HD Advisor June 19th

[Attebery]

Ladies and gentlemen, he's back!

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...eally_18)/2929

[ajmrowland]

About the Rear Speaker Placement, I once had the same problem. The thing about plaster walls and ceilings is that they reflect frequencies. Just placing the speakers lower and away from the ceiling would make an alarming difference in the clarity.

It could also very well be your receiver. Not all receivers output all channels at an equal level. Many, many receivers will try to lose power and frequencies outputting to the rear.

Even though I have my speakers hanging from the ceiling/pillar, My best recommendation is to try mounting them lower, or mount them on stands. I'm not sure it's for best effect, but it should sound good.

[Lee Stewart]

Josh:

How much flack from the BD fanboys have you received over this?

I wrote about this topic at some length back in my Specs vs. Reality article. The long and short of it is that, unless you see specific digital artifacts on screen, the bit rate is just a number. It's essentially meaningless to the end viewer. There are many more important factors to rate a good video transfer than just the compression ratio. What's important is how the movie looks to your eye, not how high the bit rate meter spikes. So ignore that number on the packaging, turn off the bit rate meter on your Blu-ray player, and just watch the movie.

As far as the 2K versus 4K part of this weeks edition - I don't know where to begin . . .

Well - I guess I will make it easy and head off any arguments - until such time that 4K displays and content are released to consumers, we have no idea what the difference between 1080P on a 50" display versus 2160P (or 2000P) on a 55" or 60" display viewed from 9 feet away will look like.

[wildvlad]

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

... until such time that 4K displays and content are released to consumers, we have no idea what the difference between 1080P on a 50" display versus 2160P (or 2000P)...

Just a note: when they are referring 2K and 4K they mean "total pixels" and not just horizontal lines (2K ~ 1920x1080), so 4K would be something like 1520p (1080 * sqrt(2)) and 2000p is 8K (horizontal pixel get doubled too, right?).

So that said, 4k would be little bit harder to notice than you think

[Lee Stewart]

Originally Posted by wildvlad

Just a note: when they are referring 2K and 4K they mean "total pixels" and not just horizontal lines (2K ~ 1920x1080), so 4K would be something like 1520p (1080 * sqrt(2)) and 2000p is 8K (horizontal pixel get doubled too, right?).

So that said, 4k would be little bit harder to notice than you think

Ah no.

2K is an abbreviation for the HD format 1920x1080.(they are rounding the 1920 H number to 2000)

4K is an abbreviation for the Super HD format (used in Digital Cinema) 4000x2000. It has also been shown as 4000x2160. When you double HD's resolution, you increase the number of pixels from approx 2 million to 8 million+, a 4X increase.

[damonous]

Q: Due to the nature of my cinema room, my rear speakers have to sit up high to clear the door on one side, which pretty much means they are ceiling height. They provide good ambient sound but really lack any sort of detail akin to sitting around a friend's house and having the rears just above ear height. They are a pair of Eltax Monitor IIIs which where given to me so I cannot moan about the use I have had out of them. However, I would like to improve my audio experience, are there any tricks I should know about high speaker placement? Failing that, are their speakers designed for such a task?

From my own experience, I've had surround systems of varying quality going back to about 1992 (always in apartments). I've engineered various inventive ways of mounting them (and stringing/hiding wires), but I am happiest with the way they are today: they are 3 Infinity 4" cone/with 1" dome speakers in plastic cabinet, with a built-in mounting arm. This arm lets them be positioned in varying angles (up to a full 90 degrees). The middle rear is directly in back, angled slightly downward (close overhead), while the 2 L/R back channels are high in the rear corners, a good 4' or more outside of the seating area. The mounts allow them to be angled at a 45 degree angle, inward and downward.

They may not be particularly large speakers, but the sound dispersion is engaging and utmost natural (key point: no matter where you're sitting). I've had surround speakers directly behind the couch many times before, near ear level. This was always a frustrating setup because keeping the volume high enough to hear (but not blowing-out the eardrums of the 'cheap seats') was a royal pain.

And, in the end, as long as the speakers are high, but pointing downward on that 45 degree arc, I believe they are actually directly lined-up to most listeners' eardrums. That is simply not possible when you mount low and directly behind (even in the "sweet spot").

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

Ah no.

2K is an abbreviation for the HD format 1920x1080.(they are rounding the 1920 H number to 2000)

4K is an abbreviation for the Super HD format (used in Digital Cinema) 4000x2000. It has also been shown as 4000x2160. When you double HD's resolution, you increase the number of pixels from approx 2 million to 8 million+, a 4X increase.

Ah, no. You're both wrong.

2k is 2048 vertical lines, and 4k is 4096. 8k would be 8192. The number of horizontal lines is determined by the aspect ratio of the source. For footage scanned from film (typically 4:3) 2k resolution would be 2048 x 1536, 4k would be 4096 x 3072.

[Lee Stewart]

Originally Posted by Scott

Ah, no. You're both wrong.

2k is 2048 vertical lines, and 4k is 4096. 8k would be 8192. The number of horizontal lines is determined by the aspect ratio of the source. For footage scanned from film (typically 4:3) 2k resolution would be 2048 x 1536, 4k would be 4096 x 3072.

Wrong again - at least in your description

1. No more "lines" - now pixels

2. Not vertical - it is the hortizontial mesurement.

[AndersT2]

720p vs 1080p HDTV's

Don't get stuck on resolution. I just replaced a 3 year old top quality TV, It was one of the better LCDs when I bough it. Now I replaced it with the same model range (Sonys W-series), only a newer generation.

And the difference is HUGH. This has to do with the contrast difference. My old one had 8000:1 in dynamic contrast, and only 2000:1 in panel contrast (which when measured will be something like 2-400:1 in reality).

My new set has 100.000:1 in dynamic contrast, which by todays standards isn't that high (Some have contrast that can't be measured, others have 1-3 million:1). This has an enormous impact on the picture quality. The black parts of the picture isn't light gray anymore, it's black.

I can finally have all the lights off when I watch movies again

I believe that the evolution of contrast, and the other electronics in the TVs today have a higher impact on the picture quality than if it's 720p or 1080p. (But I think you should look long to find any new 720p sets today)

[Darth Lavender]

2k and 4k refers to WIDTH. A quick google found this http://blogs.wharton.upenn.edu/staff...tal-video.html (along with a helpful link for something called LIEMAX which folks should be aware of)

Basically, television terminology (like 1080p, 720p, etc.) goes back to the old analogue days when it all came down to scanlines. Thus, in 1080x1920 (blu-ray/hddvd) we refer to the height and call it 1080p.
In theatres, etc. it's refered to by width.
Now, 2k is usually 1080x2048 (remember, one 'k' in computers is 1024)
Terms are a bit vague, so 2048x1080 or 2048x768 would both be refered to as '2k' but I THINK it's usually 2048x1920 (making a 1.85:1 image, like most films. I don't know what happens with digital intermediates for 2.35:1 films (are they 'letterboxed' or are they anamorphic?)

About the difference, I've tried sitting about three times the screen-width away, and I've tried sitting right up close to my screen (getting the same field of vision as a theatre) and there is definitely a difference in quality. Still looks good up near the screen, but it's more like a photograph or a window if seen from a distance. Based on that I suspect there is still room for improvement in screens going up to 4k (for those who like sitting close to the screen)

On a more professional note, I recall reading one thread on HTF were the venerable Robert Harris says he's seen 4k uncompressed files and they are not identical to film but actually look better (a comment he did not make about 2k)
I assume the 'better than film' is a mixture of greater contrast ratio (film can only get so bright. An LCD can get a lot brighter) and having the scanned film completely in focus (unlike a theatrical presentation, were the projection will never be absolutely 100.00000000000000% perfectly focused)

EDIT
Done a little further reading (including glancing at some earlier posts, were the 2k thing has already been explained) and found this discussion http://www.cinematography.net/edited...n_a_spirit.htm
Seems that on the Spirit Datacine (very popular device for these digital intermediates) it is indeed set up for a 1.33:1 frame, and '2k' tends to mean '2048 x 1556'
Still reading, but it looks like 2.35:1 will usually be scanned as they appear. So a Super35 film, the whole frame will be scanned, including the stuff to cropped off, and the result is effectively only 2048x870. A 1.85:1 film gets 2048x1080 and a 1.33:1 film gets the full 2048x1556
The notable exception being anamorphically shot 2.35, were the actual frame is 2.35 stretched over a 1.37:1 film-frame and, thus, scanned as a 2.35 image stretched over 2048x1556

FURTHER EDIT
Doing somemore reading and found something interesting. 1920x1080 as you can probably figure it is essentially "1.9k"
The relevance is that film (kind of like television) has a degree of overscan (for repositioning shots, avoiding soft edges, etc.)
The very edges aren't actually visible (and aren't supposed to be visible) when you see film in the theatre, and the viewfinder tends to crop about 5% of the image when shots are being composed.
The result being that 1.78:1 film as a 2k digital intermediate
Minus the 5% overscan
= about 1.9k

So, when a 2k movie gets released on a 1.9k HDDVD/Blu-Ray, it seems the actual pixels are identical and the 2k/1.9k difference is a result of the cropping of the excessive edges. Makes a lot more sense now.

Of course, color depth and compression are still very different. Most 2k scans will have 10-bit color and Blu-Ray/HDDVD/DVD are only 8-bit.
(Each extra bit doubles the bit-resolution. 1-bit has 2 possibilities (1 or 0,) then 2-bit has 4 possibilities (10, 11, 01, 00) three bit has 8 possibilities, etc. So, while you may be getting the same resolution on blu-ray as you'd see on the original 2k intermediate... the color depth is much higher and who knows what detail is sacrificed in compression.
Then, of course, there's also the joys of DNR

[Cochise]

Originally Posted by AndersT2

720p vs 1080p HDTV's

Don't get stuck on resolution. I just replaced a 3 year old top quality TV, It was one of the better LCDs when I bough it. Now I replaced it with the same model range (Sonys W-series), only a newer generation.

And the difference is HUGH. This has to do with the contrast difference. My old one had 8000:1 in dynamic contrast, and only 2000:1 in panel contrast (which when measured will be something like 2-400:1 in reality).

My new set has 100.000:1 in dynamic contrast, which by todays standards isn't that high (Some have contrast that can't be measured, others have 1-3 million:1). This has an enormous impact on the picture quality. The black parts of the picture isn't light gray anymore, it's black.

I can finally have all the lights off when I watch movies again

I believe that the evolution of contrast, and the other electronics in the TVs today have a higher impact on the picture quality than if it's 720p or 1080p. (But I think you should look long to find any new 720p sets today)

You make an excellent point about contrast, and that is especially important for LCD TVs. I think the other important factor in a TV besides 720p vs. 1080p is the input it can accept. My old TV was a 57" rear projection CRT that could accept a maximum of 1080i input. I thought HD DVD/Blu-ray PQ was pretty decent. Then I got a Panasonic AE900 projector. Its native resolution is only 720p, but it can accept 1080p/24fps input and the PQ improvement is amazing - I see a whole new level of clarity, and the picture is much more film like.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

Wrong again - at least in your description

1. No more "lines" - now pixels

2. Not vertical - it is the hortizontial mesurement.

I came this close to putting quotes around the words "vertical lines", for exactly this reason. You are correct, and I was too lazy to think up the right term for it.

In fact, now that I think about it, I almost put pixels instead of lines, too, but then a bellowing scream exploded in my head over the semantics of it all and I just called them lines.

[Lee Stewart]

Originally Posted by Scott

I came this close to putting quotes around the words "vertical lines", for exactly this reason. You are correct, and I was too lazy to think up the right term for it.

In fact, now that I think about it, I almost put pixels instead of lines, too, but then a bellowing scream exploded in my head over the semantics of it all and I just called them lines.

How about this . . .

When you put up the SMPTE resolution test pattern (film or video - makes no difference) the number is measured in lines/line pairs.

[AndersT2]

The Surround speaker issue.

I have my surrounds at ear high, they are about 1 meter away from my ears.
My surround back speakers is mounted about 3 meters from my ears, and are at the ceeling hight. This works ok. But I do have them mounted so the elements of those speakers are aimed straight for my ears.

So the difference from being at ear hight shouldn't be much difference (They should have been closer, but my doom dosen't alowe that, since it's also my livingroom/dining room).

To get more effect from them, I turn their volume higher, but the Audyssey do a great job with them anyway.

My rear speakers is Paradign Cinema 330 which is long and tin. My other surrounds are Klipsch RS-62. I should have used Klipsch speakers for the surround back to, but at the time I didn't have the money for that.

[1LOSTmf]

I have a 55" Sony projection with 1080i max, and a 60" Sony Projection that is 1080p, and there is a world of difference in clarity between 720p and 1080p on the 2 models, although I attribute at least some of the difference to the fact that the 55 is LCD projection and the 60 is SXRD.