In Reply to: Welcome back :-) posted by Ole Lund Christensen on February 21, 2008 at 10:14:45:
I'm sure you mean that from the bottom of your heart :-)
>>So let us forget the heckling, and move forward.<<
Good plan. Since you were the one who brought up "heckling," you know where to start!
>>For me sound quality is more important than picture.<<
I understand. That was how I proceeded for many years. When my budget was more constrained, I chose to spend my money on sound quality rather than on picture quality. On the audio side, due to my room and equipment I've finally reached the point where further improvements would be miniscule at best, but the financial outlay to make those miniscule improvements would be excessive, so it's time to focus on other things. I did just buy a new pair of subwoofers though!
>>I use the small dimension of the room, to get a wider left to right room with more space left of left and right of right front loudspeakers.<<
So you are using the long wall instead of the short wall? I did that for my 2ch system in my previous house. It worked well, but I didn't do HT in that room. I had a separate room. In my current house I was able to combine (and upgrade) my 2ch and HT systems.
>>My PS3 40GB does DVD upscaling well<<
This is completely relative. I'm sure it does upscaling better than a $50 upconverting player from Walmart, but there are better upconverting players on the market than the PS3. Nevertheless, my experience is that player-based scaling is only useful when the player does a better job of scaling than the display device. My current projector does a much, much better job of it than any upconverting player on the market. I've found that in my case it's better to feed the projector a non-upconverted, interlaced signal, and let it do the scaling. An upconverted signal to the projector is never as good as what the projector can do with a non-upconverted signal. Since you apparently do not have this luxury, I can see why your perception is different.
>>Remember many of my DVDs are PAL, much better than NTSC. Still a good Blu ray is far better than upscaled PAL. Upscaled NTSC look dreadful bad.<<
Interesting. Again, perhaps it's your player, or maybe it's the stuff you're watching. I have dozens and dozens of PAL discs (most of which are native PAL discs, not NTSC-converted-to-PAL discs made for the European market), and my experience is that while non-upconverted PAL looks noticeably better than non-upconverted NTSC, NTSC looks better upconverted to ATSC-compatible resolution than does PAL upconverted to ATSC-compatible resolution. Again, though, since the scaler in my projector is of high quality, I'd rather let it do the scaling than let an inferior player scaler do it.
>>So I think, that you are sitting too far from your screen.<<
Thanks for your concern, but I'm not.
>>So far my main problem is the film source quality, many movies are less good than my current projector in terms of picture detail. This also makes me hesitate to get a new projector.<<
The problem is: you'll never truly know how good or how bad picture detail is until you get a display device capable of showing everything that is (or isn't) there. Right now you're just guessing.
>>This graph say I will benefit from 1080p even on 100"<<
Absolutely. My screen is 100" diagonal, and I certainly get substantial benefits from my 1080p projector, regardless of source media. Larger screens can bring a whole host of problems. Bigger isn't always better.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Thanks :-) - racerguy 12:15:03 02/21/08 (3)
- video versus audio - Ole Lund Christensen 09:43:29 02/22/08 (2)
- RE: video versus audio - racerguy 10:43:37 02/22/08 (1)
- thank you - Ole Lund Christensen 14:26:10 02/22/08 (0)