Scott Wilkinson
Sort By: Post Date | Title | Publish Date
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Oct 28, 2011 Published: Dec 31, 1969 17 comments
These days, high-def TV shows are available from three basic platforms—broadcast (including cable, satellite, and over-the-air), online streaming, and Blu-ray. The order in which I've listed them here also corresponds to a current show's availability—first, it's broadcast, which is quickly followed by its appearance on one or more streaming sites, and finally Blu-ray months later (if ever).

In terms of quality, streaming is clearly at the low end—even so-called "high-def" streaming—with its high data compression and often 2-channel audio. Next up the food chain is broadcast at 1080i or 720p with lossy Dolby Digital 5.1 audio (and the inevitable commercials). At the top of the heap is Blu-ray at 1080p with lossless 5.1 audio.

All of which begs the question—what's more important to you, availability or quality? Do you tend to choose broadcast and streaming to see your favorite shows ASAP, or do you wait for the ultimate quality of Blu-ray?

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

What's More Important, Availability or Quality?
The Big Picture
Scott Wilkinson Sep 20, 2009 0 comments

I have heard you and Leo Laporte discuss the merits of 1080p versus 1080i signals. You both agreed that both methods are almost indistinguishable from each other, but neither of you seemed clear as to why they were so close. Well, I believe I may have the reason, but please correct me if I am wrong. The essential feature is their respective frame/field rates. 1080p is 30 true frames or complete pictures per second, whereas 1080i is 60 fields per second, but because it is interlaced, it also results in a true 30 frames per second. Thus, both formats generate the exact same number of true frames or pictures per second, which is why their ultimate picture qualities are identical.

Vote
Scott Wilkinson Feb 11, 2011 Published: Dec 31, 1969 16 comments
As you no doubt know, the biggest buzz in consumer electronics these days is 3D. But every time I talk about it, the most common question is, "Yeah, but when will we see 4K?" While the debate continues about whether or not 3D is worthwhile, everyone seems to agree that 4K—a picture with 4096x2160 resolution, four times the number of pixels in current HD images—would be awesome.

Unfortunately, there are some impediments to the immediate widespread availability of 4K. For example, it costs much more to make a 4K display, which must be very large to take full advantage of the extra resolution, so such products would be a lot more expensive in an era of rapidly falling prices and a weak economy. And even if 4K displays were available and affordable, what about content? Studios routinely scan and archive their movies at 4K or higher, and some now shoot with 4K digital cameras, but there's no delivery system for that much data to the home. A physical medium would need much more capacity and much higher bitrate than Blu-ray currently offers, and online streaming is impossible without a major upgrade to consumer broadband services.

The big question is how long will it take to resolve these issues so consumers can watch 4K content on 4K displays in their homes? When do you think this will happen?

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

When Will 4K Become Available At Home?
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Dec 30, 2011 Published: Dec 31, 1969 6 comments
Today's post in Steve Guttenberg's Audiophiliac blog is entitled, "How much bass is too much bass?" In it, Steve asks his readers to reveal how much bass they prefer. This inspired me to ask HomeTheater.com readers a related question: Where do you put your subwoofer(s)? After all, a sub's placement has a big impact on the amount of bass you hear—putting it in a corner (illustrated above) boosts the bass more than putting it against a wall, which in turn provides more bass boost than placing it away from the walls.

Aside from sheer bass level, optimum subwoofer placement depends as much or more on the room's resonant modes and how well they can be controlled. Another factor is domestic tranquility—most partners of home-theater buffs don't want a huge sub sitting in the middle of the room.

So where do you put your subwoofer(s)? Why did you make that choice? Was it for bass boost, room modes, the spouse-acceptance factor, or some combination thereof?

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

Where Do You Put Your Subwoofer(s)?
Ask Home Theater
Scott Wilkinson Aug 17, 2011 9 comments
I'm a Home Theater subscriber, and I always read your blogs. I can't believe there are no plasmas with deep blacks similar to the Pioneer Kuros. I'm a happy owner of the PRO-110FD (family room) and PRO-111FD (master bedroom). What new model is closest to the Pioneer Kuros that you would recommend to a friend who is looking for a plasma or LCD?

Second question: Do the new JVC 3D projectors support anamorphic lenses? Are you aware of any 3D projector (other than Runco's, which is too expensive) that supports anamorphic lenses?

Israel Javier Alvarado-Suarez

Vote
Scott Wilkinson Dec 16, 2011 Published: Dec 31, 1969 15 comments
Like it or not, 3D capabilities are now included in many home-theater displays, where it is just another feature along with online streaming. It is clear, however, that not everyone enjoys 3D, which is fine—they can simply not use it. For those who do, there is a growing amount of 3D content, though the rate of that growth seems pretty slow to me.

On the other hand, everyone I talk with is eager to see 4K home-theater displays, which have four times the resolution of "ordinary" high-def. Now that we've reviewed the first such display—the Sony VPL-VW1000ES projector—I wonder how important 4K really is, especially given that commercial 4K content for home use is not likely to be available for years to come, leaving owners of these displays with only upscaled 1080p and their own high-resolution still photos.

So I ask you—which do you think is more important for home theaters, 3D or 4K? Perhaps you believe both are equally significant or that neither one is important. In any event, your fellow home-theater geeks want to know what you think!

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

Which is More Important at Home, 3D or 4K?
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Nov 05, 2010 Published: Dec 31, 1969 17 comments

Blu-ray is the gold standard for video and audio quality, but discs are old school, and the convenience of streaming and downloading A/V content is quite compelling for millions.

On the other hand, streaming video from Netflix, Hulu, and other sources often suffers from softness, macroblocking, and other artifacts of high compression, whereas Blu-ray offers pristine picture and sound. In addition, the best high-def cable, satellite, and over-the-air channels look far better than most streaming media I've seen.

This leads me to wonder: Which is more important to you, the convenience of streaming and downloading A/V content or the quality of physical media and many traditional broadcast sources?

Vote to see the results and leave a comment explaining your choice.

Which is More Important, Convenience or Quality?
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Nov 11, 2011 Published: Dec 31, 1969 13 comments
As regular readers of this site know, we strongly encourage all video enthusiasts to take a few minutes to tweak their display's basic picture controls—brightness, contrast, color, tint, and sharpness—to get the best possible picture quality short of a full professional calibration. There are several inexpensive Blu-rays and DVDs that provide all the images you need to accurately set these controls. My question is, which one do you use? Or do you watch your display without making these simple adjustments?

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

Which Setup Disc Do You Use?
CES 2012
Scott Wilkinson Jan 10, 2012 0 comments
The Sony press conference was very short on details regarding home-theater products—we'll have to get that info in the booth over the next few days. But the company is still clearly bullish on 3D, showing a 3D trailer for Men In Black 3, after which star Will Smith and director Barry Sonnenfeld (right) took the stage with Sony CEO Sir Howard Stringer (left) for some lighthearted banter.
Vote
Scott Wilkinson Jun 22, 2012 Published: Dec 31, 1969 23 comments
Brave is the new animated feature from Disney and Pixar that opens today across the country. Of course, any new Pixar movie is cause for excitement, but this one is doubly so as the first movie with a soundtrack mixed for the Dolby Atmos cinema sound system, which places speakers all around the audience as well as overhead, creating a truly 3-dimensional soundfield. (For more on Dolby Atmos, click here; for my coverage of the world premier of Brave, click here.)

With any new technology, the only way to gauge its importance is to experience it for yourself. On the other hand, new technologies are often not widely available at first—Atmos has been installed in only 14 theaters around the country—making it difficult for most moviegoers to hear it firsthand. But for those who live near one of these theaters, this is an opportunity to hear what could be the next generation in movie sound.

Do you live near an Atmos theater? (Click here for a list of theaters and locations.) If so, will you make an effort to see Brave there? How far are you willing to go? HT reader Jarod and his wife are driving four hours! Or do you plan to skip the movie altogether? If you do see it in an Atmos theater, let us know your impressions of the system in the comments.

Vote to see the results and leave a comment about your choice.

Will You See Brave in a Dolby Atmos Theater?
Site Map / Direct Links