DailyTech - Samsung Player Brings Blu-ray Disc Hardware to $299

Submit News

Hardware Samsung Player Brings Blu-ray Disc Hardware to $299
Marcus Yam (Blog) - December 10, 2007 3:10 AM

128 comment(s) - last by jconan.. on Dec 12 at 10:55 PM

Samsung BD-P1400 is cheapest Blu-ray Disc player yet

Mimicking the way HD DVD players hit new rock bottom prices with sudden, unannounced sales, Blu-ray Disc hardware is at a never before seen level of affordability.

Retailers such as Amazon, Circuit City and Best Buy - as reported by High-Def Digest - are all listing the Samsung BD-P1400 at prices below $300 – representing a $200 break from the original list price of $499.

Besides the sale price temporarily bringing down the cost of Blu-ray Disc hardware for the holiday season, the Samsung BD-P1400 also carries the distinction of being the first player to support DTS-HD Master Audio decoding, according to High-Def Digest.

Like Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD Master Audio is a lossless compression scheme that is able to provide audio quality on par with PCM tracks but at the expense of less storage. Players without DTS-HD Master Audio support are able to extract a lower-quality 1.5 Mbps core stream.

Despite the drop to $299, HD DVD still hangs on to its reputation for being the more affordable technology. Even with the prices back up from $99, the entry level Toshiba HD-A3 is still $100 less on Amazon than the Samsung BD-P1400.

There is more to the story than just hardware prices, though, as even with more expensive hardware, Blu-ray Disc leads the way in movie title sales.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Also..

By lopri on 12/10/2007 5:38:01 AM , Rating: 2

Noticed that Amazon now clearly states "Toshiba HD-A3 720p/1080i HD DVD Player". I almost purchased one in the past thinking it's capable of 1080p.

It was definitely confusing/misleading in the past when I couldn't easily tell whether it's 1080p. I wouldn't pay $200 for a 1080i player, either. If one were to purchase a HD-DVD player, invest $50~$100 more and purchase a 1080p-capable player.

(And before anyone says anything about 1080i vs 1080p: Yes, I have a 52"/1080p/120Hz LCD TV and can tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p. Ask yourself how you'd feel after you had purchased a 720p/1080i TV, thinking it was a 1080p.)

RE: Also..

By regnez on 12/10/2007 6:03:51 AM , Rating: 5

If one were to purchase a HD-DVD player, invest $50~$100 more and purchase a 1080p-capable player.

That would not make much sense if your television could only do 720p/1080i.

My parents have an older Sony HDTV which can do 1080i at best, so as a Christmas gift I purchased them the HD-A3. With the deal Amazon had awhile back, I ended up with 12 HD-DVDs (2 in the box, 5 from Amazon, 5 from mail-in rebate) and the player for $199, with no shipping or tax.

Just because you are not in the market for a certain item does not mean there is no market for it.

Parent

RE: Also..

By FITCamaro on 12/10/2007 6:47:20 AM , Rating: 3

Well said.

And the vast majority of people cannot tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p. Plus with an LCD or Plasma television, a 1080i signal is already being converted by the display to 1080p. If you have a good chip in the TV, it will convert the image fast enough to where there is absolutely no difference between a native 1080p signal and the 1080i one.

Parent

RE: Also..

By drivendriver on 12/10/2007 7:57:17 AM , Rating: 1

No matter how good your de-interlacer is, de-interlaced 1080i is not identical to 1080p. In some cases you may not be able to tell the difference between the two, but claiming that "there is absolutely no difference" or that "a 1080i signal is already being converted by the display to 1080p" is simply inaccurate.

Each interlaced frame contains two fields sampled at different points in time. De-interlacing produces a single image by combining two fields captured at different points in time. When this is not done properly, it produces noticeable artifacts and.

In contrast, a non-interlaced (progressive) frame is entirely sampled at a single point in time.

Parent

RE: Also..

By therealnickdanger on 12/10/2007 8:32:28 AM , Rating: 3

quote:
No matter how good your de-interlacer is...

quote:
When this is not done properly...

The fact is that it CAN be done properly. For the majority of folks out there that own a "1080i LCD", they won't know or care as to the difference. I personally think it's retarded of Toshiba to even offer non-1080p products in a market this competitive, I think it will sting them later, despite the ignorance of the masses.

Parent

RE: Also..

By masher2

(blog) on 12/10/2007 11:06:48 AM , Rating: 5

> "de-interlaced 1080i is not identical to 1080p...Each interlaced frame contains two fields sampled at different points in time"

Incorrect. You've confused on-disc video with OTA (broadcast) video. While what you say is true for OTA, but video encoded on disc is stored with matching time indices. A 1080i version of this is simple two "half-frames", which can be recombined using a simple weave operation, to yield the original 1080p signal. Bit-identical. The only time this isn't true is if your display attempts to do something incorrect with the signal, such as discarding half the info and bobbing to line double.

In fact, the chipset for all original BD 1080p players pull the video off in 1080i anyway, then deinterlace to generate a 1080p output signal.

Parent

RE: Also..

By MrPickins on 12/10/2007 4:22:21 PM , Rating: 2

Excellent info. It can't be repeated enough.

I'd 6 you if I could.

Parent

RE: Also..

By blaster5k on 12/10/2007 5:04:18 PM , Rating: 2

An excellent explanation. It's unfortunate that most people aren't very educated on the differences between 1080i and 1080p.

Parent

RE: Also..

By mcnabney on 12/10/2007 8:04:50 PM , Rating: 2

There is also no such thing as a 1080i LCD. LCDs have a single native, progressive, resolution. You may send it a 1080i, 420p, or whatever resolution and the TV will convert the resolution to the display's native resolution. Whether that looks like ass is up to the viewer. VHS looks horrifying on a panel.
A good 1080p TV will convert 1080i signals and look identical to 1080p. Until there is movement. That is where the media to screen progressive resolution really shines.

Parent

RE: Also..

By Gio6518 on 12/11/2007 12:00:47 AM , Rating: 1

absolutely correct

you notice a large difference between 720p (or as the people here call it 1080i)
depending on the size of the TV and the viewing distance

Parent

RE: Also..

By masher2

(blog) on 12/11/2007 1:17:46 AM , Rating: 3

> "A good 1080p TV will convert 1080i signals and look identical to 1080p. Until there is movement"

No, you're still not seeing the effect matching time indices has on the source signal. When viewing interlaced material captured by a TV camera (such as most OTA HD broadcasts), each half-frame is captured at differing points in time. So deinterlacing introduced artifacting, as the fields may not precisely match up.

But material on HD disc is progressive by nature. When its interlaced, each frame is simply "cut in half". The time indices between fields of each half-frame match. Perfectly. A weave operation therefore recreates the original progressive source. There is no temporal artifacting created in this case.

In fact, a time-synced 1080i signal at 48 hz (or some multiple thereof) will actually be superior to a 1080p@30 signal. The "interlaced" doesn't affect the quality at all in this case, and the frame rate means you don't get the judder introduced by the 3:2 pulldown process.

Parent

RE: Also..

By Chaser on 12/10/07, Rating: -1

RE: Also..

By Chaser on 12/10/2007 8:32:55 AM , Rating: 1

540. and I can't do simple subtraction. But to add onto that in most cases 720P can actually look better than 1080I. As it contains almost 200 more scanned lines without interlacing tricks.

Parent

RE: Also..

By therealnickdanger on 12/10/2007 8:47:21 AM , Rating: 4

Chaser,

1080i is still 1080 lines, but it is two sets of 520 (even and odd lines) displayed at twice the speed of 1080p. When the source material is interlaced properly (by the player) and then the display or VP deinterlaces properly, it really is no different than 1080p. Incongruity between the equipment or poor techniques - which are more common on budget products - will cause visual artifacts.

I'll bet you'll be hard-pressed to tell the difference between 1080p and 1080i on my FHD1 or my bud's 6010 Kuro. 1080i-->1080p usually looks softer than "true 1080p", but a lot of that can be fixed with tweaking. The highest-quality 1080i sources I have access to are OTA, so it's not as good as HD-DVD/BD anyway, so I can't really make a fair comparison. Again, we're talking about a realm that Joe Everyman doesn't know or care about.

Parent

RE: Also..

By therealnickdanger on 12/10/2007 8:47:51 AM , Rating: 2

Haha, I fell into your trap as well. 520-->540

Parent

RE: Also..

By Chaser on 12/10/07, Rating: -1

RE: Also..

By mruffin75 on 12/10/2007 9:48:06 AM , Rating: 4

quote:
But 1080P is twice the resolution of 1080I. A term like "twice the speed" might sound better but that speed is displaying "twice as less" pixels on the screen, therefore to be more accurate 1080i could/should almost be called 540I.

There is no difference in resolution. 1080i has exactly the same amount of pixels as 1080p. The difference is that they are shown on alternating frames (Note they are not showing the *same* pixels twice...but different ones). This is not as geek-satisfying as 1080p, but for someone to say it's 540 lines is absolutely horridly wrong.

This seems to be a common misconception.

Parent

RE: Also..

By Locutus465 on 12/10/2007 9:53:23 AM , Rating: 2

Frankely I would have been happier if this player supported Profile 1.1 at 1080i, but that's just me.

Parent

RE: Also..

By omnicronx on 12/10/2007 10:01:57 AM , Rating: 4

quote:
This is not as geek-satisfying as 1080p, but for someone to say it's 540 lines is absolutely horridly wrong.

Bingo, no frames are being altered, and the TV still ends up receiving the same resolution. People think 1080i is somehow missing information, when in fact the source is still the same (1080p). And to be fair, although 1080p only runs at 24 frames, 1080i/60 actually requires more space because of the extra frames. If you have set your TV up correctly, the only advantage there is of having 1080p/24 over 1080i/60 is that the movies original source was originally in 24frames, which some prefer, most do not notice.

Parent

RE: Also..

By Chaser on 12/10/07, Rating: -1

By Chaser on 12/10/2007 10:15:54 AM , Rating: -1

Here's someting for you to "horridly" read.

1080i HDTV continues the tradition of interlaced scanning, and brings with it the interlace quality penalties. In the DTV world, each scanning line is made up of samples, called pixels. In 1080i, each line is made up of 1,920 pixels, which is in some cases reduced to 1,440 pixels. There are 1,080 lines in each complete frame, and 540 lines in each field, a little more than double the number of lines in an NTSC frame and field respectively. 1080i is usually transmitted with a frame rate of about 30 frames per second, as is NTSC.

The other HDTV scanning format, 720P, is a progressively-scanned format. Each 720P line is made up of 1,280 pixels, and there are 720 lines in each frame. 720P is typically transmitted at about 60 full frames per second, as opposed to 1080i's 60 half-frames per second. This affords 720P some significant advantages in picture quality over 1080i, advantages such as improved motion rendition and freedom from interlace artifacts.

The advocates of 1080i HDTV support their cause with a flurry of numbers: 1080 lines, 1920 pixels per line, 2 million pixels per frame. The numbers, however, don't tell the whole story. If we multiply 1920 pixels per line times 1080 lines, we find that each 1080i frame is composed of about two million pixels. 1080i advocates are quick to point out that a 720P frame, at 1280 pixels by 720 lines, is composed of about one million pixels. They usually fail to mention that during the time that 1080i has constructed a single frame of two million pixels, about 1/30 second, 720P has constructed two complete frames, which is also about two million pixels. Thus, in a given one-second interval, both 1080i and 720P scan out about 60 million pixels. The truth is that, by design, the data rates of the two scanning formats are approximately equal, and 1080i has no genuine advantage in the pixel rate department. In fact, if the horizontal pixel count of 1080i is reduced to 1440, as is done in some encoders to reduce the volume of artifacts generated when compressing 1080i, the 1080i pixel count per second is less than that of 720P.

Parent

RE: Also..

By omnicronx on 12/10/2007 11:04:26 AM , Rating: 5

Sorry buddy, but even the person who made that site if very misinformed. Heres the best site I have found that explains it.Essentially most peoples TV's run at 60hz, its the standard accross the states, and only new and really expensive TV's support a refresh rate of 72hz, (120hz is just 60 doubled to get rid of flicker) So 1080p/24 being
24fps and the needed refresh rate has to be in multiples of 24, (24,48,72 etc.) your TV has to 'creates' the missing frames to convert the signal to 60hz

quote:
My bold-printed, big-lettered breaker above is a little sensationalistic, but, as far as movies are concerned, this is basically true. Here's why. Movies (and most TV shows) are shot at 24 frames per second (either on film or on 24-frame-per-second HD cameras). Every TV sold in the United States has a refresh rate of 60 hertz. This means that the screen refreshes 60 times per second. In order to display 24-frame-per-second content on a display that essentially shows 60 frames per second, you need to make up or create new frames. This is accomplished by a method called 3:2 pulldown (or, more accurately, 2:3 pulldown). It doubles the first frame of film, triples the second frame, doubles the third frame, and so on, creating a 2-3-2-3-2-3 sequence. (Check out Figure 1 for a more colorful depiction.) So, the new frames don't have new information; they are just duplicates of the original film frames. This process converts 24-frame-per-second film to be displayed on a 60-Hz display.

HD DVD and Blu-ray content is 1080p/24. If your player outputs a 60-Hz signal (that is, one that your TV can display), the player is adding (creating) the 3:2 sequence. So, whether you output 1080i or 1080p, it is still inherently the same information. The only difference is in whether the player interlaces it and your TV deinterlaces it, or if the player just sends out the 1080p signal directly. If the TV correctly deinterlaces 1080i, then there should be no visible difference between deinterlaced 1080i and direct 1080p (even with that extra step). There is no new information—nor is there more resolution, as some people think. This is because, as you can see in Figure 1, there is no new information with the progressive signal. It's all based on the same original 24 frames per second.

So in the end for 99% of the people out there, 1080p vs 1080i is essentially negligible, as neither format leaves the source untouched. 1080p needs to convert to a 60hz multiple, and 1080i needs to 'deinterlace' (not really deinterlacing but close enough)..

P.S those with old 1080p sets (early adopters) may find there is a big difference between 1080i and p. Many original 1080p sets convert 1080i signals to 540p. But thats a limitation of your Television, not 1080i.

Heres the site if you need it, it's the best explination of 1080i vsp i have seen http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/1106gear/

Parent

RE: Also..

By mruffin75 on 12/10/2007 11:15:05 AM , Rating: 3

Whatever article you used as a reference...please don't ever again...

quote:
They usually fail to mention that during the time that 1080i has constructed a single frame of two million pixels, about 1/30 second, 720P has constructed two complete frames, which is also about two million pixels.

This is wrong..

720p does *not* construct *2* frames in 1/30 of a second.

1080i runs at 60 frames per second in NTSC world.
720p runs at 30 frames per second in NTSC world (or 29.97..whatever).

In the time it takes 720p to draw *one* complete frame (1/30 of a second), 1080i has drawn *two* half frames (1/60 of a second for each), thus making up one complete 1080 frame, although with some "flickering" due to the interlaced image.

1080i is still 1080 horizontal lines, 720p is still 720 horizontal lines. The only difference is in the drawing method used in the set used to display it (eg. progressive or interlaced).

Parent

RE: Also..

By masher2

(blog) on 12/10/2007 11:29:16 AM , Rating: 3

> "This is wrong.."

Incorrect on a few counts. First of all, the standards for HD broadcasts are ATSC , not NTSC. Secondly, the two most common 720p broadcast format are 720p@60 and 1080i@30. The former does send two complete frames per 1/30 second, which explains why it has nearly the same bandwidth requirements as 1080i, despite each frame having only 44% of the pixel count.

Parent

RE: Also..

By mruffin75 on 12/10/2007 1:57:51 PM , Rating: 2

We were talking about broadcasts? I thought it was about Blu-ray and HD-DVD? (In which case what I said is still correct).

But yes you were correct about ATSC (although apparently not all sets have to display 720p in 60 frames/sec...they can accept it, and then just display it in whatever res/framerate they can).

Parent

RE: Also..

By Chaser on 12/10/07, Rating: -1

By Chaser on 12/10/2007 12:06:10 PM , Rating: -1

I'm sorry guys. Outside of the flood of zillions of information sources and references, you're right: 1080I compared to 1080P is nearly the same. What was I thinking? From this point out of reverence for your facts I am going to telephone every manufacturer of the latest HDTVs and tell each and every one of them to replace that big 1080P sticker on the front of the display with one that states 1080I! Consider it done!

Then I am going to telephone every 1080P player manufacturer and plead with them to come clean with the facts there's simply no difference. I read it on Daily Tech and by God they'd best get in line with the experts on this site! And the notion that I am paying anywhere from $50 - $100 more for this meaningless technicality is absolutely preposterous.

I guess it was wrong of me to go to some site and copy and paste it here without a reference. I admit I am no HDTV genius obviously. But the truth is, you can argue to the end of time that "there's no difference" blah blah blah blah blah but certainly 1080P is not worse than 1080I. So personally for me I'll go for the superior capable format, player, display, whatever.

I would guess that 1 year from now when the early adopters period spins down the price difference will be negligible; most retail outlets will be carrying mostly 1080P capable HDTVs except for bargain hunters. So please continue to shoot the dead horse, but a moron (not elitist) like me prefers the capabilities of a player and TV that displays 1080P over 1080I. Please forgive me for my elitist insolence.

Parent

RE: Also..

By masher2

(blog) on 12/10/2007 12:18:09 PM , Rating: 3

> "I read it on Daily Tech and by God they'd best get in line with the experts on this site! ...Please forgive me for my elitist insolence"

There's no need to retreat into puerile sarcasm. The facts are what they are. For broadcast video, there's a significant difference between progressive and interlaced video. In this case of on-disc HD video, the situation is different.

An HDTV that can accept 1080p is superior to one that cannot, as you can get signals from a variety of sources, some of which may have variable time indices. But a HD player that outputs 1080p is not giving you a signal with more resolution or less artifacting. It's merely saving your TV from doing one step it otherwise would do itself.

Parent

RE: Also..

By omnicronx on 12/10/2007 12:31:38 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
For broadcast video, there's a significant difference between progressive and interlaced video. In this case of on-disc HD video, the situation is different.
An HDTV that can accept 1080p is superior to one that cannot, as you can get signals from a variety of sources, some of which may have variable time indices. But a HD player that outputs 1080p is not giving you a signal with more resolution or less artifacting. It's merely saving your TV from doing one step it otherwise would do itself.

Thank you masher! Maybe this debate can finally come to rest. If i could afford a 1080p player, I would buy it, as it essentially futureproofs the format. But at this current time, I own a normal 60hz 1080p television and I have no need to pay the extra money for something that will look exactly the same on my TV. Maybe someday when I buy a 72hz television, I will change my mind.

Parent

RE: Also..

By MrPickins on 12/10/2007 4:42:17 PM , Rating: 2

On a tangent, I have read that most 1080i broadcasts lately have been recorded on 1080p cameras and converted.

Would this deinterlace to a bit perfect copy?

Parent

RE: Also..

By masher2

(blog) on 12/11/2007 1:19:33 AM , Rating: 2

> "Would this deinterlace to a bit perfect copy?"

As long as the temporal indices match in each half frame-- yes. I don't know the details of the particular process, but its certainly possible in theory.

Parent

RE: Also..

By mruffin75 on 12/10/2007 2:05:32 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I'm sorry guys. Outside of the flood of zillions of information sources and references, you're right: 1080I compared to 1080P is nearly the same.

Well if you want a reference (it sucks that it's wikipedia..but it'll do for this):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_Standards

It has a nice little diagram at the bottom that shows what we're trying to explain to you. It shows that 1080i/p have both got the same resolution (1920x1080), it's only the display format that changes. (eg. no 540 lines!)

quote:
What was I thinking?

I don't know! But I'm glad you've come around! :)

Parent

RE: Also..

By Chaser on 12/10/2007 2:20:52 PM , Rating: 1

I have! I'm cured! More koolaid! I wonder if I could neuter my PS3 to 1080i too? I can! It's in the menus! Hooray!

Now to send an invoice to Sony for a refund. OK too much Koolaid.

Parent

RE: Also..

By omnicronx on 12/10/2007 3:00:52 PM , Rating: 2

Nobody here is telling you not to buy a 1080p set, but please stop trying to play it off as though we are idiots. We have all explained all the differences, and the situations when a 1080p player could possibly be better. But the fact remains, for the vast majority of people, paying extra money for an 1080p player is unwarranted.

The days of crappy 1080p sets down converting to 540p are over, and not surprisingly sets like these created the perception that 1080p is that much better, but the fact of the matter is, for the majority of sets, it is not a problem.

Parent

RE: Also..

By Oregonian2 on 12/10/2007 2:40:06 PM , Rating: 2

One problem here is that there are three aspects of "1080p/i" that are being intermingled and confused.

1. 1080i/p as transmission methods. "As is" they are equivalent it's just that "i" sends stuff in different order than "p", but the same amount of information is transferred.

2. The transmission in #1 above is somewhat independent of how well it is used, and that the source of data can be different in different applications of the transmission method. For those sources that choose to build a 1080p dataframe and then send it interlaced, the data transmission method doesn't matter. If the source has only a half-frame buffer (1 field) and generates them sequentially, then there is a timeshift. But it's the generation that's causing the difference, not the transmission format (i/p). A convoluted generator could generate "i" sequentially, buffer it, and then send it "p" and still be messed up despite being a 1080p interface. Don't know of any doing that, but it could happen.

3. TV sets use the jargon of "1080p" to imply that the set has a something by 1080 pixel screen. Ones that say 1080i usually are a something by 720 pixel set. This has it's own discussion points and is related to that above, but really is a different subject.

All of the above have been mushed together in much of the comments and causes most of the grief (IMO).

Parent

RE: Also..

By pomaikai on 12/10/2007 3:03:13 PM , Rating: 2

Additional info about point number 3. All TVs have a native format and have to do internal processing to show in that format. All CRT based TVs native format is interlaced. For a crt based TV to do 720p it converts it to 1080i. CRT cannot display 720p, it must first convert to an interlaced format. The reason they put 720p is because it will accept a 720p input. LCD, DLP, Plasma all have native progressive format. Any LCD that mentions 1080i and not 1080p must convert the 1080i to 720p.

Parent

RE: Also..

By pomaikai on 12/10/2007 2:48:23 PM , Rating: 2

They would laugh in your face. Not because it doesnt matter, but because of people like you who think that it makes a difference. It is a marketing ploy. I know you think that all the information on a box is exactly the way it is because they want you to be informed. News flash, all the text on the box is positioned because it sells. 1080i source is inferior to 1080p source. This is true, but no matter which player you buy the source(HD-DVD disc or Blu Ray Disc) is always gonna be 1080p. Whats the difference in sending all the even lines then odd or all the lines in order? Either way they create the same picture. When was the last time you saw on a standard DVD progressive scan player box that if viewed on a CRT based TV you are gonna be still be watching interlaced video?

I agree a 1080i source(like over the air broadcast) is inferior to 1080p, but the source for HD-DVD and BluRay is 1080p not 1080i.

This HD format is way to confusing for 99.9% of the people out there. This is not about HDTV. A 1080p TV is superior to 1080i. 120hz(same frame shown 5 times, no additional processing of frames) is superior to 60hz(requires additional processing to convert 24hz to 60hz). While there is a difference between 1080i and 1080p TV there is no difference between 1080p and 1080i DVD player.

Parent

RE: Also..

By omnicronx on 12/10/2007 3:17:40 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
his is not about HDTV. A 1080p TV is superior to 1080i. 120hz(same frame shown 5 times, no additional processing of frames) is superior to 60hz(requires additional processing to convert 24hz to 60hz).

Almost all TV's that are at 120HZ are doubled from 60hz to help remove flicker and do not run in 24hz modes (24hz x 5). This being said, most 1080p TV's will convert from 24hz to 60hz and will be subject to essentially the same penalties as 1080i/60. (3:2 or 2:3 (inverse telecine) pulldown)

In case you were wondering, a bunch of 24hz compatible televisions running at 120hz will be released this fall.

Parent

RE: Also..

By omnicronx on 12/10/2007 3:21:53 PM , Rating: 2

p.s I know some people with high end TV's also support 72HZ, which also allows for 1080p/24 viewing without any conversion. These happen to be a dying bread though, and will be replaced with new and comming 120hz televisions.

Parent

RE: Also..

By mcnabney on 12/10/2007 8:15:42 PM , Rating: 2

Ahm. How can an LCD panel flicker?

There are no scan lines or interlace in an LCD. A pixel never flickers, it either stays the same or changes. It doesn't "go blank" for a fraction of a second like CRTs. What is the purpose of 120hz besides charging more and marketing?

Parent

RE: Also..

By masher2

(blog) on 12/11/2007 1:28:37 AM , Rating: 2

> "What is the purpose of 120hz besides charging more and marketing? "

To reduce judder. 120hz is an even multiple of 24, whereas 60 is not. An 120hz HDTV can display each frame of a 24 fps film 5 times for perfectly smooth action, whereas a 60hz lcd must display in a 3:2 cadence.

Parent

RE: Also..

By pomaikai on 12/11/2007 10:39:59 AM , Rating: 2

It doesnt really flicker. With a 60Hz LCD running a 24fps source not all frames are shown the same amount of time. At 60hz you have to show 60 frames every second. If you show every frame twice on a 24fps source you are only at 48 frames, but if you show every frame 3 times you are at 72 frames. So to get 60 frames they alternate showing some frames twice and some frames 3 times. Since not all frames are shown the same amount of time this can cause it to appear unnatural at times. Most TVs are going to 120 because it can handle both 60fps broadcast and 24fps FILM. 60fps twice is 120 and 24fps 5 times is 120.

Parent

RE: Also..

By Hulk on 12/10/2007 10:03:41 AM , Rating: 2

That is incorrect.

If the image being displayed is static then 1080i will look like 1080p.

If the image is dynamic, meaning if anything is moving, then each 540 line field will be different since they are 1/60 of a second apart in time. The resulting image, no matter how carefully interpolated, bob and weaved, etc... will NEVER have the resolution of the 1080p signal.

People should not be fooled into thinking 1080i is as good as 1080p. 1080i is marketing tool. Since there are no natively interlaced displays on the market to speak of all 1080i signals must be deinterlaced with a resulting loss in picture quality.

Plasma, LCD, rear projection, and front projection technology are all fixed pixel progressive devices. Only tube monitors that actually have a scanning electron beam "painting" the picture can do interlaced.

In this situation 1080i can actually look better to some eyes as motion can be smoother since the temporal field rate of 60 fields per second is faster than 1080/30p's temporal frame rate of 30 frames per second.

Remember the actual amount of data is the same!

Parent

RE: Also..

By steven975 on 12/10/2007 1:39:57 PM , Rating: 2

that's only true with 60 frame content. There is NONE available.

With 24p content the even and odd frames are in the SAME TIME DOMAIN. That means no motion issues. This is VERY easy to de-interlace.

Parent

RE: Also..

By FITCamaro on 12/10/2007 10:18:24 AM , Rating: 3

I am only in favor of HD-DVD because a) its cheaper and b) it has less DRM on it.

Yes, sorry it is not exactly the same thing. But to 99% of people out there, it looks exactly the same if the de-interlacing is done right.

And as much as you elitists want to believe, the world does not revolve around you. It revolves around what the average person can afford and accept. I have a 720p TV, so I really couldn't care less if something is 1080i or 1080p, its getting downscaled to 720p either way. I think my 1080i HD cable looks excellent on my TV as does my Xbox 360.

In 5 years, I might have a 1080p TV, but even then, I don't buy the bottom of the barrel so I'll be getting one that has a good scaling and de-interlacing chip because regardless of who wins the format war, I'll still have a lot of standard def video I'll want to watch for years to come.

My friend has a 4-5 month old XBR and even standard definition content looks good on it.

Parent

RE: Also..

By BansheeX on 12/10/07, Rating: 0

RE: Also..

By Spuke on 12/10/2007 1:10:35 PM , Rating: 2

Saving $100 is big deal to me since I CANNOT tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p. I CANNOT tell the difference so why would I buy the more expensive player? You tell me why I should? $100 for a HD player is a sweet deal. I feel the same way about video cards (or anything else for that matter). I CANNOT tell the difference between 100 fps and 200 fps so why should I spend $200 more for a 8800GTX versus an 8800GT? I can spend that savings on something else like a nice dinner for my wife or a short vacation, something of FAR more greater value than simply saying I have the best of something.

Parent

RE: Also..

By SavagePotato on 12/10/07, Rating: 0

RE: Also..

By Locutus465 on 12/10/2007 1:40:42 PM , Rating: 2

I think he's suggesting that a Toshiba HD-A2/3 quality player (same would be true for BD if you could find one) *DOES* perform nearly identical to more expensive 1080P units. To the point that the average buyer doesn't notice, perhaps only a select few... Which would basically be the exact same thing with the Geforce cards. Seems like a good comparison to me, one that is backed up by a large number of posts to forums on the oh so horrible OMG HD Biased HighDefDigest.com (of course you're the only one that seems to feel they are, but whatever).

Parent

RE: Also..

By SavagePotato on 12/11/2007 3:40:12 PM , Rating: 2

Just me and all the others buying blu-ray 2-1 over hd-dvd. And anyone else that can do simple math over a some stupid I trust my eyes review.

Parent

RE: Also..

By BansheeX on 12/10/07, Rating: 0

RE: Also..

By omnicronx on 12/10/2007 3:57:42 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I hate to be the one giving you this kind of obvious foresight, but consider the fact that you may one day UPGRADE to a tv or speakers with which you WILL be able to tell the difference.

I've already gone through 3 DVD players since I first adopted. Started out with an entry level because I only had a CRT, Then I got a progressive scan player so that I could use component outputs. And finally I got an upscalling DVD player last year. Weirdly enough, if i had gone out and spent as much money as possible as i could on a DVD player when they were first released, it would still be cheaper for me too buy 3 players over a 6-7 year period.

To keep it simple, sometimes adopting early has no advantage. for example: If I were to buy a 1080i player instead of a 1080p and I saved 100-150$. In 2 - 3 years when I decided to upgrade my television, HD-DVD/BD prices will probably fall into the 100-150$ price point anyways. As such, I really do not see getting a second player for free when it's finally time upgrade my Television as a problem. You pay to be an early adopter, especially for the high end hardware.

Parent

RE: Also..

By BansheeX on 12/10/2007 11:38:21 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
I've already gone through 3 DVD players since I first adopted. Started out with an entry level because I only had a CRT, Then I got a progressive scan player so that I could use component outputs. And finally I got an upscalling DVD player last year. Weirdly enough, if i had gone out and spent as much money as possible as i could on a DVD player when they were first released, it would still be cheaper for me too buy 3 players over a 6-7 year period.

I think we're past the point of early adoption price disparities being more expensive than three low-end players.... Blu-ray is not at $1000 anymore. And you're missing the ultimate point entirely. If everyone thinks like you and purchases HD-DVD to save $100 now, blu-ray DIES and you won't be ABLE to upgrade to blu-ray later. Say goodbye to better recordables, too. It's just entirely not worth the petty savings and endless debating to support HD-DVD and compromise a fifteen year format.

Parent

RE: Also..

By Locutus465 on 12/11/2007 12:49:51 AM , Rating: 3

With $200 cost of entry into HD DVD and $300 for blu-ray... We're still in an early adopter phase for both formats. The only brief exception was when HD DVD was down to $99 for a little while. We won't start seeing true mass market adoption until you hit $99 or better still $49 cost of entry (for either platform). Remember how prevelent VHS was until one fine holiday season we saw DVD players for $30, and then prices stabalized at $50?

The OP has a point, while prices aren't as out there as they used to be, there's still a certain logic to not buying ultra high end now and waiting a few years until he actually needs a better unit. high end players don't need to cost $1000 for that to pan out (though you can still spend that much if you really want to).

Parent

RE: Also..

By pomaikai on 12/10/2007 3:05:32 PM , Rating: 2

The thing that will make or break a hi def DVD player is not only price. It is a combination of price and movie selection. I want to buy a HD-DVD player because of price, but wont because Blu Ray has the better movie selection for me.

Parent

RE: Also..

By lopri on 12/10/2007 7:28:13 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
That would not make much sense if your television could only do 720p/1080i.

You're correct. I didn't think of 720p/1080i TV owners, but my (wrong) assumption was kinda natural thing for me, after seeing all those HD TV's displayed with 'Full HD' sticker on display.

Rather, my post was targeting posts like the one below yours. (Most people can't tell the difference between upconverted 1080i and actual 1080p.., etc.) Well, then why bother with HD to begin with. Most people would only need upconverting DVD players.

And I doubt that people who can afford TVs with 'good chips' would mind spend $50 more for the real 1080p signal.

Parent

RE: Also..

By GAZZA on 12/10/2007 8:14:16 AM , Rating: 2

Most people (general public) aren't going to be tech savy enough to know the difference if they've never seen 1080p/i.

All that matters to most is the cost, sure they are going to spend a decent amount of $$ on a hdtv (again as long as it's got what ever version of hdtv ability) and probably try to skimp on anything else they can to save money.

They're gonna get raped on the cables unless you know otherwise (aka monoprice) so they'll accept the cheapest HD player they can get especially when buying from BB, CC, etc.

If they've never seen 1080p and they get a 1080i player for their TV, how are they going to know otherwise?
They'll be just as happy.

Parent

RE: Also..

By EclipsedAurora on 12/10/2007 12:18:08 PM , Rating: 2

but bluray player also support 1080i output

Parent

RE: Also..

By Oregonian2 on 12/10/2007 2:21:43 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
(And before anyone says anything about 1080i vs 1080p: Yes, I have a 52"/1080p/120Hz LCD TV and can tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p. Ask yourself how you'd feel after you had purchased a 720p/1080i TV, thinking it was a 1080p.)

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but if you can tell the difference, can you tell which is "better"? For real? When things are subtle, one can tell that there's something changing, but which is "better" is kinda hard to say (if blind testing anyway, else if one already knows which is going to look better before looking, it's kind of moot).

Parent

RE: Also..

By EclipsedAurora on 12/11/2007 8:15:51 AM , Rating: 2

Why not? Interlanced video herself has a lot of quality degradation when conducting I->P process when displaying in today's LCD/plasma screen, and introducing smeared or jarred artifacts.

Frankly speaking, the visual quality of 1080i is sometimes even worse than 720p. Flickering introduced by 1080i always made statistic pictures, slower motions, or subtitles look more blur than those in 720p.

The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) recommends that its members use 720p instead of 1080i, while 1080p as a future option.

Parent

RE: Also..

By masher2

(blog) on 12/11/2007 8:42:51 AM , Rating: 3

> "Flickering introduced by 1080i always made statistic pictures, slower motions, or subtitles look more blur than those in 720p"

No. First of all, I believe you meant to say the exact opposite-- that interlaced vieo makes NON-static pictures and high-motion scenes more blurred. Furthermore, while that statement is true for broadcast video, it's incorrect for material from HD disc. The interlacing doesn't affect the video quality in the least-- it simply affects the format the frames are sent in. See elsewhere in the thread for why this is true.

Parent

RE: Also..

By EclipsedAurora on 12/12/2007 2:43:47 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Furthermore, while that statement is true for broadcast video, it's incorrect for material from HD disc. The interlacing doesn't affect the video quality in the least-- it simply affects the format the frames are sent in.

Do u understand what is called A/B or odd/even fields in interlanced video signals? Please do some research on that and u'll know how come 1080i is interior against 720p!

To be displayed in modern plasma/lcd/projectors, a interlance-to-progressive process must be carried. However, each "frame" (or more accurately speaking the "field") interlance signal actually carries different contents in the timeline. For example, for a conversion from 1080i60 (60Hz) to 1080p60, each frame will actually a 1/60 second "jitter". That's why u can notice ever interlancing lines when watching interlanced video.

Therefore, there is no practical way for perfect conversion from 1080i60 to 1080p60, since each field in a interlanced video actually only contains half the contents recorded in that time of field only.

Interlancing lines is very noticable in DVD when playbacking on LCD/plasma. For HD contents, the problem is not as noticable as before since the resolution is far higher. However, as today's LCD/plasma TVs are manufactured in a size never reached before, the problem is again significant enough to harm the actual visual experience.

This problem applies to both braodcast and HD video contents. Check out those projector reviews and u'll find most of their conclusion are 720p beating 1080i.

Parent

RE: Also..

By omnicronx on 12/10/2007 8:50:09 AM , Rating: 2

Difference between 1080i and 1080p when talking about HD-DVD/BD is negligable. With a good TV (as you say you have mr 120hz) you should actually notice less of a difference. Only on cheaper 1080p sets would it be noticeable. Remember regardless if your player is 1080i, the source is still 1080p. When the source is the same, seeing something in half frames or full frames is negligible.

Parent

RE: Also..

By masher2

(blog) on 12/10/2007 11:14:18 AM , Rating: 2

It's more complex than that. For instance if you're viewing 1080p@24 material (such as BD/HD-DVD video), a weave-reconstructed 1080i@48 signal is going to be identical to a 1080i@24 signal, and it will be clearly superior a 1080p@60 signal (which is what most progressive players are outputting today).

Most of the people condeming interlaced image quality are still confusing it with OTA broadcast video in the days of CRT displays. The former caused temporal artifacts, the latter brightness reduction. Neither are relevant with today's displays viewing source material from disc.

Parent

RE: Also..

By masher2

(blog) on 12/10/2007 11:16:44 AM , Rating: 2

Correction: clearly superior to a 1080p @30 signal.

Parent

RE: Also..

By pomaikai on 12/10/2007 12:25:03 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
(And before anyone says anything about 1080i vs 1080p: Yes, I have a 52"/1080p/120Hz LCD TV and can tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p. Ask yourself how you'd feel after you had purchased a 720p/1080i TV, thinking it was a 1080p.)

There is no difference between a 1080i HD-DVD player or a 1080p HD-DVD player. Both start with a 1080p source. A 1080i player splits a single frame and sends the odd lines then the even lines. The TV then merges those odd and even lines to form the same exact frame that it started with.

With a standard 1080i source/transmission the odd and even lines are not from the same frame therefore you end up merging 2 sets of lines that are from 2 different points in time. This is what causes the artifacts. With HD-DVD and Blu Ray you start with a 1080p source not 1080i.

Sending 1080p over 1080i player example:
To try this on your own. Get a picture and cut it into 10 strips. Split the 10 strips into even and odd lines. Hand over the even lines to someone else and then the odd lines. Have them put them back together. Now take the same picture and cut it into 10 strips. Now hand over all 10 strips in order and put them back together. Is there a difference? NO.

For a 1080i source:
Take 2 pictures at slightly different times. Cut each picture into 10 strips. Hand over odd lines from first picture and even lines from second picture. Now put them together. HD-DVD 1080i player does not do this. It uses the same frame for odd and even lines.

And refresh rate doesnt mean anything. Film is only recorded at 24 FPS. A 1080p with refresh rate of 60 just sends the same frame several times. They cant magically create frames out of mid air. A 1080p player has to have a higher bandwith because it send the same frame a couple times. It has to be capable of handling a source with 60fps.

Parent

RE: Also..

By pomaikai on 12/10/2007 12:40:10 PM , Rating: 2

The only benefit that 120Hz has on film is that it can be evenly divided by 24(fps). Therefore each frame is displayed 5 times. With 24fps(FILM) displayed at 60 Hz you have to display some frames twice, but not others, or merge frames to reach 60hz. This can cause jerkiness when there is very fast motion whether you have 1080p or 1080i.

Parent

RE: Also..

By Murst on 12/10/2007 1:04:02 PM , Rating: 2

Although you certainly didn't get a very good reception here to your views on 1080i (you should have known that a lot of people bought the cheap HD-DVD players during the promo), I'll thrown in some support :)

The only reason why I didn't buy the Toshiba players during the promo is because they can only do 1080i. Unfortunately, this is the fault of the HD-DVD spec, as you'll never find a compliant BD player that doesn't support 1080p - since that would make it non-compliant by definition.

The Toshiba players aren't all that bad though. However, when I spend my money on electronics, I don't ever want to have a feeling that I'm not getting everything I could... and since 1080p HD-DVD players exist, I'd be spending my cash on that instead of 1080i. The only reason why I haven't done so is cause I'm still hoping that BD will win the war.

Parent

RE: Also..

By porkpie on 12/10/2007 1:45:05 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
when I spend my money on electronics, I don't ever want to have a feeling that I'm not getting everything I could

Good thing you didn't buy Blu Ray then, as after missing out on region-unlocked discs, less-intrusive DRM, PiP, and Internet connectivity, you'd have certainly been disappointed.

Parent

RE: Also..

By SavagePotato on 12/10/2007 1:52:22 PM , Rating: 1

Sounds like a broken record in here, one that keeps spewing the same fud over and over.

Parent

RE: Also..

By Spuke on 12/10/2007 1:53:36 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
Sounds like a broken record in here, one that keeps spewing the same fud over and over.

I agree and it's really annoying. This will be my last post in these types of threads.

Parent

RE: Also..

By BansheeX on 12/11/2007 12:11:12 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Good thing you didn't buy Blu Ray then, as after missing out on region-unlocked discs, less-intrusive DRM, PiP, and Internet connectivity, you'd have certainly been disappointed.

Regions are pointless. I haven't bought a disc from another region in my entire life and I'm far more savvy than the average consumer. The most common consequence of regions is simply having to wait a few months for certain releases to reach your area, and even then you have to research it in order to be aware of the delay in the first place.

DRM is virtually the same on both and both will be cracked. Managed copy is a joke and requires an internet callback verification. I'd say that's potentially MORE intrusive than blu-ray.

PiP... lol? When did people start caring about this bloat "feature?" We never had it with DVD and no one complained. Start worrying about actual movies instead of idiotic interactivity bloat, pls.

Internet connectivity? Snore again. Potential data collection and privacy issues. IT'S A F***ING MOVIE. Why do I get the feeling you are grasping for any little thing to exaggerate? Next thing you know, every release is getting delayed six months to fill the disc up with minigames and bullsh*t like this.

So enjoy all of those incredible advantages over blu-ray while you're backing up all of your movies on two single layer 15gb discs or 1 far more expensive, less durable multi-layer disc.

Parent

RE: Also..

By Locutus465 on 12/11/2007 12:58:29 AM , Rating: 2

Or being able to buy a movie you won't be able to buy at all until this silly format war is over... Please keep in mind that Studio exlusivity in many cases ends at NA borders. There are titles released by Sony, Fox and Disney you can only buy in BD here, but if you check ebay you can find in HD format ready for import. Some examples:

Underworld 1 & 2
Fantastic Four 1 & 2
The Brothers Grimm
Big Fish
Ghost Rider
Flyboys

I wouldn't be entirely supprised to learn the same is true the other way around. The problem is if with region coding in play, you might well be out of luck with BD. In the case of HD DVD you need not worry.

More long term, there are many movie buffs out there that truely enjoy forgine films, many of which never see any sort of official release in our borders. Region codes being officially and completely abolished will make life easier for them.

Parent

RE: Also..

By masher2

(blog) on 12/11/2007 1:26:00 AM , Rating: 2

> "DRM is virtually the same on both "

Not according to Sony. They tout BD-Java as being an "extra layer" of DRM, offering not only more security, but more ability for studios to lock down content. It is, in fact, one of their primary selling points to studios on the format.

> "while you're backing up all of your movies on two single layer 15gb discs or 1 far more expensive, less durable multi-layer disc. "

Err, 50G Blu Ray discs are multi layer as well. As for the data storage issue, I'm sure Blu Ray will be dominant in that sector. The real question is what format Hollywood movies will be shipped in.

Parent

RE: Also..

By BansheeX on 12/11/2007 11:47:33 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Err, 50G Blu Ray discs are multi layer as well.

Here's the thing, though. The 50gb is only used for bonus material, uncompressed audio, less disc swappage on tv shows, and really long movies. 25-30gb is totally sufficient for the average movie, and indeed, that means that HD-DVD is technically sufficient for next-gen. However, it is the minimal solution with undesirable drawbacks for backups. Blu-ray is not "overkill" because it also has the ability to backup most films on one recordable instead of two due to 25gb single layer capacity (PCM tracks can be losslessly compressed). With HD-DVD, you're always going to be faced with expensive 30gb multi-layer or two 15gb single layers for perfect quality copies.

quote:
As for the data storage issue, I'm sure Blu Ray will be dominant in that sector.

But HD-DVD players can't read Blu-ray discs, and if Blu-ray only wins for data storage, how are you going to play a backup in a player? By having two formats and adding cost to the players? Seems rather pointless to go that route over a single format solution which is as good for movies and better for recordables. Too much is being made of current price disparities. There's just no overwhelming reason to want HD-DVD to beat Blu-ray in either scenario.

Parent

RE: Also..

By Locutus465 on 12/11/2007 1:18:07 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Err, 50G Blu Ray discs are multi layer as well. As for the data storage issue, I'm sure Blu Ray will be dominant in that sector. The real question is what format Hollywood movies will be shipped in.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that when it comes to dvd back ups, most people are more interested in "backing up" their movie collection (or perhaps blockbuster/netflicks movie collection) rather than their own personal data. If this is the case, then I wouldn't be excpecting writeable drives/discs to make a huge impact on the format war, rather for the tech to just follow which ever format wins hollywood.

As far as HD DVD being limited to 15GB discs for backups... Consider that while DVD writing may have started out as single layer, today you can buy cheap dual layer burners. The same thing will happen with HD DVD and or Blu-Ray which ever wins the war (I'm being optimisic and thinking the war will be over by the time dual layer writers are out).

Parent

Missing the point

By spidey81 on 12/10/2007 8:20:27 AM , Rating: 3

quote:
Despite the drop to $299, HD DVD still hangs on to its reputation for being the more affordable technology. Even with the prices back up from $99, the entry level Toshiba HD-A3 is still $100 less on Amazon than the Samsung BD-P1400.

I think that most are missing the point of the article. It's not about people taking advantage of the latest/best hardware available. It's about them getting an affordable solution for HDTV.
Personally, I'm unable to invest the kind of money it takes to create a top of the line home theater setup. So if I do what I'm planning, which is upgrading in steps, then when I do get an HDTV I'll more than likely get a good upconverting DVD player and a TV with 720p/1080i. Both of which would be a good choice for those penny pinching consumers who just want a good picture and a reasonable price.
As for the HD DVD/Bluray thing, all I have to say is that I'm waiting for a combo player at a reasonable (under $300) price with a complete set of features for both formats and a 1080p output for when I do upgrade to a 1080p display. Until then I think I'll just sit on the sidelines and see how the fight turns out.

RE: Missing the point

By psychotix11 on 12/10/2007 9:31:32 AM , Rating: 1

Affordable or not I don't think this is going to help.

The vast majority of people I know with an HDTV have one simply so they can hang it on the damn wall. Your average shmuck with the money to buy a good HD set-up doesn't know their ass from their elbow, let alone HDMI from component.

These are people who simply go out and buy the most expensive, and more importantly slimmest with the biggest screen because it's sexy. For them the high price of blu-ray was the selling point, let alone that not a one of them has everything connected properly to take advantage of it.

The price concerned crowd tends to be a bit more tech savy and edges toward HD-DVD because it's a far better purchase.

Then there is the bottom of the barrel price crowd that just buys the cheapest of everything.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By Murst on 12/10/2007 12:28:52 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
The vast majority of people I know with an HDTV have one simply so they can hang it on the damn wall. Your average shmuck with the money to buy a good HD set-up doesn't know their ass from their elbow, let alone HDMI from component.

These are people who simply go out and buy the most expensive, and more importantly slimmest with the biggest screen because it's sexy. For them the high price of blu-ray was the selling point, let alone that not a one of them has everything connected properly to take advantage of it.

Where do you come up with this crap. I'll use my dad as an example here, cause it appears he's the type of "shmuck" you're talking about.

He, when it comes to techie things, is completely clueless. But he also knows that he's clueless. So, when he gets his "most expensive" electronics, do you really think he'll try to hook it up himself? He gets professional installers for his $20k entertainment center. Use some logic here... do you really think that people who make that kind of cash are going to waste that much of their time even trying to set this up themselves? Its cheaper for them to hire someone else to do it.

Its you who is a "shmuck" if you think people will spend that much money on a few electronics and not get someone to hook it up for them. You seem to be living in some kind of fantasy world.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By BMFPitt on 12/10/2007 12:55:30 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
So, when he gets his "most expensive" electronics, do you really think he'll try to hook it up himself? He gets professional installers for his $20k entertainment center. Use some logic here...

Sounds like a schmuck to me.

quote:
Its you who is a "shmuck" if you think people will spend that much money on a few electronics and not get someone to hook it up for them. You seem to be living in some kind of fantasy world.

I recall reading here or somewhere that 1/3 of people with HDTVs don't have an HD signal going to them, but think they do.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By Murst on 12/10/2007 1:15:26 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Sounds like a schmuck to me.

Ha! You think someone is a schmuck cause they don't install their own entertainment centers? When you get a PhD, MD, author a couple of books, and have over 200 published works, maybe I'll more seriously take your opinion of other people who have worked their ass of to get to where they are.

Until then, I'll continue to think that people have different interests, and just becuase they're uninterested in learning how AV hookups work, it certainly doesn't make them any less of a person than a geek who does.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By psychotix11 on 12/10/2007 1:36:10 PM , Rating: 2

Just because somebody has a fancy degree doesn't mean they can't be a schmuck. You also don't know my education level or what I do. But here's some food for thought:

You forget that HD-DVD and Blu-ray didn't really start to trickle into the market until long after HDTV had been out. While people do pay money to have a TV mounted on their wall, and I have many friends that have done this, people don't really go out and buy a player and then pay somebody to wire it up.

A good portion of those with top end HD systems don't have an HD signal going to it.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By Murst on 12/10/2007 2:56:53 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
A good portion of those with top end HD systems don't have an HD signal going to it.

I do know of people who have a HD TV and no HD signal, but none of these are top end HD systems. For example, I do not know anyone who's spent over $4k (basically, the very nice Pioneers, Pannasonics) on an HD TV and does not have an HD signal.

Perhaps it is due to my very limited exposure to HD TVs, but to me it appears as the problem of HD TV/No HD signal is limited to the lower end of HD TVs, not the "top end" of the market.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By Murst on 12/10/2007 2:59:43 PM , Rating: 2

Oh, and as for:

quote:
Just because somebody has a fancy degree doesn't mean they can't be a schmuck. You also don't know my education level or what I do.

You're absolutely right. However, when people call others "schmucks" when they don't know anything about the person, it shows what kind of person they actually are.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By Chaser on 12/10/2007 9:40:19 AM , Rating: 2

As I stated earlier the significance of the article (to me) is that Blue Ray pricing is also starting to fall as it will continue to. Another important point is that the PS3 is no longer the lowest priced avenue to Blue Ray. But that was also to be expected.

But I can hear the HD DVD camp now: "No one will buy a player because there's no PS3 built in." :D

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By Locutus465 on 12/10/2007 9:58:28 AM , Rating: 2

Yeah, but this is a Profile 1.0 player, with so many 1.0 players out on the market it's going to be a *LONG* time before you start seeing SF's like community screening and shared favs. Also, I'm going to be curious to see if the price stays this low after the holidays.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By SavagePotato on 12/10/2007 10:34:11 AM , Rating: 2

What Isn't mentioned is that amazon also is selling the Panasonic 1.1 blu-ray player for $419 as well right now.

So for those that are terribly concerned about useless features like pip and such,(ie almost no one) that option is also cheaper.

It has been stated that the first web enabled discs are slated for January appearance. Not a long time at all.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By Locutus465 on 12/10/2007 10:40:41 AM , Rating: 2

I don't see why I should have to spend an extra $120 to get something that should have been standard from Day 1. Like I said else where, I can live w/o PiP, it would would definintly been nice...

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By SavagePotato on 12/10/2007 10:47:46 AM , Rating: 2

Because it is a newer and more featured player in more ways than just 1.1 support. Why should people pay more for the HDA30? because it's a better player.

Oh and by the way, since I know it's a personal point of contention to you, the ps3 is scheduled for 1.1 capable firmware at the end of the month, and 2.0 firmware early 2008. The 2.0 firmware update hasn't officially been announced but was mentioned by Lionsgate representatives.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By Locutus465 on 12/10/2007 11:07:19 AM , Rating: 2

Yes, it's better but not in terms of being feature complete v. not being feature complete. It's better in terms of Supporting 1080P (@24FPS I think) and perhaps some improved audio support, though I'm not sure if that is accurate. My HD-A2 only supports 1080i, but since I own a 720P television I'm really not feeling as if I'm missing out on anything at all.

So basically, the difference between a HD-A3 and HD-A30 is equivilent to the difference between having a progressive scan DVD player v. a DVD player that doesn't support progressive scan. I think that's the way it should be, there should be no such thing as a DVD player (of any kind) that isn't feature complete as far as your ability to access conent in the manner that the studio intended you to access it.

As I've stated else where in this thread, Profile 1.0 (obviously) wasn't enough to stop me from buying this player. But it is a bit of a annoyance that is really never going to go away in the BD world since sony made the choices they made. Hence I support HD DVD still, all player are feature complete, all players/discs lack regions and it's still cheaper to get into HD DVD.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By SavagePotato on 12/10/2007 11:16:10 AM , Rating: 2

How is it never going to go away? web content enabled disks are slated for January.(as opposed to never which was your mis-prediction)

Just because there are 1.0 players out there does not mean the feature will never be supported the way you paint it.

That price difference is now negligible, $100 less for a 1080i player is not vastly more affordable the way it's being portrayed. Considering the fact blu-ray outsells by far even with more expensive players things are going to look worse and worse for hd-dvd as that perceived price advantage evaporates.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By Locutus465 on 12/10/2007 11:40:45 AM , Rating: 2

It's never going to go away due to the sheer number of P1.0 players on the market that will always need to be supported. This brings up the question as to whether it's worth it to develop this content for BD releases. Look at HP OOTP... Technically Warner could have put the same web-enabled content on the BD disc, so the question is why didn't they? Probably because there is only going to be 1 bluray player on the market for the forseeable future that will fully support that content, and that player costs $800, futher that player isn't just a BD player, it's a dual format player.

Why take the time developing a feature for BD format that no one can use? With HD DVD it's a different story, all players are feature complete, and HD DVD users *ARE* using web enabled content (80% try it at least once).

I'm also liking how the menu function in HD DVD always defaults to what in the BD world is the super speacial "popup menu" button. I wish this was the default in the BD world, but apparently it isn't. I realize others may feel differently, but my preference is to always have the movie running.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By SavagePotato on 12/10/2007 12:42:58 PM , Rating: 2

That is title specific. Disney blu ray titles want to go through the disney promos at the beginning and will not let you bypass them.

Others just get right into playing the movie, for example put corpse bride on this weekend and was surprised to see it go right to the movie.

Honestly you are pulling alot of doom and gloom out of thin air, and making up numbers. You can already get a profile 1.1 player for $400. Profile 2.0 players will follow suit in short order. For the majority of blu ray owners that "compromised" and bought a ps3, as you put it elsewhere, 2.0 will arrive free of charge very soon, right around the same time web enabled discs are confirmed to start appearing (January.)

Lets review some of the things you said would never happen.

1: profile 1.1 and 2.0 support for ps3, happening.
2: web content enabled discs for blu-ray, happening.

Both happening soon I might add.

On that 80% number for users that use web content, completely the opposite of what I've seen quoted which was either 60 or 40%(I can't recall the exact number)

The point is, none of it is near as insurmountable and horrible as you make out, and that most if not all of your blu-ray predictions are being proven dead wrong.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By Locutus465 on 12/10/2007 1:24:58 PM , Rating: 2

No, the function of the menu button isn't title specific. I do realize that (Warner) puts you straight into the movie, just like they do with HD DVD. My problem is that the menu button pops you out of the movie so you can fiddle with audio options, advance sceens etc. In the world of HD DVD, nothing short of pressing the stop button bumps you out of the movie, which I prefer. It allows me to play with media settings while the movie plays, or quicly browse the sceen index while the movie plays.

Not that BD doesn't allow this, it's just that if you're the type of person that replaces the remote with a good universal (such as my Harmony 550) it becomes a bit more of a pain. Even if you're the type to use the remote that shipped with the player, still you have to remember to press a completly different button.

Like I said, this is a small thing, but when you're talking about two different formats that are otherwise nearly identical then it's the small things that matter.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By SavagePotato on 12/10/2007 1:32:48 PM , Rating: 2

My ps3 is capable of doing things like scene skip, changing subtitles, changing audio tracks, and anything else I might want to do while watching a movie. It does it very fast I might add. It also allows me to see info such as bitrate, my place in the movie time wise, and what all the other settings are such as audio track etc.

I have never in the history of DVD or Blu-ray changed settings for a disc using the discs built in menu to choose things like lanquage captioning or sound. I don't see why anyone would want to if the player does it.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By Locutus465 on 12/10/2007 1:44:17 PM , Rating: 2

Some how... You're missing the point that pressing the menu button will bump you out of the movie, something that never happens with HD DVD. Press the menu button, I get my full menu with all options including sceen selection while the movie plays...

Again, yes BD can do this, but it's annoyingly assigned to another button which is inconvinent to access on my remote, and requires remembering to push as opposed to menu (which is what muscle memory has trained us to do) if you use the official remote.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By SavagePotato on 12/10/2007 1:57:24 PM , Rating: 2

Not on the ps3 it doesn't, I can hit display which overlays a status hud on the top and bottom edge of the screen. I can change subtitles, audio settings, all that stuff without leaving the movie. As well as veiw data such as overall bitrate, and playtime with a status bar that shows my place in the movie.

I can sit and flip through the audio tracks with the press of a button and it swaps between the director commentary tracks, foreign language tracks etc instantaneously. With a very fast response time I might add.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By Locutus465 on 12/10/2007 2:04:56 PM , Rating: 2

I can hit display, I do get an overlay... However this is different from the main system menu. Perhaps your PS3 is offering some sort of super duper extended functionalty, but on my Samsung the overlay doesn't, for instance, display thumbnails for chapters. I can blindly select new chapter numbers and go to them, but with out memorizing what chapter is associated with which sceen I have no idea where I'm going to end up.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By jconan on 12/12/2007 10:55:47 PM , Rating: 2

Well Blu-Ray or HD-DVD may no longer be an issue on the computer side. LG has released a hybrid Blu-Ray/HD-DVD player around $100+ more than M$'s HD-DVD add-on. http://techbargains.pricegrabber.com/search_getpro...
The question now becomes does Vista support Blu-Ray and HD-DVD
hybrid drives? So it really doesn't matter which format a movie is exclusive to?

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By Locutus465 on 12/10/2007 10:53:38 AM , Rating: 2

In my set up I've got an HD-A2 and this Samsung player... Plus all the other requirements of a good HD set up (or as good as it gets for the $$$ I can afford to spend) HD DVR, x-box 360 surround sound etc.

All I can say is... Get your self a logitech harmony remote and it won't matter :) Set that sucker up with a "Watch TV" and a "Watch HD DVD" task and a "Watch Blu-Ray" (....etc) task and you might as well have a dual format player, it's just as good :) Ok, I suppose you still end up taking a smidge more room in your HT set up, but not that horribly much more, and this is a cheaper solution.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By SavagePotato on 12/10/2007 12:45:57 PM , Rating: 2

Question comes to mind how you can afford to spend anywhere from $100 to $600 on a high end universal remote but possibly manage to spend a little more on a player.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By Locutus465 on 12/10/2007 1:26:43 PM , Rating: 2

I wouldn't have the remote or 29 HD DVD's & 5 BD's (with 5 free on the way) if I wasn't making compramises somewhere. I'd rather have the harmony and movies...

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By spidey81 on 12/10/2007 1:00:39 PM , Rating: 2

I guess the other thing that I had in mind is the fact that 1080p isn't taken advantage of by many type of media sources. Check with your cable of satellite providers and most of them only provide signals barely better than 480p for most of their HD broadcasts.
And then most of your cheaper high definition players have only a 720p/1080i output. Then factor in that most of the more inexpensive HDTVs out there don't support 1080p. So if you went out right now to get an HD setup on the cheap then there's really no point in migrating to either HD disk format when you can get a good upconverting DVD player to give you about the same resolution.
Especially considering that, personally anyway, a 37" display is the largest for a budget system I woould consider. And with that size of a screen there's really no point in 1080p.

Parent

RE: Missing the point

By Locutus465 on 12/10/2007 1:34:03 PM , Rating: 2

I suppose technically you get the same res out of an upconverting DVD player... Having gone that route my self to start with I can tell you right now, you're not getting the same quality. In fact, you don't even get good consistancy out of upscaled dvd's. Some upscale very nicely and look fine, others upscale very poorly and look like giant pixalated messes. Even in the best of cases you're not getting the clarity and color depth you get out of true HDM (even on a cheap HDTV).

As far as digital cable... You do run into some upscaled content, but there's also a whole bunch of really good full HD content out there... Discovery HD Theater is all (or very nearly all) 1080i native content. It looks terrific on my 720P 50" toshiba.

Parent

Samsung Reliability

By wallijonn on 12/10/2007 10:00:17 AM , Rating: 3

quote:
Despite the drop to $299, HD DVD still hangs on to its reputation for being the more affordable technology.

Supposedly the reliability of the BD-P1400 has been called into question by many (there are supposedly many returns to stores), perhaps making the PS3 not only the best player available but perhaps the most reliable (even above Sony's own stand-alones.)

RE: Samsung Reliability

By SavagePotato on 12/10/2007 10:54:17 AM , Rating: 2

Ah but the new Panasonic 1.1 capable player is available on Amazon as well for about the same cost as the ps3 right now.

To my knowledge the Panasonic is a good player.

I love my Samsung plasma but I have not been impressed reading customer feedback on the Samsung BD players. If it were me I would gladly spend an extra $100 and get the ps3, or even the new Panasonic player.

Parent

RE: Samsung Reliability

By Locutus465 on 12/10/2007 12:03:49 PM , Rating: 2

Any one know what discs are supposed to be problematic? I've tried 300, Troy, Pirates 2, Casino Royal and Ghost Rider (no haven't watched all movies all the way through since I only got this last night). So far I haven't seen any issues at all. Is it possible that along with adding DTS-HD the latest firmware also fixed any buggyness? The first thing I did after getting it hooked up was update the firmware.

Parent

RE: Samsung Reliability

By daftrok on 12/10/2007 12:40:39 PM , Rating: 2

Why does Sony even MAKE stand alone BD players? It makes no sense! They need to open their eyes and realize that having stand alone BD players is a waste of money and they should focus ALL of their Blu ray on PS3s, and I guess their notebooks and all-in-ones.

Parent

RE: Samsung Reliability

By Locutus465 on 12/10/2007 1:35:38 PM , Rating: 2

Most people (my self included) would perfer a SA player to a PS3... Even having bought this I might one day (if the price falls enough) still buy a PS3 and simply never use it for movies.

Parent

RE: Samsung Reliability

By mcnabney on 12/10/2007 8:19:12 PM , Rating: 2

Because adults don't want stupid gaming things hooked up to their home theater. Maybe if the PS3 came in a traditional component case, but it doesn't.

Parent

1080i is NOT 540P

By gochichi on 12/10/2007 9:36:40 AM , Rating: 1

Progressive "P" really means non-interlaced.
The interlaced vs non-interlaced concept really gets lost when you aren't talking about CRT technology and perhaps Plasma technology.

LCDs are slow as molasses and besides that have a fixed amount of pixels on the screen (as do plasmas). 1080i is the full deal as far as I can logically see it, 1080i refreshes twice as fast, 1080P is 24 fps as that's what film is. Either could really be great. I have to say the "i" thing needs to be dropped as it hardly ever applies to LCDs and Plasma which is what most TVs are today anyway.

A TV that doesn't have a resolution of 1920x1080 CANNOT display 1080i natively. Don't let the fact that high end CRTs are no longer made (Sony stopped making them a few years back) let you forget that high end CRTs were about picture quality and picture quality alone. 99.99% of 32" HDTVs sold today would not have a better picture quality than Sony's last high end 34" CRT. Of course, today you could get something much cooler and bigger for the same $2,500.00. CRT was not profitable, it was 1080i and as far I'm concerned it's the only legitimate 1080i. All other uses of the term 1080i are marketing hype and misleading (in terms of TV sets). Our electricity comes in at 60Hz, so 1080i is about equivalent to 1080P at 30Hz (of 30 fps) which compares well with 1080P 24fps. The added advantage of 1080P at 24fps being that film is 24 fps.

Anyhow, the deal with this player at $300.00 is that it's a whole lot more legitimate than Toshiba's players at $100.00 which was just misleading. It's also the full deal 1080P, and a good deal. I can't believe that I'd consider getting this player at $300.00 over the PS3 at $400.00 but I think that's the case.

I just wish the free movies weren't through mail-in-rebate. It only takes a couple of failed MIR to loose faith in them, and they are such a hassle anyhow.

RE: 1080i is NOT 540P

By Belard on 12/11/2007 7:53:58 AM , Rating: 2

I was in "the local wallllmart" this evening. On the shelf they had the Toshiba A3 player and SONY's BR player... the prices:

$299 for the Toshiba (1080i)
$380 for the SONY (1080p)

And when you compare the two, the SONY looks like a more elegant piece of hardware compared to the Toshiba. Like comparing a Lexus to Pontiac Sunbird. So much for the HUGE price savings for HD-DVD... yeah, those $100 players were limit time only. With Samsung selling a $300 or less player will help.

Also at Walmart, I notice that they had 3/4 of the HiDef Disc titles were BR.

Parent

RE: 1080i is NOT 540P

By porkpie on 12/11/2007 8:06:01 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
So much for the HUGE price savings for HD-DVD.

Nice try, but the Toshiba is $199 in most places, and Walmart has the Venturer HD-DVD player for $189:

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_...

So yes, $189 vs. $380 is a HUGE price difference.

quote:
Like comparing a Lexus to Pontiac Sunbird.

Rofl. Tell me, how long have you owned your PS3?

Independent reviewers have long compared the Sony and Toshiba SA players. They all agree the video and audio quality, startup time, construction, and functionality, are pretty much identical.

Parent

RE: 1080i is NOT 540P

By Locutus465 on 12/11/2007 9:22:02 AM , Rating: 2

Yeah, I think it's funny how BD camp always conviniently forgets Venturer like they don't exist. As far as his car comparison, my best guess is perhaps he's refering to appearances? In which case that's purly a matter of tastes, personally I think the Sony players is ugly and much perfer Toshiba. Or if he's strictly talking specs, then I'm afraid those won't do him good... Most enthusiests already have enough information to make the choices with out reading the specs off at walmart, and most average joe customers don't know or care about the difference.

Parent

RE: 1080i is NOT 540P

By Belard on 12/11/2007 6:02:42 PM , Rating: 2

Response to Locutus465

I think its funny that you're comparing a generic brand that 99% of the people don't know (unless they live in WalMart) to Toshiba, Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, etc.

Yeah... People with $1000~4000 1080p HD-TV Flat Panels, want to put a Apex or Ventura(whatever) $180 player next to it... oh, where does it get serviced at? Being that I know people in the Home A/V repair business - those bargin brands are among the worst in high failure rates AND getting parts to fix them.

If most AVG Joes don't care about the differences, then they shouldn't be buying an HiDef players. I'm not buying ANYTHING anytime soon... (A) This format war has to be over (B) Prices for both hardware & software needs to come down a bit more. My first DVD player was "cheap" when I bought it in 2001 for $300 (bottom end unit) - My latest was $100 with built-in VCR (To save space).

Oh yeah, enthusiests don't tend to buy junk... thats why they spend more on their PCs and get custom builds for a reason. Thats why WE want 1080P, high-end gaming cards, etc.

Parent

RE: 1080i is NOT 540P

By Belard on 12/11/2007 5:30:57 PM , Rating: 2

1 - I do not own a PS3 or xbox360. Nor am I a SONY lover.

2 - "Nice try" - get a life. I reported WHAT I SAW IN THE STORE A DAY OR SO AGO. MOST people still buy their products from B&M STORES! (I buy from newegg) So what a person SEES is a $300 player vs. a $378 BR-Player. I looked at both. The Toshiba looks cheap, and the movie selection is weak.

3 - I was comparing SONY and Toshiba at a store. And until today - I never heard of Venturer. Wow, a brand everyone knows and trusts! (not) It looks like cheap junk that still doesn't do 1080p.

4 - You talk about independent reviewers... I'm talking from the prespective that I've touched and played with both players in a store - side by side. I just checked out the Samsung player online, its looks like an elegant piece of home entertainment hardware.

5 - So there is now a $300 Samsung BR Player that will go well against a $250~300 Toshiba. If we go to the Circut City site:

$250 = Toshiba A20 (discountinued model)
$300 = Toshiba A30 (while new model, same feature set)
$500 = Toshiba A35 (The *ONLY* HD-DVD player with 1080p!)

$300 = Samsung BluRay (Plays 1080p)
$400 = Sony BlueRay Player (1080P)
$400 = Sony PlayStation 3. Has 40GB drive & video games.
$400 = Sharp Blue Ray
$450 = Panasonic Blue Ray Player

So as of this moment... BluRay has the CHEAPER 1080P HiDef players available. Only Toshiba is making HD-DVD. $500 Toshiba vs $300~450 with 3+ different brands/types.

Sub $200 junk doesn't cut it.

Parent

I'd still buy a PS3

By lopri on 12/10/2007 5:16:56 AM , Rating: 2

It just does so much more than playing movies for the extra cost($100). And it's 99% future-proof. Of course some might disagree with varying reasons, and I definitely understand.

When a stand-alone Blu-Ray player goes below $250, or better yet $200, then that's a different story because you can get two of them for the price of 40GB PS3.

RE: I'd still buy a PS3

By jhinoz on 12/10/2007 5:35:03 AM , Rating: 2

Let the flames begin

Parent

RE: I'd still buy a PS3

By lopri on 12/10/2007 5:40:03 AM , Rating: 2

Flames between PS3 owners and BD-P1400 owners? That'd be something new.

Parent

1080p vs 1080i

By mrdeez on 12/10/2007 11:52:32 AM , Rating: 2

There is no difference between 1080p/i....unless you feed a 1080/24 source native to a 1080/24 capable display...then the judder will be lessened and maybe non existent....if you have a 50inch or smaller display 1080p is all hype and nothing more and any difference you think you see is a placebo effect.

RE: 1080p vs 1080i

By blaster5k on 12/10/2007 4:52:31 PM , Rating: 2

Depends on viewing distance. If you have a 40" TV and sit 5 or 6 feet away, you are benefiting from 1080p. If you're sitting over 12 feet away, there's not much point in having HD at all. It's all about the viewing angle.

If you've got a large viewing angle, you'll benefit from 1080p -- regardless of screen size.

Parent

RE: 1080p vs 1080i

By mrdeez on 12/11/2007 1:09:25 AM , Rating: 2

This is incorrect. There are no more pixels in p than i. The main reason to have 1080p is to have 1080p/24 all the way through thus eliminating judder caused by the telechine process.

Parent

An expense?

By Polynikes on 12/10/2007 8:11:46 AM , Rating: 4

quote:
DTS-HD Master Audio is a lossless compression scheme that is able to provide audio quality on par with PCM tracks but at the expense of less storage.

A smaller storage requirement is an expense? :)

Technicality

By bplewis24 on 12/10/2007 12:29:20 PM , Rating: 2

Just a technical correction. The article lists the 1400 as being able to "decode" DTS-HD MA. That is actually incorrect. It does not decode it, but it is one of the very few players around that can actually bitstream it to an HDMI 1.3 AVR for decoding. So technically it is not decoding it, but it has the hardware that allows it to bitstream it out for decoding.

Brandon

RE: Technicality

By bplewis24 on 12/10/2007 4:12:08 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Note that unlike most TrueHD compatible next-gen players, the BDP-1400 doesn't decode the MA tracks internally, but rather it outputs them via HDMI 1.3 as a raw bitstream for decoding by a compatible receiver, such as Onkyo's TX-SR875 or TX-SR905. Several other Blu-ray players are due to include bitstream output in the coming months as well, including Pioneer’s BDP-95HD, Sony’s BDP-S500 and Samsung’s BD-P2400.

That quote is from the HighDefDigest link in the article itself.

Brandon

Parent

Deal was good enough to make me purple...

By Locutus465 on 12/10/2007 9:51:24 AM , Rating: 2

So now I officially own both setups... And while I do like Blu-Ray fine, I have to say I still perfer HD DVD. My BD gripes are small (certainly small enough to not prevent me from buying this), but here's the minor nags with this player.

Profile 1.0:
Means no PiP, or other advance SF functionality. I'm not SF crazy, after watching a movie once or twice it's fun to have the PiP going with the "how they done it" while you watch it a third time. Web enabled content is awesome too, which since this player doesn't do 1.1 content, I'm not sure that it will do 2.0 content despite the built in NIC.

Default Standard DVD Menus:
BD seems to emphasize having standard DVD menus, i.e. the disc loads up to a main menu screen then from there you select out what you want to do. Many HD DVD's actually do this too (not sure why), but at least with HD DVD pressing the menu button will *always* pull up the menu while you're in movie. Pressing the menu button with BD will take you back to the load up menu screen as if I was watching an S-DVD. Kind of annoying to me. Yes, you can get a popup menu, but this is a seperate button on the remote, and it get's mapped to "title menu". This means that on my Harmony remote, if I want to pull up the menu while the movie plays I need to specifically pull up my BD player, then search out the title menu funciton. Ug.

Besides these slight nags, if you're in a position that you can afford this player you should go for it. No reason to be missing out on HDM.

Anandtech Hot Deals

By Schadenfroh on 12/10/2007 11:02:33 AM , Rating: 2

If any of you are interested in joining in the hot deals discussion going on over in the forums, feel free to join us (thread link):
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid...

720p/1080i

By timmiser on 12/10/2007 7:12:10 PM , Rating: 2

When describing a TV feature is just wrong to show a 720p TV as 720p/1080i. Many stores and manufacturers still describe their HDTVs as "720p/1080i" which is incorrect. 1080i and 1080p by definition are both 1920x1080 resolution and for an output device, it is confusing and wrong for a 1366x768 HDTV to show anywhere in the specs "1080" as 1080i is actually describing a signal process, not a TV display resolution for the lower res HDTVs.

Come On....

By Xorg on 12/10/2007 9:02:09 PM , Rating: 2

I love how the original poster blasted the Toshiba A3 for "only doing 1080i." Has no one mentioned yet that this is Toshiba's >>entry level<< player and that even it beats the specs of the $499 Sony Blu-Ray player?

Toshiba also has an discounted it's mid-range A-30 player ad its top of the line A-35 player - both of which do 1080p just fine and blow the doors off the Sony Blu-Ray player's specs at a price point of at least $150 LESS than what Sony charges.

Price is what consumers care about - not 1080i vs. 1080p - 99% of the population can't tell the difference because 99% of the population doesn't own a set where the difference would be obvious or noticeable.

Bravo to all...

By The0ne on 12/11/2007 8:08:16 PM , Rating: 2

In just a few short post many of you have already explain the concept/distinctions/etc more accurately than other websites and forums have. I really have to commend many of you that have commented. Bravo indeed.