blu ray player vertical image
Becky
I know Blu Ray players can upconvert regular DVDs, so is there any major difference in picture between a regular DVD or Blu Ray DVD when both are played on a Blu Ray player?
Answer
A regular DVD on an upconverting 1080p DVD player won't match the resolution of a true Blu-Ray Disc on a Blu-Ray player. On the other hand, a Blu-Ray player won't give better resolution than an unpconverting DVD player in upconversion of a regular DVD.
In my opinion, and from my experience, it would be like comparing a 1080i (1280 x 1080 = 1,382,400 pixels) resolution to a 1080p (1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600) resolution. Therefore, an interlaced format is nearly half the resolution (i.e. every other vertical line is "interlaced" or blended as opposed to "progessive" which is where you get every line).
Bottom line, compare for your self by experimenting between the different choices available on the video market and you decide whether the difference justifies upgrading your system or not.
Happy viewing!
A regular DVD on an upconverting 1080p DVD player won't match the resolution of a true Blu-Ray Disc on a Blu-Ray player. On the other hand, a Blu-Ray player won't give better resolution than an unpconverting DVD player in upconversion of a regular DVD.
In my opinion, and from my experience, it would be like comparing a 1080i (1280 x 1080 = 1,382,400 pixels) resolution to a 1080p (1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600) resolution. Therefore, an interlaced format is nearly half the resolution (i.e. every other vertical line is "interlaced" or blended as opposed to "progessive" which is where you get every line).
Bottom line, compare for your self by experimenting between the different choices available on the video market and you decide whether the difference justifies upgrading your system or not.
Happy viewing!
Who watched the Leafs vs Habs game in 3D?
RoonilWazl
It was the first ever hockey game in 3D so I was just wondering how it was. Same as normal television? Or something so good that people should buy 3D TV's now?
BQ: Should hockey be in 3D at all?
Answer
I watched that game in 3D. My TV was manufactured in 2007 and is 3D ready. Before they stopped making them - I bought a Samsung 56" DLP rear projection TV in 2008, so I had a 3D ready TV for 2 years before getting any 3D content.
Eventually, I believe all newer TVs will all be 3D ready. And all 3D TVs double as great 2D sets.
The game in 3D was different than traditional 2D. In 2D your eyes never change focus. It's like looking at a painting. Your eyes move across the surface, but your focus is constant. In 3D you're focusing changes. Focusing on things close to you, focusing on things in the distant. When the puck goes in the air, you can judge where it's going to land - near or far. In 3D you really notice how the players appear vertical to the ice surface. Crowd shots were really good and they did show the crowd more than normal, which I wished they'd do in all their broadcasts. Game score graphics appeared to be on the TV screen surface, while the game itself appeared further back, inside the TV. In 3D, you're more aware of the surroundings. It's very much like being there, looking through a window, rather than staring at a moving picture. They showed more shots from ice level behind the glass and kept on them longer than what we're accustomed to in 2D broadcasts. I enjoyed it and really felt part of a live 3D experiment.
The 3D glasses the televisions use are active shutter glasses and as you may have noticed, the lenses are slightly tinted. That does effect the brightness a bit, but doesn't ruin the effect.
Should hockey be in 3D at all? 3D viewing even on a 3D ready TV will always be a choice. I've always been interested in 3D images, so I love it. Is 3D better than 2D? I really wouldn't say it's better. It's just deeper (pun intended). I'm sure other sports will look even better in 3D. The fact that hockey's ice surface is enclosed by boards and glass, limit the camera options in getting an unobstructed view. I'm not a football or basketball fan, but I can see how those sports would really shine in 3D, because the playing field is open.
Something so good that people should buy 3D TVs now? Depends on the individual. Right now, you can get more 3D content on blu ray than what is broadcast on TV (for me anyway). The majority of my viewing is 2D HD. But being 3D ready for those movies or occasional special events on TV right now is a nice option.
I watched that game in 3D. My TV was manufactured in 2007 and is 3D ready. Before they stopped making them - I bought a Samsung 56" DLP rear projection TV in 2008, so I had a 3D ready TV for 2 years before getting any 3D content.
Eventually, I believe all newer TVs will all be 3D ready. And all 3D TVs double as great 2D sets.
The game in 3D was different than traditional 2D. In 2D your eyes never change focus. It's like looking at a painting. Your eyes move across the surface, but your focus is constant. In 3D you're focusing changes. Focusing on things close to you, focusing on things in the distant. When the puck goes in the air, you can judge where it's going to land - near or far. In 3D you really notice how the players appear vertical to the ice surface. Crowd shots were really good and they did show the crowd more than normal, which I wished they'd do in all their broadcasts. Game score graphics appeared to be on the TV screen surface, while the game itself appeared further back, inside the TV. In 3D, you're more aware of the surroundings. It's very much like being there, looking through a window, rather than staring at a moving picture. They showed more shots from ice level behind the glass and kept on them longer than what we're accustomed to in 2D broadcasts. I enjoyed it and really felt part of a live 3D experiment.
The 3D glasses the televisions use are active shutter glasses and as you may have noticed, the lenses are slightly tinted. That does effect the brightness a bit, but doesn't ruin the effect.
Should hockey be in 3D at all? 3D viewing even on a 3D ready TV will always be a choice. I've always been interested in 3D images, so I love it. Is 3D better than 2D? I really wouldn't say it's better. It's just deeper (pun intended). I'm sure other sports will look even better in 3D. The fact that hockey's ice surface is enclosed by boards and glass, limit the camera options in getting an unobstructed view. I'm not a football or basketball fan, but I can see how those sports would really shine in 3D, because the playing field is open.
Something so good that people should buy 3D TVs now? Depends on the individual. Right now, you can get more 3D content on blu ray than what is broadcast on TV (for me anyway). The majority of my viewing is 2D HD. But being 3D ready for those movies or occasional special events on TV right now is a nice option.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: Quality difference between playing a regular DVD on Blu Ray player vs. a Blu Ray DVD on Blu Ray player?
Rating: 100% based on 998 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 100% based on 998 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment