Blu-ray

[Edward64]

Now that Blu-ray has won the format war, thinking about buying a player ... and think others on this board is doing the same.

I am not in any hurry to purchase a player but just want to know other more experienced thoughts on


Best player for the price
Any idea when/if players will come down to sub-$200 (ex. should I wait for this years Black Friday?)
Any idea when/if discs will come down to sub-$20

[Big Fo]

If you're even slightly interested in console gaming then you might want to think about a PS3, as far as I know it's regarded as a pretty damn good Blu Ray player. Decent standalone players aren't that much cheaper.

[SackAttack]

Now that Blu-ray has won the format war, thinking about buying a player ... and think others on this board is doing the same.

I am not in any hurry to purchase a player but just want to know other more experienced thoughts on


Best player for the price
Any idea when/if players will come down to sub-$200 (ex. should I wait for this years Black Friday?)
Any idea when/if discs will come down to sub-$20


Discs at this point really just require vigilance. When everything will be sub-$20 just as a matter of course? No sooner than this holiday season, and even that might be pushing it.

But as I've posted elsewhere, if you pay attention at all, it's not hard to find them for an average cost of $15-20.

Hell, Target's got a BOGO sale going on this week with some pretty damn good titles. Buy one at $29.99, get a second free. For example.

Best player? The movies look gorgeous on the PlayStation 3, and you get the added 'bonus' of being able to play games on it. If you're not in a hurry, and backwards compatibility is your thing, you might wait until the 80 GB PS3 is back on shelves on 6/12.

As far as when players will hit sub-$200...once Toshiba gets into full swing making them, we'll be on our way, but I wouldn't expect to see anything regularly before next Christmas. You might see something around Black Friday this year, but it might be older discontinued models or such being cleared out of warehouses. Caveat emptor.

[Edward64]

Best player? The movies look gorgeous on the PlayStation 3, and you get the added 'bonus' of being able to play games on it. If you're not in a hurry, and backwards compatibility is your thing, you might wait until the 80 GB PS3 is back on shelves on 6/12.
Can you help me understand what you mean by backwards compatibility?

I guess it makes sense on a gaming board that PS 3 is the default Blu-ray player ... are then any cheaper standalone players that anyone can vouch for?

[SackAttack]

Can you help me understand what you mean by backwards compatibility?

PlayStation 2 software title playback.

I guess it makes sense on a gaming board that PS 3 is the default Blu-ray player ... are then any cheaper standalone players that anyone can vouch for?

Cheapest standalone is $400. PS3 is $400. That's why the PS3 will probably end up getting the majority of the recommendations. More functionality for what you pay.

[darkenigma510]

Can you help me understand what you mean by backwards compatibility?

I guess it makes sense on a gaming board that PS 3 is the default Blu-ray player ... are then any cheaper standalone players that anyone can vouch for?

BC = can play PS2 games. On the 40G version right now you can't. On the 80G version, you can.

[Edward64]

Thanks for the quick replies.

Outside of the issue of PS 3 is the best bang for the buck due to the added functionality, are there any disadvantages of PS 3 as a Blu ray player for the HDTV? Ex. is there anything in the conventional standalone players that PS 3 does not have? Is the video resolution (et al) as good as standalone players.

[cartman]

Keep in mind that most of the standalone players out on the market now lack pieces that won't allow them to be fully BR 2.0 compatible once that spec is finalized and released later this year.

[Marc Vaughan]

get a PS-3 it rocks as a BluRay player and the system updates means its continually improving its playback.

[SackAttack]

Thanks for the quick replies.

Outside of the issue of PS 3 is the best bang for the buck due to the added functionality, are there any disadvantages of PS 3 as a Blu ray player for the HDTV? Ex. is there anything in the conventional standalone players that PS 3 does not have? Is the video resolution (et al) as good as standalone players.

They look gorgeous on the PS3. Superman Returns blew me away, as did Spiderman 3.

[stevew]

Standalone Toshibas are supposed to be in the 250 range for the entry level.

Right now the store level cost is right around 299 for the sony/sharp/samsung players, which means retail of around 400.

I'd just buy the ps3, for now anyways.

[Edward64]

Some research I was doing today pertinent to the discussion.

Buying a Sony PlayStation 3, which incorporates a Blu-ray player, an Ethernet connection and a hard drive, eliminates the problem. Software upgrades can be downloaded, turning a Profile 1.0 machine into a Profile 1.1 or 2.0 machine. For the price of a low-end Blu-ray player ($399), you get a pretty spectacular game system. This is as close as it gets to a free lunch.

The only other factor holding me back is the concern that tomorrow the prices will drop. And they will. Prices fell about 60 percent during the two-year format war between Blu-ray and HD DVD.

The field is still competitive, with at least 10 manufacturers selling machines, so prices won’t stabilize just yet.

Indeed, the head of Sony’s American electronics operations, Stanley Glasgow, recently said he expected a $400 player would cost $300 by Christmas — a 25 percent drop — and might be under $200 by the end of 2009.

Mr. Glasgow may be conservative, but there is another factor in play. Chinese electronics companies, which drove down the price of DVD players to the point that they were almost disposable, are not being sold licenses to manufacture the Blu-ray players.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/technology/personaltech/13basics.html?n=Top/News/Business/Companies/Sony%20Corporation

[KWhit]

They look gorgeous on the PS3. Superman Returns blew me away, as did Spiderman 3.

Too bad those movies both suck.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

FYI Edward.........Sony has already stated that most players will not drop below $299 until after this coming holiday season (though I wouldn't be shocked to see some at $250 in some holiday 2008 sales). Sub-$200 players won't be available until 2009.

As everyone else has said, the PS3 is the obvious choice at this point if you want a Blu-ray player. It's 2.0 profile ready and is easily updated through firmware updates which ensure your player is always up to snuff. If you want it just for a BR movie player, go ahead and buy the 40 GB version. If you want it for a gaming system as well, follow Sack's advice and buy the 80 GB bundle in June.

Also, don't be afraid of buying a used PS3 as an alternative. The PS3's are very reliable and you can save $50-70 buying one used through a store like GameStop.

[JimboJ]

I have a question I was hoping someone could answer...

I have a Toshiba 55 inch rear projection HDTV thats about 4 years old. When I see the Blu-Ray demos in the store on the LCD TV's they look so much better than DVDs or HD on my TV. Will I get similar picture quality on a rear screen projector TV, or do you really need an LCD or plasma TV to get the full benefit of Blu-Ray?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I have a question I was hoping someone could answer...

I have a Toshiba 55 inch rear projection HDTV thats about 4 years old. When I see the Blu-Ray demos in the store on the LCD TV's they look so much better than DVDs or HD on my TV. Will I get similar picture quality on a rear screen projector TV, or do you really need an LCD or plasma TV to get the full benefit of Blu-Ray?

I have a 65" rear projection HDTV. Given the focus/convergence issues that you constantly have to battle with a projection TV, I don't think you'll ever get the quality that a LCD or Plasma can provide. Even if you did get it perfectly focused and aligned, it likely wouldn't stay that way for long. They're still great TV's, but they're just not the optimal solution.

[SackAttack]

for what it's worth, I use mine on an LCD. 32 inches.

[BrianD]

I have a 65" rear projection HDTV. Given the focus/convergence issues that you constantly have to battle with a projection TV, I don't think you'll ever get the quality that a LCD or Plasma can provide. Even if you did get it perfectly focused and aligned, it likely wouldn't stay that way for long. They're still great TV's, but they're just not the optimal solution.

-1000

Unless you have some seriously bad hardware, focus/convergence needs to be touched up a couple of times a year. There are many people that prefer a CRT picture, and any time a new digital technology comes out most of the initial comparisons are to CRT pictures. Both digital and CRT have their strengths and to dismiss either out of hand is a mistake. You get different pictures with different technologies and anybody deciding should really look at all the options. Decide what you like and then look around to see what gives it to you.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

-1000

Unless you have some seriously bad hardware, focus/convergence needs to be touched up a couple of times a year. There are many people that prefer a CRT picture, and any time a new digital technology comes out most of the initial comparisons are to CRT pictures. Both digital and CRT have their strengths and to dismiss either out of hand is a mistake. You get different pictures with different technologies and anybody deciding should really look at all the options. Decide what you like and then look around to see what gives it to you.

I couldn't disagree more. I clean up the convergence relatively often for the exact reason you mention, but it doesn't even compare to what I can get from my LCD/Plasma/front projector TV's. There's a reason that rear projection TV's are slowly moving out of the market. Image quality, maintenance, and cabinet size are the main reasons.

[stevew]

RPTV is dead technology. Cutomers prefer the crappy PQ of LCD's over them. Although I hear some horror stories about DLP's quite often(fixed 5 times in 3 years, etc).

[Eaglesfan27]

I wouldn't say that an RPTV can never approach a Plasma, LCD, etc for picture quality. Sony's SXRD line blows away just about every TV I've ever seen and I haven't had to adjust the focus/convergence once in the 2 years that I've owned it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I wouldn't say that an RPTV can never approach a Plasma, LCD, etc quality. Sony's SXRD line blows away just about every TV I've ever seen and I haven't had to adjust the focus/convergence once in the 2 years that I've owned it.

That's pretty impressive. I've had to do adjust the convergence every 6 months to 1 year. It's certainly not terrible image quality, but I'd take the image on my 46" LCD screen anyday.

[Eaglesfan27]

That's pretty impressive. I've had to do adjust the convergence every 6 months to 1 year. It's certainly not terrible image quality, but I'd take the image on my 46" LCD screen anyday.

Our Sharp Aquos 42" is nice and has a very good picture quality, but the SXRD is so much better and every guest we've had over is surprised at how impressive the picture quality is. I fine tuned the settings once when we set it up and that was it.

[stevew]

The SXRD is pretty much the only RPTV i ever thought had a picture quality on par with plasmas.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Our Sharp Aquos 42" is nice and has a very good picture quality, but the SXRD is so much better and every guest we've had over is surprised at how impressive the picture quality is. I fine tuned the settings once when we set it up and that was it.

My TV is likely a bit older than yours as well. It's a Toshiba and I think I bought it in 2002. I have no doubts that your 2 year old Sony is quite a bit better.

I need to find a way to adjust the fine tuned convergence on my own. I know it can be done with the standard remote if you put in a code, but I'm not sure if there's a way to figure out how to enter that mode and save myself the $100 convergence adjustment fee.

[Eaglesfan27]

My TV is likely a bit older than yours as well. It's a Toshiba and I think I bought it in 2002. I have no doubts that your 2 year old Sony is quite a bit better.

I need to find a way to adjust the fine tuned convergence on my own. I know it can be done with the standard remote if you put in a code, but I'm not sure if there's a way to figure out how to enter that mode and save myself the $100 convergence adjustment fee.


I'm sure that is the case. I was just arguing against your blanket statement that all RPTV's fail to meet the quality of other types. As usual, I think it is a case by case basis.

[BrianD]

I couldn't disagree more. I clean up the convergence relatively often for the exact reason you mention, but it doesn't even compare to what I can get from my LCD/Plasma/front projector TV's. There's a reason that rear projection TV's are slowly moving out of the market. Image quality, maintenance, and cabinet size are the main reasons.

From your later admission of not even knowing how to do your own convergence, I have to wonder what kind of convergence quality you are getting. I've never paid for it so I don't know what a $100 professional convergence gets you. The truth is that RPTVs are slowly moving out of the market, but image quality is NOT one of the reasons. Maintenance and cabinet size are the main reasons. RPTVs are bigger and customers are generally willing to give up picture quality for the convenience of the small space.

Let me change that a bit, customers were generally willing to give up picture quality for smaller TVs. Digital TVs are now competitive in the picture quality arena. They still can't touch a CRT for contrast or black levels, but they are getting better. Aside from that, picture quality for a good digital is very good. I still prefer the picture of a CRT mostly because I find the digitals to be too sharp. I prefer a softer film-like picture. Not everybody feels this way though.

The biggest thing is that all TV technologies have their benefits and weaknesses. To say that any of them is not even worth considering is foolish. There are technologies that I'm pretty sure I will never consider because I don't like the way they look. I'll happily explain what I see to anyone who is interested, but I will never tell someone to avoid that particular technology.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I still prefer the picture of a CRT mostly because I find the digitals to be too sharp. I prefer a softer film-like picture.

I'll agree in one instance...............porn. The naughty bits in HD can be pretty frightening. :)

[BrianD]

I'll agree in one instance...............porn. The naughty bits in HD can be pretty frightening. :)

I can only assume that is true as I haven't managed to catch any HD porn yet.

[Tigercat]

He could be upscaling his normal porn.

[Edward64]

Uh oh. Thread going downhill fast.

I'm surprise porn sells in blu-ray? I would not think most people would pay for the +$10-$20 difference?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Uh oh. Thread going downhill fast.

I'm surprise porn sells in blu-ray? I would not think most people would pay for the +$10-$20 difference?

The difference between prices is even smaller on porn. You can get it for less than $20 without much effort.......or so I hear.

To get the thread back on topic, any other questions you have about the players/movies?