7 replies to this topic

[rayzoredge]

I had no idea whether to put this in Technology or Electronics...

1.) When I plug in my laptop with HDMI Out into my HDTV using an HDMI cable, the screen information says that the source is 1366 x 768 @ 60Hz. My HDTV is capable of 120Hz. Is there a reason why the HDMI output from my laptop is actually literally what is being output to my laptop screen instead of using the HDTV as a monitor? How do I solely use my HDTV as a monitor so that I can take advantage of 120Hz if I do so choose? I also read somewhere that viewing PC output at 120Hz is either unnoticeable or detrimental (as it causes a sort of flickering)... is this true? Also, is it a limitation of the GPU when it comes to frequency (Hz) or is it just the monitor? (I don't see anywhere where it says that the 9800M GS has a Hz limit.)

2.) When I plug in my laptop with HDMI Out into my HDTV using an HDMI cable and play an MKV (Matroska) file with DTS 6-channel encoded audio, is the 6-channel audio actually input into the HDTV/5.1 surround sound system? (Basically, is what I'm putting into the cable coming out of the cable as far as sound goes?) I know with some homework that with the advent of HDMI 1.3 that multiple-channel audio can be transmitted, but does it actually transmit out of a laptop, into the HDTV, out of the HDTV's digital audio via TOSLINK and into the receiver?

If it matters, my HDTV is a Samsung UN46B7100 and my HTIB is a Samsung HT-BD1250. My laptop is an Asus G50VT-X5 with an NVIDIA 9800M GS GPU and it has an HDMI Out port. I have my laptop connected to my HDTV via an HDMI cable. My HDTV has a digital TOSLINK audio out port and is connected to the Samsung receiver, which outputs the received audio to the 5.1 speaker system.

Edited by rayzoredge, 28 December 2009 - 08:30 PM.

[Tramposch]

I may be able to answer the first question;
when you plug the device into the TV through hdmi, if it is a laptop, you need to actually disable the laptop screen to get full function from the tv screen. that is just from my past experience. I will try to research more, I'll come back if i find more information

[rayzoredge]

2.) I did some looking into audio coming out of the HDMI port using a surround sound test file. With my laptop plugged into the HDTV and a TOSLINK digital audio cable [from the HDTV] going into the receiver, I played the file and it correctly identified the front left, center, and front right speakers, but I could still hear diminished rear left and rear right sound effects out of the front speakers. (Considering the fact that the surround sound speakers aren't even hooked up, I'm wondering if this is a normal thing or if this answers my question and confirms that HDMI output out of the laptop isn't true 5.1. speaker output.)

I now have a third question...

3.) What's worth Blu-Ray? What I mean by this is what movies are actually worth getting in Blu-Ray? I did the obvious picks and see how there would be a phenomenal improvement in watching Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, or any war movie just for the sound alone, and I know there's quite the visual "pop" from CG movies like Pixar's Up, Horton Hears A Who!, and Monsters, Inc., but aside from obvious visual clarity, would there be any real benefit from getting a chick flick on Blu-Ray? Would The Truman Show, The Green Mile, or The Shawshank Redemption benefit enough to justify the cost of Blu-Ray? I know there will be obvious visual improvement and clarity, especially on a large HDTV screen, but this thought came to mind when I tried to visually compare my compressed and 720p versions of Horton Hears A Who!. My HDTV seems to upscale the crappier compressed version so that, for lack of a better verbal description, the only differences I can actually see at a glance is that details are slightly fuzzier, edges are less defined, and color saturation is... well, slightly less saturated (bright and colorful) than its HD counterpart. There wasn't much if any "blockiness" either that compressed video is infamous for (most noticeable in a dark area of the picture). The crazy part is that I probably wouldn't see enough of an immediate difference when sitting on the couch between the HD and the compressed video. Even last night when my wife had the first season of Eureka! on, it looked damn good just playing off of the DVD from an Xbox 360 hooked up with component and digital TOSLINK audio.

For comparison purposes on paper: the 720p version of Horton Hears A Who! is an MPEG-4 container with a 1280x690 1950Kbps AVC Main @ L4.1 video stream, whereas the DivX version is also an MPEG-4 container but with a 688x366 967Kbps DivX5 Advanced Simple @ L5 video stream.

Am I crazy? Or is the image upscale processing that good on my HDTV to the point where I'm feeling that I shouldn't bother buying the Blu-Ray versions of movies that are less engaging?

[rayzoredge]

I did some more investigating and talked to Samsung reps to see if they could help me out. Surprisingly, I actually learned something.

My HDTV as well as most HDTVs ONLY support 2.1 sound via HDMI. Makes sense, since the HDTV only has two speakers, but it doesn't pass a 5.1 signal THROUGH the TV TO a receiver as I, as well as most people, would assume. Very stupid, so I strongly suggest that you guys do EXTENSIVE homework before you purchase something this expensive. Of course, we can't catch them all...

With that being said, I dug up my old SoundBlaster Live! 24-bit external sound processor (USB) and used the digital optical output there to connect it straight into the receiver. This gave me 5.1 sound. The problem here is that the sound system seems to either work intermittently with true 5.1 output, or that I don't have "true" 5.1 sound from my movies or audio files.

[Atomic0]

You will only ever need to use Blu-Ray if you have a Full-HD High Definition Television and really want to use the full potential of the TV's resolution when watching movies to the greatest detail. Personally, at the moment, considering the cost of Blu-Ray movies and the players themselves, it probably isn't worth buying. DVDs themselves are the best choice these days as the cost of the players and discs themselves have significantly dropped over the last few years ever since Blu-Ray discs were introduced as an alternative format in the market.

The only use of Blu-Ray in my view would its use as storage disc, consdering it can hold 25GB on a single layer compared to the 4.7GB storage capacity of DVDs.

If you are investing in a high-quality Home Theater set, you may as well invest in a Blu-Ray player to fully utilise the features of Home Theater.

[rayzoredge]

Atomic0, on Jan 17 2010, 06:59 PM, said:

You will only ever need to use Blu-Ray if you have a Full-HD High Definition Television and really want to use the full potential of the TV's resolution when watching movies to the greatest detail. Personally, at the moment, considering the cost of Blu-Ray movies and the players themselves, it probably isn't worth buying. DVDs themselves are the best choice these days as the cost of the players and discs themselves have significantly dropped over the last few years ever since Blu-Ray discs were introduced as an alternative format in the market.

The only use of Blu-Ray in my view would its use as storage disc, consdering it can hold 25GB on a single layer compared to the 4.7GB storage capacity of DVDs.

If you are investing in a high-quality Home Theater set, you may as well invest in a Blu-Ray player to fully utilise the features of Home Theater.

Thanks for replying, but apparently you didn't read the part in my thread where I said "my HDTV." I actually own a high-definition television and would like some opinions/answers on the questions that I asked, such as what is worth getting on Blu-Ray, not whether Blu-Ray was worth getting. Your arguments for DVDs and BRDs are valid; however, they don't help me in this case here.

-

Through some more research and some sampling here and there, I deem that cartoons are definitely not worth getting on Blu-Ray UNLESS you can appreciate the finer, sharper details of what's drawn. An example of Sleeping Beauty, first DVD, then BRD:

Source





Obviously, you can tell the difference. However, is it worth ponying up the extra dough for less-blurry lines and more definitive and vivid colors? In my opinion, I think not, but it's your money.

The question to whether to get cartoons in BR for me is answered, but my chick flick question still stands.

[Baniboy]

Well it really depends on the movies you watch. I watch stand-up performances, comedy movies etc. More of a story line person as well. Graphics themselves aren't going to matter or be worth paying if you're like me. If you watch action/scifi-styled movies, then high definition is a nice thing to have as can give you a better visual experience. If the movie is good and you want to enjoy it at the best quality, it's worth paying for I guess.

[rayzoredge]

@Baniboy: Right... that was something I failed to point out, but was an obvious factor. That's why I have the argument against things like chick flicks and, of course, stand-up comedy on Blu-Ray. Sure, some stand-up comedians have visuals, but do I really need to hear the audience in the background through my surrounds, or be able to see every pore on George Carlin's face? That seems like an obvious observation, but maybe I'm wrong? Maybe it "feels" like you're at the stand-up when you hear people talking and laughing next to you?

And movies like P.S. I Love You... or any chick flick, rather. Maybe some girls will go ga-ga when Gerrard Butler takes his shirt off and you can see his 300-pack in high-def, but is it really worth it? (Girls that have an obsession with the man need not apply.) What about surround sound in chick flicks? Apart from the occasional rain scene where I can see sound being enhanced... maybe a romantic scene on the beach... who knows? I don't... which is why I'm asking for a different point of view.

Maybe it's worth being kissed from just the left channels of my sound system.