backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


RE: Also..
By therealnickdanger on 12/10/2007 8:47:51 AM , Rating: 2
Haha, I fell into your trap as well. 520-->540


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.


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.


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.


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


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).


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.


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).


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


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.


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?


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.


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! :)


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.


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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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!


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


RE: Also..
By EclipsedAurora on 12/10/2007 12:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
but bluray player also support 1080i output


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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


RE: Also..
By masher2 (blog) on 12/10/2007 11:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
Correction: clearly superior to a 1080p @30 signal.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.