MLXXX

Senior Member
  • Content count

    5,436
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MLXXX

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

2,277 profile views
  1. If your satellite box is set for 1080p60 that's a standard HDMI resolution for computer monitors. Astonishing the Hisense couldn't cope with it. My Sony SXRD TV accepted 1080p60 HDMI way back in January 2007 (and a cheap Soniq set of mine accepted it in 2011).
  2. If I may ask, how did you establish the figure of 900m?
  3. If I am not a duck can get a 22Mbs download speed through 900m of copper cable in the morning, why not in the evening? Is it because of crosstalk in the evening from other users whose copper wire runs next to I am not a duck's 900m length of copper wire? [my broad understanding is that any such effect should be relatively mild] a bottleneck at the node itself? [my broad understanding is that that is unlikely] or a bottleneck beyond the node? And if a bottleneck beyond the node, is that a physical bandwidth limitation of the infrastructure, or because the ISP's contracted bandwidth is inadequate for peak periods?
  4. I presume you probably mean the 86 inch version, the 86SJ9570, or in Australia the 86SJ957T. The 65" version is already only a few thousand. I'm not sure this thread is about buying "this year's best TV". I gather what Blackman is after is a large screen TV, that performs well. In post #1, he refers to decommissioning an "LG Hecto 100 inch a Short throw Projector". With TVs beginning to become available around the $10,000 street price mark in sizes that approach home cinema screen size it becomes a real question whether to acquire a large screen TV for all viewing rather than a moderate sized TV for routine viewing and a separate projector and large screen for home cinema. If purchased now, a large screen TV should provide several years' satisfying service. In Australia, with new medium sized motor vehicles selling for around $30k I think it is not unreasonable to consider a large screen TV for around $10k, particularly if it's intended that a lot of family time will be spent viewing the TV.
  5. Blackman, I was simply responding to your suggestion that the price was lower by $1300 because of dropping 3D. There are many potential reasons for dropping the price of a TV. Typically it's because of competition from other manufacturers/importers.
  6. Based on price differences in the past between 3D and non-3D models, 3D has not been a large component of the retail price of TVs. I would say that if this new model is much* cheaper, it will mainly be for other reasons. In any case, at this luxury end of the market, pricing is much more to do with what the market is prepared to pay, than cost of manufacture. A TV with a screen diagonal of 86 inches can command a big price premium over a 75" TV. And with so few new sets having 3D these days, LG do not feel compelled to provide 3D, even for a luxury model. * Edit: I see that the difference in RRP on the LG site for Australia this evening is actually only $300, not $1300. 86SJ957T $14,699. 86UH955T $14,999. See http://www.lg.com/au/super-uhd-tvs
  7. Perhaps not accurate, but nicely indicative of the issue. I observed that the scene of light streaming onto a church wall provided a rainbow of colours for the wall, both in your image of that scene and in the third link. Assuming no strange lens aberrations, this appears to be a case of some crazy sort of colour enhancement gone wrong! Edit: there is some similarity to moiré patterns in the effect on the church wall, so an alternative cause could be a resampling (scaling) in mastering the Blu-ray, without sufficient filtering of high spatial frequencies. See for example the explanation and images at http://www.japanistry.com/photography/moire-false-colour-anti-aliasing-filters/
  8. In the image above that's more than just subtle banding from inadequate bit-depth. There are strong hints of quite different colours in the different bands. Something very odd has occurred. In the opinion of one reviewer (at http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Reviews/Reviews.asp?ID=11444 under the heading Transfer Quality):-
  9. In the showroom, I've seen some quite impressive picture quality from the Samsung 6 series, and even more impressive from the Samsung 9 series. What will your viewing distance be? In this year of the 3rd millennium, i would generally counsel against purchasing a 55" TV, regardless of how good its PQ might be, unless your viewing distance is quite restricted. I would suggest visiting a showroom and positioning yourself at your intended home viewing distance from each screen. The wow factor from a 55" screen is unlikely to compare with the effect of a 65" or 75" screen. A 65" or 75" screen will be closer to a cinema experience. We've been watching a lot of Netflix. We find that shows that are at standard definition (such as Merlin Series 3 at a mere 480p) look fine on a 65" screen. The picture is soft but there are no obvious encoding artefacts.
  10. Petetherock, in my opinion these sorts of modifications are most unlikely to improve the audible quality of the sound or the visible quality of the picture; and any slight differences as may arise from changing the oscillator crystal or power supply capacitors would likely be very hard to measure with test instruments. Personally I would trust that Oppo have incorporated a sufficiently stable oscillator, and a sufficiently provisioned power supply, and not bother for a moment to investigate what I consider to be grossly implausible claims made in relation to modifications. However, how you plan to "get through it's paces" intrigues me. May I ask, what comparison methodology were you planning to use?
  11. Well the higher end smartphone cameras can do 4K video at 30fps and mid-tier ones can do Full HD video. Low light performance has been improved. Stills may be able to be taken with an expanded dynamic range achieved by the phone camera automatically taking two or more photos in very quick succession at different exposures. And the phones are compact. You do get better performance with a mid-priced dedicated camera but you have to pay a substantial price, the thing is bulky, and there may be many dials and buttons to learn about, requiring quite a bit of time to get used to. I have a Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 which with a fairly basic zoom lens set me back almost $1k. There are certain times when I use this camera with fixed focus and fixed exposure to take video of musical performances and it does a very good job in that role. And there are times I use it to advantage outdoors for scenery stills (particularly with the zoom lens). However I find that even when I'm on a tour in a foreign country I'll often leave the dedicated camera in the hotel room, and use my smartphone instead! It is just so much easier to carry a smart phone around rather than a bulky camera. As an "oldy" I have more opportunities to use a dedicated camera, and I'm not on a tight budget as I was when younger. But even so, such a purchase can be a little hard to justify.
  12. I've only watched a handful of Australian Netflix 4K content titles. Can you give an example of a title that looked shite on your Samsung and I might try to check it out? (By the way, I only have access to Australian Netflix.) Yes it would have been expected that FTTC in the UK would have greater speeds in practice than ADSL, but for that expected outcome to be actually delivered it is necessary for the network infrastructure from the cabinet/node back through the network licensed to the ISP to have better capacity than ADSL both physically and in terms of allocated bitrate under the ISP's licence agreements with network providers for bulk access for the ISP's subscribers to the internet infrastructure. As you probably are aware, it has been suggested that in some circumstances in Australia slow nbn speeds are not explicable in terms of use of FTTN technology of copper wire for the last few hundred metres (what many people assume is the explanation), but rather in underprovisioning of the network capacity feeding the node. The ACCC investigation laurie referred to yesterday, involving volunteers agreeing to having their internet access speeds monitored, may lead to a better understanding of exactly why some people experience slow nbn speeds, and what can be done to improve their situation.
  13. That link is to a premium article on my browser, i.e. asks for a subscription. All I can see is what looks like a title and one sentence précis: Help catch NBN speed lies CONSUMER cops will recruit thousands of households to expose companies lying about NBN speeds. In the United Kingdom reports have been published by Ofcom. Here is a webpage of results for November 2015 involving "over 2000" volunteers: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/broadband-research/home-broadband-performance The results beginning at page 8 of the first pdf (https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/78267/fixed-bb-speeds-nov15-consumer-summary.pdf) are interesting. I note that "fibre to the cabinet" (FTTC) is what we call "fibre to the node" (FTTN) in Australia. FTTC appears to be giving much greater speeds than ADSL in the UK, based on the Nov 2015 Ofcom report. Edit: I see laurie you must be one of the few forum members to still have hidden edit privileges (i.e. the capacity to edit without "edited" appearing as a system generated message at the bottom of the post). I responded to your original post wording as still appears in the quote box. Thanks for editing your post to show the actual wording of the article!
  14. The Netflix "4K" content for relatively static scenes looks better to me than Blu-ray Full HD content for relatively static scenes. I sometimes feel startled by the clarity! So although inevitably not as good as very high bitrate "4K" it is a step up from Full HD Blu-ray for dramas, in my opinion. A similar situation arises when watching a drama on a free to air Full HD service with limited rate MPEG-4 video. It beats PAL DVD most of the time, but won't be as good as a Full HD Blu-ray disc. A reasonable amount of buffering seems to be used with the Netflix app on my android TV. In practice I find the Netflix app begins downloading at a very low video resolution such as 240p and increases to higher resolutions (such as 720p and 1440p) before selecting and settling on the 2160p version of a 4K title. I've found it may take 30 or 45 seconds to ramp up to the full 2160p when beginning to watch a 2160p title. There is somewhat similar behaviour if fast forwarding or rewinding a 2160p title a considerable distance and then recommencing play of the title; though I find it usually takes much less time to ramp up to 2160p after selecting play in these circumstances: 2160p may be attained within a few seconds. (The internet connection in use is Optus HFC with a download capability that varies from around 17Mbps during peak periods to around 28Mbps in off-peak periods).