As part of my move, I created a new home theater. Some of the equipment is still on order but, by the time it all arrives, I should have something more impressive than what I had before. The size of the screen will decrease (from 65" to 52") but the overall quality of the video will be better. However, this raised an unsettling question for me: What good is a beautiful 52" 1080p LCD if there's no 1080p content to play on it? My current plan is not to hook up a cable signal but, even if I did, the best cable can offer is 720p, which isn't what I'm looking for. An upconverting DVD player will output at 1080p, but the source material is still 480p and looks like it.
Don't Look Down 2008 1080p
When PlayStation 3 was initially released a year ago, it was widely booed. The unit was prone to glitches, there weren't enough games, and the price was exorbitant. A year later, many of the bugs have been worked out, the price has been driven down, and the number of game titles is on the rise. Every PS3 unit has a perfectly functioning Blu-Ray player with 1080p output via HDMI. And it's only $400 (with one disc in the box and the five freebies). So, for only $50 more than the cheapest stand-alone Blu-Ray player or $100 more than the 1080p HD-DVD player, I can get a complete gaming system... I'm not the world's biggest gamer, but I do occasionally use computer and video games for recreational purposes, and this deal is a little too good to pass up, all things considered.
I want to add a clarification here. I chose Blu-Ray because it fits my needs best, both in terms of economics and because there are more Blu-Ray titles that interest me than HD-DVD titles. This doesn't mean that Blu-Ray is "better" or that HD-DVD is "worse." For those who don't care about 1080p and are happy with 720p or 1080i, HD-DVD is clearly the better economic choice.
Widescreen Version - 1080p resolution. A lot of times in my standard DVD reviews I write things like, "I can only imagine how this movie will play in one of the next generation formats." Well, getting to see this film on HD-DVD (and in its standard format) was illuminating in a lot of ways. I know that average people probably aren't going to do side by side comparisons of all this stuff. Most people don't have the time. However, this HD-DVD release looks immaculate. In fact, I feel that once people get hipped to how good this next generation release looks, they will have a hard time watching Standard DVDs (which still look pretty darn good by the way). The picture is so clean here it is scary. There isn't a hint of fuzziness in any of the ways that the picture has been rendered. I can only imagine what people are going to say once the prices of all this next generation equipment comes down.
Anybody who has followed any of my reviews knows that I don't like musicals. They take me out of the story and constantly remind me that I am watching a movie. The fact that I didn't like these songs at all (too modern for my tastes) makes me think A) I just didn't get this film or B) I was simply the wrong person to review this movie. I will say that the animation was great and that on DVD this thing looked pristine. It is truly amazing what can be done with computers nowadays.
"99% of PS3 titles will natively render at 720p; the few that come out with 1080"x" support are either going to be simple classic arcade ports that don't need to render complex scenes... Or will give up a lot of in-game visual effects and simply won't look very good (hence the poor showing of Gran Turismo "HD" at this past E3)," he continued.
Films and TV shows can be selected by category (genre), by most popular (top 50) or by most recently added. You can also view just the HD titles by looking in the "genre" drop-down list and selecting "HD." From what I could see, there is currently no indication of aspect ratio (e.g., 4:3 vs. 16:9) in the movie listings - some of the SD content is 4:3, some is 16:9. All of the HD titles I viewed were presented in a widescreen 16:9 aspect ratio.
If you're expecting Netflix online streaming to look like your typical YouTube video, you're in for a pleasant surprise. Quality of playback depends on your available internet speed and a good fast network connection can get you entirely acceptable picture performance. When you select a film for playback, you'll get a screen showing "quality" level (which is based on your current download speed from your provider). Then you get a status bar as the first part of the film is buffered for playback. This process should complete in under a minute and then playback will begin. With my roughly 5 MBPS download speed on basic Time Warner Cable, split among a few different computers and CE devices, I was generally getting about 11 bars out of 13 for quality, and this presented a stable viewable moving picture with some visible compression artifacts, but few major glitches.
If I have a DSL, UMTS or whatever network conection, I experience different speeds. I suppose that these speeds are determined by the server and by the use of the network at the moment. But, is there some sort of administration (from the side of the provider) to balance the network or it "just happen"? Is there some sort of traffic central that provides more bandwidth for user that have downloaded less or are requesting less? Do some ports (like http or VoIp ports) get preference? GoingOnTracks (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have an MP3 file on my computer that I downloaded. However, the audio only comes from 1 side (speaker or headphone) when I play it. I'd like to be able to listen to it on my ipod. What is the easiest way to equalize the audio so that sound comes from both sides? I am on Windows XP. Thanks. Nadando (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi neil - you have some very good points - personally - with SD card slots appearing in many more standard devices i'm wondering (hoping!) that an increase in general usage (and size) of these cards will drive the unit cost down at an even greater rate compared to the current depreciation gradient you are observing - of all the feedback so far - to me DRM rather than cost appears to be the key factor limiting this format's uptake by the content providers - it's a real pity that the ease of (re)use of these mini-hard drive type devices is the very feature halting their general use by the studios! - presumably - taking the whole thing even further - laptops may become obsolete eventually as we all start carrying around our own apps/files/OS on such cards and insert them in the nearest (free?) viewer/I-O devices (on the back of aircraft seats or in cafes!)Grazer1 (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Time for some fun with 3D gaming. 1080p and mid-range chipsets don't usually match but the PowerVR SGX544 usually makes for a good GPU. It turns out that GLBenchmark 2.5 Egypt level graphics are too much for the Hero, which offered a low 12fps. Other phablets like the Mate and Mega 6.3 don't do too hot either, but they only have to render graphics at 720p, which gives them a big boost. 2ff7e9595c