criterionforum.org

I just put in a disc and the music is playing for the movie, but none of the dialogue is making sound if that makes any sense.

What player are you using? I had that problem with an Insignia once.

A Sony BDP-BX37 with HDMI cord. I put in another disc to test and it seems to be working fine, but the earlier doesn't work with the dialogue still not sounding.

Sounds like you're playing a 5.1 track incorrectly through stereo speakers (2.0), instead of getting a downmix of the entire 5.1 into 2.0.

The answer was even dumber than that. For reason my player automatically went to a soundtrack only track I was not aware was a part of the disc.

Hope this doesn't break any forum rules, but, a quick heads-up to anyone in London, UK (or nearby-ish) who wants their display professionally ISF calibrated: I've had enough requests to come down to the big smokey city with my Klein K-10 meter, test patterns and software. Would anyone else be potentially interested in having this done in October?

Calibration includes measuring and adjusting greyscale, colour hue/saturation/luminance levels, gamma, video processing stuff, making sure any deinterlacing/scaling devices are set up correctly, motion... everything. In other words, making sure you see the whole picture, the right picture, and nothing but the picture.

Shoot me a PM or post here if you're interested!

Not sure where to put this, but for those in need of a laugh, I heartily recommend YouTube user ThioJoe, who has been cultivating an impressive collection of subtly played comedy bits wherein he poses as the typical teen giving basic technical advice. The advice and "hacks" that he gives are hilariously nonsensical-- wrap wire around an ethernet cord to boost the speed of your internet, add RAM and hard drive space by inputting text prompts into your computer, use an egg beater to double your WiFi connection, &c-- but this young wag has cleverly adopted the droning authorial tone of actual tech "hackers" (the doubling the internet speed video even has an extended "math" section where he explains how "physics" prove him right), and his dry, barely perceptible delivery is a riot. Most viewers are so automatically accepting of the "prowess" of the average YouTuber that their incredulous and rude responses to his ridiculous solutions fill the comments section with outrage.

Do you need a 1080p LCD display to get the best a/v quality for blu? I'm looking into buying one of the LG flatscreens and the ones that fit into my budget are 720p. I'm not sure if the a/v will be as good although it'll be better than my current setup.

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:Do you need a 1080p LCD display to get the best a/v quality for blu?

Is that a serious question? If you want "the best a/v quality", you need a display capable of displaying the maximum resolution that Blu-ray is capable of delivering - so anything less than 1080p won't qualify.

I'm looking into buying one of the LG flatscreens and the ones that fit into my budget are 720p. I'm not sure if the a/v will be as good although it'll be better than my current setup.

A completely false economy as far as I'm concerned - you won't just be watching at a lower resolution, but you'll be watching superior images that have been downscaled, so there's every chance that the end result will actually look worse than a native 720p image might have done.

Personally, I wouldn't compromise at any less than 1080p and a true 24fps playback mode - though in fact those were practically my only core requirements.

MichaelB wrote:

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:Do you need a 1080p LCD display to get the best a/v quality for blu?

Is that a serious question? If you want "the best a/v quality", you need a display capable of displaying the maximum resolution that Blu-ray is capable of delivering - so anything less than 1080p won't qualify.

I'm looking into buying one of the LG flatscreens and the ones that fit into my budget are 720p. I'm not sure if the a/v will be as good although it'll be better than my current setup.

A completely false economy as far as I'm concerned - you won't just be watching at a lower resolution, but you'll be watching superior images that have been downscaled, so there's every chance that the end result will actually look worse than a native 720p image might have done.

Personally, I wouldn't compromise at any less than 1080p and a true 24fps playback mode - though in fact those were practically my only core requirements.

Agreed, I would certainly favor these two requirements over even screen size. I would also add that as an owner of an LCD screen, I am envious of plasma's black response.

Zot! wrote: Agreed, I would certainly favor these two requirements over even screen size. I would also add that as an owner of an LCD screen, I am envious of plasma's black response.

/24 is a nice to have, but by no means mandatory. Have had little/no issue with its absence on my 60" 1080p set. For me, decent black levels and uniform backlighting are much more important than /24. (Though my next set will have that too.)

fdm wrote:

Zot! wrote: Agreed, I would certainly favor these two requirements over even screen size. I would also add that as an owner of an LCD screen, I am envious of plasma's black response.

/24 is a nice to have, but by no means mandatory. Have had little/no issue with its absence on my 60" 1080p set. For me, decent black levels and uniform backlighting are much more important than /24. (Though my next set will have that too.)

Everybody has different uses for their displays, but anybody who wants their display to be a surrogate FILM screening room would want some refresh Hz multiple of 24. Is there any argument for pure 24hz only? I would expect that higher refresh rates would still be preferred.

MichaelB wrote:Personally, I wouldn't compromise at any less than 1080p and a true 24fps playback mode - though in fact those were practically my only core requirements.

It was a serious question; thanks for the serious answer! Are there any LCD models that you recommend?

Zot! wrote:
Everybody has different uses for their displays, but anybody who wants their display to be a surrogate FILM screening room would want some refresh Hz multiple of 24. Is there any argument for pure 24hz only? I would expect that higher refresh rates would still be preferred.

Unless someone can tell me different it shouldn't matter as long as it's a multiple of 24 since it would just repeat the frames an equal amount of time and would happen so fast you wouldn't notice. I think something like 120 or 240 would be ideal if only because they would be able to handle 60hz as well without having to insert a repeated "frame" (so to speak) every so often.

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:

MichaelB wrote:Personally, I wouldn't compromise at any less than 1080p and a true 24fps playback mode - though in fact those were practically my only core requirements.

It was a serious question; thanks for the serious answer! Are there any LCD models that you recommend?

Any reason you're going for LCD over Plasma?

There are some applications where LCD is the better choice, otherwise Plasma still produces better quality. What kind of room are you using this in?

Shameless self promotion (UK based site, but the models are similar): http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Everybody has different uses for their displays, but anybody who wants their display to be a surrogate FILM screening room would want some refresh Hz multiple of 24. Is there any argument for pure 24hz only? I would expect that higher refresh rates would still be preferred.

It depends on the display technology.

With Plasma, it's basically a juggling act between screen brightness, perceived motion resolution, gradation quality (lack of panel generated dither noise in the image), visible flicker, and some other factors.

Most current PDPs are outputting 24hz at 96hz (x4). Pioneer's had the option to switch refresh rates.

Right now it's LCD over plasma due to budget. I just watch movies in my study at home (which is where I'd like to put the new set up) or in a medium-sized living room (my current set up which is a regular television). I just need to look at what models are available now or wait until early next year.

I ultimately went for LED (LCD) for two big reasons: small apartment with big windows that get a lot of light (curtains don't do a thing) and two roommates who watch a lot of TV and don't always turn it off in a timely manner when they're pausing a Netflix stream. Otherwise, if burn-in wasn't much of a risk and I was in a house with rooms that actually get dim in the daytime, I would've gone with the plasma.

hearthesilence wrote:I ultimately went for LED (LCD) for two big reasons: small apartment with big windows that get a lot of light (curtains don't do a thing) and two roommates who watch a lot of TV and don't always turn it off in a timely manner when they're pausing a Netflix stream. Otherwise, if burn-in wasn't much of a risk and I was in a house with rooms that actually get dim in the daytime, I would've gone with the plasma.

I was under the impression LED is generally considered "best" quality, was I wrong? Is Plasma really that great? I have an LED and am very happy with it, so just curious really.

LED LCD is generally the poorest quality compared to good backlit LCD and Plasma. There are some decent ones, but none of them match Plasma. "LED TV" (LCDs with LED lighting) is one of the biggest promotional successes the AV industry ever pulled off.

Plasma displays have these advantages over LCD, and LED LCD:
* doesn't work with polarized light, so the picture looks basically the same from any angle
* for the same reason, there are generally fewer or no screen uniformity issues. The sides of the image aren't brighter or darker than the middle.
* it's a self-emissive display which doesn't need a backlight to illuminate the screen. So, blacks can be black; LED LCD tends to give a dark purple glow.
* It's an impulse display so the motion resolution is much better. Generally that isn't an issue for 24fps movies because the frame rate is too low to reveal motion blur problems on LCD.

By contrast, the LCD is a sample-and-hold display. The pixels only change when they have to. On PDP and other impulse displays, the entire screen is refreshed after one cycle, and the PDP actually emits no picture at all for a fraction of a second. That gives the image a much better sense of perceived depth.

The difference is similar to watching a 35mm film projector with a shutter, vs digital projection (which is usually LCD-based).

The down sides:
* image retention of TV channel logos. It's annoying, but for me not really a problem. Put it this way, even if my plasma display gets temporary image retention, the screen uniformity is still better than an LCD that's "working properly". Note that image retention IS NOT BURN. IR is temporary.
* They can't go as bright and need antireflective screen coatings for bright environments. LCD is a better choice for light-filled rooms.
* The power consumption is higher than LED LCD, but PDP can still be considered eco friendly. They're not as efficient as LED LCDs but they're not juice guzzlers, either.

I ultimately went for LED (LCD) for two big reasons: small apartment with big windows that get a lot of light (curtains don't do a thing) and two roommates who watch a lot of TV and don't always turn it off in a timely manner when they're pausing a Netflix stream. Otherwise, if burn-in wasn't much of a risk and I was in a house with rooms that actually get dim in the daytime, I would've gone with the plasma.

Burn in (permanent damage of the phosphor material) isn't an issue any more. You would have to work seriously hard to permanently burn a modern plasma, I think - including defeating the built in screen savers, etc.

Image retention (which is a temporary phenomenon which looks the same as burn in, but goes away - but is understandably enough to scare the crap out of first-time plasma users) is still an issue with some displays, but the 60"+ Samsung plasmas are nearly entirely resistant to it.

IMO, avoiding Plasma because of image retention is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Given the multitude of problems with LED LCD, it doesn't seem like a big deal in comparison. People are absolutely petrified of this. I understand that it freaks people out, but it's nothing like as big a deal as most people seem to think it is.

Drucker wrote:I was under the impression LED is generally considered "best" quality, was I wrong? Is Plasma really that great? I have an LED and am very happy with it, so just curious really.

I compared plasma vs LCD pretty extensively back in 2009 and I think the observations still hold. Plasma does black gradations better and is capable or a "truer" black; LCD is more a dark grey. Plasma handles digital artifacts better, particularity if you a watching at some distance (6-10 feet or more). Noise, macroblocking and the like are less objectionable (admittedly this is comparing a 50" plasma to a 24" iMac).

Heartthesilence is correct, though, about ambient light. Plasma is the choice if you can reasonably control the room light levels but it looks pretty washed out in high light. The only two windows in the room face south and in the dead of winter with all the foliage down from the trees, daytime viewing is pretty much a non-starter on bright, clear, sunny days, even with shades. It would take heavy window covering (something like these) to make a go of it.

Plus what David M said.

LCD is definitely the best compromise for very bright rooms.

But don't think Plasma is only for totally darkened, treated home theaters. The antireflective screen coatings on the newer ones can work wonders.

The reason people have been hoodwinked into thinking LED LCD is the newest and best tech (other than the CE industry's misinformation) is bright store environments.

Plasma tends to look crap in a store because of the intensely bright light which washes out the picture. In an actual home environment (even the brightest of which are many times darker than a storeroom), plasma almost always looks better.

David M. wrote:LCD is definitely the best compromise for very bright rooms.

But don't think Plasma is only for totally darkened, treated home theaters. The antireflective screen coatings on the newer ones can work wonders.

The reason people have been hoodwinked into thinking LED LCD is the newest and best tech (other than the CE industry's misinformation) is bright store environments.

Plasma tends to look crap in a store because of the intensely bright light which washes out the picture. In an actual home environment (even the brightest of which are many times darker than a storeroom), plasma almost always looks better.

In 2009 when I bought the Panny, backlit LCD options were few and expensive. And there was, as you say, no contest between LED LCD and the plasma. The compromise is that we don't watch movies on weekend afternoons for a few months if it's sunny. Could not stand those funereal drapes in the upstairs den. [-X

David M. wrote:IMO, avoiding Plasma because of image retention is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Given the multitude of problems with LED LCD, it doesn't seem like a big deal in comparison. People are absolutely petrified of this. I understand that it freaks people out, but it's nothing like as big a deal as most people seem to think it is.

In my experience, if you've had a very long-lasting static element (e.g. side bars on a 1.33 film, incessant logo) up on the screen, you'll see the trace of it afterwards for a little while, but it's only noticeable if the next thing you watch is very, very dark. As soon as you get a bright, screen-filling image, it's washed away completely. If the image retention really irks you, it's easy enough to throw something bright up there for a few seconds to get rid of it. My Plasma is several years old now, and the new models probably deal with the issue even better, but I was surprised by just how minor an issue this turned out to be.

Who makes the most reliable plasma displays?