| HIGH-DEF DISC NEWS TAGGED "HD ADVISOR" | Receive High-Def Disc News via RSS |  |
Tonight I'm Gonna Party Like It's HD Advisor 99
Fri Mar 25, 2011 at 02:45 PM ETTags: HD Advisor, Joshua Zyber (all tags)
|
Editor's Note: Each Friday, High-Def Digest's own HD Advisor will answer a new round of questions from our readers. If you have home theater questions you need answered, send an email to HDanswers@gmail.com. |
Answers by Joshua Zyber
Video Processors and Constant Image Height
Q: I have a question about the DVDO iScan VP50Pro video scaler since you own one. I have my projection screen set up as 2.20:1 so I can watch 70mm films like 'Baraka', '2001' and 'Patton' in their original ratio. When I watch 35mm films, I see the tiny black bars on the top and bottom, which is fine with me. I was wondering if I bought the DVDO iScan, will it get rid of the black bars? I'm not using an anamorphic lens by the way, just the zooming method. Also, when I watch 'The Dark Knight' on Blu-ray, when the IMAX sequences appear, the picture spill over the top and bottom of the screen. Will the iScan fix that too? I just want to know how the iScan works and I couldn't find the answers on the web.
A: In today's market, where advanced processing chips are often built right into Blu-ray players, A/V receivers, and even HDTVs themselves, the dedicated video processor (once the heart of many high-end home theaters) has largely become irrelevant. For most people, that's a good thing. It's one less (expensive) device to install or fiddle with. However, one area where a good video processor is still invaluable is Constant Image Height projection. The primary reason for that is aspect ratio control. A CIH viewer with a 2.35:1 projection screen will need to be able to watch movies and TV shows of any aspect ratio properly displayed on that screen. Unfortunately, the processing chips built into most CE devices lack enough flexibility to accommodate that.
I've owned DVDO video processors for years, starting with the company's early iScan Plus "line doubler." From there, I dutifully upgraded from one product generation to another until the flagship iScan VP50Pro, which I've owned since release in 2007. I'm fed up with the company and will be moving to competitor Lumagen shortly, but we'll get to the reason for that in a minute.
One of the best features of the VP50Pro is its very intuitive setup menus. The aspect ratio controls are divided into two categories: Input and Output. On the Output side, you tell the processor the aspect ratio of your screen (in your case, 2.20:1). On the Input side, tell it the aspect ratio of the content you're watching. The processor will then automatically fit the content properly on your screen. A 2.20:1 movie like 'Patton' will fill the 2.20:1 screen. A 2.35:1 movie will have small letterbox bars on the top and bottom. A 16:9 TV show will appear with pillarbox bars on the sides. In the iScan menus, you can dial in exactly what you need, and the processor will always do the right thing with it.
The VP50Pro also includes support for Constant Image Height regardless of whether you use an anamorphic lens or the "Zoom Method" (as you do).
To clarify something, when you use the Zoom Method, your projector shines parts of its image (the top and bottom parts containing black letterbox bars) beyond the borders of your screen. No video processor will ever be able to remove those letterbox bars on its own. They're a permanent part of the projector's pixel panel. You need an anamorphic lens to redirect those pixels into your screen area.
What a video processor can do for you, however, is apply electronic blanking to the overshoot area, so that no movie content ever appears in it. 'The Dark Knight' or the upcoming 'Tron: Legacy', for example, are movies primarily at a 2.35:1 aspect ratio with selected scenes that expand to fill the 16:9 frame. This looks great on an HDTV, but not so great on a 2.35:1 screen, because now parts of the movie image appear on the wall around your screen. By blanking off those parts of the frame, you'll never see the excess image.
So, I kind of sound like a DVDO cheerleader here, don't I? I used to be, but right now I can't recommend the company's products anymore. DVDO discontinued all development and support of the VP50Pro almost two years ago, despite the fact that the processor is still officially its "flagship" product and still has several prominent bugs that were never fixed. The VP50Pro is glitchy to the point of being useless when it comes to passing through high-res Blu-ray audio, and cannot support 3D video at all. DVDO has no plans to replace the VP50Pro with another flagship processor.
In the meantime, the company has focused its energies on its newer, lower-end Edge and Duo processors, which are incredibly rudimentary in design and completely lack even basic aspect ratio control, which had been a core part of every DVDO processor dating back to the iScan-HD in 2004. The company has simply abandoned its advanced users. I've had enough.
DVDO's main competitor in this area is Lumagen, whose Radiance XS processor is directly comparable to the iScan VP50Pro – but a lot more stable and able to fully process 3D video. Lumagen also has a much better track record in recent years for supporting its products with regular firmware updates. Just this week, I finally made the decision to order a Radiance XS, and look forward to receiving it soon.
Lumagen also recently introduced an entry-level product called the Radiance Mini-3D, which (unlike DVDO's current models) seems to be fully-featured, except that it has fewer inputs and outputs. I have a lot of equipment in my home theater system, and will find the more advanced Radiance XS's two HDMI outputs very helpful for routing audio directly to my (non-3D-compatible) receiver separately from the video. Your needs may vary.
The main downside to Lumagen's video processors, unfortunately, is that they are much more complex and less intuitive to use than DVDO's. A friend of mine recently purchased the Radiance XS and demonstrated it for me. The setup menus are very confusing, and the user manual offers little help. The processor appears to have all of the important features, but figuring out how to use them can be a challenge. A learning curve will be necessary after installation.
Still, at this point, it's more important to me to have a product that works and that I know will be supported in the future. I can put up with a little inconvenience for that.
Universal Studios Blu-ray Quality
Q: Can you give me a couple examples of Universal's worst and Universal's best Blu-rays?
A: I assume that this question was prompted by some comments I made last week about Universal Studios authoring many catalog titles from old, inferior DVD masters that are not up to current video transfer standards. I stand by that.
Universal is one of the most frustrating studios to release movies on Blu-ray. Day-and-date titles from the studio are almost always excellent. Off the top of my head here, discs like 'Duplicity', 'Drag Me to Hell' and 'Leatherheads' all look terrific. The same applies to those few catalog titles that the studio goes to the trouble of re-transferring from original film elements. (For example, the Blu-ray edition of 'Dune' sports a new transfer that looks vastly superior to the crummy DVD that was released just a couple years earlier.)
The take-away from this is that the studio does a great job these days with film-to-video transfers… when it bothers to do them.
The problem is that, when it comes to catalog titles, Universal rarely strikes new video transfers. Instead, the studio more often than not recycles older high-def video masters that were originally created with DVD in mind. There's a business reason for this, of course. Universal created thousands of HD masters in the '90s and 2000s with the expectation of "future-proofing" its catalog. Those transfers were expensive at the time, and re-transferring all those titles would be another huge expense now. Universal is certainly not the only studio to re-use old DVD masters for Blu-ray, either. Most studios do, to some degree.
In itself, recycling older video masters wouldn't be such an issue if only those old masters were decent quality. Unfortunately, they often aren't. Many of the transfers that Universal struck for DVD were burdened with Edge Enhancement, Digital Noise Reduction, and other heavy-handed processing techniques that stand out like a sore thumb on Blu-ray.
Universal eventually cleaned up its act, and newer transfers look fine. I'm not sure if there's an exact cut-off date for when that happened, but both 'Carlito's Way' and 'Pitch Black' look great on Blu-ray, despite not being remastered. So, not all of the studio's old DVD transfers are terrible. However, far too many of them suffer from unsightly artifacts that were baked into the old masters. The studio needs to closer inspect the condition of each of its masters before deciding which titles to reissue on Blu-ray, and then remaster titles when needed – which will surely be more often than it wants to admit.
For some of the worst Universal discs, take a look at 'Spartacus' (which has been wiped clean of almost any textural detail) or 'Tremors' (which is plagued by really thick, ugly edge ringing artifacts). Those movies should not have been issued on Blu-ray in their current conditions. Discs like these are shameful. They give the studio a bad reputation, and leave consumers wary of buying its products.
The HD Advisor knows many things, but he doesn't know everything. Some questions are best answered with a consensus of opinions from our readers. If you can help to answer the following question, please post your response in our forum thread linked at the end of this article. Your advice and opinions matter too!
PS3 Audio Setup Issue
Q: I encountered this when setting up a client's home theater system when I was living in Florida. We had his PS3 hooked into his receiver via HDMI, but only got PCM audio. If I remember, I had to go into the menu and activate the digital output for Toslink or coaxial to make Dolby TrueHD work. It made no sense whatsoever: the Optical output wasn't being used at all, and the setting on it should have had no bearing on what was output via HDMI. But as soon as I did that, bam! the Dolby TrueHD light on the receiver came on.
JZ: I personally have the original PS3, which must decode all advanced audio formats internally and transmit them as PCM over HDMI. Only the newer PS3 Slim model can transmit the raw digital bitstreams for Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio and send them to an A/V receiver for decoding (which would light up the receiver's TrueHD indicator). I assume that's the one your client has. I agree that you shouldn't have to turn on the Toslink or coaxial outputs to affect how audio is transmitted over HDMI, but stranger bugs have been introduced into consumer electronic devices in the past. I'll have to put this out to our other PS3 Slim owners reading this. Is this a known issue?
Check back soon for another round of answers. Keep those questions coming.
Joshua Zyber's opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of this site, its owners or employees.
See what people are saying about this story in our forums area, or check out other recent discussions.
HD Advisor: 98 Degrees and Rising
Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 02:15 PM ETTags: HD Advisor, Joshua Zyber (all tags)
|
Editor's Note: Each Friday, High-Def Digest's own HD Advisor will answer a new round of questions from our readers. If you have home theater questions you need answered, send an email to HDanswers@gmail.com. |
Answers by Joshua Zyber
"Resume Play" Feature on Blu-ray
Q: When the PS3 was first introduced as a Blu-ray player, a disc had to be restarted from the beginning every time the disc was stopped. Then, one of the first firmware upgrades to the PS3 brought the capability to automatically return to the spot where the disc had been stopped without re-starting. Unfortunately, not all discs utilize this feature. It seems like at least half of the BDs I watch restart by going back to the beginning. Why don't all discs work the same way?
A: Although it's been a while since I last addressed this question here in the Advisor column, I get asked about the "resume play" feature on Blu-ray quite frequently. In fact, browsing through my backlog of questions, this may even be one of the most common questions I'm asked. I suppose it's time that I actually brought it up again here.
Erratic support for "resume play" is one of those areas where Blu-ray has sadly taken a step back from the convenience and ease-of-use we've grown accustomed to since the DVD era. Most DVD players support this function for any DVD disc. If you stop a movie before you're done with it, you can simply hit Play to restart right where you left off. Many models will even store this information in persistent memory after you eject the disc, for up to the last 5-10 discs you watched. Unfortunately, things are more complicated on Blu-ray.
When the Blu-ray format debuted in 2006, there was no "resume play" option at all. Every disc had to be restarted from the beginning if you stopped playback. Later player models started to incorporate the ability, but only for some discs, not all. (Some older players, such as the PS3, were also upgraded by firmware to add the feature.) However, even today, not all discs can be resumed from a stop-point, not matter which player you use.
BD-Java programming is the culprit here. Discs without Java will allow the "resume play" option if the player offers it. Unfortunately, discs with Java by default do not allow resume play. You can generally tell whether a disc has Java or not the first time you try to load it. If one of the first things you see is a "Loading" icon or status bar on screen, the disc has Java. If not, it probably doesn't (though this isn't necessarily a 100% guarantee).
Recently, some studios have discovered how to add a form of resume play within the Java programming itself. However, instead of the disc simply starting right up where you left off, you'll typically get a message on screen asking whether you want to resume your position or not. This may not appear until after the studio logo, copyright notices, and other annoyances. So there still may be a minute or two delay before you can jump back into the movie. And this feature has to be specifically authored onto the disc by the studio ahead of time. At present, there's no way for any Blu-ray player to get around this if the disc has Java but wasn't authored with resume play.
The worst part of all this? Most discs that are authored with Java don't actually need it for anything useful. For example, take the gimmicky menu system on most Sony Blu-ray releases – the ones with the menu options that jump around on screen when you cycle through them. That's the sort of pointless function that Java is being wasted on, at the expense of basic convenience features like resume play.
That's not to say that Java is always worthless on Blu-ray. Some discs actually do need it. Bonus View and BD-Live features require Java, for instance. However, in many cases it doesn't offer much value, is more nuisance than benefit.
Film-to-Video Transfer Process
Q: How are Blu-ray catalog titles authored? Do the studios start with the film negative or is some kind of digital master used? It confuses me when I hear about a Blu-ray using the same master used for the DVD. That talk makes me nervous. Wouldn't the studio have to start from scratch with a film negative, and clean the negative, to get the best image possible?
A: For most of the history of cinema, the majority of movies were shot on 35mm film. These days, many movies (but still a minority) are shot digitally. Even a significant portion of those shot on film today go through a Digital Intermediate (or "DI") process in post production. After the photography is completed, the film elements will be scanned to produce a digital file, which is used for all editing, color grading, etc. When all of that is done, the filmmakers are left with a master file that can be output back onto film or used as the basis for D-Cinema distribution. The DI will also form the basis of the video master used for all home video releases.
This isn't quite what you asked me. I mention it because the process for mastering catalog titles has some commonalities.
Of course, Digital Intermediates are a fairly recent development in the history of filmmaking, having taken prominence only in the last decade. Before that time, all movie post production work was completed on film from start to finish. After editing and color timing was completed from dupe film elements, a movie's original camera negative (OCN) would be conformed to match the final edit by a person called a Negative Cutter. Intermediate film elements called interpositives and internegatives would be created from that, and the OCN would then be shipped off to archive. Theatrical release prints were struck from the interpositives or internegatives. To reduce wear and tear, the OCN itself would be used very infrequently, if at all.
In the digital home video era, when a studio decides to transfer a movie that was produced without a Digital Intermediate, typically either an IP or IN will be scanned to create a digital video master. (Release prints are usually only used in a worst case scenario.) That video master is similar to a Digital Intermediate. It will be used as the basis for all subsequent video releases. Copies of the master will be transcoded to the desired format, scaled to the necessary output resolution, and digitally compressed.
In the early days of video, those film elements were often only scanned at standard-definition resolutions, leaving the studio with standard-def video masters. Since about the mid-'90s, most studios switched to scanning their movies at HD resolutions, even though the only home video formats then available were standard-def. For DVD release, the HD masters would be downconverted to SD resolution before authoring. That's still the case. Today, the exact same HD master will be used for both DVD and Blu-ray. One copy will be scaled to 1080p and the other to 480i, but the source remains the same.
At the time, it was assumed that these HD masters would "futureproof" the studios' movie catalogs for decades to come. As we learned throughout the history of DVD and now Blu-ray, that isn't necessarily the case. The quality of video transfer technology has improved dramatically over the years. HD masters created originally for DVD may be riddled with Edge Enhancement, Digital Noise Reduction, and other problems that leave them looking quite dreadful when re-used for Blu-ray.
Depending on the title and the studio involved, some studios (ahem, Universal) may be content to re-use these old, inferior DVD masters anyway for catalog titles. However, high priority titles may merit being "remastered." In a best case scenario, this means going back to the film elements (often the IP or IN again) to rescan using modern equipment and techniques. If the quality of the IP or IN isn't satisfactory, the original camera negative may even be pulled out of storage. But studios try to avoid this if possible, because they don't want to put unnecessary wear on the negative.
Unfortunately, lately we've seen some studios (I'm going to have to pick on Universal again) that throw around the word "remastered" to mean instead that the old DVD master has simply been digitally tweaked with new sharpening or DNR tools in the hopes of making it look somewhat better – or at least somewhat less awful. This is a cheapskate option that will result in limited returns. For the best quality, re-scanning from the film elements is practically a necessity. Some studios may use the buzzword "restored" to mean that they went to this much trouble and expense. That word may also imply that more advanced techniques such as frame-by-frame scratch removal and damage repair were employed.
Now, keep in mind that not all older video masters are necessarily awful. That depends on the age of the master, the studio, the equipment used, and the people who did the work. Some may still produce satisfying, even very good results. Also, not every studio labels every title that has had a new film-to-video scan. You could be getting a fresh remaster and not even know it. Just because the movie you want to watch is an older title that doesn't boast the words "remastered" or "restored" on the case, that doesn't automatically mean that it's going to look like crap. These things really have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and that's exactly how sites like ours treat them when reviewing the discs.
The HD Advisor knows many things, but he doesn't know everything. Some questions are best answered with a consensus of opinions from our readers. If you can help to answer the following question, please post your response in our forum thread linked at the end of this article. Your advice and opinions matter too!
A/V Receiver Upgrade Advice
Q: I'm considering the purchase of a Samsung PN58C7000 plasma and would like to tie it into some existing components previously used primarily for music. I'd also like to add other components to provide an enhanced video environment. This is in a 15'x21' family room with 18' ceiling. I'm using an old Denon AVC-3000 Surround Amplifier and pair of Vandersteen Model 2 front speakers. I plan to add a PSB Image C5 center speaker and pair of PSB Alpha LR1 rear surround speakers. Although my primary source for TV viewing is Verizon's FiOS System, I would still want to use VCR and disc sources. Will the Denon AVC-3000 properly handle both audio & video inputs/outputs of the new TV without degrading signals? Or should I consider buying a new amp/receiver? If a new one needed, do you have any recommendation in the $500-$1,000 range of sales price (not MSRP)?
JZ: From my Googling, it appears that the Denon AVC-3000 is a 1990 model Dolby ProLogic receiver. It lacks digital inputs of any sort (either audio or video). Forget about Blu-ray lossless audio; this model can't even do discrete 5.1 surround. The best you would get from this is to connect the stereo analog connections from your cable box into the receiver, to get a very basic form of matrixed surround sound. Personally, I'd suggest that it's time for you to upgrade. As for what you should buy, I'll leave those suggestions to our other helpful readers.
Check back soon for another round of answers. Keep those questions coming.
Joshua Zyber's opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of this site, its owners or employees.
See what people are saying about this story in our forums area, or check out other recent discussions.
HD Advisor Opus No. 96
Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 01:45 PM ETTags: HD Advisor, Joshua Zyber (all tags)
|
Editor's Note: Each Friday, High-Def Digest's own HD Advisor will answer a new round of questions from our readers. If you have home theater questions you need answered, send an email to HDanswers@gmail.com. |
Answers by Joshua Zyber
Is Lossless Audio Mostly Hype?
Q: I'm having a difficult time getting to grips with these new audio formats. The hype led me to purchase a Panasonic BD85. (I'm using multi-channel analog out, not HDMI.) I'm running both analog (lossless) and digital (lossy) together. I can switch from one to the other, and I have to say there's not much in it, to be honest. I cannot believe my ears. Are these higher bandwidth legacy tracks really that good? Are there any Blu-rays that can clearly demonstrate the qualities of a lossless recording over a lossy compressed one? I sure would like to hear of it.
A: Honestly, you're going to get a variety of different answers to this question the more people you ask. Some will tell you that there's a mind-blowing, absolute night-and-day difference between the lossy audio used on DVD and the lossless audio used on Blu-ray. Others will tell you that they can't hear any difference at all. I'd venture that most people fall somewhere in between.
I've never pretended to be an audiophile. I came to the home theater hobby with an interest in video first, and learned about the audio side of things as I went. All I can give you is my perspective on the topic. You'll have to decide for yourself how much you agree with.
I tend to take a pragmatic approach to all home theater matters. Human hearing and our perception of audio quality is extremely subjective, much more so than vision or video quality. The way our brains process sound information is easily biased by Placebo Effect. Even a tiny difference in volume can be perceived as a significant difference in clarity, when it's really not. (Volume is not the same thing as quality.) Also, if you expect one piece of audio to sound better than another, your brain is more likely to interpret it according to that expectation. At the same time, the combination of factors that affect the sound quality in your home theater is enormously complex. One weak link in this chain can cause the whole thing to fall apart.
Here's what I believe: In most cases, yes, there is a perceptible improvement in audio quality with a lossless format like Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio. How much of an improvement will depend on what you're listening to, the specific equipment you're using, how you've set it up, the acoustics of the room environment you're listening in, and your own perceptions, preferences, and biases. In most cases, I don't believe that there's a so-called "night-and-day" difference. The improvement is usually subtle.
It may be so subtle that attempting to directly compare two short audio clips isn't the best way to go about it. Human short-term memory for audio quality is ridiculously poor. By the time you've finished listening to one clip and cue up the next one, you've already lost most of the ability to remember exactly what you last heard. What I recommend instead is to listen to lossless audio long enough for the effect to "sink in." This may take longer than one movie, or two movies, or five or ten. But eventually, after you've conditioned yourself to get accustomed to lossless quality, jumping back to standard lossy DVD audio will sound noticeably weaker, thinner, and more fatiguing on the ears. You may not be able to pinpoint exactly what, but it will just feel like something is missing. Because it is.
With that said, to truly benefit from lossless audio quality, you need equipment that can actually deliver it to your ears with as much of the fidelity as is available in the source. This means more than just getting a Blu-ray player and plugging it in to a receiver that has lossless audio decoders. You also need quality speakers that can reproduce all the subtle distinctions in the signal. Even if the "TrueHD" icon lights up on your receiver's front panel, you're not getting the full quality available if your receiver is wired out to flimsy "Home Theater in a Box" off-brand speakers that you bought as a $50 package at Big Lots. (I'm not accusing you of doing this. I'm just making an example here.)
The quality of your speakers is the single greatest limiting factor in your home theater to the sound quality your ears will hear. Poor speakers will not be able to reproduce the difference between lossy and lossless audio signals. Conversely, the better the speakers you own, the better that everything will sound through them. If you don't have good speakers now, upgrading them will provide a much more immediate and tangible difference to every single thing you listen to than the difference between lossy and lossless compression codecs ever could.
To go with these good speakers, you also need a receiver or amplifier that can provide enough juice to power them effectively. You also need to properly calibrate these speakers and receiver with a sound level meter (or, at the very least, the auto-calibration tool that may have come with the receiver). You need to arrange the speakers in your room with the most effective angles and distances from each other and from your seating position. You need to dampen audio reflections and compensate for other acoustic issues in your room.
There are a great, great, great many things that need to be done to fully optimize your home theater for the best sound quality. And, once you've done all of them, you still need to expect that the difference between lossy and lossless audio is going to be subtle. Because, frankly, lossy DVD audio was never "bad." It's actually pretty good. It just so happens that lossless Blu-ray audio is better. Nonetheless, the difference between "good" and "better" is much smaller than the difference between "bad" and "good."
Oh, and did I mention that if you're over 30-years-old, you've already lost the ability to hear many of the audio frequencies that make up those subtle distinctions? That's something to ponder as well.
To sum up here: There's a whole lot of hype about lossless audio. Some of it is merited and some isn't. It's worth going to the effort to set up a proper lossless audio chain in your home theater, but try to set realistic expectations for how great a difference you'll notice right off the bat.
HD DVD Compatibility
Q: I bought a friend the HD DVD discs of the 'Sopranos' TV show. I found that she has a Toshiba projection TV and a Toshiba DVD video player. All we could get on the TV was the sound from the discs. I searched on the internet and got a lot of stuff about Blu-ray that was no help. What I want to know is if and how I can get her discs, player and TV to be compatible. Is this possible?
A: I'm amazed that you got the audio to play. It really surprises me that you got that far. Without knowing the model number of the Toshiba disc player being used, all I can do is give you some background and general information.
 |
HD DVD was a high definition disc format developed by Toshiba as a competitor to Blu-ray. HD DVD discs can only be played on machines with the official "HD DVD" logo. (Note that there is no hyphen in "HD DVD.") The majority of HD DVD players were manufactured by Toshiba. However, this does not mean that all Toshiba DVD players are compatible with HD DVD discs. Only players specifically built for HD DVD will work. These were only manufactured from 2006 to 2008. As soon as Toshiba conceded defeat in the high definition format war in early 2008, the company discontinued all HD DVD player models and removed that functionality from all further machines.
If your friend has a standard DVD player without HD DVD capability, she will not be able to play these discs. If, by chance, she did happen to buy a real HD DVD player during the period they were available, the machine should be connected to the HDTV by either HDMI or Component Video cables. (HDMI is preferred.) The brand of television being connected to does not matter. Toshiba HD DVD players should work with any brand of HDTV.
The complete list of HD DVD player models can be found on this page.
The HD Advisor knows many things, but he doesn't know everything. Some questions are best answered with a consensus of opinions from our readers. If you can help to answer the following question, please post your response in our forum thread linked at the end of this article. Your advice and opinions matter too!
Home Theater Energy Efficiency
Q: I have recently installed a Hitachi 42" LCD TV, PS3 Slim 120GB, Xbox 360 120GB, and a Pioneer 5.1 Surround Sound system into the spare room. As a result of me playing video games a few hours per night, my electricity bill has shot through the roof. My girlfriend is constantly telling me that I need to play less games and watch fewer Blu-rays in order to save money, but I really want to find another alternative to playing less if i can help it.
In an attempt to show that I am at least making an effort, I have noticed that my LCD TV has an "energy efficient mode" to apparently reduce power consumption. But I have noticed that when it's activated, the content on the screen becomes extremely dark. In some cases (i.e. 'Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem'), the film is almost unwatchable. Is this a case of just simply increasing the brightness / contrast levels on the TV, or will this reduce the quality of the image overall? Also, are there any other alternatives to saving energy that I may have missed to avoid tinkering with my TV picture settings?
JZ: I'll leave it to our other readers who may be more knowledgeable on the subject to address your question about alternative methods for conserving energy. What I will point out, however, is that the 'Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem' Blu-ray is already dark to the point of unwatchability. That's just the way the movie was made and the disc was mastered.
I'll also say that cranking up your Brightness and Contrast settings pretty much defeats the purpose of turning on an energy efficiency mode built into the TV, which primarily works to save energy by reducing light output. Whether you use the energy efficiency mode or not, I highly recommend that you purchase a video calibration disc and adjust your settings with the guidelines provided by that. If you haven't already done this, you probably had those Brightness and Contrast settings too high to begin with. (Most TVs are set to "Torch Mode" out of the box.)
Check back soon for another round of answers. Keep those questions coming.
Joshua Zyber's opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of this site, its owners or employees.
See what people are saying about this story in our forums area, or check out other recent discussions.
HD Advisor: Dogme 95 Edition
Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 01:40 PM ETTags: HD Advisor, Joshua Zyber (all tags)
|
Editor's Note: Each Friday, High-Def Digest's own HD Advisor will answer a new round of questions from our readers. If you have home theater questions you need answered, send an email to HDanswers@gmail.com. |
Answers by Joshua Zyber
Contrast on Digital Displays
Q: What is your experience with films/scenes that are dimly lit, or have low contrast? I have found on several LCD TVs that this is a weak point. Pictures look stunning on well-lit blockbusters, but fail on the artier more natural lighting and low contrast. The night shots of 'Braveheart' look awful despite its sterling reviews. People's facial features trail the blacks. It would seem the gray to gray response is a little slow. My current set is a Sony 32EX503. It also received excellent reviews, but it fails in these areas. Have you found this to be a common problem with LCDs? Or is it an issue with certain brands? I would really appreciate some advice from the high def-experts.
A: Contrast is a very common failing of digital display technologies, especially LCD. As you note, many LCD televisions look stunning in brightly-lit scenes, but turn into a murky mess in dark scenes. The black levels aren't particularly dark, and shadow detail is frequently crushed. Plasma and LCoS (Liquid Crystal on Silicon) are traditionally stronger in this area, but ironically still lag in contrast reproduction behind the old CRT technology that is virtually extinct in the modern market. (I must note, however, the most digital displays exceed CRT quality in many other respects.)
In an attempt to improve the perception of contrast, many LCD televisions implement dynamic contrast adjustment features. The most common application of this is to add an automated iris in front of the lamp that will cut the brightness of light output during predominantly dark scenes. Less light equals a darker picture. While this helps to improve black levels, it does so at the expense of brighter portions of the image. For example, if a scene takes place in a dark room with one bright light in the far corner, a dynamic iris will close down to darken the picture, and thus will dim that bright light.
In a worst case scenario, movie scenes that alternate or transition from dark to bright may exhibit a "pumping" of black levels as the dynamic iris struggles to find the right setting. I see this all the time on my living room television whenever a movie's end credits (small white text on a black background) come up. The iris immediately clamps down because it detects a predominantly dark picture, but then opens up again as more white text fills the frame. I also like to use the opening scene in the first 'Star Wars' movie as a torture test for a dynamic iris. The scene opens with a dark star field, and then brightens considerably as the Imperial Destroyer ship flies overhead and occupies more and more of the frame. As this happens, you can watch the darkness of space in the background turn into a milky shade of gray.
Some (but not all) LCD televisions offer the ability to adjust the intensity of the dynamic iris or turn it off completely. The weaker setting (or off position) will reduce pumping artifacts, but at the expense of black levels. This is a trade-off you will have to judge for yourself based on the performance of each specific TV model.
A better option than a dynamic iris is an LCD set illuminated by a full LED backlight with local dimming. In this type of television, the picture is divided up into sections that can be adjusted independently of each other. Rather than an iris closing down to dim the entire picture, the LEDs will manipulate brightness only to the portions of the image needed. In the 'Star Wars' example, the parts of the screen with the background of space in them can stay dark while the parts taken up by the spaceship brighten.
However, even this is still a compromise. Although more precisely targeted than a dynamic iris, local dimming still works on the same principle of reducing light output to achieve a darker picture. This will continue to have the consequence of crushing shadow detail. In a science fiction film where you see the darkness of space with stars in the far background, reducing light output to darken the black level will inevitably dim the stars (possibly to the point of crushing them out completely).
Dynamic contrast is essentially a trick. It can be an effective trick, but a display with high native contrast will always be superior. If contrast reproduction is a high priority for you, plasma or LCoS will probably be a better option than LCD. (Note that even plasma or LCoS may have dynamic contrast features enabled as well.) As a projector owner, my preference is for the D-ILA line from JVC (which is that company's variation on LCoS). D-ILA projectors have high native contrast without the need for dynamic enhancements.
Whatever you shop for, be sure to read product reviews from trusted sources before purchasing anything. You cannot take the contrast specifications provided by manufacturers at face value. Those listed specs are almost always measured in unrealistic situations that cannot be reproduced in the home at proper calibration values. A good product reviewer will measure the actual performance under realistic viewing conditions.
The HD Advisor knows many things, but he doesn't know everything. Some questions are best answered with a consensus of opinions from our readers. If you can help to answer the following question, please post your response in our forum thread linked at the end of this article. Your advice and opinions matter too!
Finding a Job in the Home Entertainment Industry
Q: Just before they went out of business, I was employed by Tweeter, selling high-def televisions and home entertainment systems. With the combination of dirt poor margins, the company's impending bankruptcy, and my generally crappy sales skills, I was unable to make a real living there. That lack of sales skill prevents me from attempting employment at other commission-based home theater companies. What I would like to do is find out how to gain employment in a different facet of the home entertainment industry. What kind of skills or degree would I need to look into a career in mastering or remastering movies or television shows for Blu-ray or streaming? Are there schools dedicated to training individuals on that career path? Is it even a career path that has the potential for future growth, considering the mainstream media's constant panic-stories concerning the decline in DVD sales? What of tangentially related careers, such as film restoration or the like, basically anything that wouldn't require sales skills on my part? Thank you for any information you can give on this!
Check back soon for another round of answers. Keep those questions coming.
Joshua Zyber's opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of this site, its owners or employees.
See what people are saying about this story in our forums area, or check out other recent discussions.
HD Advisor Surprise Symphony No. 94
Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 02:00 PM ETTags: HD Advisor, Joshua Zyber (all tags)
|
Editor's Note: Each Friday, High-Def Digest's own HD Advisor will answer a new round of questions from our readers. If you have home theater questions you need answered, send an email to HDanswers@gmail.com. |
Answers by Joshua Zyber
Audio and Video Drop-Outs
Q: I primarily watch Blu-rays on my main home theater set-up. This includes a Panasonic 65" VT25 plasma television, an OPPO BDP-93 Blu-ray player, and a Pioneer VSX-1020K A/V receiver. Occasionaly I will lose both audio and video for just a split second. The television screen will go black, sound is lost completely, and the audio decode display on my receiver will go blank. This lasts for literally less than one second, but I have never experienced this on any of my other televisions, or other A/V receivers. I have a feeling that this entire event is being caused by my receiver, as the television itself has never lost audio and video, or either whilst viewing without the receiver turned on. I have both audio and video going through my receiver via HDMI.
If it were the television causing this, I believe I would only lose my video signal. If it were the Blu-ray player causing this, I don't believe it would manifest itself this way. Moreover, I previously used a Sony BDP-S770 before obtaining the OPPO, and this happened once or twice while using that player. If this is being caused by my receiver, is it putting my television, speakers, or Blu-ray player at risk?
It's quite disturbing to experience it happening, especially if I have the volume cranked up. Is this an issue that would warrant contacting Pioneer and pursuing a service request? Or is it happening too infrequently for them to be able to pinpoint the problem? I have owned many other HDTVs, receivers, and Blu-ray players, and this problem is unique to my current primary home theater set-up. Do you have your video and audio going through your receiver via HDMI? Have you ever experienced anything like this?
A: It sounds to me like you're probably experiencing HDMI handshaking problems somewhere in your signal chain. If the HDMI connection loses its "handshake," video and audio will cease to transmit until the handshake is re-established. If you have an A/V receiver in the middle of your signal chain, the Blu-ray player needs to handshake with the receiver, and the receiver needs to handshake with the TV. The problem could be occurring at either of these junctures.
If you believe the receiver is at fault, I would recommend testing this by connecting the Blu-ray player directly to your TV for a while. If you continue to get the drop-outs, the problem must be in either the Blu-ray player or the TV.
I would also recommend that you make sure that all of your equipment that offers the ability to upgrade firmware (the OPPO player certainly does) is currently up-to-date in that regard. As I recall, the first batches of the OPPO BDP-93 player were known to have handshaking issues with certain brands of receiver. OPPO later issued a firmware update that fixed this. If your firmware is current, I would suggest that you attempt to contact OPPO Digital first, because I know that company to be more responsive than Panasonic or Pioneer. If you provide them with the details of your signal chain and your issue, they might be able to replicate the problem on their end.
Do you have other video sources (such as cable TV?) routed through the same A/V receiver? Have you experienced drop-outs with those? If the drop-outs only occur on Blu-ray, this leads me to suspect the Blu-ray player, or the specific combination of the Blu-ray player with that model of receiver, is the culprit.
As for whether these drop-outs are harmful to your equipment, I don't believe so, unless you've also experienced a loud audio pop when it happens. The audio pops could damage your speakers. If that isn't the case, drop-outs like this are really more of a nuisance than anything. You should certainly do what you can to get them corrected, but I doubt that you've caused any permanent harm to your home theater gear.
Time Compression on Broadcast TV
Q: I've noticed multiple times that movies on TV will be noticeably sped up. The first time I noticed this was 'Spider-Man 3'. If I remember correctly, the channel was TBS. It took me a few minutes to figure out what was putting me off so much. But as soon as I got it, it appeared horribly jarring. It really made the whole thing look cheap. Of course, the commercials were in normal speed. That particularly offended me. I've seen the problem several times since on various channels. Is this now normal? And are the networks just doing it so they can fit more commercials? And how long has this been going on?
A: Unfortunately, time compression of movies broadcast on television is not a new phenomenon. Networks have done this pretty much ever since the first movies were ever aired on TV. It's especially prevalent on basic cable channels, but the major networks do it too.
Aside from the pay channels, broadcast TV schedules are almost always divided up into neat blocks of half-hour and hour segments. The running lengths of theatrical movies, on the other hand, are rarely so regimented. If a network has a two-hour timeslot to fill, but the movie it wants to air is 2hr. 3 min., it's very rare that a network will let the movie run over. The options instead are to cut footage or speed up the playback so that the movie finishes faster. Depending on the exact length of the film, some combination of both may be used.
Of course, you also need to factor commercials into this. Advertising is how the networks actually make money. Per their contracts with the advertisers, the networks will not edit or speed up the commercials. From a business perspective, the ads are more important than the movies being shown. The pressure to fit more commercials into the time slot with the movie often leads to some very aggressive editing and time compression.
The pay channels (HBO, Showtime, etc.) are more flexible with timeslot scheduling, don't have commercials, and don't usually have censorship requirements. So, these issues are less common there. That's the benefit of paying for those stations, I suppose. (Editor's Note: Though I recently watched 'The American President' on HBO and was stunned to realize Richard Dreyfuss, the chief foil for the entire movie, had been completely cut from the last half of the film!)
"Flipper" Discs
Q: Summit Entertainment recently started releasing "flipper" discs. That is, a disc authored with Blu-ray on one side and DVD on the other. I first noticed this on the 'Letters to Juliet' Blu-ray, and then the trend popped more recently with 'The Twilight Saga: Eclipse', and 'RED'. I have not noticed any other studio releasing these flipper discs. I'm wondering if this affects the video quality of the Blu-ray video transfer on the disc? I would assume that dividing up that much disc space for a separate DVD transfer would have to take away from what could have potentially been invested in the Blu-ray video transfer. Am I wrong in believing this?
A: "Flipper" type discs like you describe should not compromise the Blu-ray video quality. They essentially amount to a Blu-ray and a DVD glued together back-to-back. The Blu-ray content and the DVD content remain separated to their own disc layers, and are not intermingled together. The DVD content won't be taking up any disc space on the Blu-ray layers.
I don't have any of the titles you cite, but the Blu-ray spec provides for dual-sided discs that can contain two layers per side, for a total of four layers per disc. This means that a "flipper" disc can store the same full 50 GB of content on the Blu-ray side as a normal one-sided disc. (Assuming that's how the studio has chosen to author and press the discs, of course.)
The HD Advisor knows many things, but he doesn't know everything. Some questions are best answered with a consensus of opinions from our readers. If you can help to answer the following question, please post your response in our forum thread linked at the end of this article. Your advice and opinions matter too!
Bandwidth Limiting Issues with Streaming Content
Q: My Roku box and PS3 were working well streaming content in HD, until recently. After hours of talking to AT&T, Netflix, Roku and Vudu help lines, I am still unable to play any of the above in HD. I have checked all port settings and firewall settings for the units. Have any other readers had this trouble? When I directly asked AT&T about bandwidth limiting these devices (Roku, PS3, Vudu), they would not answer my question! The really strange thing is that my computer can play Netflix and Amazon in HD and pulls 5.5 mbps. I'm at a loss.
Check back soon for another round of answers. Keep those questions coming.
Joshua Zyber's opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of this site, its owners or employees.
See what people are saying about this story in our forums area, or check out other recent discussions.
HD Advisor Ninety 3D
Fri Feb 11, 2011 at 02:00 PM ETTags: HD Advisor, Joshua Zyber (all tags)
|
Editor's Note: Each Friday, High-Def Digest's own HD Advisor will answer a new round of questions from our readers. If you have home theater questions you need answered, send an email to HDanswers@gmail.com. |
Answers by Joshua Zyber
Before we start this week, I felt it worth pointing out that I've recently made the editorial decision to use the spelling "3D" (no hyphen) when referring to three-dimensional cinema, rather than my previous preference for "3-D." For more on why I made this change, see this blog post.
Passive vs. Active Shutter 3D
Q: With the different offerings of 3D sets out there (passive and active shutter), will any 3D Blu-ray I buy work properly on either set? Could something change with current or upcoming TV technology that will not allow current 3D disc offerings to play properly?
A: The short answer here is yes. Blu-ray 3D will work with both types of 3D HDTV: those that require active shutter glasses or those that use passive glasses. The Blu-ray 3D signal is transmitted to either type of television as "packed" frames at a resolution of 1920x2205 (that's two 1080p pictures stacked one above the other). It's then up to the TV to separate out the left and right images and display them by whatever method the manufacturer has chosen.
TVs that use active shutter glasses will display each eye's view in an alternating series: left, right, left, right, etc. The shutter glasses will sync to the TV signal and only allow the appropriate image to hit the intended eye. On the other hand, televisions of the passive type will display both the left and right eye views simultaneously with polarized light. Some will display them side-by-side, while other may use top-to-bottom or a "checkerboard" pattern. The glasses you wear have polarized lenses that redirect the light to the designated eyes.
At the present time, the only way to get full 1080p imagery from both left and right eye views is to use a display with active shutter glasses. The passive displays, by necessity, reduce the resolution of each eye view in order to fit both into the same 1920x1080 pixel grid at the same time. In the future (perhaps even the near future), we may see higher resolution displays that have enough extra pixels to accommodate two full 1080p images side-by-side, but right now you'll have to compromise.
Brand-Specific 3D
Q: I am in the market for a 3D Blu-ray player. I have as my TV the Panasonic Viera TC-P50VT25. I also received Panasonic 3D glasses that came with the TV. Does this mean I have to get a Panasonic 3D Blu-ray player to watch 3D movies? I was looking to purchase the OPPO BDP-95. Is this 3d player compatible?
A: You do not need to buy the same brand of Blu-ray player as your TV. Any Blu-ray 3D player will send the exact same signal to your 3D TV. The Blu-ray 3D spec requires universal compatibility in this regard.
The 3D glasses you wear are a different story. In most cases, you must use glasses that are specifically designed to sync with your TV. Toshiba glasses will probably not work with a Panasonic HDTV, for example. However, some companies have marketed universal 3D glasses that will work across all brands. XpanD is currently the leader in this product category.
Blu-ray 3D Backwards Compatibility
Q: When the Blu-ray 3D spec was announced, 3D discs were meant to be backwards compatible with 2D Blu-ray players and equipment. However, with the majority of 3D discs, this is not the case. Separate 2D Blu-rays discs are usually included instead. Why is this? Is it down to compatibility issues with older players, or because of space constraints trying to fit a 3D picture, lossless soundtrack and extra features on a 50GB disc?
A: A little over a month ago, I wrote up a blog post with the complete list of Blu-ray 3D titles available through the end of January of this year. (I'll try to update it with newer titles when I get a chance.) The list includes stats on whether and how each title is backwards compatible with 2D equipment.
Of the 38 titles available, 23 of them are compatible with both 3D and 2D on the same disc. (One of these also includes a separate 2D disc anyway.) 7 titles achieve backwards compatibility only through the inclusion of a separate 2D disc. 2 titles have no compatibility with 2D at all, and 6 are still to be determined. So, it would seem that the most popular option is to include both 3D and 2D on the same disc.
Those titles that require a separate 2D disc of course beg the question: Why? At least theoretically, this shouldn't be a disc storage space issue. A 3D image is created by displaying separate left eye and right eye views, each from a slightly different angle. To convert a 3D image to 2D, all the disc player has to do is turn off or ignore one of the views. The 2D version of the movie is already fully contained within the 3D version. It doesn't require a separate encode or more disc space.
It's possible that some studios have had trouble authoring discs that will play properly on all existing 2D-only players without compatibility issues, and so have elected to split the 3D and 2D versions to separate discs. Another possibility might be that this is simply a marketing decision. Keeping the versions separate helps to avoid consumer confusion about how to access each. It also gives studios an excuse to charge more if there are more discs in the case.
In almost all cases, the studios are going to author and release 2D-only copies of the movie anyway, so it could even be that this is simply a matter of laziness; they don't want to go to the effort or expense of programming and testing the 3D disc for 2D compatibility, and just decide to throw an already-existing 2D disc in the same case instead.
Is Anaglyph 3D Dead?
Q: I had a question regarding Blu-ray 3D. I think it's cool that they've been able to develop real 3D with fancy new TVs and such. But let's be honest, this is still a new technology and it's rather expensive for the average person (like me). I've noticed that ever since real Blu-ray 3D has been becoming more popular, 3D movies are being released in this new format and they're no longer releasing the cheesy red/blue 3D. Sure those cardboard glasses are kind of corny and the 3D doesn't look fantastic, but I really like it. Do you think they'll ever release any Blu-rays in this way anymore now that real 3D Blu-ray is becoming more popular? I like watching my 'Friday the 13th Part 3' and 'My Bloody Valentine' in corny red & blue 3D. I'd still like to watch other titles like 'Piranha' that way without having to spend $3,000 dollars.
A: The old form of 3D that required colored cardboard glasses (usually red & blue, though other color combinations have also been used) was called "anaglyph." With the advent of the new Blu-ray 3D format, I'd say that there's very little call for anaglyph anymore, other than for nostalgic reasons. I'm sure even you'd have to admit that it looks pretty crappy.
The advantages to anaglyph 3D are that it's compatible with any color television at all (no fancy equipment required) and it's cheap. I know of at least one upcoming Blu-ray title that will use anaglyph 3D: 'Scar 3D'. For the most part, however, it's going extinct – at least on Blu-ray.
If you watch Blu-rays on your computer, PowerDVD 10 has the ability to convert movies to anaglyph 3D.
The HD Advisor knows many things, but he doesn't know everything. Some questions are best answered with a consensus of opinions from our readers. If you can help to answer the following question, please post your response in our forum thread linked at the end of this article. Your advice and opinions matter too!
Blu-ray 3D Rentals
Q: I am trapped in an IFITL neighborhood that gets a maximum 1.5mbps connection, making HD streaming via Netflix/PSN/XBL/iTunes impossible. HD downloads take forever but are an option. Thankfully, I get Blu-ray discs via mail from both Netflix and Blockbuster. But we recently purchased a 3D TV and would like to watch some movies in 3D. Are there currently any services that either have 3D discs or 3D downloads (non streaming)? Or any services in the pipeline that may offer this service for people stuck in low-speed broadband areas? Buying 3D Blu-Rays are expensive!
Check back soon for another round of answers. Keep those questions coming.
Joshua Zyber's opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of this site, its owners or employees.
See what people are saying about this story in our forums area, or check out other recent discussions.
HD Advisor, Class of '92
Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 02:15 PM ETTags: HD Advisor, Joshua Zyber (all tags)
|
Editor's Note: Each Friday, High-Def Digest's own HD Advisor will answer a new round of questions from our readers. If you have home theater questions you need answered, send an email to HDanswers@gmail.com. |
Answers by Joshua Zyber
Dolby Digital 5.1 Audio from a Laserdisc Player
Q: Is there any other way to get Dolby Digital AC-3 audio from my CLD-99 Pioneer Elite Laserdisc player other than connecting its RF output to some compatible AC-3 RF input? What about using the CLD-99's coaxial or optical digital audio outputs? Until a couple of months ago, I had a Pioneer VSX-906DS receiver as my audio amplifier. I used to connect the CLD-99's coax digital audio output to the 906DS's coax audio input. (It says "AC3/PCM" on top of that input. This receiver was made around 1996/1997.) I had full Dolby AC-3 multi-channel audio playing. A couple of months ago, I got a brand new Marantz SR 6004, which supports every available audio codec. Everything else works ok, except the AC-3 audio from my CLD-99, connected to the new receiver through the same old coax digital audio output. The SR6004 only recognizes the audio coming from the CLD-99 as Left & Right PCM channels. I hope you may shed some light on this issue. Since I still have an LD collection over 700 titles large, if left with no other choice, I'll have to use a dual-receiver setup!
A: This question feels like a blast from the past. The short answer is that it's possible to get Laserdisc Dolby Digital 5.1 to your current receiver. Unfortunately, the long answer is that it will be both a hassle and likely expensive.
Dolby Digital audio (also known as "AC-3") was introduced to the Laserdisc format very late in its life, starting in 1995. (The last American discs were released in 2000.) Laserdiscs themselves were limited to two digital audio channels plus two analog audio channels. The vast majority of Laserdiscs contain a stereo encoding of the movie's soundtrack in uncompressed PCM format that fills both digital channels. In order to ensure backwards compatibility with older equipment, this remained the case even on discs that offered Dolby Digital. To get around this, the AC-3 5.1 track was encoded in RF modulated form onto one of the disc's analog audio channels. Therefore, a disc could have the PCM soundtrack on the digital channels, AC-3 on one of the analog channels, and one more analog channel that might be used for either an audio commentary or a mono version of the soundtrack.
To get Dolby Digital 5.1 off a Laserdisc, you need to start with a Laserdisc player that specifically has an AC-3 RF output. (Your CLD-99 qualifies.) The AC-3 track can only be transmitted through that AC-3 RF output. It cannot be transmitted through a normal coaxial digital or Toslink optical connection. The RF output will also only transmit the AC-3 track, not any other audio format.
The AC-3 signal must then be fed into an RF demodulator that will convert it to a standard S/PDIF digital format that your receiver can decode. In the late '90s, some receivers were manufactured with an RF demodulation feature built-in. This would be the "AC3" input on your Pioneer VSX-906DS. Connect the AC-3 output on the LD player to the corresponding input on the receiver, and then the receiver will both demodulate and decode the Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtrack.
After the death of the Laserdisc format, receiver manufacturers stopped including the RF demodulation feature. It's no longer needed in the DVD or Blu-ray era. Your newer Marantz receiver will not be able to demodulate the analog AC-3 signal on its own, and therefore will not be able to decode the DD 5.1 track.
In order to continue listening to Laserdisc Dolby Digital 5.1 on your new receiver, you'll need to add an external RF demodulator device. These were marketed in the late '90s, because not every Dolby Digital compatible receiver at the time had the demodulation function built-in by default. RF demodulators are generally small, simple components. You plug the LD player's AC-3 RF output into the demodulator, and the demodulator will convert the signal to a standard S/PDIF form (via either coax digital or Toslink optical outputs) that your receiver will accept and decode. The more elaborate models might allow you to switch between the LD player's AC-3 feed and a regular digital connection so that you don't have to use up an extra digital input on your receiver. You can find a list of common RF demodulator models and the features they offer on the Thad Labs site.
(Be careful not to confuse an RF demodulator with an RF modulator, which is a completely different device.)
Back in the day, RF demodulators used to sell for around $200. Today, you'll have to hit up eBay and hope to find a decent deal on a working unit.
For what it's worth, DTS on Laserdisc is much easier. DTS discs forego any pretense of backwards compatibility and simply store the DTS track on the disc's two digital channels in place of the normal PCM stereo option. You can transmit this through the player's coax or Toslink outputs and feed it directly into your receiver, the same as it works on DVD.
I'll be honest, I often counsel new Laserdisc owners not to bother with Dolby Digital at all. Because it was introduced so late in the format's life, only a small selection of discs even offer the option. Frankly, it's hardly worth the effort. However, since you already have a substantial collection of discs and were already accustomed to listening to the 5.1 tracks when available, I'll leave it to you to decide whether to hunt down and pay for an RF demodulator or not.
4:3 Aspect Ratio on HD Broadcast
Q: A few friends of mine had an argument about movies shown on an HD channel as a 4:3 picture with bars on the side (pillarbox). The argument was simple: I always believed that even though the film is in standard format shown on an HD channel, it is still HD unless the transfer is not in high definition. My friends are under the impression that because it is not 16:9, it is not an HD picture. 'Casablanca' and 'Wizard of Oz' on Blu-ray are HD pictures but in the 4:3 aspect ratio. If I am right about broadcast HD, how can I convince my friends that it is an HD picture even if it is 4:3?
A: Your friends are confusing aspect ratio with resolution. A high definition picture can be presented in any aspect ratio, not just 16:9. A huge number of movies are available on Blu-ray letterboxed to a 2.35:1 aspect ratio with black bars at the top and bottom of the image. These are still high definition, even if they don't fill the HDTV screen.
Likewise, classic movies (such as 'Casablanca' and 'The Wizard of Oz', which you cited) that were photographed at the "Academy Standard" aspect ratio of 1.37:1 will be pillarboxed into the center of the frame with black bars on the sides. These are also still high definition. The active portion of the image that contains the movie picture is much higher resolution than the comparable DVD releases or standard-definition TV broadcasts. You can point your friends to my Why Don't the Black Bars Go Away? article for more detail on this, including plenty of pictures to illustrate the concept.
With that said, it's worth noting that not everything broadcast on an "HD" television station is necessarily high definition. Many channels routinely air standard-definition content that's been upconverted to the higher resolution. Sometimes this might be pillarboxed, and sometimes not. (Often, 4:3 movies are stretched to fill the screen.) Rather than try to judge based only on aspect ratio (which can be misleading), you should look instead for how much detail is available in the image. The difference in detail between true HD and upconverted SD on a broadcast channel is usually easy to see if you pay attention to it.
The HD Advisor knows many things, but he doesn't know everything. Some questions are best answered with a consensus of opinions from our readers. If you can help to answer the following question, please post your response in our forum thread linked at the end of this article. Your advice and opinions matter too!
Audio Settings on PS3 Slim
Q: I have a PS3 (Slim model) hooked up to my A/V receiver (Yamaha RX-V565) via HDMI 1.3 cable connection. I am trying to get the PS3 to decode the bitstream tracks from my Blu-rays. It sounds trivial, but I want to see my Yamaha receiver display the Dolby Digital or the DTS-HD Master Audio track on the front panel instead of just seeing PCM all the time. I have gone to the PS3 menu and selected the audio settings option. From there, I selected the connected media (HDMI) and all the available sound options (i.e. DD, DDPlus, D True HD, DTS, and DTS HD Master Audio). But yet in spite of doing all the above, my Yamaha continues to display PCM. I also have a Panasonic Blu-ray connected to the Yamaha and it displays the audio selection properly. Even after speaking to the customer support center (who were unable to further help me), I am back to Square One. What have I done wrong? What don't I get? I need your help.
JZ: I only have the 40 GB version of the original ("fat") PS3, not the newer Slim model. The fat PS3 cannot transmit the native bitstreams for the lossless audio formats, but the Slim model can. There should be a "bitstream" audio selection somewhere in the setup menus. I'll have to leave it to some of our other PS3 Slim owners reading this to direct you to where exactly in the menu that's located.
Check back soon for another round of answers. Keep those questions coming.
Joshua Zyber's opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of this site, its owners or employees.
See what people are saying about this story in our forums area, or check out other recent discussions.
HD Advisor 91: Bad As I Wanna Be
Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 01:50 PM ETTags: HD Advisor, Joshua Zyber (all tags)
|
Editor's Note: Each Friday, High-Def Digest's own HD Advisor will answer a new round of questions from our readers. If you have home theater questions you need answered, send an email to HDanswers@gmail.com. |
Answers by Joshua Zyber
TV Show Frame Rates
Q: In the past, TV shows were universally 30 fps productions, and 1080i was the resolution of choice. However, many TV shows are released on Blu-ray in 1080p24. I can gather that shows such as 'Lost' are shot with 24 fps cameras, but what about documentary shows such as 'Ancient Aliens'? The Blu-ray release is 1080p24, but the show incorporates footage from a myriad of sources. It was my understanding that interlaced formats are traditionally used in such a case. Has production turned a corner and moved exclusively to 1080p24? Do 1080p30 or 1080p60 really exist in professional production?
A: 'Lost', like the majority of primetime dramas over the years, was photographed on 35mm film at a frame rate of 24 fps. A series of this nature would not be shot at 30 fps for two reasons. First, the 24 fps rate gives the production an appearance similar to a feature film, which is an aesthetic decision. Secondly (and perhaps more importantly), it's simple a matter of cost. The slower frame rate uses less film per second, and thus is less expensive to produce.
'Lost' was broadcast on the ABC network at a 720p resolution. All American over-the-air television broadcasts (whether 480i, 720p or 1080i) run at a 60 Hz refresh rate. In order to accommodate this, the show's 24 fps photography was converted to 60 Hz by the addition to 3:2 Pulldown. The Blu-ray release restores the series to its original 24 fps rate at 1080p resolution.
These days, many primetime dramas are switching to digital photography rather than film. Nonetheless, they continue to use the same 24 fps shooting rate in order to maintain the "film look." Faster frame rates give an appearance more similar to the classic "video look," which is usually not desirable for dramas or many comedies. Material shot at 24 fps continues to have the film-like appearance even after 3:2 Pulldown.
Non-fiction programming (news, sports, game shows, Reality shows, and so forth) has traditionally been shot on video, first in standard definition and more recently in HD. These types of shows have a higher frame rate and a distinct "video" appearance.
A show like 'Ancient Aliens' falls into a middle ground where the producers have discretion on how they want to shoot it. Honestly, I'm surprised to see that the Blu-ray release is encoded at 1080p24. I would have expected this to perhaps be a 1080p30 production encoded on disc as 1080i60. (The Blu-ray format does not support 1080p30.) If the program incorporates older standard-def video clips recorded at 480i60, those would need to be frame rate converted to 24 fps by dropping frames, which will likely give them a stuttering appearance. Note that I haven't seen the show or watched the Blu-ray myself, but it doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
Updated: After this column went live, I received the following email from Bryan Banks, one of the editors on 'Ancient Aliens'.
BB: I have to say that I am a little surprised to see 'Ancient Aliens' pop up in this week's HD Advisor. I have worked on both seasons 1 & 2 of the series as the lead asst. editor. The emailer was correct that we get a number of different source formats. We get EVERYTHING... The variety of formats makes my job particularly frustrating. The deliveries spec for History requires a 24p master on HDCamSR. The Blu-ray was authored from this tape. All of our interviews are shot 1080p24, and all acquired material stays at its native frame rate until the final output when it is converted by the Avid to 24p. The Avid has a few different methods of field blending for this.
'Resident Evil: Afterlife' Playback Issues on PS3
Q: I just got 'Resident Evil: Afterlife' on Blu-ray and I 'm having problems getting it to load on my PS3. When I insert the disc and try to start the movie, the PS3 (fat) will try to load it, and then for some reason it returns to the PS3 main menu. A pop-up comes on screen saying "The disc cannot be played" or something like that. When I turn off the PS3 with the disc inside and turn it back on, it starts the movie with no problems. I decided to try it on a buddy's Sony Blu-ray player and it played like normal. Is anyone else having this problem playing this disc on their PS3? My PS3 is connected to the internet with the latest firmware and has no problems playing other Blu-ray titles, games, or DVDs.
A: I happen to have a copy of this Blu-ray, but only the standard 2D version. You didn't mention whether your disc is the 2D or 3D edition. I also have an original ("fat") PS3, which I hadn't used in a while and was running an older firmware (Version 3.50). I inserted the disc and it loaded without issue. However, the disc didn't auto-load. I had to navigate to the "Video" menu and manually prompt playback.
Next, I ejected the disc and upgraded the console's firmware to the latest update (Version 3.56) and rebooted. Once that was complete, I tried the 'Resident Evil: Afterlife' disc again. This time, the disc auto-loaded on its own. Once again, I had no issues getting to the main menu or starting movie playback.
I'm not able to test the 3D edition at this time. I'll leave it to our other readers to comment in the forum thread for this article if they've experienced the issues you describe with either Blu-ray release. Based on my own experience, I have to assume that this is a glitch specific to your player, or possibly a defective disc. I don't believe this to be a general authoring error with the release.
The HD Advisor knows many things, but he doesn't know everything. Some questions are best answered with a consensus of opinions from our readers. If you can help to answer the following question, please post your response in our forum thread linked at the end of this article. Your advice and opinions matter too!
Audio-Only Blu-ray Compression
Q: My company is looking to do on spec (we'll pay mastering and replication) several audio titles that will take advantage of a BD-50 disc's storage capacity. There are two types of titles: spoken word audio books and music. The audio books are intriguing, as you could have five language tracks and multiple subtitles that would allow a book to be listened to, say, in French but translated with an English subtitle crawl. There could be a classical music compilation or a collection from a jazz festival, etc., with limited graphics and menus that would allow one to program a personalized compilation that would provide day-long enjoyment from a BD player. What compression format would you recommend for the music? If I use AC3 at 640 Kb/s with 5.1 channel sound, does 180 hours on a BD-50 sound correct? Is it 640 Kb/s for each one of the 6 channels? That is to say, would a 2-channel title use more or less bits than the 6? What about for audio books? Is this a good idea, or am I crazy?
Check back soon for another round of answers. Keep those questions coming.
Joshua Zyber's opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of this site, its owners or employees.
See what people are saying about this story in our forums area, or check out other recent discussions.
HD Advisor at Playhouse 90
Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 01:30 PM ETTags: HD Advisor, Joshua Zyber (all tags)
|
Editor's Note: Each Friday, High-Def Digest's own HD Advisor will answer a new round of questions from our readers. If you have home theater questions you need answered, send an email to HDanswers@gmail.com. |
Answers by Joshua Zyber
What's So Great About Projectors?
Q: Why do some people look at a home projector as the best setup? I know you can get a larger image, but from what I've seen, they are not as good as top-of-the-line televisions in areas like black levels or color vibrancy. Having to manually focus the image can get close to perfect focus but not quite perfect, which a TV already is out of the box. You also need to have absolute control over the lighting in the room, as any external light will obscure the image. That basically means you have to build a room in your house with no windows. Why would someone want to do this instead of just getting a high end TV?
A: My philosophy is that there's a reason the hobby we're in is called "home theater," and not "home TV." As far as I'm concerned, projectors offer by far the best option for replicating the theatrical moviegoing experience in the home. As large of an HDTV as you may install, you're ultimately still just watching TV.
The most obvious benefit of a projector is screen size. You can produce a much larger picture with a projector than is realistically feasible in most homes with a TV. And you're generating that picture from a relatively small, portable box. When I first got into this hobby, my wife was very opposed to the idea of buying a large TV, which would be quite obtrusive in the room and difficult to transport if we moved. On the other hand, a projector offers a much bigger picture and can be moved pretty easily. This gives it a huge Wife Acceptance Factor.
Along similar lines, projectors are much easier to swap out and sell off when you want to upgrade to a new model. For example, if you own a 60" TV and decide that you're ready for 3D, it can be a real ordeal for you to get rid of the old set.
If the projectors you've seen have poor contrast and color vibrancy, I think you've just not been looking at very good projectors. Yes, these can be legitimate issues, especially with entry-level models, but the better home theater projectors will give you a picture every bit as pleasing (or more so) than any HDTV.
Projectors are not practical for every viewer. The better models are expensive. You will probably find more value in a big TV. And you're correct that a proper projector installation requires light control, which means watching mainly at night, blocking out all external sources of light, and even painting your walls a dark color. (What's known as a "bat cave" theater is the ideal.) This isn't going to be for everyone. If you prefer to do most of your viewing in the daytime with your windows open and a lot of ambient light in the room, you may not get a watchable picture at all out of a projector. But for those willing go the extra mile, projectors definitely provide a cinematic experience that can't be beat.
Contrast Calibration
Q: I just bought the Sony 52" NX800. I still have a ton of DVDs and just a few Blu-rays. The TV is basically still at its factory calibration. All I want is to watch movies with the color/saturation/blacks/whites as close to what is actually on the source material as possible. But my TV has a million calibrations and it is a bit overwhelming. I tried the THX Optimizer, but I couldn't find a setting simply labeled "Contrast" on my TV. Any advice would be great here.
A: "Contrast" is a control for setting your display's white level. Some manufacturers may choose to use different names for this, such as "White Level" or "Picture" or "Intensity." I don't have a Sony TV myself, so you'll need to check your owner's manual.
I generally recommend that you purchase a real calibration disc rather than the THX Optimizer patterns found on some DVDs and Blu-rays. A calibration disc will offer a wider range of test patterns, with explanations for how to use them. 'Digital Video Essentials: HD Basics' is a solid go-to calibration tool. The 'Spears and Munsil High Definition Benchmark' is used as the reference standard by many professional home theater reviewers. Disney also recently put out a calibration disc called 'WOW: World of Wonder' that's very comprehensive and user-friendly. (For some reason, that one's hard to find at retail, unfortunately.) I think you'd find any of these more helpful than the rudimentary THX Optimizer patterns.
Pre/Pro Connections
Q: I have a question regarding HDMI. As all new Blu-ray machines pass video and audio through HDMI, why are separates manufacturers still using analog connections between Pre/Pros and power amps? Surely a single HDMI cable would be a better option?
A: The digital audio on a video disc must go through three steps before you hear any sound. First, the Dolby or DTS compression codec must be decoded to PCM. Then that PCM must be converted to analog. Finally, the analog signal must be amplified out to your speakers.
The point of using separates in an audio system is to isolate those first two steps away from the third. The theory behind this is that combining all of these functions into one A/V receiver limits the amount of power available to the amplifiers in order to avoid overheating (or needing an unwieldy large chassis). A separate, dedicated amp can handle a lot more power, which is helpful for large listening environments, really loud playback levels, or speakers that suck up a lot of juice.
The name "pre/pro" is short for "preamp-processor." As inferred by the "preamp" portion of that, the processor takes care of everything in the audio signal chain before amplification. The pre/pro will perform all decoding and digital-to-analog conversion, then export the resulting analog signal to a separate amp.
Obviously, the analog signal can only be transmitted over analog connections. HDMI would not work for this purpose. Any signal transmitted over HDMI would still be digital, and would still need to be decoded to analog somewhere downstream in the chain.
The HD Advisor knows many things, but he doesn't know everything. Some questions are best answered with a consensus of opinions from our readers. If you can help to answer the following question, please post your response in our forum thread linked at the end of this article. Your advice and opinions matter too!
Samsung DLP Pixelation
Q: I have a question that a lot of technicians have tried to answer, but I never get the right answer. I notice pixelation issues on my HDTV. This tends to happen when there is a lot of action on the screen at one time. The frame distorts into little pixels which drives me crazy to no end. I have one of the older Samsung DLP 1080p projection TVs that I bought in December 2006. I have a PS3 connected by HDMI into my TV, and my DirecTV goes through Component Video. I don't know if it's the TV itself, how I have it set up, or what. I have heard a bunch of reasons: the processing speed of the television isn't fast enough, I need more expensive HDMI cables (your column already debunked that, I think), etc. Is there anything I can do about this?
JZ: Pixelation during motion or complex action like you describe is a common artifact of satellite TV when low bit rate transmissions or signal break-ups occur. However, if you're seeing this on everything you watch, including Blu-ray, then there must be something wrong with the TV. This isn't normal, even for a set from 2006. If any of our readers have experienced this, please respond in the forum thread linked at the end of this article.
Check back soon for another round of answers. Keep those questions coming.
Joshua Zyber's opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of this site, its owners or employees.
See what people are saying about this story in our forums area, or check out other recent discussions.
HD Advisor: Pop Song 89
Fri Jan 14, 2011 at 03:15 PM ETTags: HD Advisor, Joshua Zyber (all tags)
|
Editor's Note: Each Friday, High-Def Digest's own HD Advisor will answer a new round of questions from our readers. If you have home theater questions you need answered, send an email to HDanswers@gmail.com. |
Answers by Joshua Zyber
Anamorphic Lens for 2.35:1 Projection
Q: I have a 1080p projector and have considered adding an anamorphic lens for widescreen "scope" Blu-ray releases, but something confuses me. My projector will completely fill the frame vertically by interpolating extra lines off a Blu-ray disc, which an anamorphic lens would then squash back to a 2.35:1 widescreen picture. Although all 1080 lines are in the squeezed image, is this really any better than just watching the picture with the reduced (fewer than 1080) number of lines, since the extra lines are interpolated anyway? Widescreen pictures look really good now without an anamorphic lens. Is there that much to be gained? I believe it's a different story with DVDs since widescreen pictures are stretched vertically on the disc to occupy more lines, and a real gain in the number of lines in a restored (vertically squeezed) image results. But as I understand it, this isn't the case for BDs.
A: If you haven't already, I recommend that you read my Constant Image Height Tutorial, which gives an overview of what you're describing.
Fundamentally, your understanding of the process is correct. Blu-ray discs are not authored with any sort of anamorphic enhancement, like you see on DVD. All movies on Blu-ray (well, most of them) are encoded at a resolution of 1920x1080 square pixels. Any movie with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 will be letterboxed within that frame. The active move portion of the image occupies approximately 1920x800 of those pixels. The other 280 rows of pixels make up the black bars.
There are two methods for projecting a letterboxed 2.35:1 movie onto a 2.35:1 screen. The first is to simply zoom the image so that the movie fills the screen and the letterbox bars spill off the top and bottom. In a darkened room, the black bars should barely be visible. If they're at all distracting, some dark fabric above and below the screen is an easy way to absorb that extra light.
The more complex method is to add an anamorphic lens that will stretch the 1920x1080 image output from the projector into a 2.35:1 shape. You will then need to electronically scale the image back to its proper picture geometry by cropping off the black bars entirely and stretching the middle portion in a vertical direction. Many home theater projectors offer this feature nowadays, and it sounds like yours is one of those models. You are absolutely right when you say that any new pixels being added to the picture are all interpolated.
The anamorphic lens method has three advantages. By cropping off the letterbox bars, there's no chance of that extra light spill distracting you or washing out your movie image. More importantly, by redirecting all of the projector's 1920x1080 pixels onto the 2.35:1 screen, you're focusing more light onto a smaller area. This will result in a brighter movie picture, which can be very helpful with large screen sizes where every lumen makes a difference.
The third advantage is that, by packing all of those pixels into the smaller area, you also reduce the size of each, and minimize any visible pixel structure (the "Screen Door Effect") in your picture. This is less of a concern with 1080p projectors than it was with older, lower-resolution models. But it still could be an issue, once again, with those large screen sizes.
The downside to anamorphic lenses is that they are very expensive, and can cause pincushion distortion in your picture geometry (generally mild) at short throw distances. You'll also need to decide whether you want to remove the lens when watching regular 16:9 content, or scale your picture into a pillarbox format. The latter will reduce your picture resolution in that mode. There are some anamorphic lenses that let you switch to a "passthrough" mode without any stretch, but these tend to sacrifice image quality at both aspect ratios in the name of convenience.
In the end, both the zooming method and the anamorphic lens method have their advantages and disadvantages. Neither is necessarily more "correct" than the other. Which one you decide to use will depend on the specific circumstances of your home theater room, your personal priorities, and of course your budget.
PS3 Settings: LPCM vs. Bitstream
Q:If both my A/V receiver (Denon 2808) and Blu-ray player (PS3) can decode HD Audio formats, which is the preference for doing it? I have the older PS3 (not slim), and I've heard that it still dumbs down HD audio formats before sending them if you have PCM set...is this true? I suppose on the Denon, either way I should have "Multi Ch" selected when watching a Blu-ray, correct? I see the PS3 and Denon are similar to your setup, so how do you have yours set up?
A: In a situation where a Blu-ray player can either decode Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio internally or transmit them in native bitstream form, there shouldn't be a lot of difference between these two options. Both would provide you with the full lossless track. Theoretically, the Bitstream option may be less prone to jitter, but whether that makes any audible difference to your ears depends highly on whether you classify yourself as an "audiophile" and buy into that belief system or not. (In other words, Placebo Effect will play a strong role in your perception.)
As a matter of convenience, the internal decoding option will allow you to listen to Secondary Audio content, such as menu sound effects or any soundtrack that accompanies a Bonus View supplement. Secondary Audio must be live-mixed with the movie soundtrack, which can only be done if the player decodes. The Bitstream option will only send the movie soundtrack itself. If you wanted to listen to Bonus View content, you'd have to turn off Bitstream and then turn it back on again when done. This can be a minor nuisance.
With all that said, the original ("fat") PS3 cannot transmit the native bitstreams of either DTS-HD Master Audio or Dolby TrueHD. The console will downgrade to standard DTS 5.1 or Dolby Digital 5.1 when the "Bitstream" option is selected. However, it can decode these formats internally. As such, you should set the console's audio for LPCM output and let it do the decoding. Only the newer PS3 Slim is able to bitstream HD audio.
The HD Advisor knows many things, but he doesn't know everything. Some questions are best answered with a consensus of opinions from our readers. If you can help to answer the following question, please post your response in our forum thread linked at the end of this article. Your advice and opinions matter too!
Blu-ray Playback on a PC
Q: I'd like some help with Blu-ray playback on a PC. What's the best Blu-ray playback software, Powerdvd9 or WinDVD 9? For PC HD Audio, what are the best HD sound cards? Are there any obvious downsides to HD Audio over analog from a PC? What are the best setting on a PC for outputting the 1080p picture? My full HD projector receives a signal from my Blu-ray PC at 1080/60 – should I set the PC graphics card to 1080/24?
Check back soon for another round of answers. Keep those questions coming.
Joshua Zyber's opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of this site, its owners or employees.
See what people are saying about this story in our forums area, or check out other recent discussions.
MORE HIGH-DEF DISC NEWS TAGGED "HD ADVISOR":
- HD Advisor 88 MPH and 1.21 Gigawatts Jan 07, 2011
- Fourscore and Seven HD Advisors Ago Dec 17, 2010
- HD Advisor Agent 86 Dec 10, 2010
- HD Advisor 1985: The Legend is Reborn Dec 03, 2010
- HD Advisor Nineteen Eighty-Four Nov 19, 2010
- HD Advisor Eighty 3-D Nov 12, 2010
- HD Advisor Eight-Two, Brute? Nov 05, 2010
- HD Advisor, Texas - Pop. 81 Oct 29, 2010
- Around the World in 80 HD Advisors Oct 22, 2010
- The Concorde... HD Advisor '79 Oct 15, 2010
- HD Advisor 78 RPM Oct 08, 2010
- HD Advisor at 77 Sunset Strip Oct 01, 2010
- Seventy-Six HD Advisors Led the Big Parade Sep 24, 2010
- HD Advisor Diamond Anniversary Sep 17, 2010
- HD Advisor 74 and Counting Sep 10, 2010
- HD Advisor Seventy 3-D Sep 03, 2010
- HD Advisor A.D. 1972 Aug 27, 2010
- HD Advisor SR-71 Blackbird Aug 20, 2010
- HD Advisor SR-71 Blackbird Aug 20, 2010
- That '70s HD Advisor Aug 13, 2010
- HD Advisor 69, Dudes! Aug 06, 2010
- The HD Advisor Gives Thanks Jul 30, 2010
- HD Advisor: '68 Comeback Special Jul 23, 2010
- HD Advisor '67: The Summer of Love. Far Out, Man! Jul 16, 2010
- Get Your Kicks with HD Advisor 66 Jul 09, 2010
- HD Advisor Limit: 65 Jul 02, 2010
- Will You Still Need Him, Will You Still Feed Him, When HD Advisor's Sixty-Four? Jun 25, 2010
- Oh, What a Night. HD Advisor Back in '63 Jun 18, 2010
- Where Were You in '62, HD Advisor? Jun 11, 2010
- HD Advisor 61* Jun 04, 2010
- Gone in 60 HD Advisors May 28, 2010
- The 59th Street HD Advisor Song (Feelin' Groovy) May 21, 2010
- '58 HD Advisor Fury May 14, 2010
- 57 HD Advisors (And Nothin' On) May 07, 2010
- '56 HD Advisor with Hardtop and Continental Kit Apr 30, 2010
- HD Advisor 54, Where Are You? Apr 16, 2010
- HD Advisor Fifty 3-D Apr 09, 2010
- HD Advisor 52 Pick-Up Apr 02, 2010
- HD Advisor 5.1 Surround Mar 26, 2010
- HD Advisor Five-O Mar 19, 2010
- HD Advisors of '49 Mar 15, 2010
- Another 48 HD Advisors Mar 05, 2010
- HD Advisor Twenty 4-7 Three Sixty Five Feb 26, 2010
- HD Advisor Code 46 Feb 19, 2010
- HD Advisor and a .45 Feb 12, 2010
- HD Advisor .44 Magnum Force Feb 05, 2010
- HD Advisor Update: Constant Image Height Projection Jan 29, 2010
- HD Advisor Forty 3-D! Jan 22, 2010
- Life, the Universe and HD Advisor Jan 15, 2010
- One for HD Advisor, and HD Advisor 4-1 Jan 08, 2010
- The 40-Year-Old HD Advisor Dec 18, 2009
- The HD Advisor's 39 Steps Dec 11, 2009
- HD Advisor: HDX 1138 Dec 04, 2009
- 37 HD Advisors. In a Row? Nov 27, 2009
- HD Advisor 36 Nov 20, 2009
- HD Advisor 35 Up Nov 06, 2009
- HD Advisor on 34th Street Oct 30, 2009
- HD Advisor 33 1/3 Oct 23, 2009
- 32 Short Films About HD Advisor Oct 16, 2009
- HD Advisor 31st Oct 09, 2009
- 30 Days of HD Advisor Oct 02, 2009
- HD Advisor 29 Sep 25, 2009
- 28 HD Advisors Later Sep 18, 2009
- HD Advisor Flashback Sep 11, 2009
- 27 HD Advisors Sep 04, 2009
- The 26th HD Advisor Aug 28, 2009
- HD Advisor in the 25th Century Aug 21, 2009
- 24 Hour HD Advisor People Aug 14, 2009
- The HD Advisor Number 23 Jul 31, 2009
- The HD Advisor's Catch-22 Jul 24, 2009
- The HD Advisor Turns 21 Jul 17, 2009
- The HD Advisor Needs You! Jul 10, 2009
- 20th Century HD Advisor Jul 02, 2009
- K-19: The HD Advisor Jun 26, 2009
- HD Advisor 17 Again (OK, Really 18) Jun 19, 2009
- HD Advisor 17 Jun 12, 2009
- HD Advisor's Super Sweet 16 Jun 05, 2009
- HD Advisor XV May 29, 2009
- HD Advisor XIV May 22, 2009
- HD Advisor Tutorial – 2.35:1 Constant Height Projection May 15, 2009
- HD Advisor the 13th May 08, 2009
- HD Advisors by the Dozen May 01, 2009
- HD Advisor's 11 Apr 17, 2009
- HD Advisor X Apr 10, 2009
- The Whole Nine HD Advisors Apr 03, 2009
- HD Advisor 8 ½ Mar 27, 2009
- HD Advisor Number Slevin Mar 20, 2009
- HD Advisor VI: The Undiscovered Country Mar 13, 2009
- HD Advisor v5.0 Mar 06, 2009
- HD Advisor: Episode IV - A New Hope Feb 27, 2009
- Return of the HD Advisor Feb 20, 2009
- HD Advisor 2: Advise Harder Feb 13, 2009
- Our HD Advisor Answers Your Questions Feb 06, 2009
» High-Def Digest home page
