Customer Discussions > Blu-ray forum

Why Home Theater isn't as good as a real theater


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 260 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 9:28:29 AM PDT
Mr Bluray says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 10:12:25 AM PDT
Does your brother's husband's head have wifi, or does he have to connect his head everyday for price updates?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 10:31:51 AM PDT
Zero of One says:
If my "Bro In-Law" came over and said " there's no way I would ever pay for a DVD that cost that much money" , I'd bring him to my home theater, pop in the movie, grab him a brewski and show him the joys of home theater ownership instead of belittling him and being a jerk. But hey, that's just me :)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 5, 2012 11:44:46 AM PDT
Mr Bluray says:
I tried that a few times. Other relatives of mine and my wife have had to listen to his belittling beside me. He just can't stand for anyone to have something he doesn't. I think happiness must be something he is still searching for. I have and still am the quiet guy who just puts up with bull like his but after 40 years of listening to him do his junk i finally put him in his place.

This stuff doesn't belong in this forum and i am not posting or even reading another post on this thread so have at me if you want. This is way off topic and i was partly why it veered off course. Please .accept my apologies.

Posted on Jun 5, 2012 11:58:32 AM PDT
Rainman208 says:
Saw Men In Black 3 this past weekend. Went to an early show (12:15pm) so there were plenty of seats available. But of course the mom with the brats have to sit in the seats directly behind me and my date. And you know what came next, yep the seat kicking. (Sigh) at least it was only one of many possible theater annoyances. No talkers, texters, in-&-outers. Thank God.

Posted on Jun 5, 2012 12:43:39 PM PDT
Sha Gojyo says:
the seats in the theater are uncomfortable too. can't lay back and enjoy the show.

Posted on Jun 6, 2012 9:52:15 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 7, 2012 1:16:59 AM PDT
A M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 11:22:51 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 6, 2012 11:37:24 PM PDT
"You say you are a loss for words at how I could THINK that. I don't THINK that. I know it. Because I have seen it with my own two eyes. In color timing sessions. In onlines. In preview screenings. How many of those have you been to?"

I don't think it matters? You clearly work in the film industry, but you don't purport to be able to explain all the technical details of what you are observing, and it's obvious why. As you say, you are not one of the tech guys, you just like to flaunt your title around like it means something, even though with 2 paragraphs dismissing me, you still haven't come up with 1 solid fact that you could back up. Just one!

An HD transfer is sharper than native film? I'm assuming we're talking about real sharpness here, not artificial enhancements, which actually reduces detail. I know a fair bit about film production (probably not more than you), but that's not we're talking about -- we're talking about film RE-production. I've noticed through all arguments I've ever had with you that you like to shift topics. Whenever things don't go your way, you dig up some "facts" that you indirectly "know", through your work...

Like the time you claimed that people record in 64-bit... You must have heard through the studio grapevine about 32-bit or 64-bit samplers, so you conflate data.

Now tell me what you really "know". Film blurring techniques is the same thing as reducing display resolution; really? Unnatural sharpness that make video look worse marks the success of video compression; really? Have you actually done any video compression yourself? Find me one professional, or tabloid article, even, that could corroborate these claims, and I'll kiss your feet.

Now whenever a DVD troll shows up and says lower resolution looks closer to film, we can say we have "evidence": HD is sharper than film, therefore SD must be closer to film. A M said so, it must be true...

EDIT: I went back and re-read some posts, and I think the point you are trying to make is: Cinematographers use lighting techniques to make the picture look softer and better, therefore IMAX upscaling makes the picture look worse, because HD adds more detail that isn't there in film.

I stick to what I said before. If you think upscaled IMAX could restore more detail than what was there before those lighting techniques that was captured by film; if you think upscaling -- which is taking detail and interpolating to make viewing pixels "smaller" -- could worsen picture quality, your knowledge when it comes down to video REproduction amounts to the absurd.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 4:20:26 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 7, 2012 4:44:18 PM PDT
A M says:
"I've noticed through all arguments I've ever had with you that you like to shift topics."

I like to shift topics? That is the pot calling the kettle black. Like I how I point out that sitting a mile away from a screen is hyperbole. and you reply, "Sitting a mile from the screen is possible with current technology." I never said it wasn't possible. I am saying that it is blowing up an idea to the point of absurdity.

You said, "that you could somehow see more of the actor's makeup in digital compared to the native format. I'm at loss for words on how you could even think that."

I said that I don't think it. I know it because I have seen it. Your statement assumes that what I am purporting exists in a vacuum based on stuff I have read or heard. I will admit that my statement about recording in 64 bit was something I heard from a music editor I worked with on a pilot. Maybe he mis spoke or I mis heard him. When I was a teen there was a movie theater in my hometown where one side of the screen was always out of focus. I assumed it was because the screen was hanging at an angle. But that was based on assumption. Later I learned it was because the projector lens was not collimated properly (where all the glass elements are lined up exactly). My thoughts in that instance were in a vacuum and based on rumor and innuendo and presumptions. But my saying that film transferred to HD looks sharper than a print from that same negative is not based on something I THINK happens. It is based on something I have seen.

And you reply with "I don't think it matters?" That was not at all what I was saying.

I am not providing scientific evidence. I am providing anecdotal evidence. You say, "I'm assuming we're talking about real sharpness here, not artificial enhancements, which actually reduces detail."

From my perspective it doesn't matter if it is real sharpness or an artificial enhancement. Some things look worse when they are sharper. And the filmmakers don't care either. If plastic props now look plastic or rubber prosthetics now look rubber or actors now are clearly wearing pancake makeup, no one cares whether it is because of an artificial enhancement or the actual resolution of what is on the film. They care that it is fixed so it is not what goes out to the audience. Video often shows more detail than what is on film. Blow up a 2K image and you will see grain before you start to see pixels. Even stuff transferred in standard def, they can go in and bring out details in an area that is all white or pitch black. The information is there in the film - but not visible. Part of that is because it is only a part of a frame, and in film grading you can only time the entire image. In video you can power window a section and bring the black or white area up or down. Where to do that in film would make the rest of the frame very ugly.

You say "I think the point you are trying to make is: Cinematographers use lighting techniques to make the picture look softer and better, therefore IMAX upscaling makes the picture look worse, because HD adds more detail that isn't there in film."

No. This is your shifting and thinking like a scientist in absolutes. I am saying SOMETIMES it does. Many of the effects in SW II looked great in IMAX. Some did not hold up. Some of the effects in The Matrix Reloaded looked BETTER in IMAX than they did in 35mm. I don't know why. So you can talk about the sharpness of your HDTV all you want. I am of the camp that it is not all that. Often it is better. Sometimes it can be worse. Size is more important to me than sharpness. Knowing how large a screen is has an effect on how you perceive what is on it. Irrespective of the viewing angle. Like my comparison where if you are watching something on your phone on a stand and are so close that it occupies the same amount of your peripheral vision as sitting at the back of an IMAX screen - in theory the perception of the visual part of it should be the same. I was debunking your argument about viewing angle. But you shifted topics and brought up sound and sharpness and who would hold it. And even if you didn't shift the topics, from a scientific point of view the viewing angle may be the same. But as Marshall McLuhan said, "The Medium is the message." And knowing you are looking at a giant IMAX screen vs. a phone or a tablet or an HDTV has an effect on how you perceive it even if they occupy the same amount of your peripheral vision. To quote David Lynch, "Now if your playing the movie on a telephone you will never in a trillion years experience the film. You'll think you have experienced it, but you'll be cheated. It's such a sadness that you think you've seen a film on your F***ing telephone. Get real."

Are you a mathematician or a scientist (You are Asian). I think you believe that if you don't have scientific evidence proving something like it is a mathematical theorem then it must be thrown out. Not everything in life and art works out perfectly like numbers and math. Sorry that I am not a tech geek like you with facts and figure and numbers to back up my claims. When you finish watching a movie do you rate your enjoyment of it on a number scale and need be able to break down a joke to evaluate why it was funny and justify your laughter? Robin Williams says if you break down a joke it turns into nothing.

You said "Emotions can be scientifically quantified, but that's not the point. When you have an emotion, you have to ask yourself why." That is not really quantifying them. That is identifying them. I know because my mother and brother are psychiatrists and have been in therapy myself. I can not quantify my emotions saying that my love for my brother is half as much as it is for my mother and my love for my mother is equal to my hate for the bully who beat me up in the 5th grade. My sorrow when my girlfriend dumped me was 10 times the amount of joy I felt when she first told me that she loved me. Where is the scientific equipment to measure emotions?

I mean seriously, what is going on inside you after you see a great movie? I would think for you it is mathematical formulas.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012 9:42:41 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 13, 2012 9:44:56 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012 9:43:06 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jun 13, 2012 9:43:25 PM PDT]

Posted on Jun 17, 2012 2:54:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 17, 2012 2:56:56 PM PDT
JBGood says:
I have to see new blockbuster flicks like Avatar, Inception, Hunger Games, Avengers, etc. at the theater despite some flashing cell phone displays, pop corn crunchers, and other annoying human feats. You gotta have the full cinema experience first for these movies. I then buy the BD if I like the movie.

Posted on Jun 19, 2012 4:03:50 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 19, 2012 4:06:56 PM PDT
Personally I like going to movies strictly for the communal experience of seeing something I'm hoping to like with a bunch of people I may, or may not know who are digging the same thing. You'll never get that visceral experience in your home even if you had an imax screeen in your living room. Sorry. Movies are about a lot more than just the movie. Unfortunately we've come to a generation that doesn't see films that way anymore, films are just one of a score of distractions, and as a result the technology has improved so that movies look better than ever before, but the majority of films to see suck. So of course people would rather see movies at home for free than pay $12 to sit through a crappy film. Heck, I know people who can watch an entire movie on their i-phone and be completely satisfied with that.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 4:09:32 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 4:18:02 PM PDT
Exactly right. Avengers might be okay on home theater, and I'm definately gonna' get it, but I've seen it twice in theaters, and it was great seeing/hearing the reactions of people just "getting it". It was and is experiences like that, that made me pursue film as a career. As a filmmaker, you can't get that kind of feedback at home. I remember seeing people give a standing ovation to Raiders of the Lost Ark when it showed it theaters first time. That's respect of an audience to a filmmaker and crew that wasn't even present at that showing, and it was great. Nothing wrong with watching a film in your home, I do it all the time, but the movie experience to me is more than that. It a personal feeling and a lot of people don't understand it and never will , that's cool its all subjective anyway. Some people just have to have something to debate and be "right" about.

Posted on Jun 19, 2012 8:32:31 PM PDT
Jc says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jun 20, 2012 2:25:02 AM PDT
Sha Gojyo says:
anyone know if it's normal for the HDTV screen to generate heat above 80 degrees? cause it's really making my room get a little too warm for comfort.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 10:40:22 AM PDT
Roy Zander says:
older plasmas get a little warm - a good thing - worth the exceptional picture.

Posted on Jun 20, 2012 6:48:42 PM PDT
People who love their technology can be real jerks sometimes. Maybe it's just that they sometimes exhibit jerk-like behavior. I love watching films in my home theater too, but it's not a competition of which is necessesarily better, they are both completely different experiences. I can see from many of these posts that I wouldn't necessarily want to watch a movie in a theater with them anyway, so they might be better off sitting at home. I'm going to the theater to have some shared fun. I watch at home when I want to watch something particular. I watch at home when I want to analyse something, or when I want to share something cool with a friend who might not have seen it otherwise. I just wish Hollywood was making better films that would actually induce me to want to go the the theaters more.

Posted on Jun 21, 2012 4:52:13 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jun 23, 2012 10:43:39 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 11:05:06 PM PDT
EdM says:
"you'll never be able to blow yourself away in sound like the theaters do."

Which is a #1 reason I like to watch at home, to avoid the loss of hearing that such loud sound causes. Instead, I watch/listen at a reasonable volume, but in high audio quality. Quality over quantity.

Posted on Jun 22, 2012 1:03:19 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jun 23, 2012 1:52:22 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 22, 2012 1:57:17 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 22, 2012 12:54:12 PM PDT
Sha Gojyo says:
>>you'll never be able to blow yourself away in sound like the theaters do.<<

really? I have a Sony LBT stereo system hooked to my HDTV with two 10" 240watt speakers, subwoofers and with built in surround sound. believe me it makes enough sound/noise to shake the walls in my room while watching movies, listening to music, playing PC games and playing PS3 games with the volume set on only 8.

Posted on Jun 22, 2012 4:37:48 AM PDT
MikeT says:
Well, requiring a "farm house" for louder surround playback is a bit of a stretch. If you live in a normal detached house and close your windows your neighbors should not be bothered. Living in an apartment, condo, row house, cluster home, mobile home park, etc... would definitely be an issue. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 22, 2012 9:22:16 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 22, 2012 9:22:36 AM PDT
bfore13 says:
"If you are ever able to afford one of the very top end Bose systems, please do."

Why would anybody spend money on a top end Bose system when you get a better system for less money? I have a properly calibrated SVS 5.1 system that, coupled with lossless audio on Blu-ray, provides IMO higher quality / better sounding audio than many of the theaters I go to. And that's with a SW in the corner, not under my couch! I live in a single and I don't have to worry about neighbors. I also don't have to worry about sound effects coming from theater 6 or 8 next door which can be very annoying.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Blu-ray forum
Participants:  49
Total posts:  260
Initial post:  May 23, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 21, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions