• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Normandy

  • Rank
    AV Forum Member
  • Birthday 07/19/1967

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Local Video producer, avid Mac supporter and SCI FI nut :)
  1. I would be only happy if the sci fi chanel started showing the million other sci fi shows, and stopped showing star trek and star gate re runs. Some animie would be good.... but I dont see them doing that, they only appeal to lifestyle, reaility, sport TV watchers and not anyone after good content
  2. I dont, I convert everything to HDD and play them from my via my computer via my xbox 360, all in a nice easy index... discs are a pain. see this link for a how to..
  3. this is the problem HDTV I agree with, I like HDTV, I think its fine, its the delivery tech I was talking about... its the Blu ray tech that I find flawed, could you try to keep on point?
  4. I am offended... when did I say I had credibility ... ha ha ha !
  5. maybe this would help, sit further away.... Screen Size vs Watching Distance Chart Here is a chart with the flat screen size vs watching distance. The distances are quite a wide range and this is because you need to sit at a different distance depending on the quality of the picture. For high definition 1080p go for the lowest end of the scale and sit as close as possible to get full advantage of the great picture. For high definition 720p go for the low to medium end of the scale and sit slightly further away. For standard definition sit closer to the top end of the scale, if the picture quality is poor then it is better to sit further away from the screen. 26 Inch – 3.2 feet to 8 feet 30 Inch – 3.8 feet to 10 feet 32 Inch – 4.2 feet to 11 feet 34 Inch – 4.4 feet to 12 feet 40 Inch – 5 feet to 14 feet 42 Inch – 5.5 feet to 15 feet 46 Inch – 6 feet to 16.5 feet 50 Inch – 6.5 feet to 17.5 feet 55 Inch – 7 feet to 19 feet 60 Inch – 7.5 feet to 21 feet 63 Inch – 8 feet to 22 feet 65 Inch – 8.5 feet to 23 feet Read more:
  6. ..congrats, and what's with this cryptic crap? would probably have been the way to go, although i very much doubt you will see it that way. alls that means you have no position, and just want to troll along. as for cryptic, don't know what you mean? common phrases these days! Some one said the guys work I posted was a "long time in tech", meaning his opinion was better than my own, even thought I totally agree with him, thus the copy and paste, thing is I have been around tech as long if not longer than the original poster, since 1977, and now everyone is hung up on a copy and paste rather than a discussion, my mistake for thinking that this was a discussion board, and not a hanging crap on people board over a non issue. BTW I never said DVD was better, try not to put your own spin on my words. I said for me, it sounds better... but wrong thread for that discussion, if that indeed is what you want to do here. I just love how passionate people are , if that is the right word, and some people get so hung up, about not agreeing, they rant on with insults rather than post some points of discussion, so on goes the demeaning behaviour, e.g., I say x tech is better than y tech and give reasons why, = a reply of " you suck, your a DH, etc etc. What is this? High school? This board has become bogged down on semantics (being very polite about it) in the last few years it seems, rather than actual discussion! When I joined this board in 2003 it was about discussion, how times change, maybe thats the just the way some people like to hang out. WELL DONE.
  7. still looks and smells like pants to me, and stil a BK, hows that valve amp going >? LOL only one person here has tried to address the points posted... you just post insults... congrats
  8. and it does for me.... and I would much rather buy a new amp than get 3D, but hey thats just me! have fun with your laser disc or your valve amp, or what ever 8 track system you have. BK!
  9. its a shame as they could be doing 5.1 for all their movies etc, but choose not to. One thing in Foxtels favour, all their movie channels do 5.1 DD
  10. wow funny that... I wonder why that is? , its not like I am writing for a tech journal or writing a uni assisgnment, why rewrite what I agree 100% with...... I take it you got nothing to add then?
  11. agreed... another fail of technology, its not like its new... its been done 3 times in the last 40 years.... but they keep trying... Why do I think its a FAIL: 1: There isn’t enough content. It is true that in an effort to lure people back into theaters, the studios have been pushing 3D hard lately. Unfortunately, it’s not as simple to produce a 3D live action film as it is a 3D animation. To achieve 3D in animation, one instructs a computer to render a second channel of video slightly offset from the first.This is not significantly more onerous than creating an ordinary 2D CG animation. For live action films, however, 3D requires special cameras that are heavy and inconvenient to use. The practical upshot of this is that most of the 3D films being produced today are animated. This, of course, has implications for watching 3D films both in the theater and at home. If 3D continues to fail in winning over live action filmmakers, there simply won’t be much to look at. And while the studios have promised a handful of (mostly animated) 3D Blu-ray releases for 2010, there’s just isn’t enough content available now to make it a must-have home theater technology. 2. The upfront cost of 3D hardware is too steep. The reintroduction of 3D into mainstream movies has seen a modest degree of success over the past few years. Theaters have been able to charge more for tickets to 3D screenings, which has helped them in offsetting the exorbitant cost of upgrading their projection hardware. But 3D still accounts for a mere fraction of overall ticket sales. This is because even with higher ticket prices, exhibitors cannot afford to make all of their screens 3D-ready. The cost of upgrading is also a problem in the home theater market, where HDTV’s have finally made their way into a majority of American homes. The vast majority of these households have only recently bought in. Is it really reasonable to expect people who just shelled out serious money for their new flat screens to go out and buy another $3000 TV? The value-add, especially considering the endemic lack of 3D content, is just not enough to justify the purchase. Even if the consumer in question did have the money, they would be wiser to spend it on upgrading their sound system, before going to 3D. 3. The quality of the experience is inconsistent and problematic. I saw Avatar in IMAX 3D, which is the oldest of the 3D technologies currently in use. I then went and suffered through all 172 minutes of it again in RealD. The IMAX 3D experience was not great. First, the glasses were recycled and although I was seeing the film on opening day, they seemed somewhat warped. Even after I had changed glasses, the 3D illusion was broken every time I moved my head. It was exhausting to have to hold one position for close to three hours, but it was either that, or stare at a blurry image. I walked out of the IMAX 3D screening with a crick in my neck. The RealD screening did provide a better overall 3D experience. The illusion was not broken by head movements and so I was able to watch it in a more comfortable position. Unfortunately, when I left the RealD screening, I had a headache that lasted for an hour and a half (more on this special 3D headache later). Suffice to say that even the most recent implementations of 3D leave something to be desired. 4. The glasses are a literal barrier to entry. While there have been many advances in 3D technology over the years, one thing that has not changed is the need for glasses. Depending on the particular type of 3D technology, these glasses work in slightly different ways, but the reliance on them to send offset images to the brain is still a mainstay of any 3D viewing experience. This is also true of the latest 3D HDTV’s which, we learned at CES, will ship with battery-powered 3D glasses. This is an annoyance at the theater, but can you imagine having to put on a pair of glasses to watch TV in your living room? And what do you do if you wear reading glasses? How about when friends come over to watch the Super Bowl, or theOscars? The glasses make a hard sell even harder. 5. Filmmakers, James Cameron included, do not really understand 3D. Film, like photography and perspective painting, is already a three dimensional medium. Monocular cues like linear perspective, occlusion, and shadow, to name but a few, all provide the same sense of depth perception in a film, photograph, or painting as they do in real life. It is true that binocular cues add dimension to the other depth cues (when looking at objects up to 100 feet away), but it is a subtle effect and not the only way we see depth in the world or in film. While many filmmakers have an intuitive understanding of the principles of human perception, it’s not something that they study formally. Most get by in 2D, because there are established filmmaking conventions that they conform to which happen to play well with human perception. Unfortunately, 3D hasn’t been around long enough for such conventions to develop. 3D filmmakers end up using 2D film techniques that induce depth cues which are then contradicted by some of the 3D binocular cues that are layered over everything. When your brain is presented with such conflicting depth information, it will choose one version over the other, but when such conflicts happen many times over the course of a few hours, you end up with a perception headache. There are many other factors that influence our perception of 3D, including the focal length of the lens, the composition of the shot, and the movement of the camera, but modern filmmakers don’t seem to be aware of the effects of these important factors on the perception of their films. This is why watching a 3D movie doesn’t really feel like being there, it just feels like its own, somewhat annoying, thing. The push for 3D comes from a confluence of the old desire to create a more immersive cinema experience and the contemporary need to get people excited about going to the movies again. Unfortunately, the current 3D technology fails to deliver on the former and so it is destined to fail at the latter. A much more fruitful approach would be to adapt Douglas Trumball’s Showscan technology. What Trumbull demonstrated was that by shooting and projecting film at higher frame rates, he could create a much more immersive and realistic experience than what we get with a traditional 24 frames per second projection. His system, which involved 70 mm film shot and projected at 60 frames per second was dismissed as impractical and excessively expensive. In the digital age, this objection is no longer relevant. It is already possible to design reasonably priced digital cinema cameras and projectors that shoot and project at high resolutions and fast frame rates. This, it seems to me, is the next logical step in the evolution of cinema. Not the gimmick that we now call 3D. ..... may it die a quick death!
  12. What you are assuming is that everyone is like you, and I am sorry to disapoint you.. but they are not. You have over 3000 DVDs? Perhaps the question that should be asked is, what are YOU smoking? Sorry, but your habits do not represent the average consumer. But to move on, these arguments have been brought up in the past by others regarding another format. Compact discs. Remember them? Don't tell me, you probably own over 10000 of those too, right? The fact is many people don't really care if they own the actual physical CD or have the music simply stored on their ipods, mp3 players, computers, or even mobile phones. It's having access to music and the convenience that many care about. The same will eventually apply to movies. People are getting used to acquiring media instantly. What has happened with music will eventually happen with movies. Will it happen overnight? Of course not, but will Blu-ray be the leading format this year, next year or even the next? Definitely not.. and not even close IMO. Most people are happy with DVDs and that is a fact. Most people don't even have newer 1080p resolution high definition TVs, another fact. Most are also not eager to fork out 400-500 dollars for the player, plus start paying an extra $10 per movie. Many quickly dismiss HD downloads as being far off because everyone does not have high speed internet, and the speeds are still not fast enough. But what they are forgetting is that a lot of people dont care about true HD, and value convenience more. If they had the option to press a button and watch any movie in non HD many would take it. Call it laziness, but after a hard day of work some folks are not so keen on getting in their car, driving to the local video rental store, spending time browsing through the movies, waiting in line, and then driving back home again. And of course the movie still has to be returned at a later date. If given the option, some would jump at the chance to browse movies on their TV screen, click purchase and begin watching a (non HD) movie a minute later. This can already be done with apple tv and the xbox360. Then comes the argument about true HD downloads not becoming a reality anytime soon, and that many don't even have high speed internet because of their location and other excuses. Those who read up on current technology will know the NBN is rolling out in many areas in March next year. They are also sat options coming that will equal 100MBs at cheap prices, No need to wait for the speed increase or high speed internet to be available in your rural town. Just slap the small satellite on your roof and you're in business. Then there is other technology such as SD cards. This year we will see chips with the same storage capacity as Blu-ray, at the same price as a blank BD. In 2 years the price will be the same as a 1gb card sold today. TV makers like Panasonic have recently displayed HD sets with a built in card reader capable of playing true HD content. Where will this technology be in 1 or 2 years time? The point is consumers will have choices in the coming years, but for now the biggest competition will be the standard DVD. And you can expect that battle to continue on for years. Read more: I think you all need to watch this.. why U MUST UPGRADE!
  13. again your ONE situation, not a common situation supported by any media research, just YHO. This is why again its pointless to continue this conversation, people are ignoring all the research and mainstream indicators towards this media... yes this is the wrong little niche group to post and hard data and evidence to. Keep those blinkers on, and have a nice day ! why u keep posting blu ray to give way to downloads LOL plus I have posted many links in the previous pages... you are NOT LOOKING.. or dont want to, so the point to keep posting would be? I will keep enjoying my massive Bravia Screen and 5.1 sound without Blu Ray
  14. a statement not supported by anything in research, Just YHO in this case. DVD will not be replaced by Blu Ray or any other physical media, all trends indicate that digital distribution is replacing all forms of physical media, just as it did with the music industry. . . history does repeat itself in many situations, this will be no different to what the music industry has just been through for the past 10 years. with the NBN around the corner, better compression, and having HD movies in minutes streamed, Blu Ray is dead!