Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: drinkanddestroy on February 22, 2012, 01:54:13 AM

Title: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 22, 2012, 01:54:13 AM
So I am (finally!) thinking about purchasing a blu-ray player.

I am more than happy to spend the $, considering that I have seen blu-ray players online for very cheap (as little as $70 or so). But I have heard that the difference in picture quality is generally more noticeable when you're watching the movie on a larger tv, and my tv is on the smaller side -- 22 inches.

So I am just wondering:

a) Will I see a very noticeable difference between the picture quality of a dvd vs. the picture quality of a blu-ray disc, making it worthwhile for me to buy the blu-ray player?


b) IF you do think I should buy the blu-ray player, do you recommend that i spend more on a specific brand(s), or will the quality be pretty much the same even if I buy a cheaper brand, considering the size of my tv?

I see Best Buy is offering a Sony and a Samsung for $80... would that be fine?

c) should I buy one that is region-free? (I'm generally not that into foreign movies and don't imagine really needing a region free player -- but I am thinking about it now cuz when reading about the upcoming release of the extended version of OUATIA, I see it says that Leone's kids have bought "the Italian rights" to the film -- so I am wondering if that means it will not be released on Region 1).

Thanks!  :)
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 22, 2012, 06:01:30 AM
a) Will I see a very noticeable difference between the picture quality of a dvd vs. the picture quality of a blu-ray disc, making it worthwhile for me to buy the blu-ray player?
If all you're doing is getting a player, and not upgrading your display, then the answer is proabably No. Most pre-HD screens couldn't take advantage of all the informantion on DVDs, never mind BR discs. Improved picture quality is a function of both signal output AND a compatible display (1080p is best, but if you have to settle for a smaller screen--under 42"--you'll probably find that 720p is adequate).

Here's the good news. With a new screen and a player that upscales your DVDs, you'll notice a huge improvement even in the playback of your DVDs. My DVD collection is, of course, much more substantial than my BR one, so I spend most of my viewing time watching DVDs played through my BR player. I'm constantly amazed by what I see. In some cases, I don't worry about upgrading discs, because the DVDs already look so good.


Happy shopping!
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 23, 2012, 05:56:01 PM
so is it worth getting a blu ray player for a 22-inch hdtv? or is that size screen too small for me to see a difference vs. a dvd?
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 24, 2012, 03:36:58 AM
It used to be said that 28" was the minimum size of screen to notice any significant differences.

However my computer screen is 19" and I can certainly notice a difference if I play a 1920 x 1080 video clip on it compared to one of a lower resolution.

Has your TV got an HDMI input and what resolutions can it handle?  Blu-ray players are getting so cheap it's hardly worth think deeply about. Some Blu-rays have facilities and features not found on DVDs, the regional coding system is voluntary and many Blu-rays are not region locked.  Of course you may in the future get a large screen TV.

Happy shopping.



This is my tv http://www.walmart.com/ip/Sony-KDL22BX300/13812459 (SONY 22"LCD  720p HDTV 60Hz). It has an HDMI input.

I see Best Buy has blu ray players (eg. SONY, SAMSUNG, TOSHIBA) for about $80 http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=pcat17071&type=page&initialize=false&sp=&nrp=15&iht=y&list=n&sc=Global&st=blu+ray+player&usc=All+Categories&ks=960&prids=&cp=2&qp=&_requestid=70783

So assuming that I will be using my current tv for the foreseeable future, do you think that if I buy the blu ray player and start using blu ray discs instead of dvd's, I will see a real improvement in the picture quality?

Thanks  O0
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 24, 2012, 07:30:12 AM
It used to be said that 28" was the minimum size of screen to notice any significant differences.

However my computer screen is 19" and I can certainly notice a difference if I play a 1920 x 1080 video clip on it compared to one of a lower resolution.
Good point, although, with computer screens, you're usually sitting pretty close. Another variable is how close you are willing to sit to your screen. The further you want to be able to sit away, the larger the screen you'll need to notice improved resolution.
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 06, 2012, 08:03:00 PM
alright, I have decided that I am indeed going to buy a blu ray player; I am going to get one of these 5 that I have linked to below. Each has its features listed on  its page; please lemme know which is the best (I am technologically ignorant so I don't know the difference, but I'm hoping you geniuses will be able to understand which has the best features and lemme know  :) ).  But Please only consider which is best for playing blu ray DISCS; don't consider the wifi capabilities, as I do not plan on using the player for it for any wifi stuff.


 THANKS SO MUCH!  O0


1) SAMSUNG: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Samsung+-+Blu-ray+Player/2965171.p?id=1218368053173&skuId=2965171&st=blu%20ray%20player&cp=1&lp=14


2) SONY: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Sony+-+Blu-ray+Player/3590113.p?id=1218420286847&skuId=3590113&st=blu%20ray%20player&cp=2&lp=1


3) TOSHIBA: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Toshiba+-+Wi-Fi+Ready+Blu-ray+Player/2945870.p?id=1218380598546&skuId=2945870&st=blu%20ray%20player&cp=2&lp=4


4) DYNEX: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Dynex%26%23153%3B+-+Wi-Fi+Built-in+Blu-ray+Player/2333036.p?id=1218322059018&skuId=2333036&st=blu%20ray%20player&cp=2&lp=6

5) LG: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/LG+-+Blu-ray+Player/4833486.p?skuId=4833486&id=1218551143311

(btw, my tv is 720, and some of these blu ray players say they have 1080 output, but I guess that just means that my tv will not be able to provide the full quality offered by the blu ray player, but it won't hurt it, right?)
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 08, 2012, 05:13:50 AM
Sometimes the Blu-ray discs remind you to update your machine to make use of all the features on the disc but none of my machines have ever prompted me. My personal view is that some of these features are not worth having and just slow down the loading of discs. 

I usually check once every 6 months or so to see if I need an update.



i only plan on using the blu ray player for watching discs, not for anything related to the internet (like streaming services). So is it still necessary to install the updates when prompted, or should i not even bother?

Thanks!
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 24, 2012, 11:35:29 PM
Fuck this new "energy saving" shit.

If I am playing the disc and then decide to pause it, once it is paused for about 5 minutes or so (I never timed it exactly), it shuts off and I have to start it up again. Fucking new "energy efficiency" nonsense. (Since I frequently pause movies for long periods of time) and considering that I therefore have to continuously start it up again from scratch, it probably ends up using more energy cuz starting it up probably uses more than when it is playing or on pause. Unfuckingbelievable. I know some Green idiots believe Energy Saving is always good in all circumstances all the time, but shouldn't they give us  the option to remove the energy saving nonsense? I can't say I've looked through the menu 100%, but I have not seen that option yet. I am just gonna return this SONY and exchange it for a SAMSUNG that is the same price and is not "energy star qualified"

It is unfuckingbelievable how, despite all the advances in technology, much we have regressed so much due to self-inflicted bullshit by the Green idiots. In this case, his "energy star" thing on the blu ray player is most likely a feature put on there by SONY and not a regulation, but this is part of the same Green bullshit.

I am so pissed off because -- this may seem like a whole different subject, but it's all related -- ust got a new washing machine, and it doesn't even fill with water when rinsing: some new regulation bullshit. needless to say, this stuff usually has the opposite effect: i often end up using an extra rinse cuz one rinse is not enuf cuz the water is so low, just as i flush the topilet more frequently cuz the water level is so much lower, by congressional mandate, so I end up using more water than I would if the market would be allowed to decide water levels, rather than politicians. Just as I use more energy with this Energy Saver cuz I click to play/pause more often to make sure the "pause timer" starts later.

Since when does winning an election mean our toilets and washing machines and light bulbs and electronics and cars is your business? Can't you stick to your constitutionally-mandated powers and leave us alone to run our own lives in regard to everything else?

I often pause movies for long periods (eg. to post something about it on this board). Now, when I do so, every couple of minutes I make sure to click Play and then re-pause it, to re-start the "pause timer" so that it won't shut off so soon.

sorry for the rant... This issue (just in case you couldn't tell) infuriates me as almost no other  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

 ;)  ;) ;) ;)

anyway, I am just gonna switch this SONY for a new SAMSUNG that costs the same and doesn't have the energy star crap -- so watching a movie will be fun rather than agitating  ;) ;)
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: stanton on March 25, 2012, 02:01:46 AM
That's strange.

My old DVD Player memorizes the last 10 DVDs and starts them at the same point where I stopped them. Even weeks later.
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 25, 2012, 02:12:35 AM
this is the SONY  that I currently have http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Samsung+-+Blu-ray+Player/2965171.p?id=1218368053173&skuId=2965171&st=blu%20ray%20player&cp=1&lp=14

and I am gonna exchange it for this SAMSUNG http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Samsung+-+Blu-ray+Player/2965171.p?id=1218368053173&skuId=2965171&st=blu%20ray%20player&cp=1&lp=14

unless there is some particular reason why anyone can tell me the features on the SONY are really better (I only use the BRP fopr playing discs, so son't consider any of the other features like playing movies in other formats, or internet connectivity etc.)

I assume the two are basically the same, except that the SONY is Energy Star Qualified and the SAMSUNG is not. so i am gonna switch it.

on my dvd player (which is also a SAMSUNG, btw), once it's paused for about 5 minutes, it starts playing again automatically -- slightly annoying, but it's no big deal, cuz when i walki back into the room and see it playing, i just rewind to the spot where i had stopped watching. alternatively, instead of hitting Pause, i can just hut Stop, and then begin watching it in the same spot.

But on this SONY BRP, when I click STOP, I cannot then click PLay and co stopping it and continue watching it in the same spot; rather, once I click Stop, and then I click Play again, it brings me back to the main menu , ie. the one with the options of "PLAY, CHAPTERS, SPECIAL FEATURES," etc. so once I click Stop, when I wanna re-start I have to go back to the beginning of the movie, and then forward it to the spot where I was.

I can't say for 100% sure whether or not that has anything to do with the Energy Star stuff or not, and  whether or not the SAMSUNG works the same way. But I figure it can't hurt to exchange it and hope the SAMSUNG is indeed better
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: cigar joe on March 25, 2012, 02:52:08 AM
Can they demonstrate the Samsung to you before you do the switch so you can make sure.
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 25, 2012, 04:18:45 AM
Can they demonstrate the Samsung to you before you do the switch so you can make sure.

good point, cj. Thanks for the suggestion  O0
I ordered the SONY online (through Best Buy) but I think I am gonna make this exchange in the store -- there is a Best Buy half a mile from me --  so that there are (hopefully!) no surprises.

Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 25, 2012, 06:54:56 AM
Weird -- after the disc went into standby mode yet again after too long a pause, I decided to hit the "Pop Up/Menu" button on the remote, and the disc started playing again! (But if I hit "Play," nothing happened). So maybe, after all, the discs do play even after a long pause: just not  by hitting "Play." Weird shit, I'll have to test it out on some other discs first. (This one was a Universal disc, and in various ways worked differently than other discs; heck, it opened with a standard message about how since Blu Ray is a nre format, not every feature works with every disc, etc. So maybe I just gotta try out a few discs and see whether it ain't such a problem after all....

p.s. whether or not this BRP issue really is an issue, I fully stand by my previous rant about gov't-mandated "energy efficiency." It's a sad state of affairs  >:(
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 28, 2012, 08:36:44 PM
I wanna put some blu-ray discs in my Netflix queue... can you recommend some great blu rays?
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 29, 2012, 05:26:41 AM
The Comancheros (1961) looks superb on Blu.
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 29, 2012, 06:39:00 AM
The Comancheros (1961) looks superb on Blu.

Thanks!

I recently saw GBU on blu-ray; it's the first Leone movie I have ever seen on blu-ray. I thought the picture quality was absolutely stunning.
But I see some people here are upset that they completely got rid of all the grain.

What do you think about that?

To me, grain is never a good thing.  I guess that since people associate old movies with grain, maybe they feel that it doesn't have that 1960's feel without it? Kind of like, it would have been better if pictures never had grain, but once they did, it just feels out of place to come along 40 years later and remove the grain from a picture that had grain for 40 years?

I don't know, but the way I see it, the more beautiful and perfect the picture quality, the better; and therefore less grain the better, and zero grain is best.

Maybe it's just a generational difference, in that I don't remember the time when everything had grain, so to me, it's always better if grain can be eliminated; but for those who do remember that time, removing grain almost feels as heretical as colorizing  a black n' white movies?
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 29, 2012, 09:17:51 AM
My general rule-of-thumb: older titles should look as film-like as possible. I want to experience a film close to the way it was presented theatrically. Of course, back in the day you could go to a showing and see a very battered print, so I'm happy to view images that may be substantially cleaner than the way they were shown once upon a time. I also like the option of being able to have augmented or "improved" sound with an older film (this can do some very nice things to film scores), but only if I'm still able to select something resembling the way the sound was originally heard. Grain should be present, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it shouldn't be softened in some cases. Certain film stocks didn't do well under low-light conditions, and if modern filtering techniques can improve clarity in those cases, I'm in favor of their use. These things have to be decided case-by-case, but generally I'd like to have films with a uniform layer of grain from shot to shot. I'm also against adding machine noise to films to simulate grain.
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 29, 2012, 03:50:49 PM
well from what I understand, they used noise reduction to eliminate grain from the GBU blu ray: once (the board member named once) told me that, though I have no clue what that means    ;)

btw, I just bought the original GBU dvd (with the 2:41 version, and the extra 16 minutes as a special feature in Italian with English subtitles) now; I have never yet seen anything other than the full 2:57, and I wanted to check out that 2:41 version which I know some long-time fans prefer.

Anyway, I just started watching the first few minutes, ie. the opening credits, and I noticed that at least during those few minutes, the quality of the tape is horrible. Looks like it is terribly damaged,  full of flickering white spots, etc. I don't know if the rest of the movie is like the 3 minutes of the opening credits, but at least for those 3 minutes it looks like the dvd was a straight transfer of an awful original tape with no attempt at re-mastering or whatever. MGM obviously did an amazing job with the quality of the Special edition re-release  O0
(though you can argue that they were wrong to include the Tuco-in-the-cave scene  as part of the movie rather than a deleted scene; apparently, it showed in the original screening in Rome but Leone himself removed it before the wide release in Italy. as Frayling said in the commentary on the blu ray, while that scene may make "completists" happy, it slows down the action and is really unnecessary.... I do agree with those of you here who have argued that none of the deleted scenes are essential, with the exception of the scene with Angel Eyes visiting the Confederate fort; I have no idea how the hell they ever left that out, and what y'all who saw the original thought, when Angel Eyes just happens to show up as the head of the POW camp that Bill Carson is at..... Oh, and I also saw some complaints about the changing of gunshots, which I think MGM felt was necessary cuz the old gunshots would not have fit with the new sound of the re-mastered movie; but that means nothing at all to a city slicker who never touched a gun and couldn't tell the difference between the sound of a derringer and that of a Winchester  ;) )

Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: moviesceleton on March 31, 2012, 01:48:16 PM
Thanks!

I recently saw GBU on blu-ray; it's the first Leone movie I have ever seen on blu-ray. I thought the picture quality was absolutely stunning.
But I see some people here are upset that they completely got rid of all the grain.

What do you think about that?

To me, grain is never a good thing.  I guess that since people associate old movies with grain, maybe they feel that it doesn't have that 1960's feel without it? Kind of like, it would have been better if pictures never had grain, but once they did, it just feels out of place to come along 40 years later and remove the grain from a picture that had grain for 40 years?

I don't know, but the way I see it, the more beautiful and perfect the picture quality, the better; and therefore less grain the better, and zero grain is best.

Maybe it's just a generational difference, in that I don't remember the time when everything had grain, so to me, it's always better if grain can be eliminated; but for those who do remember that time, removing grain almost feels as heretical as colorizing  a black n' white movies?
Some films I just can't imagine without grain. On the Waterfront without grain, anyone?

IMO, DVDs and BluRays should resemble the original film copies as closely as possible (in pristine conditions).
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 31, 2012, 06:10:22 PM
well from what I understand, color movies in the 50's and 60's were of a much poorer quality than we see those movies in today on dvd, right?

sometimes I will be watching a dvd of a color movie from eg. the 50's, and the picture looks beautiful. And in the special features, they show the original trailer, and the picture quality of that looks terrible. So obviously they re-mastered the picture for the dvd, but felt it was unnecessary to re-master the trailer, and just showed it as is, in the special features.

Now, I have a question for you: Is that much poorer picture quality a result of the film eroding over the years, or is that how the film actually looked in the 50's? Perhaps it's some combination of both, but my point is that picture quality of color movies in the 50's wasn't anything close to how sharp it is when we see the movie on dvd now, after it has all been re-mastered. So if you want picture to be as close as possible to its original theatrical showing, why don't you have a problem with re-mastering? i can't believe that you really want the picture quality to be as bad as it was sin the 50's. On the other hand, you want some authenticity, so you want some grain.

So my question is, where do you draw the line? Till what point do you insist on authenticity, and at what point do you say, let's use all available technology to make this picture the sharpest it can possibly be (which the filmmakers themselves would have done when the movie was released, had the technology been available; I don't think any of them WANTED grain in their pictures, if they had the ability to remove it)
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 31, 2012, 06:25:54 PM
so I just saw The French Connection for the first time, on blu ray.

There is an introduction with the director, he says (paraphrasing) that the blu ray version represents the best possible picture the way he wanted it and he loves it and considers it the best version.

But i was reading on wikipedia that apparently the blu ray version changes a lot from the original picture, and this was controversial, and the cinematographer hates it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_French_Connection_%28film%29#Home_video

Has anyone seen both versions? What can you tell me about the comparison? Is the blu ray really that bad? (If I get the urge to see the movie again, should I watch it on dvd instead?)

p.s. I was delighted to discover that the famous car/train chase was filmed just a few blocks from my house;  I take that train all the time! (It's the elevated train originally known as the West End Line; it used to be the B Train; currently it's the D train. The interior of the subway cars look very different  than they did in 1971; now, they use R68 cars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R68_%28New_York_City_Subway_car%29 )

p.p.s. That SONY blu ray player was giving me serious problems, so I exchanged it for this SAMSUNG http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Samsung+-+Blu-ray+Player/2965171.p?id=1218368053173&skuId=2965171&st=blu%20ray%20player&cp=1&lp=14 so far, so good  :)
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: stanton on April 01, 2012, 04:10:43 AM
well from what I understand, color movies in the 50's and 60's were of a much poorer quality than we see those movies in today on dvd, right?

sometimes I will be watching a dvd of a color movie from eg. the 50's, and the picture looks beautiful. And in the special features, they show the original trailer, and the picture quality of that looks terrible. So obviously they re-mastered the picture for the dvd, but felt it was unnecessary to re-master the trailer, and just showed it as is, in the special features.

Now, I have a question for you: Is that much poorer picture quality a result of the film eroding over the years, or is that how the film actually looked in the 50's?

A result of the film eroding. Every film starts to lose immediately after it was shot its quality. When David Fincher prepared Se7en for the first DVD release he said he was shocked how bad the original negative already looked after only a few years.

Quote
Perhaps it's some combination of both, but my point is that picture quality of color movies in the 50's wasn't anything close to how sharp it is when we see the movie on dvd now, after it has all been re-mastered. So if you want picture to be as close as possible to its original theatrical showing, why don't you have a problem with re-mastering? i can't believe that you really want the picture quality to be as bad as it was sin the 50's. On the other hand, you want some authenticity, so you want some grain.

So my question is, where do you draw the line? Till what point do you insist on authenticity, and at what point do you say, let's use all available technology to make this picture the sharpest it can possibly be (which the filmmakers themselves would have done when the movie was released, had the technology been available; I don't think any of them WANTED grain in their pictures, if they had the ability to remove it)

The picture quality of 35 mm film isn't now much better than it was in the 50s (as far as I know). Grain is on every 35 mm film, be it from the silent days, be it from nowadays, a natural part of the picture. If you can see it is only a matter how big you watch it. If you sit in a theatre in the last row you won't notice the grain. (I always sit very near to the screen)
Many say without the grain the images look less lively. I'm pretty sure if you ask directors and photographers if they want grain on their film or not, they opt for the grain on the DVDs and Blus. The grain gives the film a volitional structure.

The idea of the remastering is to make older films look like they looked back in the days they were made. That they look like they were intended to look. But even if the people who made them are still alive and are working on the remastering there is always a certain range for interpretation how they actually looked back then.
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: cigar joe on April 01, 2012, 05:36:45 AM
One other factor that even today on the rare times I go to a theater is that the film on the screen in the theater isn't any way as bright as on a TV screen, I've gotten spoiled, but it could be the theaters not projecting with the right intensity of light.
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 01, 2012, 05:18:06 PM
so I just saw The French Connection for the first time, on blu ray.

There is an introduction with the director, he says (paraphrasing) that the blu ray version represents the best possible picture the way he wanted it and he loves it and considers it the best version.

But i was reading on wikipedia that apparently the blu ray version changes a lot from the original picture, and this was controversial, and the cinematographer hates it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_French_Connection_%28film%29#Home_video

Has anyone seen both versions? What can you tell me about the comparison? Is the blu ray really that bad? (If I get the urge to see the movie again, should I watch it on dvd instead?)
Dude, you need to watch it on the new and improved Blu-ray that just came out 2 weeks ago and is currently a Best Buy exclusive. This new one is director AND cinematographer approved. It looks a whole lot better than the old version and is worth the cost and effort to obtain.
Title: Re: I Need Help deciding About a Blu-Ray Player :-)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 11, 2012, 06:07:13 PM
So, I finally did it! I upgraded my view -- I just bought this 32" inch LG HDTV http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-32LV2400-led-tv
It's a beauty!

One thing that is ridiculous about the tv --  the speakers are in back of the monitor, so all the sound floats away through the back and is awful. I had to keep it at nearly max volume in order to hear anything. But I just connected it to my Bose speakers 9which I originally bought for my laptop) and now, the sound is just as beautiful as the picture  :)


UPDATE: The sound was so bad I was thinking of returning the tv -- until my friend told me to use speakers (previously, I'd only connected speakers to my laptop, but never to a tv). I connected the speakers and all is beautiful  :)
Title: Re: Technical Discussion/Q&A Thread:(electronics,BR&dvd players,discs,tv's,etc.)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 11, 2012, 07:09:35 PM
NOTE: This topic used to be called "I Need Help Deciding About a Blu-Ray Player:-)," cuz I initially started this thread cuz I needed advice about a Blu Ray Player. But it has evolved into a much more broad discussion about things like disc quality, whether old movies should have grain, tv's, etc., and I figure that this thread can serve a continuing purpose: Any time anyone needs any sort of  "device advice," or wants to discuss any other technical/electronic-related issue, here is the place.

Therefore, I am changing the name of the thread now to "Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News"
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Q&A Thread:(tv's,blu ray players,discs, etc.)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 25, 2012, 02:45:51 AM
Is there any risk of a DVD/BR Disc getting scratched if it's left in the player for an extended period of time either on Pause; on Stop; or when the player is powered Off?
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Q&A Thread:(tv's,blu ray players,discs, etc.)
Post by: stanton on July 25, 2012, 04:30:04 AM
No
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Q&A Thread:(tv's,blu ray players,discs, etc.)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 25, 2012, 04:36:45 AM
No

Thanks, so I can pause it for an hour no problem?

the reason I ask is cuz sometimes with music cd's, you see circular  lines around the disc that were obviously made by the laser as the disc spun around. I always wondered what those lines were caused by -- was it from extended pausing? Are they scratches or harmful in any way?

(I once accidentally left my friend's copy of Metallica's cd "Kill 'em All" -- that's the one with the song "Seek and Destroy"  ;) -- in my cd player on pause, and then left my house to go to the park and play football, and came back 8 hours later, and it was still spinning on pause! I told him to let me know if he had any problems; but Thank God he never did :)
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Q&A Thread:(tv's,blu ray players,discs, etc.)
Post by: moviesceleton on July 25, 2012, 11:05:43 AM
I've never noticed that those circular lines were made by extended pausing, but (for some odd reason) some CDs have lines in between of songs, in the same style as on vinyl records.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Q&A Thread:(tv's,blu ray players,discs, etc.)
Post by: stanton on July 25, 2012, 01:36:14 PM


(I once accidentally left my friend's copy of Metallica's cd "Kill 'em All" -- that's the one with the song "Seek and Destroy"  ;) -- in my cd player on pause, and then left my house to go to the park and play football, and came back 8 hours later, and it was still spinning on pause! I told him to let me know if he had any problems; but Thank God he never did :)

Probably not good for the player, but ti shouldn't be a problem for the CD/DVD as the laser does not touch the disc.

I rarely use the pause button. It wasn't good for VHS cassettes and maybe I'm still used to it even if it is not a problem for DVDs.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News and Q&A
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 03, 2013, 09:11:17 PM
there's been speculation for a while that Apple will be releasing a TV; according to a tech/financial analyst named Brian White, "who has reported accurate details about unannounced Apple products in the past," it is finally coming, at the end of 2013.
 It is expected to be 50-60 inches, and cost $1,500 - $2,500. The tv -- which will of course be called the iTV -- will also come with some "mini TV's" that are 9.7 inches (same size as an iPad, but they will not be a replacement for the iPad), and many of the remote functions will be replaced by a ring device worn around the viewers's finger, called an iRing.

Finally, there have also been rumors of a new Apple wristwatch product called an iWatch that may replace some functions of the iPhone and iPad; the same analyst says that not only will the iRing interact with the iTV, but so will the the iWatch

Here are two articles on the iTV:

http://bgr.com/2013/04/03/apple-itv-release-date-topeka-412049/?utm_source=b-yahoo-orig_pub&utm_medium=feed


http://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2013/04/03/analyst-60-inch-apple-itv-to-launch-this-year


and here are two of the many articles that have recently appeared about the rumored iWatch

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-04/apple-s-planned-iwatch-could-be-more-profitable-than-tv.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57572404-37/an-anxious-planet-awaits-apples-iwatch-or-iwhatever/

As always, Apple refuses to comment on any of this; the company is known to be secretive about upcoming products until they are about to be launched.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News and Q&A Thread
Post by: noodles_leone on November 26, 2013, 03:46:13 PM
there's been speculation for a while that Apple will be releasing a TV; according to a tech/financial analyst named Brian White, "who has reported accurate details about unannounced Apple products in the past," it is finally coming, at the end of 2013.
 It is expected to be 50-60 inches, and cost $1,500 - $2,500. The tv -- which will of course be called the iTV -- will also come with some "mini TV's" that are 9.7 inches (same size as an iPad, but they will not be a replacement for the iPad), and many of the remote functions will be replaced by a ring device worn around the viewers's finger, called an iRing.

Finally, there have also been rumors of a new Apple wristwatch product called an iWatch that may replace some functions of the iPhone and iPad; the same analyst says that not only will the iRing interact with the iTV, but so will the the iWatch

Here are two articles on the iTV:

http://bgr.com/2013/04/03/apple-itv-release-date-topeka-412049/?utm_source=b-yahoo-orig_pub&utm_medium=feed


http://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2013/04/03/analyst-60-inch-apple-itv-to-launch-this-year


and here are two of the many articles that have recently appeared about the rumored iWatch

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-04/apple-s-planned-iwatch-could-be-more-profitable-than-tv.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57572404-37/an-anxious-planet-awaits-apples-iwatch-or-iwhatever/

As always, Apple refuses to comment on any of this; the company is known to be secretive about upcoming products until they are about to be launched.

No iTV or iWatch before 2014. We've been earing about them since before Job's death, but nothing very concrete so far. Tim Cooks talked about new categories of products coming in the next few years so the best guess would be to expect something in 2014. Also, Samsung just launched its own iWatch and it's satisfying most owners (although I don't see that product gaining popular traction as is) so Apple shouldn't be too long now. Last, Apple did update many of its products since this summer (iPad, iPad Mini, the whole iPod line, 2 iPhones, MacBooks...) but didn't do anything about its Apple TV. It could mean than the iTV is really around the corner.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 28, 2013, 06:17:14 AM
No iTV or iWatch before 2014. We've been earing about them since before Job's death, but nothing very concrete so far. Tim Cooks talked about new categories of products coming in the next few years so the best guess would be to expect something in 2014. Also, Samsung just launched its own iWatch and it's satisfying most owners (although I don't see that product gaining popular traction as is) so Apple shouldn't be too long now. Last, Apple did update many of its products since this summer (iPad, iPad Mini, the whole iPod line, 2 iPhones, MacBooks...) but didn't do anything about its Apple TV. It could mean than the iTV is really around the corner.

I would be more interested in a watch that can substitute for a phone (just calls and texts) rather than be an accessory to the phone. So you have to have the phone in your pocket and then wear the watch. If there's a watch that would allow you to leave your phone at home, that could be useful. For example, say you're going jogging or playing ball and don't wanna have the phone jumping around in your pocket but are expecting an important call, you could just wear the watch. And if they could make it an iPod as well, that would be awesome.

Everyone is concerned about the fact that Apple hasn't released any new products since Jobs died. The stock has gone way down (although Apple's market capitalization is still highest of any company in the world). Can Apple remain a major force in the tech world by simply issuing new versions of its gadgets rather than inventing new ones? Samsung's made it pretty far just by doing that...
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News and Q&A Thread
Post by: noodles_leone on November 28, 2013, 08:54:34 AM
I would be more interested in a watch that can substitute for a phone (just calls and texts) rather than be an accessory to the phone. So you have to have the phone in your pocket and then wear the watch. If there's a watch that would allow you to leave your phone at home, that could be useful. For example, say you're going jogging or playing ball and don't wanna have the phone jumping around in your pocket but are expecting an important call, you could just wear the watch. And if they could make it an iPod as well, that would be awesome.

I think that's what we'll have in a decade. Any computer/phone/tablet/glasses/watch will be nothing but an interactive (touch, voice, air, whatever) screen linked to your account in the clouds. No internal cumputing or OS. So far, the samsung smartwatch has to be able to find your phone within 200 meters. That means you can go in the garden or move around your house without worrying about your phone, so that's a start.

Everyone is concerned about the fact that Apple hasn't released any new products since Jobs died. The stock has gone way down (although Apple's market capitalization is still highest of any company in the world). Can Apple remain a major force in the tech world by simply issuing new versions of its gadgets rather than inventing new ones? Samsung's made it pretty far just by doing that...

The stock also reached historical levels long after Jobs' death. Almost every product launch since then has been the "best iPhone/iPad launch ever", which is not as impressive when you know that the markets are growing, but Apple's marketshares are decreasing. Anyway, Apple has been the king for a decade, just like Microsoft was between 1995 and the early 2000's, and it's not the kind of sector where anyobody can stay on top very long.

Samsung is going very well by doing what you say, but they've got a very different strategy and organisation. If Apple wants to be the new Samsung, they'll have to reformate the whole company from its structure to its image. They're based on little transversal teams and very very few products. When ONE major product (and half of their products are major products) isn't a huge hit, the company dies.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 10, 2013, 01:09:18 AM
I'm thinking about getting a 40 inch, LED tv. (I see lots of deals on different brands, but I only wanna get a great brand.)

I currently own an LG, which I am very happy with. I previously owned a Sony, which I was also very happy with. And I know that Samsung is an awesome company in general. So right now, I would consider getting an LG, Samsung, or Sony. Are there any other companies that are great for LED tv's that I should consider?
What about Toshiba?

Thanks   ;)
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News and Q&A
Post by: stanton on December 10, 2013, 02:43:44 AM
Buy a bigger TV if you have enough money and enough room.

At the moment I still would recommend a plasma TV for guys who mainly watch films. My 42" Panasonic is excellent. I only wished I had bought a bigger one.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 10, 2013, 05:01:27 PM
 When I sit in front of the tv, I am 7 feet away from the screen.... Is that too close to sit for a 50-inch screen?
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News and Q&A
Post by: stanton on December 11, 2013, 02:36:49 AM
Where do you sit in a cinema?

front?

middle?

back?
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 11, 2013, 03:23:35 AM
when I am in a theater that has stadium seating, I generally like to sit in one the last rows, in the middle. My perfect seat is, say, 3-5 rows from the back, right on the middle of the row.

I always like to go to the multiplex that has stadium seating. But if I am in a theater with flat chairs, then it depends on how big the screen is (eg. in Film Forum the screen is so small that it sucks to sit in back)


as far as TV's are concerned, I know that the bigger the screen is, the further away you have to sit from it; if you're too close to a huge screen, you won't be able to see as well. My current tv is 32" - I hope to buy a bigger one in about a month, so I'm taking my time now to try to find a perfect LED.
So I actually measured the distance from my eyes to the screen, and it is 7 feet (2.13 meters)... The 40" would be definitely be good from that distance... You think the bigger sizes would be good as well? what is the biggest size screen that I can see perfectly from 7 feet away?
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News and Q&A
Post by: stanton on December 11, 2013, 05:08:40 AM
Well, in a cinema I always sit in the first third of the theatre. It depends with whom I'm watching a film how close I get to the screen. In former years, when the screen wasn't as close to the first row as it is now, we mostly sat in the first row. In the modern theatres the 4th or 5th row is mostly perfect. Why shouldn't I make the screen before me as big as possible? If in my field of view I can't see the edges of the screen, and the view towards the screen isn't distorted (which it sometimes is in the first row or if you sit in front at the sides), than it is perfect.

Same for a TV. There are no rules how close you can sit to it. If one likes it big, make it as big as money and space allows it.

Why not give the screen a chance to suck you in?
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 11, 2013, 05:54:26 AM
in a theater, if you sit in one of the very front rows, I'd imagine you'd have to look up and crane your neck. I don't know, I never tried it. There was a Seinfeld episode about that, where they get stuck in the front row of a theater and have to watch the whole movie looking up. I don't know, I never tried. I like to see the whole screen, straight on, so my seats near the back in middle are perfect... I don't know if you watch in a flat theater or stadium seating, but again, I'm talking about stadium seating, so sitting in back is very different than sitting in back of a flat theater.

Anyway, RE; my tv: of course, I like to have the biggest screen possible. But I have to be sure I'll be able to see it well. If you're one foot away from the screen, you won't see very well unless it's a tiny screen. If you're two or three feet away, you still won't see very well, unless it's a pretty small screen. The bigger the screen, the further you have to be in order to see well. I don't mean you have to be way in back of the room. But I have a small bedroom so I just wanna make sure I don't get a screen that'll be to big for the distance I am watching it at. Anyway, I was just asking in case anyone knew offhand, like if they'd tried it at a similar distance, but it's really not that big a deal. When I go to the store to buy the tv, which I hope to do sometime in January, I'll check it out there. I won't buy anything unless I'm sure it'll be good  :)
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: dave jenkins on December 11, 2013, 06:05:36 AM
For me, it always depends on how the seats rise the further you get away from the screen. I don't like looking up at the screen, I prefer a slightly downward viewing angle, so I tend to pick a seat that is as close to the front as I can get without having to crane my neck to see. In many NYC theaters, that means getting a seat about dead middle, but in suburban mega-plexes I can usually sit closer.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 11, 2013, 08:47:52 AM
For me, it always depends on how the seats rise the further you get away from the screen. I don't like looking up at the screen, I prefer a slightly downward viewing angle, so I tend to pick a seat that is as close to the front as I can get without having to crane my neck to see. In many NYC theaters, that means getting a seat about dead middle, but in suburban mega-plexes I can usually sit closer.

yeah, I don't really know jack about the suburbs, but I figure the theaters in the suburban multiplexes are bigger than those in the Manhattan multiplexes; so maybe when you sit at the middle of those theaters, you're the same distance from the screen as I am when I sit in back of the Manhattan theaters.

I actually went to the multiplex in Sheepshead Bay in Brooklyn once,  I think that has the biggest screen I've ever seen (even bigger than the AMC on 34th St. bet 8th & 9th, which is the biggest I've seen in Manhattan) - and the theater was bigger than any in Manhattan. (It was opening day of a popular movie so they gave it their biggest theater) but I felt that the screen was pulled farther back than in other theaters (maybe cuz there was a large floor section of seats); so I sat in the third row up, and it was great... So yeah, I guess it's impossible to compare because theaters are all so different
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: stanton on December 11, 2013, 12:53:39 PM
Drink, try to sit in the first third of a cinema. Maybe you like it
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 22, 2014, 09:09:05 PM
Are there any good blu-ray disc rental services out there?

I don't like buying BRD's cuz I rarely watch a movie more than once in two years.

I have a Netflix subscription – it's only a few dollars more each month for BRD access – but their BRD selection is so small, it's comical.

I see that there's this site http://www.stores-3d-blurayrental.com/servlet/the-Subscription-Plans/Categories but if you want a plan with no expiration dates, it is incredibly expensive ($35.99 a month for 3 discs out at time?  :o )

So, are there any other good BRD rental services out there?
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: noodles_leone on January 23, 2014, 02:05:03 AM
But what is the point of renting BRD if you have a Netflix subscription?
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 23, 2014, 05:40:58 AM
I have a Netflix subscription for disc rental, not for streaming. Their streaming selection is awful, but their DVD selection is pretty good - not great, but pretty good - so I have the DVD-rental plan but not the streaming plan.... When you have a DVD-rental plan, it's only a few dollars more each month to get BRD included, but their BRD selection is tiny.... So, I'd like to find a good BRD rental plan, ie. a good disc-rental service that has a good BRD selection....


Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: dave jenkins on January 23, 2014, 03:27:26 PM
You could apply for the Jenkins Plan. It works like this: you send DJ 100 dollars, he sends you a disc. Another 100, another disc. Keep them as long as you want. And you don't have to send any back to get new ones. Best of all: the selection is vast, so very vast.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: noodles_leone on January 23, 2014, 04:14:50 PM
Don't listen to him, I pay the Jenkins Plan every month and still have to get the first disk.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: stanton on January 24, 2014, 03:34:10 AM
I'll do it for 99 bucks and for every ten discs he gets bonus disc.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 24, 2014, 03:57:13 AM
I'd rent some of your BRD's for $5 per disc, and I would cover all postage costs.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: dave jenkins on January 24, 2014, 06:20:21 AM
Hmm, 100 vs. 5? I think there's a number in between those we can both be happy with. Let the haggling begin!

Just kidding. I'd be glad to loan you any discs you want. But you'll be responsible for the return postage. I might even have some DVDs that I've upgraded from that I could let you have gratis. PM me your wants.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 06, 2014, 05:59:44 AM
DJ, if you'll be in Seattle on June 18th ... http://goo.gl/2Jz5Xs
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: dave jenkins on June 06, 2014, 01:31:33 PM
Yeah, I saw. Thanks. I wasn't planning on going out that early. Especially for something that remains a known unknown. And anyway, you have to write what amounts to a "why I want to go" essay to get an invite (no thanks).
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 18, 2014, 07:48:25 PM
it was an Amazon smartphone after all http://online.wsj.com/articles/amazon-unveils-smartphone-1403114271
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 15, 2014, 04:33:38 AM
has anyone ever heard of this site called ClassicFlix? https://classicflix.com/

Looks like ClassicFlix has a mail-DVD-rental service like Netflix, and that they have classic movies including titles that are unavailable on Netflix. For example, Netflix's library doesn't have (at least some of) the made-on-demand discs, while ClassicFlix does.
Classic Flix is more expensive than Netflix and the shipping times listed are longer than Netflix's, but since they have some titles that Netflix doesn't have, I'm thinking maybe I should sign on for a small plan with Classic Flix just to cover whatever discs are unavailable on Netflix.
I happened to come across this site when Googling a movie (All My Sons (1948), on DVD from "Universal Vault" made-on-demand) that is not available on Netflix.

The site uses https and the "lock" icon appears in my toolbar; but I don't see the logo of any credit-card-security firm like VeriSign.

Anyone ever hear of this ClassicFlix site?
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: dave jenkins on December 22, 2014, 02:51:29 PM
2014: The Year in TVs
http://www.cnet.com/news/seven-tvs-that-defined-2014/

I've started my 6th year with my plasma and I've no complaints. I'm just hoping it holds out until OLEDs come down into my price range.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 22, 2014, 07:01:45 PM
What do y'all think of Ultra HDTV? Have you seen it – is it really a significant improvement over the HDTV's we've been using for the past decade? Is it eventually going to phase out HDTV's in the same way that HDTV's have phased out the old 4:3 TV's?

Also, when a BRD says a movie has been restored in 4K, does that mean that when we watch that BRD, we are actually seeing the movie in the same quality as if we watched an Ultra HDTV? Or can the full 4K quality of the BRD only be appreciated on an Ultra HDTV?
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 30, 2016, 12:55:10 PM
I just upgraded from my 32" TV: I bought a 43" Samsung TV - Cyber Monday special from P.C. Richard & SON: $279! Including tax, costs $305. I'm picking it up from the store on Friday.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: noodles_leone on November 30, 2016, 01:14:26 PM
Is it UHD/4K?
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: cigar joe on November 30, 2016, 01:50:28 PM
I just upgraded from my 32" TV: I bought a 43" Samsung TV - Cyber Monday special from P.C. Richard & SON: $279! Including tax, costs $305. I', picking it up from the store on Friday.

cool O0
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 30, 2016, 02:27:16 PM
Is it UHD/4K?

No, it's LED.

Do you think I should pay the extra for UHD/4K?

I just looked up the price online - it's $125 extra for the same size 4K Ultra HDTV. You say I should go for it?
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: noodles_leone on November 30, 2016, 06:19:14 PM
No I don't. Not right now, you have a couple of years before 4K content becomes really mainstream.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: PowerRR on November 30, 2016, 06:58:30 PM
Also just bought an enormous tv for Black Friday. Now to find an apartment that fits it.

I went 4K because I figure it'll be a at least a 10-year value. Might as well go l out (to an extent... fuck curved TVs and whatever SUHD is... super ultra hd?)

Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 30, 2016, 07:52:30 PM
Also just bought an enormous tv for Black Friday. Now to find an apartment that fits it.

I went 4K because I figure it'll be a at least a 10-year value. Might as well go l out (to an extent... fuck curved TVs and whatever SUHD is... super ultra hd?)



That's  exactly what I was thinking: a good TV can last for years; so if there is a clear benefit, it's absolutely worth paying the $125 or whatever extra. It would be worth paying even more. No question about that. But the  question is, is this really the next big real thing (like HD was 10 years ago) or is this a fad, a phony, like 3D or Cinerama screens that will cause me compatibility problems?? Will I be able to use my regular BRD player or will I have to buy an Ultra HD player, etc. If it's a clear benefit, compatible with everything, and no drawback, I'd happily pay the extra $125.

I gotta go pick it up Thursday night, and if I am going to switch, I need to decide before then.

Appreciate y'all's help  :)
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: noodles_leone on December 01, 2016, 01:36:15 AM
4K isn't a fad, it's the way of the future for content consumption. It's already the way of the present for content creators: every single wannabe filmmaker now owns a camera that shoots 4K. Everytime a new still camera is released, it's now bashed if it doesn't provide 4K abilities. That was never the case for 3D (only the porn industry is equipped). So 4K is here for good.

Now, almost nobody brings 4K content to your TV. A couple of TV stations, Netlfix "sometimes", maybe 2% of YouTube and that's about it. We don't even have a standard for physical disks in 4K. I'm not sure how much time is needed before the switch takes place. Seeing how slow everyone was to go from SD to HD, and considering the SD to HD quality gap is much, much higher than the one between HD and UHD, you have a few years ahead of you.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 01, 2016, 05:54:41 AM
4K isn't a fad, it's the way of the future for content consumption. It's already the way of the present for content creators: every single wannabe filmmaker now owns a camera that shoots 4K. Everytime a new still camera is released, it's now bashed if it doesn't provide 4K abilities. That was never the case for 3D (only the porn industry is equipped). So 4K is here for good.

Now, almost nobody brings 4K content to your TV. A couple of TV stations, Netlfix "sometimes", maybe 2% of YouTube and that's about it. We don't even have a standard for physical disks in 4K. I'm not sure how much time is needed before the switch takes place. Seeing how slow everyone was to go from SD to HD, and considering the SD to HD quality gap is much, much higher than the one between HD and UHD, you have a few years ahead of you.

So it seems to me that you are basically saying that while 4K TV's will not cause me any problems such as conpatibility, right now having a 4K TV will not bring much benefit. Right?

In that case, I think I will get the LED. Let's say that 4K does become useful and prevalent in a few years: At that time, perhaps better  4K TV's will be produced than the ones available now. So why pay extra now for something I won't use now; maybe I will use it later, but a better peoduct may be available later. And TV's are so cheap these days anyway, and there are plenty of Black Fridays/Cyber Mondays to come; I guess I will just stick with the LED 1080p, which is the best image practically used for a TV today, right?

Here is the TV http://www.pcrichard.com/Samsung/Samsung-43inch-Class-Full-HD-1080p-LED-Smart-HDTV/UN43J5200.pcrp
(The price has already gone up by $100 since I placed my order)
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: Cusser on December 01, 2016, 07:30:14 AM
I just bought a replacement/spare TracFone for $8 shipped, brand new.

Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 21, 2017, 10:31:25 PM
alright ... so I have a question for those of you who know about audio:

As you probably know (unless you have been living under a rock and/or not been reading the SLWB lately  ;) ) I recently attended a Metallica concert on Long Island. The show kicked ass, as Metallica always does  >:D Since 2004, Metallica has audio-recorded each of their concert; you can buy the recording from their website.

I went to the page from my concert https://metallica.com/store/live-recordings/live-met-downloads/12935/live-metallica-uniondale-ny-may-17-2017-digital-download

They are offering the digital download in three formats:

       
    MP3 (256kbps) $9.95
    FLAC or ALAC (16-bit/44.1KHz) $12.95
    FLAC-HD, ALAC-HD or MQA (24-bit/48KHz) $17.95

or I can buy a cd set, which they mail me (available in about a month from now) for $19.95
https://metallica.com/store/live-recordings/live-met-cds/12090/live-metallica-uniondale-ny-may-17-2017-2cd



I definitely want the best version possible; the money is no object here. Firstly, the download is directly from Metallica's live site, but I assume I can load the song into my iTunes and then put it on my iPod, no matter what format? iTunes I assume is generally MP3; if I go for the more expensive format, FLAC-HD, presumably the audio quality is better, but will I have a problem playing it on my iTunes/iPod?
And once i download it to my iPod, will it compress down to the crappy MP3 format, so that all versions will sound the same anyway?

I should probably just wait a month and get the CD - that's the best quality, right? But once I get the CD, I'm not really going to listen to the actual cd anyway: I'll put it into my computer and rip it onto my iTunes and then put it on my iPod. Will that still sound better than if I had bought the MP3 or will it be the same?

Thanks  :)



Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 21, 2017, 11:31:41 PM
while I was waiting for an answer to the above query, I decided to go look at some previous concerts I have been at; I'd never gotten around to purchasing the audio file, and decided I wanted to finally do so. First thing I looked at was my first-ever Metallica concert, April 20, 2004 https://metallica.com/tour/10493 Back then, they did not have all these many audio options; it was simply $9.95 for MP3 or $12.95 for FLAC.

Of course, I spare no expense for Metallica, so I splurged on the extra 3 dollars to get a better sound. What happens? My computer is unable to open the FLAC file. I don't know if it's cuz the FLAC is incompatible with my MacBook or because that was 2004 and this is 2017, but I am unable to open it. I'm not very tech-savvy and I'm kinda freaking out, but then I notice that when my MacBook says it can't read open the FLAC, it also gives me an option to search the App Store and find an app I can open the file with. So, I download the first free app I can find; it's called "To MP3 Converter Free," made by Nikolay Kozlov (sounds like a hacker working for Putin  >:D ... or maybe for the Trump campaign  >:D >:D) so I convert all the FLACs to MP3's, and voila, they play just fine in my iTunes.

So, you have regular Metallica fans who pay $9.95 for MP3  >:D Then you have BIG Metallica fans that they'll pay $12.95 for FLAC  >:D >:D Then you have D&D, who is such a HUUUUUUGE Metallica fan that he pays $12.95 for MP3  >:D >:D  >:D

----


anyway .... I have no idea if the non-MP3 digital formats for the 2017 shows will give me the same problems, but I think I won't take a chance. I will just wait a month and buy the physical cd and that's that  :)
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: noodles_leone on May 22, 2017, 12:10:12 AM
1 - If quality is your only request, this is a non issue: buy the CD, extract from there whatever format you want.
2 - The FLAC version is quite easy to downconvert to MP3 or any format you want. I'm not a MAC person but this will help you: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3002052?tstart=0
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 28, 2017, 12:58:09 AM
1 - If quality is your only request, this is a non issue: buy the CD, extract from there whatever format you want.
2 - The FLAC version is quite easy to downconvert to MP3 or any format you want. I'm not a MAC person but this will help you: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3002052?tstart=0

Yes, for the recent concert, which is available on CD, I am buying the CD.

But for the older concerts, no CD's are available; these come only on FLAC or MP3. As I said, I bought that one concert on FLAC, and when I realized it wouldn't play on my computer, I used a free app from the App Store called "To MP3 Converter Free" and converted them to MP3's.

I assume that these files now – FLAC files that have been converted to MP3 – are not any better quality than files that I download directly as MP3's, right? So, for future digital downloads, I guess I should just buy the MP3. I am happy to pay more money for better quality, but if my computer cannot read the FLAC's and I so have to convert the FLAC's to MP3 anyway, there's no reason I shouldn't just buy the MP3's instead.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 25, 2017, 12:02:58 AM
I (finally!) ordered a region-free BRD/DVD player, from SONY, says its plays both NTSC and PAL

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01D915UC4/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

for an extra $25 I got a 4-year insurance plan.

Now, to test it, I have to try it out by finding a good movie that is only available in Region 2/B. Preferably one that is in PAL. Any suggestions?

BTW, the comments have warnings not to do any software updates or you may lose the region-free capability. Anyone know anything about this? I could just not connect it to internet and that way, there's no risk of an auto-update or even me accidentally updating. (If I want to stream anything, I'll do the streaming through my TV rather than through the BRD player.)
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: dave jenkins on June 25, 2017, 06:50:48 AM
I (finally!) ordered a region-free BRD/DVD player, from SONY, says its plays both NTSC and PAL

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01D915UC4/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

for an extra $25 I got a 4-year insurance plan.

Now, to test it, I have to try it out by finding a good movie that is only available in Region 2/B. Preferably one that is in PAL. Any suggestions?
Yeah, any of the discs I've given you over the years.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 25, 2017, 07:13:45 AM
Yeah, any of the discs I've given you over the years.

You only gave me Region 1/A.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on August 31, 2023, 11:05:17 PM
We recently had a big fat thunderstorm and I guess I had an electrical surge cuz my TV and BRD are dead.


I bought a new TV (Samsung) and for now am using my old (Region A) BRD , I eventually have to buy a new region free brd player.

But point is my old speakers with the coaxial cable doesnt work with the new annoying smart TV?s. (I wish I could find a dumb tv.) So I had to buy new speaker. They call it a soundbar now. Well there is an audio/video delay with this soundbar. I checked it up online, seems to be a common issue. I tried some of the fixes suggested online but I still don?t think it?s perfect.

Ugh the new smart world is annoying
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: dave jenkins on September 01, 2023, 06:50:26 AM
I eventually have to buy a new region free brd player.
Absolutely. Region-free is the way to go. Once you make the switch, you'll never go back.

Hehehe, just yankin' yer chain. I know you were an early adopter.

Sorry to hear about your electronic woes. We seem not to have had a surge up here in Westchester; we came back from vacation and all our equipment is working fine. All our troubles are automotive . . . .
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: Cusser on September 01, 2023, 07:14:51 AM
Two years ago a friend gave me a 55" flat screen TV that had been on the wall when he bought his place, as he had a larger TV installed; I was replacing my 2004-model 47" rear projection TV.

Once I transported this 100 miles and got a stand for it, I set it up and there was no sound.  It turned out that the original installer had removes the TV's underscreen speakers and had set up to a soundbar, which was included.  I didn't have such soundbar or speakers as the rear projection TV had really big, good speakers so I had no sound.  So I went out and bought a small pair of speakers, that works fine.

It's bad enough that I have a separate remote for FireStick, DVR, etc.....
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 30, 2024, 07:47:00 PM
I need to get a new region free blu ray player. Mine got zapped in a thunderstorm a while back; I have been using my old Region A player since. I need to buy a new region-free player now

I guess I should just get a UHD player? Region-free UHD players will play all regions of UHD, BRD and DVD?s (NTSC and PAL), right?

Any particular suggestions?


I am searching through options on Amazon; each product has some great reviews and some terrible reviews that say it doesn't really work for all regions, etc. It seems the companies (like SONY, LG, etc.) don't actually sell region-free players; these are sold by third parties who bought the players from the company then converted them to region-free players.

I just checked the page of the one I previously had -- it worked totally fine for 6 years till it got zapped in a thunderstorm ? and I see that as with other models, some people loved it and some people hated it and said it didn't work. So I guess it's just luck and how good the dude doing the conversion is ... if anyone can suggest a particular model I'd appreciate it. Otherwise I will just buy something not too expensive and hope it works or that Amazon will refund me if it doesn't ....



Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 31, 2024, 10:27:54 PM
Looks like I'll be cutting the cord.

Any cable plan that includes Turner Classic movies costs at least $105 per month; I can get Youtube TV for like $73 per month, it includes TCM and other cable channels like ESPN and it has unlimited DVR space.

Only problem: On first glance seems I can only set programs to record up to 24 hours in advance; it doesn't provide a schedule further in advance. (On my old cable, I had the schedule, and could set up for recording, up to about a week in advance.) But if that's the only drawback to a plan that saves more than $30 per month, it's a no-brainer ....
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: dave jenkins on February 01, 2024, 04:18:04 AM
Get a UHD player. You still won't be able to play UHD discs until you upgrade your monitor, but in the meantime you'll have a player that will work as an all-region device for your R2 BRDs.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 01, 2024, 04:54:35 AM
Get a UHD player. You still won't be able to play UHD discs until you upgrade your monitor, but in the meantime you'll have a player that will work as an all-region device for your R2 BRDs.

I just got a new 4K TV
That won?t play UHD?s?
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: dave jenkins on February 01, 2024, 12:43:36 PM
You didn't tell me that. Well, then, why are you asking? Of course, you want a player that can play 4K content!
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: cigar joe on February 02, 2024, 04:39:08 AM
I need to get a new region free blu ray player. Mine got zapped in a thunderstorm a while back; I have been using my old Region A player since. I need to buy a new region-free player now

I guess I should just get a UHD player? Region-free UHD players will play all regions of UHD, BRD and DVD?s (NTSC and PAL), right?

Any particular suggestions?


I am searching through options on Amazon; each product has some great reviews and some terrible reviews that say it doesn't really work for all regions, etc. It seems the companies (like SONY, LG, etc.) don't actually sell region-free players; these are sold by third parties who bought the players from the company then converted them to region-free players.

I just checked the page of the one I previously had -- it worked totally fine for 6 years till it got zapped in a thunderstorm ? and I see that as with other models, some people loved it and some people hated it and said it didn't work. So I guess it's just luck and how good the dude doing the conversion is ... if anyone can suggest a particular model I'd appreciate it. Otherwise I will just buy something not too expensive and hope it works or that Amazon will refund me if it doesn't ....

I have the same one you recomended it still works fine, but I'd be interested what you eventually choose just in case.
Title: Re: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
Post by: Cusser on February 02, 2024, 07:04:37 AM
Looks like I'll be cutting the cord.

Any cable plan that includes Turner Classic movies costs at least $105 per month; I can get Youtube TV for like $73 per month, it includes TCM and other cable channels like ESPN and it has unlimited DVR space.

Only problem: On first glance seems I can only set programs to record up to 24 hours in advance; it doesn't provide a schedule further in advance. (On my old cable, I had the schedule, and could set up for recording, up to about a week in advance.) But if that's the only drawback to a plan that saves more than $30 per month, it's a no-brainer ....
I "cut" the cable cord just over a year ago.  At first I tried Sling for a couple of months, didn't like it.  I then looked into Hulu+ but that apparently has a much-complained drawback that one cannot use it at a second home or while traveling.

So I'm on YouTubeTV now, and am OK with it.  Yes, you can see programs more in advance "to DVR" just a little quirky.  For example, if you go to "Live" then click on the TCM icon on the left, then you see a line-up of the upcoming TCM schedule.  For regular "shows", like "Dateline NBC", when you choose on YouTubeTV to DVR, then ALL future Dateline shows also get recorded to your library.  For sporting events, one can choose the "one time only" recording.  I "think" - don't trust me - that if an event goes overtime that the YouTube TV may still go to the end and not cut off, where with cable I had to program in extra time.