Thread

Any Home Theater nuts on this forum?

Any Home Theater nuts on this forum? Troubleshooting 50 posts Mar 19, 2002 — Mar 20, 2002

#31 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 10:48

Hey Guys,

I?m sorry this thread has turned so negative. I was hoping to find people on this forum who shared the same interests as me, namely Macintosh and Home Theater but also shared my disappointment that they are, for the time being, mutually exclusive pursuits. My first post regarding this subject was in the ?Muti-Media? section of this forum and it got one whole response. I have posted on other Mac forums with no responses. I am coming to the conclusion that there is little interest among Mac users in home theater computing.

I believe that there might be some misunderstanding here of what I mean by a Home Theater Computer (HTPC) and some explanation might be in order.

A HTPC is without question, the highest bang for the buck investment you could make in any component in your HT. You can build a box for around $1.5K (buy one pre-built for $2.5K) that can:

1) Perform video scaling as well as (some say even better than) a $20K stand alone scaler.
2) View and record HDTV signals.
3) De-interlace NTSC broadcast signals.
4) Perform audio playback of CD music, MP3, DTS CD, DAD 24/96 audio format.
5) Other,although less important to me, functions such as 3D Gaming and internet PC games on your HT display.

Of course the down side to all this is having to deal with Windblows.

I have recently upgraded my HT display to Sony VPH-G70 and in order to take full advantage of its resolving power, my DVDO line doubler will have to be replaced with a scaler which is way beyond my budget. A HTPC is the only solution and Wintel is the only platform and being a Mac person that really sucks.

If you wish to educate yourself about the state of the art of HTPC?s try the HTPC FAQ at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/foru...p?s=&forumid=26

Doug

#32 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 11:28

Quote:

Funny how you can comment that everything is wrong, you are right (without knowing why) and then run off and then hide.

I am dying to know how you deciphered problems with my home theatre from a picture of half of it.

I already told you why. A 2.35:1 Panavision movie like The Fifth Element should have thin black lines on the top and bottom of a 16x9 screen when in anamorphic mode. Since the picture of your TV shows NO black bars, and the sides are cut off, it's obvious that you set your TV to some kind of "zoom" mode that scales the picture to fill the screen vertically at the cost of losing 25% of the picture (12.5% on each side - the ratio of 1.78:1 vs. 2.35:1).

Also, like I said, I checked that same frame on my PROPERLY calibrated system and you're losing quite a bit on either side of the film frame.

The more you deny that your system is set up improperly, the more idiotic you look.

Mike

#33 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 11:34

I love theaters, love movies, love popcorn

#34 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 11:39

Attempting to bring this thread back on topic...

Here's why there are few home theaters operated by Macs and why many are run by peecees: (from multichannel.com)

Quote:

Computers Shift to Digital Play

By KAREN BROWN
Multichannel News 3/18/02

Even as cable set-top boxes continue to add computer-esque capabilities, traditional computers are steering closer to the digital entertainment realm.

The personal computer, once marketed as a time saving work tool, increasingly sprouts multimedia capabilities for entertainment use. But when and if the computer intersects directly with the focal point of the home entertainment center — the TV — is still a question.

It isn't hard to find the multimedia entertainment features in Apple Corp.'s latest iMac G4s computer.

Touted as a home digital hub, the iMac's new Mac OS X operating system provides the considerable processing brainpower needed to capture, process and move digital audio and video files and oversee an array of devices ranging from MP3 players to digital video recorders.

"The whole intent of this product is to be what we would call the center of your digital lifestyle," said Mike Shebanek, product line manger for the iMac.

"We're seeing lots and lots of portable digital devices. Each of those players is wonderful, they are affordable, there is a lot of variety and people have lots of them. But they don't interoperate well with each other, and there is no one central way to manage all of these things and to get the most out of these data collection devices," he said.

While the iMac is still "certainly a computer," it follows a trend toward viewing a computer differently.

No longer is it simply a computational brain for getting work done. It is fast becoming a digital entertainment device, able to help people organize and use their digital music and video.

"It doesn't feel like it is a computer with software — it just feels like an appliance or device that was designed and intended for each of these uses," Shebanek said.

The latest iMac, released in January, includes applications that allow users to rip and burn MP3 files, edit and play back video, burn and play back DVD disks and manage digital photography stores.

For now, Apple stops short of the line separating it from the TV. The iMac doesn't come with a TV tuner card, but such cards are available from third-party manufacturers.

"I think we are really orienting ourselves toward the personal computer audience," Shebanek said. "In general, when people switch on the television they tend to be more passive in what their activities are — they tend to watch and listen. When they walk up to a computer they tend to be more active. And those two haven't seemed to have crossed over yet."

But Apple's rivals at Microsoft Corp. see that line dissolving more quickly.

Microsoft has created its new eHome Division to meld computer and TV sensibilities. The division plans to use the Windows XP platform to ride herd on digital content and devices with the most ubiquitous of television tools — the remote control.

Code named "Freestyle," the format seeks to match the hardware and software with the more relaxed use of digital entertainment, according to Jodie Cadieux, marketing manager for the eHome initiative.

That includes computers with digital video recorder capabilities, TV tuners, ample digital tools and storage space, all governed by a remote control and a more digital TV-esque electronic programming interface.

"We already know people are downloading from the Internet and ripping CDs onto their hard drive in just astoundingly large numbers. We know that the entertainment industry is moving toward delivering content to consumers over the Internet," Cadieux said. "We know that people are creating their own content. So how do we take that and give them another way to enjoy it that is a stepping stone in their usage paradigm to actually taking it from the PC to the TV."

But there is a danger in rushing consumers to that point too fast, Cadieux warns. And with that in mind, Freestyle's mission is to "stair-step" consumers along.

"You need to take them through the process of understanding the PC is more than just productivity — it can be activity as well," she said. "Things that are huge radical shifts away from the way people do things — it takes a while for that to catch on."

Freestyle, for now, is targeting the early crop of digital fiends — teens and college students weaned on Napster who devour digital music and video. But eventually those products will widen to target a mass audience, as digital media becomes more of a household commodity.

"We're absolutely working toward a day where the PC can deliver these sorts of experiences to mass-market consumers," Cadieux said. "It's going to take some time to get there."

#35 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 11:39

Doug,
You're right, you cannot have a Mac in a home theater setup and epect it to perform like a PC can. The PC's #1 advantage is the availability of hardware that outputs digital audio, playback of individual .VOB files, and scaling features. That's why I have a PC in my home theater setup. Dealing with Windows really isn't that bad in that environment. Once it's finished, you'll really have a nice system.

My PC only does a fraction of what it's capable of. I'm working on remote control scripting so that I can get rid of the mouse altogether when dealing with the selecting items directly from the screen. Also, I'm quite ticked off that I can't queue up more then one Quicktime movie at a time in "Present Full Screen" mode. That's one thing Apple really needs to get fixed ASAP. I can queue up several .VOB files at once using PowerDVD and that helps tremendously.

Mike

#36 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 12:07

Quote:

Originally posted by starman:


I already told you why. A 2.35:1 Panavision movie like The Fifth Element should have thin black lines on the top and bottom of a 16x9 screen when in anamorphic mode. Since the picture of your TV shows NO black bars, and the sides are cut off, it's obvious that you set your TV to some kind of "zoom" mode that scales the picture to fill the screen vertically at the cost of losing 25% of the picture (12.5% on each side - the ratio of 1.78:1 vs. 2.35:1).

Also, like I said, I checked that same frame on my PROPERLY calibrated system and you're losing quite a bit on either side of the film frame.

The more you deny that your system is set up improperly, the more idiotic you look.

Mike

Ha ha ha! The more you claim to know something about something you don't know the more idiotic YOU look! Then you try to back out of it with your "comic book guy" name calling superior attitude.

My TV is set up perfectly! yes the movie is 2:25 anamorphic. My TV has several settings, Full, theatre wide 1, 2 and 3.

If I watch the movie in Full then yes it does have the black bars on the top and bottom. I and everyone I watch it with do not like those bars to the TV has an option to stretch the film vertically only (theatre wide 2). Because it is anamorphic it fills out the black perfectly and you LOSE NOTHING on the sides. Zero. It is not zoomed. You really think I would have all this equipment and DVD�s and watch a dvd with the wrong settings so that I crop the sides off on my widescreen TV. Please, take a picture of the same frame of your perfect setup and show me. I do wonder how you know what frame I uses though, can you really see the counter on the DVD player?

Again it is obvious you don't have an HDTV or have used a widescreen set so stop trying to impress anyone with something you don't have any experience with "comic book guy".

#37 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 12:24

Quote:

My TV is set up perfectly! yes the movie is 2:25 anamorphic

I think you mean 2.35:1 anamorphic.

Quote:

Because it is anamorphic it fills out the black perfectly and you LOSE NOTHING on the sides. Zero. It is not zoomed.

That's only true on 1.85:1 movies, not 2.35:1 movies. Do the math. How do you fit a 2.35:1 image in a 1.78:1 box and lose nothing and retain the same aspect ratio when you fill the screen vertically? I've already seen that you're losing 25% of the image on T5E.

Quote:

Please, take a picture of the same frame of your perfect setup and show me. I do wonder how you know what frame I uses though, can you really see the counter on the DVD player?

It's not that difficult. There are only a handful of shots with The Diva and of those, only ONE shot with her hands and fingers in that position.

Quote:

Again it is obvious you don't have an HDTV or have used a widescreen set so stop trying to impress anyone with something you don't have any experience with "comic book guy".

I already said I have a 16x9 projector. Go back to 4th grade because you obviously can't read (we've already seen your spelling mistakes).

Mike

[ 03-20-2002: Message edited by: starman ]

#38 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 12:26

"Worst home theater ever!"

#39 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 12:28

btw, I have that same remote.

#40 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 12:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Leia Shoots Like a Girl:


Ha ha ha! The more you claim to know something about something you don't know the more idiotic YOU look! Then you try to back out of it with your "comic book guy" name calling superior attitude.

My TV is set up perfectly! yes the movie is 2:25 anamorphic. My TV has several settings, Full, theatre wide 1, 2 and 3.

If I watch the movie in Full then yes it does have the black bars on the top and bottom. I and everyone I watch it with do not like those bars to the TV has an option to stretch the film vertically only (theatre wide 2). Because it is anamorphic it fills out the black perfectly and you LOSE NOTHING on the sides. Zero. It is not zoomed. You really think I would have all this equipment and DVD�s and watch a dvd with the wrong settings so that I crop the sides off on my widescreen TV. Please, take a picture of the same frame of your perfect setup and show me. I do wonder how you know what frame I uses though, can you really see the counter on the DVD player?

Again it is obvious you don't have an HDTV or have used a widescreen set so stop trying to impress anyone with something you don't have any experience with "comic book guy".

He is right. You have three options to display that film on that TV. Most avid Theater buffs would choose his, with the black bands on the top. This is becouse it preserves everything from the original film. The choice you made is to squeeze the film on to your TV. This in my personal opinion the worst choice as requires distorting the image. The third chice is to crop the sides.

The worst is when you take a 4/3 film or TV show and stretch it to fit a widescreen set.

But the setup allows you to choose your preference for a reason. It is your choice to do it the way you like it. But it is hardly the choice most high end video buffs like to do it.

#41 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 12:38

Quote:

Originally posted by starman:
That's only true on 1.85:1 movies, not 2.35:1 movies. Do the math. How do you fit a 2.35:1 image in a 1.78:1 box and lose nothing and retain the same aspect ratio when you fill the screen vertically? I've already seen that you're losing 25% of the image on T5E.

No, you are wrong again because you don't have one. When you watch a 1:85 movie you watch it in FULL and it fills the screen. If it is anamorphic then you still see it full screen but with more resolution.

If you stretch a 1:85 movie then you will cut the top and bottom off.

If I take a 2:35 anamorphic film and stretch it you say I am losing 25% of the picture. You are retarded. I do lose a tiny amount top and bottom but unnoticeable amounts, that they even take into account for loss. I do NOT lose anything on the sides like you suggest.

Again how can you see what frame my movie is on? Can you please take a picture of your "proper" set up?

BTW what a sad life you must live to go and try to figure out what frame my movie is on not to mention you spell check everything I type because your points are so week

"Ooh, your powers of deduction are exceptional. I can't allow you to waste them here when there are so many crimes going unsolved at this very moment. Go, go, for the good of the city."

#42 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 12:53

Well here I thought I'd find an interesting thread only to find a lot of bickering. After reading through these responses I have to say that starman's 100% right. Leia, I don't know where you got your information from, but you're definitely wrong about a lot of things. Not only that but I see that your responses show you're probably not the person you posted the pictures from (markt@mac.com based on the html source). Nobody that spends that kind of cash on equipment backpedals the way you do. Starman's already stated that he has the equipment, so why do you say he doesn't? Also, you contradict yourself. I'd suggest checking out some of the home theater FAQ's on the internet and educating yourself about these kinds of issues.

#43 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 13:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Oola's Exposed Breast:
 Not only that but I see that your responses show you're probably not the person you posted the pictures from (markt@mac.com based on the html source). Nobody that spends that kind of cash on equipment backpedals the way you do. Starman's already stated that he has the equipment, so why do you say he doesn't? Also, you contradict yourself. I'd suggest checking out some of the home theater FAQ's on the internet and educating yourself about these kinds of issues.

God you're an idiot also. You want me to take another picture of my apartment with your stupid comments in front of the TV, or perhaps hooked up to it? Did you happen to see that my sig and the pictures are on the same iDisk?

You want to tell me why you say I don't have the equipment and how I dare ask what starman has?

I would like to see what you have and for you to show me your setup. Also point out how I am wrong or Back peddle .

You also want me to take anything you say seriously when your user name and sig is just a copy of mine (and a horrible one at that)? For all we know you are "starman" trying to back himself up.

loser

[ 03-20-2002: Message edited by: Leia Shoots Like a Girl ]

#44 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 13:06

Give it up, Leia. Three people here already told you that you're wrong about your setup. It's simple math. Stop acting like such a child.

Mike

#45 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 13:08

Quote:

Originally posted by starman:
Give it up, Leia. Three people here already told you that you're wrong about your setup. It's simple math. Stop acting like such a child.

Mike

Your the name caller, spell checker. Who is telling me my setup is wrong other then you and the guy who copied me (and is probably you also) and doesn't tell me how it is wrong.

SHOW US A PICTURE OF YOUR SETUP WITH THE CORRECT SETTINGS AND STOP PLAYING BIG SHOT!!!

Then I can fix my terribly broken setup and you can be right.

#46 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 13:18

Leia,

It is quite simple. You are trying to fit a movie shot in 2.35:1 on to a set that is 1.78:1

The ONLY way to do this is to Crop, Stretch, or have black bands.

Starman noticed your setup did not have the black bands. In order to preserve the movie it would HAVE to have the bands. Becouse you chose to stretch it does not presere the original look of the film.

#47 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 13:30

sorry, double

[ 03-20-2002: Message edited by: climber ]

#48 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 13:32

this thread is hilarious. one guy points out facts, the other guy cries and calls him a name-caller. classic.

*yawn*

#49 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 13:38

Quote:

Originally posted by climber:
Leia,

It is quite simple. You are trying to fit a movie shot in 2.35:1 on to a set that is 1.78:1

The ONLY way to do this is to Crop, Stretch, or have black bands.

Starman noticed your setup did not have the black bands. In order to preserve the movie it would HAVE to have the bands. Becouse you chose to stretch it does not presere the original look of the film.

Yes, you really think I don't know that? Like I said "I DON'T LIKE THE BLACK BARS" I would rather stretch it and lose no horizontal picture and a tiny amount of vertical. This is not an improper setup or wrong, it is just a preference. Starman (comic book guy) is saying that I zoomed it and cutting off 25% of the picture which I am NOT. So what is so wrong here? Oh jealously.

He even registers another name copying mine to back himself up

And yes, Phizilla is right, this is hylarious.

#50 Wed, 20 Mar 2002 - 13:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Leia Shoots Like a Girl:


Yes, you really think I don't know that? Like I said "I DON'T LIKE THE BLACK BARS" I would rather stretch it and lose no horizontal picture and a tiny amount of vertical. This is not an improper setup or wrong, it is just a preference. Starman (comic book guy) is saying that I zoomed it and cutting off 25% of the picture which I am NOT. So what is so wrong here? Oh jealously.

How do you display 4:3 aspect TV on that set. Do you stretch it or live with the bars??