there is a fear that what if the print gets stuck in between, then the thought of so many people having used the disc, moreover i watch the type of movie on basis of my mood, so if the library does not have it, then i hold on, which i am not interested, further if i am not liking the story line, then i stop, go and return to the library, with rips i have so many of them, i can always diversify in a second.

About buying a disc so many times the important movies turn out to be a disaster, or the least expected one's turn out to be good, so for me it is impossible to take a call on disc. I agree with you that i should give up 720P completely, and that is what i am going to do henceforth, first i gave up vcd, then i quit dvd, and now i am coming out of 720P.

Dushie,

Indeed it is a personal choice to zoom of which i have done a lot, but now i like to watch the movie in a way it is intended to, so no more zooming for me to 4:3, etc. On a sly i do zoom even today but in a more organized way, like the movie which i have liked a lot, and if i am watching it again or if it is a block buster one, then i watch directly on my bigger screen but the aspect ratio will be as intended to.

In my case too when i used to zoom the picture, quality was hardly of a sacrifice, and it was worth it, in return i am getting a bigger picture, so no problem if a penny loss with such zoom.

Santosh,

I have 2 screens 16:9 & 4:3.

Among the reasons for which i had bought 4:3, so that i can watch via television car races through a set top box, but later i lost interest in this TV part, on the other hand during the DVD days i had bought many movies which were exclusively in 4:3 format.

V.

The Crew Of This Thread

Aleskar, Arindamcc, Captrajesh, Cmsajith, Dranil, Dushie, Gauravkumra, Hemantwaghe, Jayad08, Kapvin, Karmic, Kittu1977, Ontherocks, Mod-the-pc, Musicmaya, Quad, Rana Kirti, Reju, Rosh, Rshri, Santho12, sanjay0864, Shaiju O Thomas, Sidvee, Spidey, Spirovious, Srinisundar, Subcenter2009, Subhash, Sud98, Svenkateshsmart, Ukjeyaraj, Venkatcr, Vyerth. Yrk1969.

 

[sidvee]

Re: Assorted Posts

Sid,

In reference to picture quality (PQ), if you have a blue ray disc and a 1080P rip of the same movie, please watch side by side, and then tell me the PQ difference, is it more then 10/15%?

About screen fill reduction with 8350 , it is indeed sad, but i think the difference is not more then 10% compared to 16:9. In my 720P, i could adjust the screen to any size. I am not facing any distraction with the bars, because i have been using projector for a long time, so it is very easy for me to adapt.

I was trying a lot to use different aspect ratios but was not able to get with this 8350, so thanks so much for telling me that this is not possible, and i have to live with the ratio which it shows. It is good that Panasonic has an option for better fill, but in my case i am happy that the fill options are not there, so i will get used to their aspect sooner then later and i feel it is a clutter to shift with different aspects, i prefer getting used to a one way street, life becomes much simpler.

I will work on the good tips you gave about iris, fan power and color temperature, thanks.

Well the A/C noise will always be much louder then the fan of projector, to beat such situations would be to install a A/C like Daikan etc, on the other hand keep it on silent mode.

I am finding the picture quality good in 8350, there are two reasons for it, one being that it is a new technology projector that too with a 1080P, and secondly my old projector's bulb was getting weaker, and with this new one the bulb is fresh so automatically screen image is going to be much more crisper.

The Crew Of This Thread

Aleskar, Arindamcc, Captrajesh, Cmsajith, Dranil, Dushie, Gauravkumra, Hemantwaghe, Jayad08, Kapvin, Karmic, Kittu1977, Ontherocks, Mod-the-pc, Musicmaya, Quad, Rana Kirti, Reju, Rosh, Rshri, Santho12, sanjay0864, Shaiju O Thomas, Sidvee, Spidey, Spirovious, Srinisundar, Subcenter2009, Subhash, Sud98, Svenkateshsmart, Ukjeyaraj, Venkatcr, Vyerth. Yrk1969.

Hi Vinay - Unfortunately I dont have any blue ray rips so I would not be able to compare the two.
I am using a gray screen (elite) so though the 8350 is not known for its black levels using the gray screen has made the black levels significantly better and as a result the bars on movies with 2.40:1 ratio are almost black and as such are not causing much distraction (I also tweaked the contrast and brightness setting using a calibration disc)- even to the extent that I may not need masking.
Cheers
Sid

 

[srinisundar]

Vinay, We are forcing you to buy BR Discs expecting next genre will have an "Gift Thread" from you as like earlier onehyeah:

 

[subhash]

hi vinay

with your longish write up it seems you are in for a compromise after having spent a fortune for your HT set up

The size of a movie in a BD (50GB disc) varies from 30-40gb with out any extras, so to ask if there is an improvement by 10 -15% in a downloaded rip size of 8-10GB is
would like to know if a BD rip of 8-10gb has HD audio? (8-10gb is the size of the HD audio itself in an original)

A rip size of 8-10gb is beyond 50% compression, after having spent so much of money and time on your HT why ?????? are you hell bent on compromising on Quality . These rips may be fine upto 40"-50" displays

Vinay ,you also need to upgrade to HD audio, with your kind of set up you need to get the best of Audio n Video

The route you could take

1) I do understand its impossible to buy BD discs regularly
2) invest on a BD drive 50-100$ (u already have the media player and HDD)
3) Join a rental Library ( you dont have to play the BD on your BDP you only have to play on your BD drive for abt 45 mins) i suppose there wudnt be any cross infections:lol:
4) Most rentals have door delivery and pick up
5) Get ready to Rip -store - transfer to HDD -watch ,rest u decide what u want to do with it. (v shall guide you on this above process)

this is the most simple way for you to get the best out of your investment you would be owning an original BD rip for the price of your rental :lol:
When there is scope for improvment be it 10-15% , IMO way beyond why not give it a shot.
In between ,occasionally if you are in love with a movie you could consider buying the BD

 

[sanjay0864]

Re: Assorted Posts

I prefer to spend better monies on gadgets and room ambiance with acoustics because they are going to be with me for many years, while a blue disc is going to be often a one time usage......

.....I have a dynamic viewing environment with related factors like a high end screen, which makes up a lot in terms of not using a disc, for me the relief rally is that the gadgets will always remain, but a disc is going to be thrown away after a usage, so i always say why should i put so much money in a thermocal glass.

Vinay, I don't mean to be rude or wish to impose my thinking upon you, but I am sorry to say, you have a slightly twisted understanding of audio/video. There is an old adage that pretty much applies to most facets of life, including Home Theaters, ie. "A chain is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain". Basically, what I am trying to say is, that no matter how much time, money and effort you put into your home theater, if the very 'source' is not good, or is less than stellar, then there is absolutely nothing even the most expensive equipment and or the best ambience and or installation can do, to make up for the deficiencies of the 'source material'. Even the best and most expensive home theater cannot make a bad 'source' look good. Good equipment and or installations do not make the source better, all they do is to ensure that the quality of the source, either good or bad, is retained and finally presented on screen or via the speakers. It has always amazed and bemuzed me, how so many people will spend incredible amounts of money and effort in trying to get the best systems within their budgets, but refuse to spend even a little extra on the software that will finally be played on those systems. The irony is, that relatively speaking, the extra money and effort spent on getting a better quality source, is generally far less than the extra money and effort spent on the equipment and or installation in comparison. Too many people make this mistake and continue to do so time and time again. A perfect example, is the money and time people spend on buying the best HDTV in their budget, at times even more than their budget, but they will not spend an additional Rs 1000 to get a HD DTH set-top box to take advantage of the HD feature of the TV. Even if the current content available on HD is not attractive enough, just the improvement in quality of the SD channels, due to a better quality set-top box and the superior HDMI connectivity, more than justifies the extra Rs. 1000 for the HD set-top box.

For all the home theater projects that I have provided consultancy on, the one thing I have always tried to impress upon my friends and clients is, that there is no point spending more on just any one, or more, links in the home theater chain. Bottom line is, that the money spent on the home theater must be evenly spread out on all the equipment, including and even more importantly on the source material. There is absolutely no sense in wasting money on and expensive a/v reciever if one is going to finally connect the a/v receiver to some cheap speakers and by the same logic, there is no point wasting money on a very well equiped and well designed home theater if in theend the source material used is going to be of an inferior quality.

From the time i have got this new projector my full preference is to download only 1080P, provided they are above 7GB, up to 11GB.

I am sorry to say, but there is no way, that a 7-11GB rip of a standard 30-35GB blu-ray disc, is ever going to look or sound anywhere as good as the original blu-ray disc. Lots of people make the mistake of not comparing a 'ripped' source with the original blu-ray from which the rip was made, but instead compare it to a different blu-ray, due to the unavailability of the same blu-ray. Remember, a comparison can only be made, when all else is exactly the same. Also, a minimum screen size and maximum viewing distance are equally as important, while trying to judge or make conclusions regarding the difference in quality between two 'sources'. It would be totally pointless to try and judge the difference in quality of a 1080p source, if the screen size is small and or the viewing distance is too much. I cannot impress enough, the importance of these two factors, in any such comparison as the one in question here.

Regarding file size, do always keep in mind, that simply the size of the rip does not tell you much. Atleast not without knowing the size of the original blu-ray from which the rip was made. Ofcourse one can and must discount for that part of the file size on the disc, that makes up the special features. Basically, it is the bitrate and the quality of compression, used to reduce the original file size while ripping, that matters and not the file size.

The picture quality difference on a 100 inch screen is how much compared to a rip of 8gb and a disc? Is it more then 10/20% and have you seen the disc and rip side by side?

I am sure that the picture quality in a blue disc can never be better by 40/50% compared to a 8/10gb rip.

After so much of writing's by you'll, even i am now convinced that a disc is better then a rip, but my core question is always one, i need to know how much per cent is the picture quality better then a rip.

Audio/ Video quality are highly subjective and thus trying to measure and compare the differences in any absolute mathematical numbers, is totally pointless and at the very least incorrect. There really is no scientific way to judge and or state how much one audio/video setup is better or worse than the other in simple mathematical terms, such as percentages. This much I can assure you, that on a 100" screen, viewed from an ideal 13' distance or at very most a 17' distance, there will be a noticeable difference in quality between an original 30-35GB blu-ray and it's 7-11GB rip.

Indeed a fair comparison is to do side by side when it comes to a 10/12gb rip and disc in terms of picture quality.

Yes, indeed, a fair comparison can only be made, when the two source materials are played side by side on the same equipment and in the same environement. In other words, only when all else is identical, that one can fairly compare how much difference the source material makes.

Well i will soon consider to start moving for a shorter view distance, thank you so much for explaining me at length, but the problem will be the surrounds which are at my original sitting area. It was Santosh, who has been saying from day one, that 15 feet viewing distance is perfect, and now many of you'll are saying the same thing, which shall mean that now i have no choice but to try the 15 feet world. On the other hand you have guessed it right that i have always thought that watching from a close distance has harmful effects, including the eyes.

I assure you that 15' would be a much better distance, than the current distance you are watching from. In fact the ideal distance for a 100" screen is 13'. Personally, I view a 106" (16:9 diagonal) screen from a 12' distance and would actually like to upgrade my screen to a 119" (16:9 diagonal) screen, while still maintaining the 12' distance. You are right ofcourse, that the current fixed placement of the surround speakers may not be ideal if you move your seating position forward. But then, I think that the loss from the reduced surround imaging, is less important than the visual gain you will get from the closer viewing position. Also I can assure you that there is absolutely no harmful effect from viewing a 100" screen from a 13'-17' distance. If anything the strain on the eyes would only be more, if the relative picture is reduced due to a greater viewing distance.

 

[sanjay0864]

I do not prefer in renting from library, because i can not be time bound that i should finish watching the movie by so and so time, then there is a fear that what if the print gets stuck in between, then the thought of so many people having used the disc, moreover i watch the type of movie on basis of my mood, so if the library does not have it, then i hold on, which i am not interested, further if i am not liking the story line, then i stop, go and return to the library, with rips i have so many of them, i can always diversify in a second.

The route you could take

1) I do understand its impossible to buy BD discs regularly
2) invest on a BD drive 50-100$ (u already have the media player and HDD)
3) Join a rental Library ( you dont have to play the BD on your BDP you only have to play on your BD drive for abt 45 mins) i suppose there wudnt be any cross infections:lol:
4) Most rentals have door delivery and pick up
5) Get ready to Rip -store - transfer to HDD -watch ,rest u decide what u want to do with it. (v shall guide you on this above process)

this is the most simple way for you to get the best out of your investment you would be owning an original BD rip for the price of your rental :lol:
When there is scope for improvment be it 10-15% , IMO way beyond why not give it a shot.
In between ,occasionally if you are in love with a movie you could consider buying the BD

I second subhash's opinion and thinking on this. You could as he suggests, rent several movies at once, rip them in a few hrs and then return them to the library, well within the stipulated return time without having to worry about late fees etc. Renting mutiple movies at a time will take care of your concerns, of not having several movies to choose from at any given point in time. Also, it will save you from the concern of having to make frequent trips to the rental library.

Alternately, you could also rent from rental libraries that have monthly plans. Monthly plans generally have no restrictions on number of movies you can view and also they do not have very restrictive return times. Thus, such plans not only work out to be economically quite reasonable, but they also allow one the flexibility of being able to return movies at one's convenience and without pressure to view the movie in a hurry. I myself rent movies with such a plan and am extremely satisfied with the arrangement. I always have atleast two movies with me to choose from, depending on what mood I am in, or in case I don't like one movie too much, I can simply watch the other. I also have the flexibility to watch the movies at my convenience and leisure without having to worry about return dates or any late charges.