BluRay first look

[MIkeDuke]

http://www.avrev.com/news/0306/08.blu_ray.shtml
Just a quick peak at what we might see.

[tpigeon2003]

I see that jerry is implying that some of the movies released with have 192/24 audio. I wounder if this is true or if he is smoking crack, anyone know?

[Thebarnman]

That's a great article!

Blu-ray is the way to go!

[amillians]

Smoking crack. While shrooming and doing peyote hits.

The above "article" is beyond silly. And it's stale...that event was weeks ago and has already been discussed to death in the big thread.

Specifically for the audio, at the event, Sony said a *few* titles would feature LPCM tracks (assume 48/20 best case, since that's what the masters are at). One "journalist" translated that to mean *all* Sony titles would features LPCM tracks. Not to be outdone, this guy added that they would all be 6 channel 192/24. Ha!

[FilmMixer]

[QUOTE=amillians]Smoking crack. While shrooming and doing peyote hits.

The above "article" is beyond silly. And it's stale...that event was weeks ago and has already been discussed to death in the big thread.

Specifically for the audio, at the event, Sony said a *few* titles would feature LPCM tracks (assume 48/20 best case, since that's what the masters are at). One "journalist" translated that to mean *all* Sony titles would features LPCM tracks. Not to be outdone, this guy added that they would all be 6 channel 192/24. Ha![/QUOTE]

Almost all masters now a days are made at 48 / 24, not 20.

[amillians]

Ooops, you got me. My bad. Thanks for the correction!

[chris062]

Did anybody notice that he was talking about the striking difference on a 30 foot screen? On my 50" screen, I wonder if the difference will be that noticeable. I do hope there is a significant improvement, but it still remaijns to be "seen".

[Earz]

[QUOTE=chris062]Did anybody notice that he was talking about the striking difference on a 30 foot screen? On my 50" screen, I wonder if the difference will be that noticeable. I do hope there is a significant improvement, but it still remaijns to be "seen".[/QUOTE]

As compared to what...the hd dvd comparisons on smaller screens were the comparison looks less than 480i....and still the hd dvd doesn't look very good in comparison ;)

[Sean Nelson]

[QUOTE=chris062]Did anybody notice that he was talking about the striking difference on a 30 foot screen? On my 50" screen, I wonder if the difference will be that noticeable. I do hope there is a significant improvement, but it still remaijns to be "seen".[/QUOTE]30 feet vs. 50" makes no difference. The size of the screen means nothing without knowing how close you are to it. The more the picture fills your field of view, the more of an impact HD material will make. I sit close enough to my 19" computer monitor to make my 50" TV look small by comparison.

What I've found is that the acid test is to look at faces in the "background" of a scene. For example, faces in the audience at a sporting event (assuming they are close enough to be able to make out the eyes, nose, mouth, etc.) It seems that we're very sensitive to the ability to recognize faces, and any detriment to that recognition is immediately apparent.

I've watched background faces in the same scenes at HD and SD resolution at a distance of about 1.5 times the screen width, and the difference is really, really obvious. But if you're sitting at a distance of 2.5X or more times the screen width, you'll probably think that HD is a waste of money.