Technical Issues and Questions

[subliminac]

In the $1500 range I would recommend the following:

Panasonic G10 Plasma - review of the identical UK version
or
Samsung B650 LCD - review of the identical UK version

[Michael Kerpan]

Bravo Michael! Congratulations & happy viewing!

We really loved the new Samsung LED models -- but our family consensus was that we could live with the plasma -- for over $1000 less. ;-}

(We got to BestBuy right before closing on a Saturday night -- and the price went back up $400 the next morning).

[fdm]

This works fine on DVDs (I've tried it with R1, R2, R3 and R4 discs) and on my two Region B Blu-rays, but not on my two Criterion Blu-rays (400 Blows and Seventh Seal). Pressing "stop" once puts the Criterion discs into "fullstop" mode. Very annoying, as I hardly ever manage to watch a film all the way through without getting up for a cup of tea, etc.

Have any other Momitsu owners noticed this problem with the "resume" function on Criterion Blu-rays?

Use the pause button (assuming you have one) for your blu-rays. Those having any java tied to them seem to need their java code be re-loaded in order for them to start again; pausing them allows the re-load to be skipped. It's not player dependent so much as disc dependent.

[Paul Moran]

This works fine on DVDs (I've tried it with R1, R2, R3 and R4 discs) and on my two Region B Blu-rays, but not on my two Criterion Blu-rays (400 Blows and Seventh Seal). Pressing "stop" once puts the Criterion discs into "fullstop" mode. Very annoying, as I hardly ever manage to watch a film all the way through without getting up for a cup of tea, etc. Have any other Momitsu owners noticed this problem with the "resume" function on Criterion Blu-rays?

Use the pause button (assuming you have one) for your blu-rays. Those having any java tied to them seem to need their java code be re-loaded in order for them to start again; pausing them allows the re-load to be skipped. It's not player dependent so much as disc dependent.

Thanks, fdm. Yes, it does have a "pause" button, and I have used it for fairly short periods (up to two or three minutes). For anything longer, I prefer to play it safe and put up with the reload procedure, as I don't know what effect very long "pauses" will have on the mechanics - and it's a long and costly way from UK for warranty repairs! It's more of a nuisance with the extras than the main film. And I only use the Momitsu for blu-rays. For SD-DVDs, I prefer my multi-region Pioneer DV-989 AviS (which will eventually be replaced by a Region B Blu-ray player with multi-region SD-DVD capability).

At present, I only have 4 blu-rays, so I don't have much basis for comparison. However, I have noticed 2 other differences between the Criterion and Region B blu-rays:

- all the separate items (film and "extras") on the Criterion discs show as Title 1, whereas the Region B discs use the normal SD-DVD convention of one Title per item;

- the Criterion discs have a "timeline" for scene access, with bookmarking options - something else I can't get to work! - whereas the Region B discs use the typical SD-DVD menu-based scene/chapter access.

[kaujot]

Just one other question before I shop around.

What's everyone's general consensus on LCD vs. plasma? My gut instinct tells me lcd (the lack of screen-burn, for example), but I read somewhere that the blacks aren't as black on an lcd and the motion tracking isn't as good.

[James]

LCDs look better to me, but I may not be in the majority.

[fdm]

Try this Home Theater mag page, which specifically links to this particular page.

Myself I'd get a plasma, just because of the LCD black issues, and the color issues when viewing them from an angle. And at this point it would be a Kuro, if I could afford one and still find one. (I guess they're still around in some places.) Probably out of your prices range though should be some clearances coming up pretty shortly.

Hopefully when it's time to replace my set, there will be something out there that approaches Kuro.

[Paul Moran]

There's also a useful Plasma and LCD - the Facts page on the Panasonic UK site. They say: "Size matters when it comes to making a choice. LCD is at its optimum performance up to and including 37", whilst plasma offers optimum performance at 37" and above." They make both types, of course.

I have a 42" Panasonic Viera plasma in the lounge, and a 26" Sony Bravia LCD in the bedroom. I'm happy with both!

[subliminac]

The gap between plasma and lcd has narrowed significantly during the last couple years. Black levels should really not be a concern any more, and the motion blur issue has been largely resolved (that is with the higher quality brands, like the Samsung I linked to above). The biggest difference is in off angle viewing, where the the picture can appear washed out on an lcd when viewed from an extreme angle.

[fiddlesticks]

Next time you have to move, you'll want to have picked LCD over plasma.

[kinjitsu]

Exactly. It takes two people to unmount and repack a plasma.

[swo17]

The way I see it, plasmas look better but require more care. I've been very satisfied with my plasma, though I was kind of paranoid about it being misused during the first several weeks, especially since I'm not the only one in my home using it. To be used for general purpose, or especially for gaming, I might recommend an LCD, but for a dedicated movie room I would definitely recommend a good plasma. As for burn-in concerns, I should mention that the other day I accidentally left my static Blu-ray logo screen on for over three hours while I was out of the house. I didn't see even one bit of image retention as a result of this. (Though I should also note that I broke in my TV with the help of one of those color change discs for 1000 hours when I first got it.)

[kaujot]

Ah. I think I'll go with an LCD, as I still move relatively frequently (and it's usually just me doing the moving). And I play loads of games, etc., etc.

Thanks all, for your help.

[Antoine Doinel]

I'll just throw it out there that I've almost never looked at my LCD and said "Gee, I wish the black level was better".

[Tribe]

I'll just throw it out there that I've almost never looked at my LCD and said "Gee, I wish the black level was better".

Ditto...but I'll go you one better...I've never thought it.

[Chull]

I apologize in advance for what is a very "newbie" question. First, I was wondering what a certain phenomenon is even called. I believe it occurs in discs that are heavily compressed. In shots where there is flat patches of colour, the patch is broken into several segments of varying darkness. For example, a shot of a clear blue sky would look like it was comprised of several patches of various shades of blue. I was also wondering if there was something that is wrong with my set-up that I could change to alleviate the problem somewhat. The only reason I ask the last question is that I just finished watching "Only Angels Have Wings." I found that the above phenomenon occurred quite frequently in shots with fog, or in large black areas and looked absolutely terrible. This didn't surprise me so much, until I checked the Beaver review which praised the dvd (at least above the rest of the Grant box) as well as a couple of comments on this board. I just watched it on a very recently acquired Sony 550 Blu-ray player and an older 42" ED Plasma (very soon to be replaced.) I checked it in my regular dvd player to see if it looked worse (thinking there might have been an improved - upscaled image on the Sony) but looked pretty much the same to me. Is there something wrong with my settings? Was I expecting too much of "upscaling?" Again, I realize all of this is "dvd-101." Thanks.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

First, I was wondering what a certain phenomenon is even called.

Posterization, sometimes called "banding', by the sound of what you are describing.

[Matango]

Try giving the play surface of the disc itself a wipe with a dry cloth.

[fdm]

First, I was wondering what a certain phenomenon is even called.

Posterization, sometimes called "banding', by the sound of what you are describing.

I'd throw in the term false contouring as well.

Recent experience has shown me that a good DVD or Blu-Ray player that upconverts directly to 1080p typically does a better job at reducing this than a couple of older 1080i-only upconverting DVD players that I recently retired. And, in general, some do a better job of it than others, depending on the video processing chips they use.

[Chull]

Thanks, that sounds about right. So can anyone else confirm whether or not they see it on the disc?

[Arn777]

I am considering importing a PS3 (the forthcoming slim one). I have no doubt the quality for blu-ray disc is ok, but was wondering how it fares for upscaling standard DVDs?

[oldsheperd]

I have a JVC region free player. The other day I was trying to remember how to change the code on the player and the next thing I knew was that I couldn't get anything to appear on my television when I turned the player on. Me messing with the coding shouldn't affect output should it? I remember on my old tv it didn't make a difference.
I just bought that sweet UK Russ Meyer box so I'm hoping I can figure it out before the dvds arrive.

[swo17]

This article discusses how a show that was shot in 16mm couldn't really benefit from the Blu format. While I can see how it might not look as good as something shot in 35mm or 70mm, I'm not sure I buy this logic here. Isn't a full-sized, fully detailed 16mm frame still vastly larger than any reasonably sized TV could display? For that matter, isn't the process of converting a film to a DVD or even a Blu-ray kind of like reducing it to be as though it had been shot on 1mm (if such a thing existed) or even less than this?

This also relates to reviews I have read of Playtime, which Criterion sourced from a 35mm print. Some people have complained that they didn't start from scratch for the Blu-ray with a 70mm print, but isn't the image being compressed so much any way that it doesn't make a difference?

[nsps]

This article discusses how a show that was shot in 16mm couldn't really benefit from the Blu format. While I can see how it might not look as good as something shot in 35mm or 70mm, I'm not sure I buy this logic here. Isn't a full-sized, fully detailed 16mm frame still vastly larger than any reasonably sized TV could display? For that matter, isn't the process of converting a film to a DVD or even a Blu-ray kind of like reducing it to be as though it had been shot on 1mm (if such a thing existed) or even less than this?

This also relates to reviews I have read of Playtime, which Criterion sourced from a 35mm print. Some people have complained that they didn't start from scratch for the Blu-ray with a 70mm print, but isn't the image being compressed so much any way that it doesn't make a difference?

I don't know what Sony is talking about. I have Leaving Las Vegas, shot on 16mm or super-16, on HD DVD. You're welcome to come take a look and decide for yourself if it looks better than the DVD.

The answer is

an unqualified HELL YES!

Obviously the transfer will be grainier than 35-mm, as the grains will be bigger in proportion to the size of the frame, but to say that 16mm is lower quality than 1080p, or that 16mm doesn't benefit from a 1080p transfer, is downright silly.

While 35mm and 70mm are both higher res than BD, starting with a higher quality transfer would potentially give them more information to work with, but I don't know how noticeable the difference would be on even the largest of home TV screens.

[fdm]

A related posting is at blu-ray.com.

[Too much for me to read right now as I have to run along to work...]