SIT CLOSER TO YOUR HDTV

I see it mentioned all too often here (and everywhere really) that it's difficult to tell the difference sometimes between an upconverted DVD and its HD-DVD or Blu-Ray counterpart. Well, there are really just two main causes for this:

1) You need to sit closer to your TV
2) You need to get your eyes checked

I'm assuming that the home theater is otherwise properly set up. It's beyond the scope of this simple post to help troubleshoot video problems. I also cannot help with 2), but there is a very good reason for 1). The further the HDTV is from your eyes the harder it will be for you to notice the details (duh). So to help out folks with normal vision, please refer to the following chart. It's pretty self explanatory, really.

First, a chart showing the approximate distances at which details become noticeable, with screen size and distance from screen as parameters.
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

Then, from the same chart comes some recommendations:
http://s3.carltonbale.com/distance_chart.html

The recommended viewing distances are maximum viewing distances. Obviously, the closer you are to the screen the better you're able to appreciate the 1080p image on your TV! Within reason of course...sit like a foot from the screen and you'll see a bunch of nice pixels.

Don't miss out video details of that HD goodness!

---

[Post edited by YCH on Mar 7, 2008]

Quote:
I see it mentioned all too often here (and everywhere really) that it's difficult to tell the difference sometimes between an upconverted DVD and its HD-DVD or Blu-Ray counterpart. Well, there are really just two main causes for this:

1) You need to sit closer to your TV
2) You need to get your eyes checked

YOU ARE CORRECT SIR!!!!

What you are really hearing are sore losers on the wrong end of the format war. They are going to take their ball and go home.

YCH,

Welcome back!

I agree. I have friends and relatives who sit much too far back to appreciate any high-def detail, or, worse, they sit too far back and at acute angles to the TV.

On the other hand, most of us with HD TVs also watch a lot of standard-definition material, and we all know that standard-definition (esp. cable and satellite broadcasts) can look pretty gruesome if you're sitting too close. So, you need to find a viewinig distance that is close enough to discern high-def detail and far enough way not to make you go blind watching standard-def images.

John

Very true. Unfortunately, 2009 only REQUIRES all channels to be DIGITAL, not 1080p hd. So, unless that hdtv is SOLELY for watching 1080p hdtv clips... viewers are accustomed to sit a bit farther from the tv. Not on purpose, just instinct- to blur out pixel jags on fast moving sequences.

Hey John,

Quote:
On the other hand, most of us with HD TVs also watch a lot of standard-definition material, and we all know that standard-definition (esp. cable and satellite broadcasts) can look pretty gruesome if you're sitting too close. So, you need to find a viewinig distance that is close enough to discern high-def detail and far enough way not to make you go blind watching standard-def images

Interesting...I only cater for my highest quality source, haha.

Now that you mention it, this might be a big reason people sit so far from their TVs, both from habit and the SD chunkyness. Well, maybe the TV makers can provide an option to shrink the SD images (via some kind of smart source detection) so that viewing distances for HD sources are put on highest priority

Has anyone seen an Oppo in action? Or a device such as a Lumagen? My Oppo blows my HD DVD player's upconverting capabilities out of the water, so I am just wondering what qualilty of upconversion people are comparing to. The Oppo is incredible little machine, and yes, HDM is better overall, but the right processing thrown at SDVD can be beautiful too.

Griz

Quote:
Has anyone seen an Oppo in action?

I have an Oppo that I bought during the Holidays. I still haven't opened it yet. I'll try a comparison this weekend.

Quote:
Has anyone seen an Oppo in action? Or a device such as a Lumagen? My Oppo blows my HD DVD player's upconverting capabilities out of the water, so I am just wondering what qualilty of upconversion people are comparing to. The Oppo is incredible little machine, and yes, HDM is better overall, but the right processing thrown at SDVD can be beautiful too.

I have seen some Oppo upconverting DVD players in action. Not Lumagens though. I have also seen and used (arguably) the best regular upconversion software for digital photos available in the market, and the enlarged images do not compare to the detail of a native resolution photo of the same crop and image. I doubt a real-time video processor can do any better than a non-realtime fractal resizing software with manual touchups and tweaks.

There is one thing I would like to admit though. If someone else has a really good upconverting player playing a DVD, and you have no idea what the source is, the lines may look clean enough in certain scenes that you may *think* for a moment that it might be a lower quality HD video (I know just enough about video and what to look for that I won't be fooled that it's a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disc unless it's a terrible transfer devoid of most details)...until you pop in the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray version of the same movie and it's just like you're there.

Really, just about anything that isn't a smooth object or flat surface in a movie will give it away.

---

[Post edited by YCH on Mar 7, 2008]

I've never considered the distance from the tv in terms of pixel count comfort. I've always placed my TV and my derrier where I was comfortable. According to that chart my 52" tv needs to be less than 6ft from me for "optimum" resolution. I have never cared for the feeling of sitting "on top of" the TV. When you factor in the average recliner your feet don't leave much of a walkway between them and a tv at that range either. Just my $0.02.

Quote:
I've never considered the distance from the tv in terms of pixel count comfort. I've always placed my TV and my derrier where I was comfortable. According to that chart my 52" tv needs to be less than 6ft from me for "optimum" resolution. I have never cared for the feeling of sitting "on top of" the TV. When you factor in the average recliner your feet don't leave much of a walkway between them and a tv at that range either. Just my $0.02.

True, and practical problem at that.

However, do bear in mind all the money you paid for a HD disc player setup may as well have not been spent if you sit far enough.

Quote:
all the money you paid for a HD disc player setup may as well have not been spent

I think it becomes more of an issue of whether we need to conform to the comfort of the machines or to the comfort of the people using them. Given this chart and such, the argument could easily be made that you can get away with a 720p TV as opposed to a 1080p one and put the money saved towards media or other components (mine is 1080). It is quite an individual decision there and all depends on whether you're more comfortable at that close range or can deal with a slight decrease in pixel clarity at a more comfortable (for the individual) distance. In either case, I don't think you could call the HD signal a waste.

Quote:
Really, just about anything that isn't a smooth object or flat surface in a movie will give it away.

Funny you should say that, because that is where I can easily pick out differences between upconverted SDVD and HDM. If you watch carefully, this is where you can usually see the upconverting processor having trouble guessing where to place whatever color pixel to show color transition or even the slightest bit of shading.

HDM rules! But the average buyer doesn't see enough difference yet.

Griz

Quote:
HDM rules! But the average buyer doesn't see enough difference yet.

Yup, truth is, progress in pixel density has been too quick for the masses.

Say people used to watch a 480P DVD on a 30" TV. And they sit 9 feet away. Now, with a 6x increase in spatial resolution at 1080P, people may be watching it on a 50" HDTV. And they might still sit 9 feet away from the screen. The pixel density has outpaced the habits of the mass market consumer, and ergonomics of the living room.

I do agree with the "distance" I was testing my 37" TV at 9 feet and at 3-4 feet in an attempt to see if there was any difference between the TV's native 720p resolution and the upscaled 1080i resolution used by it. I found that at 9 feet is hard to tell but at around 4 feet I could clearly tell the anti-alliacing (sp.) used by the TV when the image is upscaled at 1080i.

Quote:
The pixel density has outpaced the ... ergonomics of the living room.

I agree wholeheartedly. As for the mass market consumer, aren't there still people out there with VCRs in use? I bet they're even still flashing 12:00

The THX website http://www.thx.com/home/setup/display.html also has some good tips...

What do you mean sit closer? How closer do you wanna be? I love movies and TV shows, but that doesn't mean I'm gona be 'hugging' the TV...I wanna sit back and enjoy...I don't wanna make out with it (disturbing but interesting )

And again, if you need to sit closer in order to take advantage of the HDTV, that is lame, sad and stupid. IMO. That comes with the 'upconversion' thread...if you need to sit closer to the TV in order to get a better picture, it doesn't make sense, really, at all...

Quote:
if you need to sit closer to the TV in order to get a better picture, it doesn't make sense, really, at all

Umm... it doesn't make the picture better. It's just that if you're sitting so far that you're eye/brain cannot perceive any more detail than that provided with 480p probably means a person should stick with standard DVD, since additional resolved detail will be lost and wasted. The HDTV was a waste too.

The reason why people have been conditioned to adopt an angle of view so much smaller than the theater is because sitting FURTHER away makes the picture look "better" with regular NTSC sources. Now that we have HDTVs and HD sources, a person doesn't have to sit so far back. It's probably a conditioning thing and now that we've traded in our old Trinitrons and floor RCA CRT sets, we don't have to do this anymore. We did get HD for a reason... ummm... right?

Again Skyhawk misses the point. Unless you're someone who sits on the front row of the movie theater most people like to have a little distance from the TV. It's not a pixel grain issue, it's a comfort issue. If you really want to watch TV like your nose is pressed to the window, go right ahead. This is more a comfort and ergonmics issue than wringing the last bit of pixel definition out of your eyeballs at the expense of the comfort of the rest of the body.

Exactly GKing...I have a better vision than I used to (thanks to Lasik ) and I don't like sitting in front of the TV, and again, I argue, if you need to sit closer, it's NOT WORTH IT...

---

[Post edited by mvckalel on Mar 7, 2008]

GKing74, front row? Where ever did I imply that? Obviously the only thing wrong about my point is that it went way over your head.

The recommended THX viewing angle that the MAJORITY of center seats in a theater must offer is a 36 degree viewing angle. The front seats generally exceed this by a huge factor. The last row of seats, those furthest away from the screen in the entire theater cannot offer any less than a 26 degree viewing angle. You can't get any further away from a theater screen than that unless you break down the rear wall.

Now translated to viewing a 50" screen, this furthest away you can get (26 degrees) is achieved at a distance no more than 7 feet, 9 inches. Even at this distance, the human eye cannot resolve 1080p. At the THX recommended viewing angle (considered the center sweet spot in a theater for both picture and sound) you would sit about 5 feet, 6 inches from a 50" screen.

Although some people don't like the theater even in the furthest seat from the screen, my point is why buy an HDTV if the old Trinitron would have done fine? HD offers no benefits from a distance at which your eye cannot perceive more detail than that in a 480 line image (or less).

You obviously wasted (or are wasting) your money.

---

[Post edited by Skyhawk on Mar 7, 2008]

My bad for using an analogy to illustrate a point to you Skyturkey. The point of this thread (actually many of the replies to it) is that a lot of people are not comfortable sitting as close to the TV as those guidelines suggest. I'm at the back edge of what they suggest for a 52" screen. It's pretty comfortable for me but I could see how any closer would be a bit much. Sitting too far back where it'd look like a postage stamp would be dumb. Most people replying here are talking about the balance between viewing comfort and maximum resolution. As far as wasting money goes, from your assorted posts on your equipment history, I'd say you're a highly qualified expert.

Quote:
As far as wasting money goes, from your assorted posts on your equipment history, I'd say you're a highly qualified expert.

Why thank you. And as the expert I am, you should heed the advice provided to you my myself and several others on this thread to actually take advantage of the money you've spent.

At the very least, we now know why a few of you think that there's no perceivable difference between standard DVD and high definition media!

Yeah, what it really comes down to is what a person is comfortable with. We all tend to think that our own equipment and even our own viewing distance is what everyone else should adopt, but it comes down to personal preference. I suppose, though, that it doesn't hurt to experiment or try to get other people to experiment. Ideally, one would have one's viewing chairs or sofas on wheels to accommodate whatever source we were watching (SD or HD).

I just came home from the motion-picture theater ("The Bank Job," highly recommended), and I'm always amazed at how many people voluntarily choose to sit in the farthest seats from the screen or in seats on the far left or far right. Some people even like sitting in the upper left back seats or whatever. And I wonder why they don't try to get seats in the very center of the theater where I sit, where they can enjoy the surround sound to its fullest and see the screen in all its glory but without ruining their eyesight or straining their neck. But I'm just happy that most people don't try to sit in the middle. It leaves more room for me.

John

So we're the few that runs into the theatre to find the middle seats? Nice...

Quote:
HD offers no benefits from a distance at which your eye cannot perceive more detail than that in a 480 line image (or less).

So, yet again, what's the point if you're gona have to look closer like if you needed glasses? Obviously not worth it, but let me tell you, I have a 32" 1080i and I sit about 9 feet away from it, and I do notice the difference between not-HD digital video, and real HD video. Now, I haven't been able to compare on HD DVD, but I think it would be hard for me to notice the difference...I do have a combo disc, I'll check it later...

---

[Post edited by mvckalel on Mar 7, 2008]

Quote:
And I wonder why they don't try to get seats in the very center of the theater where I sit, where they can enjoy the surround sound to its fullest and see the screen in all its glory but without ruining their eyesight or straining their neck. But I'm just happy that most people don't try to sit in the middle. It leaves more room for me.

Please provide the name and address of this theater. It seems everyone in my neighborhood knows exactly where the sweet spot is and we have to wait at least two weeks even with mediocre new releases to get our place there without fighting!

Quote:
And I wonder why they don't try to get seats in the very center of the theater where I sit, where they can enjoy the surround sound to its fullest and see the screen in all its glory but without ruining their eyesight or straining their neck. But I'm just happy that most people don't try to sit in the middle. It leaves more room for me.

Yeah, sometimes I'm curious about that myself. My girlfriend would never even consider sitting anywhere else in the theater but the dead center because of that same reason, which works out for me as well because that's where you get the optimal viewing experience anyway. It could also be a bit of a pain as well, as I've had to walk out of theaters numerous times because all of those good seats were taken moments after the people were let in.

That's why most of us go on Mondays or Tuesdays...and days after the release....

Quote:
I have a 32" 1080i and I sit about 9 feet away from it, and I do notice the difference between not-HD digital video, and real HD video.

I take it that 1080i is a CRT? Well if it has 1080 lines of viewable data, no matter if you have 20/20 vision you will not perceive the amount of detail delivered. In fact, just a couple more feet away and you'll be unable to resolve the full amount of detail in an NTSC 720x480 image. Any more than 11 feet, two inches from away from the screen, and even NTSC would be a waste of money for you since you cannot resolve that resolution from that distance with perfect vision.

The fact you can tell broadcast analog NTSC from HD at that distance probably has more to do with signal quality (stability, color depth, etc.) than actual resolution.

Sky,

The secret is (1) getting to the theater early (I like to arrive at least ten minutes before the trailers start, and it gives me time to socialize with a movie buddy or with my wife), (2) going to an early matinee on a weekday (yeah, the joys of retirement), and (3) maybe waiting a week or two after the movie has opened (today was an exception with "The Bank Job," and we noticed there were quite a few more people than usual. Normally, we're practically the only people in the multiplex).

John

Quote:
My girlfriend would never even consider sitting anywhere else in the theater but the dead center because of that same reason, which works out for me as well because that's where you get the optimal viewing experience anyway.

It's not just viewing experience, but audio experience as well. Each audio channel is calibrated to converge properly to that center point, which just coincides with the THX recommended viewing angle specification of course. Sitting elsewhere is like having those late quests that come to your house take that awful seating area near the left rear surround speaker.

Quote:
The secret is (1) getting to the theater early (I like to arrive at least ten minutes before the trailers start, and it gives me time to socialize with a movie buddy or with my wife),

Make that at least 30 minutes where we live for a popular new release thats only been out for a week or two. For many popular releases in their first week, it means lining up even if you used the Kiosk the day before to pay for your ticket just to get in. So that means waiting in line for perhaps half an hour and another half hour waiting for the screen to turn on with the first commercials. We used to be a small town, but suburbia ate us up many, many years ago.

Err... course they did built us that giant mega multiplex after we got eaten. Before that, the closest movie experience to be had was at a drive-in theater (now long gone). Darn we had good times at those drive-ins! We used to park lawn chairs in the place of our car on warm summer nights, and have a cooler of ice & beer there...

Quote:
I take it that 1080i is a CRT? Well if it has 1080 lines of viewable data, no matter if you have 20/20 vision you will not perceive the amount of detail delivered. In fact, just a couple more feet away and you'll be unable to resolve the full amount of detail in an NTSC 720x480 image. Any more than 11 feet, two inches from away from the screen, and even NTSC would be a waste of money for you since you cannot resolve that resolution from that distance with perfect vision.

According to the doctor 15/20, anyways, it's an LCD, and I can see difference (I tend to be very picky on A/V quality sometimes, go figure), I think that a 42" would be almost perfect, and above 60", I think it's home theatre room material.

I'm just saying that if in order to take 'advantage' of the HDTV you need to sit 'closer', it's just not worth it, it's kinda stupid. One thing is sitting in front of your PC's LCD monitor, and another is watching your HDTV. Again, it would be like having glasses, or surgery, and still needing to bring the book/paper close to read it...

Quote:
Skyturd: And as the expert I am, you should heed the advice provided to you my myself and several others on this thread to actually take advantage of the money you've spent.

Just proves once again that you have no concept of sarcasm. Perhaps that is because it is the humor of the intelligent. Thank you for admitting you're a poster child for another truism: "a fool and his money are soon parted"

Quote:
I'm just saying that if in order to take 'advantage' of the HDTV you need to sit 'closer', it's just not worth it, it's kinda stupid.

Well fine. Sit further back and continue to perceive "hardly any difference" between "upconverted standard DVD" and HD DVD or Blu-ray. It's no skin off of my back dude. To each their own. I just provided information... whether you want to go for it or not is up to you. Meanwhile, others will actually be experiencing and perceiving HD. I hope that's acceptable with you?

Here is another secret: never go to a Muvico theater within the first two weeks of a newly released movie because you'll have to stand in line for like 30-45 minutes before they even start letting you in. And once you're in you'll really have to hustle to get good seats. Unfortunately, that's the only theater my GF is willing to got to which is kind of a bummer.

Oh, the things I have to endure in order to please her.

^^^^^^
Of course that only applies to Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights. Well basically when most people go to see movies.

Skydork you are a looser. if you cant see a trend towards the shortening of the average viewing distance you are as ignorant as i thought. ten years ago from 4-5 metres a 29", 4:3 tv was considered adequate, now the accepted screen size is twice that. Please stop living in the past my friend, and please stop quoting that friggin "THX viewing distance" because you cant "translate" the data to a normal environment accurately. you have referenced that info at least ten times that i know of. The point im trying to make is- looking forward the difference between native and display resolutions will become of more significance as viewing distaces continue to follow the current trend. just as your coments become less so..

Toshibaman,

A little calm and little respect, please. This is hardly a matter to fight about.

On the other hand, I've heard spirited debates and angry words over things like Macs vs. PCs, vinyl records vs. CDs, cone speakers vs. ribbons, Fords vs. Chevys, Ferraris vs. Lamborghinis, to say nothing of the two high-def formats. But, really, viewing distances seem to be a little silly topic for anger.

About all one can do is recommend a possible viewing distance and then let people choose for themselves what's comfortable for them. I have friends, relatives, and neighbors who watch their high-def sets at all kinds of odd distances and odd angles. They're happy. What's important to one person isn't always important to another.

John

Does anyone here know how to read data? The chart says sit closer OR have a bigger screen. Nobody said you have to sit closer unless you've already bought the tv, OK? Just a suggestion to help you save money.... if you choose to reject it, then buy a bigger tv.
The whole point that is trying to be made, which toshibaman just ignored is that tv's are getting bigger and bigger. Whereas 4-5m on a 29" tv was normal before, 6-8 feet on a 50 inch is more, how you would say, trendy. More people living in smaller homes in cities earning more money, buying electronics..... living room with maximum 12' of room=buying bigger and bigger tv's with the same amount of distance.

btw mvckalel
15/20 is not good vision, it means you can only see at 15 feet what the normal person can see at 20 feet. 20/15 means that you can see at 20 feet what the normal person can only see at 15 feet. just in case you're wondering.
actually it is distance the test is conducted/smallest letters you could read. so you read 20/20. standing 15 feet away instead of 20.

---

[Post edited by theprof00 on Mar 10, 2008]

When I first got my Panasonic 42 inch rear LCD, my wife said that I would go blind due to me being only 5-6 feet away. But I tryed to explin to her that it was the best viewable option. My Home Theater is kinda small, but the sights and sounds are awesome. And as soon as I load up my pictures of the room, I will post them on here.

old wive's-tale. Not to worry, sitting close actually improves peripheral vision. i will find the article i read and post it.

Quote:
15/20 is not good vision, it means you can only see at 15 feet what the normal person can see at 20 feet. 20/15 means that you can see at 20 feet what the normal person can only see at 15 feet. just in case you're wondering.
actually it is distance the test is conducted/smallest letters you could read. so you read 20/20. standing 15 feet away instead of 20.

Sorry, it beats not being able to distinguish what the url info on the web browser reads...and yeah, it was 20/15, better than 20/20, but this I posted in order to answer an earlier post...

And again, it would be like having glasses and still having to get close to the book to read it...

I'm new and confused.

I'm about ready to buy a blu ray player, just waiting on the new models to come out. After reading this I'm not so sure. I have a 65" Hitachi CRT (1080i) with HDMI, but my viewing distance is about 16 feet away. Do to the room layout, I will not be able to move any closer. I'm more concerned with PQ than audio right now. Would I be wasting my money, or should I just get a high quality upconverter and be happy with that?

mvc
beats not being able to read the url in the web browser?
what does that mean?
I'm just suggesting that maybe you should get your details right before you start posting remarks against others.
Against the OP you denounce having to sit closer, stating no difference. Since his post had something to do with people claiming BR had the same rez as dvd, by attacking that idea, you claimed to be one of those he "accuses". Which fair enough I have noticed coming from your past responses. So basically you defended the anti-BR side and posted information about your visual acuity which, all in all sounded like an exaggerated defense in response to someone, with one slight problem you said the wrong numbers, from a supposed recent trip to the dr.'s, then you changed your answer.
You see I don't particularly care who wins. I just want someone to win and put an end to indecision and confusion. But sometimes i read extremely biased opinions with relatively inaccurate facts coming from the anti-BR side. How this thread turned into an anti BR diatribe is beyond me, but the undertones of "HD is not worth it anymore" or "better options than BR" currently flooding through this forum are hardly inconspicuous. It would just be nice, for once, if people Accepted without "Except......"ing

First of all, I was saying that now that I have a better eyesight (specially since I wasn't able to distinguish what the URL on a website said), and I can enjoy video better, I think it's, IMO, not that bright to sit 3 feet away from the TV, and even when my HDTV is 32" and it is 8 feet away, it looks really good.

Second, having being and maybe still being the HD 'fanboy' that I am, doesn't mean that I have to attack blu-ray...all that most of us HD DVD users denounce is the inability of Sony to release a reliable player for the format, that is within most of us pockets.

And remember, this thread is about 'in order to get more detail from your HDTV, you need to sit closer' kinda...which, yet again, and again, IMO, I think it's a worthless technology, because I assume that within 8 feet, most of us who have a normal and good eyesight, can actually perceive more detail than with SD DVD (regardless of upconversion).

Also, calm down, you are way too emotional with this, really, no offense and no joke. And, BTW, I'm one of the least biased person in this forum, I don't know where you get your claims, specially when most of you can't...

mvc i want you to understand that this is not specifically against you. This is against all the exaggerations and predictions and bitterness that goes on in this forum.
yes i do know that you are one of the least biased, but sometimes your comments really spur the HDDVDRIP fanboys. I know it's not intentional.
I agree sitting closer to a tv should not be practical, but that is not the nature of the HDTV realm in the first place. These are products that costs small fortunes to build up, and by no necessity is any one of them necessary.
If you have good vision, then by all means you can get a few extra feet out of the deal, but for the rest of us (20/20 me) if you are going to spend lots of money on something with lots of PQ and such, then it might be a good idea to have a semi disposable income from which to support the need for HD so that maybe you can buy a 70" tv for that 20 foot long livingroom you have. Yaknow?
It's really not against you specifically mvc, just that, you are a minority (visually) speaking for a majority. I've always tried to make my posts as light as possible, i was just illustrating the image that you put out there.

See, I have a 'normal' eyesight now, I didn't use to couple of months back, and I think the majority (that doesn't mean 99%, maybe 60-70%) of people have a good eyesight.

In regards HDTV, I don't find the usefulness of having to sit close to the HDTV in order to get more 'detail', I just don't find it, and so far, when somebody says why, it's not convincing, it's not common sense, it doesn't make any sense. Don't get me wrong, I love technology, movies, and 'huge' HDTVs, but for me to sit 10 inches away from the TV (yes, I'm exagerating), is a big NO.

Again, it's my own personal opinion...and then after that we have the HD DVD/blu-ray thing, which is done, then the 'new' DVD2...and our pockets? Still bleeding, ugh!

actually, mvc
if your eyesight is 20/20, you are considered to have "perfect eyesight". normal eyesight is probably between 20/20 and 20/40.

i agree. Because of this confusion, getting more support and economy scale sales is sadly still far away. The reason why my BR's are not cheaper is because not enough people buy them compared to dvds. yet.

I just want a reliable dedicated blu-ray player (that won't bleed the blood that's still left in my body) so that I can play my Ratatouille (Cars when I get around to buy it), and any future Pixar releases...and some new movies that I will like...is that too much to ask?

mvckalel, John the reviewer here hasn't had any playback problems with his BD30. Perhaps that's one to consider?

mvc,

Yes, as Sky says, I've had a Panasonic BD30 for a while now, played a number of BD movies in it, and never had a single mishap yet. I chose it because I wanted a stand-alone player to sit next to my Toshiba A35 and not take up too much room. I also wanted a player that didn't cost an arm and a leg, yet did everything I needed it to do (mainly, higher audio codecs like TrueHD and DTS Master Audio, plus PiP). The only thing I didn't care about was whether it decoded the audio internally (because my receiver does that) and whether it had an Internet port (which I've never used on my Toshiba machines). From everything I read, the Panasonic fit the bill.

Here are two sites that might help. The first is the official owners' thread for the Panny BD30 at AVS (careful, it's 260 pages long and growing). The second is a listing of all current Blu-ray players and what they do (and don't do):

[http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13357845/url]

http://www.idoblu.co.uk/page2%20Blu-ray%20Players.html

John

Thanx, I might consider it, since it doesn't look we'll get any other good ones any time soon...and I don't wana have to buy Wall-e on SD DVD when I can get it on hi-def...

EDIT: Either that or the PS3 (I think gaming outweights stand alone)...why so difficult!!!

---

[Post edited by mvckalel on Mar 12, 2008]

Quote:
EDIT: Either that or the PS3 (I think gaming outweights stand alone)...why so difficult!!!

Go PS3...

1) Wireless internet
2) Able to be updated to profile 2.0
3) It's the only BD player on the market right now that's future-proof.

In regards to gaming:

I haven't played a single game on my PS3 yet, nor do I plan to. As a BD player it excels...period.

I reserve my gaming for the 360.

mvckalel...

FYI...

> Home Theater Magazine REVIEW of the Panasonic DMP-BD30 Profile 1.1 Blu-ray player

-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)