Blu-Ray Players

[pixelthis]

This was the case with plenty of the early HDMI-enabled HDTVs. HDTV reviews used to run the tests using both connections and advise readers on which one provided the best picture quality, which was not always the HDMI connection.

ANCIENT HISTORY

But, it's still more effective than sticking with DVD, right?

Not by much.
YOU MIGHT AS WELL buy BLU, but thats just because BLU is down to 68 bucks.
But my point is that an older BLU player, one with component, is not going to be as up to date as a newer one. So when you do get around to upgrading your monitor, you will
need a new BLU player, also.
BUT the most important thing is that a monitor without HDMI will be old as the sticks.
I have a five year old set that has HDMI, you would have to get one a lot older to have a monitor without one. I doubt BLU would be worth the trouble, really.

Again, if somebody has a set budget of $300, why would they want to upgrade the monitor before adding a Blu-ray player, if all they want to add is the Blu-ray capability?

BECAUSE why bother putting a CORVETTE ENGINE in a 59 STUDEBAKER?
What possible good would BLU capability be with a set so old that it doesnt have HDMI?
With a budget of three hundred bucks, you are three hundred bucks away from a 42"
1080p and a BLU player. EVER hear of penny wise and pound foolish?

These so-called "older, and probably inferiour [sp]" Blu-ray players you're referring to are less than a year old and still being manufactured. Basically, anything introduced before the end of last year will still include component video. Are you saying that people should avoid the Oppo BDP-93 because it came out last year and includes component video outputs?

No, but read the instructions, and they will tell you that component is an inferiour
way to connect your BLU player. Thats because it involves two D/A conversions.
AND AGAIN, if the reason to go component is that your TV doesnt have HDMI, that is an old honkin TV. But you lose the argument over quality.
Doesnt matter if component can carry 1080p(it can), nobody is going to say its as good as HDMI, because it isn't.
And a set that old is going to be 720p or 1080i, so its a moot point that component can carry 1080p, because it wont be 1080p at the end of the day.
I got burned with a 1200 dollar receiver with component switching, because I A/B the
HDMI/COMPONENT out from a cable box...a cable box.
The increase in PQ was so blatant that I COULD NOT STAND to use the component switching on my new receiver, and that was a flippin cable box.
WHY BOTHER buying a compromised device to accommodate a device that needs
replacing anyway? MAKES NO SENSE.

The difference in playback quality and disc compatibility between last year's models and this year's models is minimal. And that's been the case for at least the last two years. The primary changes are with the network connectivity features.

and you still wind up using an inferiour connection.

So, you're now claiming that there's "not much diff" between 480i (composite) and 1080p (component)? Nice advice

Quite a difference, but I COULD LIVE WITH COMPOSITE for awhile until I got a new
monitor, better than I could live with an out of date BLU player for years.
A monitor is one of the more important pieces of your HT, and you need to replace it
before you bother with a BLU player. BUYING a BLU player for a monitor so old
that it doesn't even have HDMI is like buying 2,000$ worth of wheels for a fifteen year old MERCURY. Cart before the horse.

[Woochifer]

ANCIENT HISTORY

But, relevant if someone owns one of those sets, and is perfectly content with the HD picture quality they already get.

Not by much.
YOU MIGHT AS WELL buy BLU, but thats just because BLU is down to 68 bucks.
But my point is that an older BLU player, one with component, is not going to be as up to date as a newer one. So when you do get around to upgrading your monitor, you will
need a new BLU player, also.

But, that's ALWAYS going to be the case with consumer electronics. People don't all upgrade everything at the same time. And if someone wants to ONLY upgrade the video player, then the availability of component video outputs is relevant.

BUT the most important thing is that a monitor without HDMI will be old as the sticks.
I have a five year old set that has HDMI, you would have to get one a lot older to have a monitor without one. I doubt BLU would be worth the trouble, really.

My parents have a five-year old LG. They're perfectly happy with it. Their set is one of those models where the picture quality is simply better with the component connections than the HDMI connections. They're not going to buy a new TV if all they want to add is a Blu-ray player.

BECAUSE why bother putting a CORVETTE ENGINE in a 59 STUDEBAKER?

Still much for hyperbole, I see.

What possible good would BLU capability be with a set so old that it doesnt have HDMI?
With a budget of three hundred bucks, you are three hundred bucks away from a 42"
1080p and a BLU player. EVER hear of penny wise and pound foolish?

Again, why spend more when all you're looking to add is the Blu-ray player? Even a five-year old HDTV is still going to look much better with a Blu-ray player than a DVD player.

Thats because it involves two D/A conversions.
AND AGAIN, if the reason to go component is that your TV doesnt have HDMI, that is an old honkin TV. But you lose the argument over quality.

But, if the TV uses a different scaler/deinterlacer on the analog path than on the digital path, then it's entirely possible to have a better picture using the component video connections. That's how a lot of HDTVs were designed, and in the early days of HDMI, you had a lot of really bad video processing and unreliable connections.

Doesnt matter if component can carry 1080p(it can), nobody is going to say its as good as HDMI, because it isn't.

Again, not "nobody" and not always.

And a set that old is going to be 720p or 1080i, so its a moot point that component can carry 1080p, because it wont be 1080p at the end of the day.

Not all of them. By 2006, there were 1080p HDTVs and not all of them handled the HDMI inputs very well.

I got burned with a 1200 dollar receiver with component switching, because I A/B the
HDMI/COMPONENT out from a cable box...a cable box.
The increase in PQ was so blatant that I COULD NOT STAND to use the component switching on my new receiver, and that was a flippin cable box.
WHY BOTHER buying a compromised device to accommodate a device that needs
replacing anyway? MAKES NO SENSE.

That's what happened in YOUR case. With my parents' TV, it would be a downgrade in picture quality to use the HDMI input. I know because I've actually tried it.

Quite a difference, but I COULD LIVE WITH COMPOSITE for awhile until I got a new
monitor, better than I could live with an out of date BLU player for years.
A monitor is one of the more important pieces of your HT, and you need to replace it
before you bother with a BLU player. BUYING a BLU player for a monitor so old
that it doesn't even have HDMI is like buying 2,000$ worth of wheels for a fifteen year old MERCURY. Cart before the horse.

In other words, you'd rather watch 480i on a HD-capable TV than simply add a Blu-ray player and enjoy full HD. Knock yourself out!

Good gawd, it's not like these choices are mutually exclusive. If someone buys a Blu-ray player right now, it will work perfectly fine if they upgrade their HDTV later on. And aside from networked video features, it's not like the Blu-ray players from this year are going to perform any differently than last year's models.

[pixelthis]

=Woochifer]But, relevant if someone owns one of those sets, and is perfectly content with the HD picture quality they already get.

yes, and according to you they can buy a dumbed down BLU player to match, locking them into inferiour tech for YEARS

But, that's ALWAYS going to be the case with consumer electronics. People don't all upgrade everything at the same time. And if someone wants to ONLY upgrade the video player, then the availability of component video outputs is relevant.

no reason to upgrade the "video player" if they are not going to get maximum use out of it.
If their set has no HDMI then it is an antique. NEED TO CONCENTRATE on that
first.

My parents have a five-year old LG. They're perfectly happy with it. Their set is one of those models where the picture quality is simply better with the component connections than the HDMI connections. They're not going to buy a new TV if all they want to add is a Blu-ray player.

SO NOW you are reduced to quoting your parents. My parents are constantly watching SD when a HD channel is available, and wouldn't know component from HDMI, as your parents probably don't.
And component is never going to be as good as HDMI, too many technical challenges.

Again, why spend more when all you're looking to add is the Blu-ray player? Even a five-year old HDTV is still going to look much better with a Blu-ray player than a DVD player.

THE IMPROVENMENT is going to be slight, and for the thousandth time, if you set is so old that it has no HDMI inputs you have no business buying a BLU player,
YOU NEED A NEW MONITOR.. You are saying to buy a BLU player with compromised tech to accommodate an obsolete TV when you should be concentrating on a
decent TV.

But, if the TV uses a different scaler/deinterlacer on the analog path than on the digital path, then it's entirely possible to have a better picture using the component video connections. That's how a lot of HDTVs were designed, and in the early days of HDMI, you had a lot of really bad video processing and unreliable connections.

even more reason to get a new set.
I CAN'T BELIEVE IT, this is the first time I HAVE EVER SEEN ANYBODY argue that
component is better than HDMI!!! Next thing you will be arguing about the reality of unicorns.
A BLU player operates in the digital domain, you need a D/A conversion to use component,which is analog, then you need another conversion when you get to the set.
THE ABILITY TO carry 1080p is moot, since there is no set so old that is 1080p,
so you automatically lose a lot of the advantage of BLU.
Basically, you hook a BLU player up with component to accommodate an older set ,
it will be operating in 720p or 1080i, or worse. And you will need an older player,
which you will be stuck with when you do upgrade your monitor.
UPGRADE YOUR MONITOR FIRST. Only thing that makes sense

Not all of them. By 2006, there were 1080p HDTVs and not all of them handled the HDMI inputs very well.

My five year old set looks fine for what it is, mainly 720p

That's what happened in YOUR case. With my parents' TV, it would be a downgrade in picture quality to use the HDMI input. I know because I've actually tried it.

THEN YOU NEED TO SHOP FOR NEW GEAR

In other words, you'd rather watch 480i on a HD-capable TV than simply add a Blu-ray player and enjoy full HD. Knock yourself out!

that is you. I WOULD RATHER HAVE a decent modern set that can take full advantage
of BLU before I STARTED INVESTING IN IT.
BLU didn't excite me much when it first came out, because the diff between DVD and
a 720p BLU was not that much different, not enough to justify the high price.
Now a 1080p BLU disc is simply spectacular on a 1080p set, enough to make
someone watching a BLU fan for life. Not so with inferiour equipment

Good gawd, it's not like these choices are mutually exclusive. If someone buys a Blu-ray player right now, it will work perfectly fine if they upgrade their HDTV later on. And aside from networked video features, it's not like the Blu-ray players from this year are going to perform any differently than last year's models.

NO THEY ARE NOT, and if your DVD player conks out, get a BLU of course.
But there is a right and wrong way to do things, is all.
And just makes more sense to upgrade your monitor either with or before your
BLU upgrade.
MAYBE not a few years ago, but a really nice monitor can be had for not too bad a price.
WHEN a nice 42" set can be had for less than 600, and a 47" for a grand or less, why
live with an inferiour set?

[Woochifer]

yes, and according to you they can buy a dumbed down BLU player to match, locking them into inferiour tech for YEARS

How is a Blu-ray player that came out only a few months ago "dumbed down"? If the Blu-ray players that come out "YEARS" from now are that much better, then what's to stop someone from buying a new player at that time? In the meantime, they'll get years of HD viewing from their Blu-ray player.

SO NOW you are reduced to quoting your parents. My parents are constantly watching SD when a HD channel is available, and wouldn't know component from HDMI, as your parents probably don't.

You really need to buy some new reading glasses. Where am I "quoting" my parents. I know about my parents' TV because I used both component and HDMI-based video sources on that TV. No substitute for hands on experience.

And component is never going to be as good as HDMI, too many technical challenges.

And if that's the case, then why did HDTV reviews need to cite cases in which the component video connectors produced a better picture than the HDMI connection?

THE IMPROVENMENT is going to be slight, and for the thousandth time, if you set is so old that it has no HDMI inputs you have no business buying a BLU player,
YOU NEED A NEW MONITOR.. You are saying to buy a BLU player with compromised tech to accommodate an obsolete TV when you should be concentrating on a
decent TV.

And yet those HDTVs are still perfectly capable of rendering a reference spec HD resolution picture. Just because you buy a TV every few months doesn't mean that everybody else should follow you example.

even more reason to get a new set.
I CAN'T BELIEVE IT, this is the first time I HAVE EVER SEEN ANYBODY argue that
component is better than HDMI!!! Next thing you will be arguing about the reality of unicorns.

And where do I say that "component is better than HDMI"? All that I've pointed out is that there are cases where the component video connector will produce a better picture than HDMI. You're the only one arguing the unreality that HDMI is always better, no matter what anyone else's real world experience says.

UPGRADE YOUR MONITOR FIRST. Only thing that makes sense

The only thing that makes sense is buying a Blu-ray player, if that's all you're shopping for. If someone's happy with their existing HDTV, then why would they want to stay with 480i sources?

My five year old set looks fine for what it is, mainly 720p

And yet, you're arguing that a "720p" TV is only entitled to play 480i sources, because it's too old for HD sources.

And just makes more sense to upgrade your monitor either with or before your
BLU upgrade.

And again, if somebody's happy with their existing HDTV, it makes no sense to buy a new TV if all they need to add is a Blu-ray player. Might as well tell somebody that they need to buy a new house, when all they're looking for is a new car.

[pixelthis]

How is a Blu-ray player that came out only a few months ago "dumbed down"? If the Blu-ray players that come out "YEARS" from now are that much better, then what's to stop someone from buying a new player at that time? In the meantime, they'll get years of HD viewing from their Blu-ray player.

I WATCHED a disc from 2009 yesterday thats 1080i, this tech is changing fast

You really need to buy some new reading glasses. Where am I "quoting" my parents. I know about my parents' TV because I used both component and HDMI-based video sources on that TV. No substitute for hands on experience.

What I SAID,

And if that's the case, then why did HDTV reviews need to cite cases in which the component video connectors produced a better picture than the HDMI connection?

WHY DO YOU KEEP bringing up stuff from years ago?

And yet those HDTVs are still perfectly capable of rendering a reference spec HD resolution picture. Just because you buy a TV every few months doesn't mean that everybody else should follow you example.

EVERY FEW YEARS.
And the one I had five years ago is dull compared to my new one. AND NO SET
more than a few years old can produce a "reference" picture, the tech is changing too fast.

And where do I say that "component is better than HDMI"? All that I've pointed out is that there are cases where the component video connector will produce a better picture than HDMI. You're the only one arguing the unreality that HDMI is always better, no matter what anyone else's real world experience says.

Real world "experience from several years ago. BUT YOU KEEP on believing the opposite
of what everybody knows, mainly that component is obsolete.
BEEN that way for years, requires two D/A conversions, that alone hobbles it.

The only thing that makes sense is buying a Blu-ray player, if that's all you're shopping for. If someone's happy with their existing HDTV, then why would they want to stay with 480i sources?

If your old DVD player breaks then sure, get a new BLU player, nothing else makes sense.
But it also doesn't make sense to upgrade a perfectly good DVD player when you have a 1080i set, a 720p maybe.
BUT A SET with component only? THAT PUPPY is gonna be old.
AND YOU WILL need a BLU with a component out. My 2009 model has that,
but is showing its age. Already had to do a memory reset once already.
When I bought my MAGNAVOX, not one set I LOOKED AT HAD COMPONENT!!
Not one. Buying one with component is a compromise, and that is all I AM SAYING.

And yet, you're arguing that a "720p" TV is only entitled to play 480i sources, because it's too old for HD sources.

i am just saying that compromising your BLU purchase to accomodate an obsolete
set is dumb. A 720P with HDMI should be quite nice, BTY

And again, if somebody's happy with their existing HDTV, it makes no sense to buy a new TV if all they need to add is a Blu-ray player. Might as well tell somebody that they need to buy a new house, when all they're looking for is a new car.

What are they teaching in school these days, a car has nothing to do with a house.
HOWEVER a new car won't be as much "fun" if you only drive it on dirt roads.

[Woochifer]

[QUOTE=pixelthis]I WATCHED a disc from 2009 yesterday thats 1080i, this tech is changing fast

Nothing about the tech is changing. ANY Blu-ray disc done using 50/60 Hz HD video rather than 24fps film (or 1080p24 digital cinema cameras) is going to have a native output of 1080i60.

Blu-ray's native 1080p output format is 1080p24. Any output to 1080p60 requires deinterlacing or 2:3 pulldown.

What I SAID,

Nope, you were claiming that I was "quoting" my parents. Thanks for agreeing with me that there are exceptions to your claim that HDMI is always superior.

WHY DO YOU KEEP bringing up stuff from years ago?

Because many of those TVs are still in use, and their very existence debunks your presumption that HDMI always guarantees better performance. My advise is relevant those people who still have a need, and prefer to meet that need.

EVERY FEW YEARS.
And the one I had five years ago is dull compared to my new one. AND NO SET
more than a few years old can produce a "reference" picture, the tech is changing too fast.

Of course an older TV can produce a reference picture, why do you think production houses still use CRTs as mastering references? Technology doesn't change the HD benchmark standards that are currently used (and were largely adopted back in 1992).

Real world "experience from several years ago. BUT YOU KEEP on believing the opposite
of what everybody knows, mainly that component is obsolete.
BEEN that way for years, requires two D/A conversions, that alone hobbles it.

But, if the scaler/deinterlacer used in the digital path is inferior to the one used on the analog path (common practice on early HDMI TVs), then the component video connection will result in a better picture. Again, my advice is aimed towards people who'd rather enjoy what they have, than obsess over what they don't.

But it also doesn't make sense to upgrade a perfectly good DVD player when you have a 1080i set, a 720p maybe.

By that logic, then you're saying that anybody with a "720p" HDTV shouldn't bother with HD cable/satellite service either. And along those same lines, nobody should bother with watching HD on Fox or ABC (both 720p) either, since there's no difference between 480i and 720p in your view.

Hey, you were the one claiming that you couldn't tell the difference between DVD and Blu-ray on your old "720p" HDTV. I would assume that you don't bother with HD broadcasts either, right?

i am just saying that compromising your BLU purchase to accomodate an obsolete
set is dumb. A 720P with HDMI should be quite nice, BTY

Yet, my parents' LG looks better when connected via component video than HDMI. That's something that I confirmed with a calibration disc, and reviews of other LG TVs from that era said the same thing.

What are they teaching in school these days, a car has nothing to do with a house.
HOWEVER a new car won't be as much "fun" if you only drive it on dirt roads.

Yeah, and a Blu-ray player has nothing to do with buying a new TV, if someone wants the same HD picture they currently get via broadcast and cable/satellite. Like I keep saying, if someone's happy with their current HDTV, why should they buy a new TV when all they need is a Blu-ray player?

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=Woochifer]

I WATCHED a disc from 2009 yesterday thats 1080i, this tech is changing fast

Blu-ray's native 1080p output format is 1080p24. Any output to 1080p60 requires deinterlacing or 2:3 pulldown.

And what does this have to do with the price of eggs? I HAVE TWO 1080 interlaced
BLU discs, 1080i 60p. And my set handles 1080p24 quite nicely, as did my last one.
No pulldown for either type disc. HOWEVER, a component connection
quite often requires a downconversion to an inferiour format, 1080i or less.
MY friends older SAMSUNG would not pass 1080p over component, neither would
my old SONY. and none have said that component is "superiour"...all
have said that its inferiour. AND OF COURSE (yet again) any set old enough to
have no HDMI is not going to be 1080p.

Nope, you were claiming that I was "quoting" my parents. Thanks for agreeing with me that there are exceptions to your claim that HDMI is always superior.

WITH MUCH OLDER SETS!!!
GET out of the last decade why don't you? AND QUIT TALKING ABOUT the fact that
"some" antique sets have "better" component than HDMI...
THAT IS NOT THE POINT!!!
The point is that those older sets DON'T HAVE HDMI AT ALL!!!
The only way you can hook up a BLU player is WITH component, so you
need an OLDER blu p[layer, since newer ones don't have component, which will
render it obsolete out of the box. AND MAYBE you should have your parents post,
maybe they make more sense

Because many of those TVs are still in use, and their very existence debunks your presumption that HDMI always guarantees better performance. My advise is relevant those people who still have a need, and prefer to meet that need.

THOSE sets are in use because joe six has different priorities that your average HT nut.
THE reason these sets are still in use are primary monetary, not technical.
THE WAF (wife acceptance factor) allowed some guys too get one of those sleek new flat panels, but trade up to a 1080p? HARDLY. And your ignorance of the common man
(of which I AM ONE) is showing. WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN THE LAST FEW YEARS?
During the major recession that has been ongoing? HAVING a set that even runs has been
problematic for a lot of people starting their second year of unemployment, much less
upgrade for reasons not as complelling as groceries

Of course an older TV can produce a reference picture, why do you think production houses still use CRTs as mastering references? Technology doesn't change the HD benchmark standards that are currently used (and were largely adopted back in 1992).

SO WHY DON'T we abandon 1080p since its so much easier to produce 1080i sets?
PRODUCTION houses use CRT because they are cheap, and as these wear out they will be replaced by panels. but anybody who thinks 1080i is even close to 1080p
needs to have their head examined, as well as their eyes.

But, if the scaler/deinterlacer used in the digital path is inferior to the one used on the analog path (common practice on early HDMI TVs), then the component video connection will result in a better picture. Again, my advice is aimed towards people who'd rather enjoy what they have, than obsess over what they don't.

THIS is why your "advice" is nonsense. PEOPLE with a set old enough to not have HDMI
are not going to benefit from BLU very much. They buy a BLU player, hook it up to
their obsolete set, and they will wonder what the fuss is about. And you are right, people with such an older set should not obsess about what they don't have(a blu player)
if their antique set can't get the proper use out of it, better to wait and upgrade their set,
glad you finally agree with me on something

By that logic, then you're saying that anybody with a "720p" HDTV shouldn't bother with HD cable/satellite service either. And along those same lines, nobody should bother with watching HD on Fox or ABC (both 720p) either, since there's no difference between 480i and 720p in your view.

YOU OBVIOUSLY slept through any logic class you might have had.
BLU is the best way to watch HD on the planet. WATCHING broadcasts has nothing to do
with watching BLU, and you need to stop trying to compare the two. AND STOP MISQUOTING ME, there is a huge difference between 480interlaced and 720p,
but not so much between 480progressive and 720p. I said the latter, not the former

Hey, you were the one claiming that you couldn't tell the difference between DVD and Blu-ray on your old "720p" HDTV. I would assume that you don't bother with HD broadcasts either, right?

Apples and oranges. My first 1080i sets looked tons better than NTSC, and 720p looked better than them. And my first 1080p blew all of them away.
WATCHING BLU on a lesser set didn't mean much, didn't look much better, really,
than a decent DVD .

Yet, my parents' LG looks better when connected via component video than HDMI. That's something that I confirmed with a calibration disc, and reviews of other LG TVs from that era said the same thing.

Riiiiight...from that era. NOT LOOKIN FOR SETS from that era, which makes what you're saying totally irrelevant


Yeah, and a Blu-ray player has nothing to do with buying a new TV, if someone wants the same HD picture they currently get via broadcast and cable/satellite. Like I keep saying, if someone's happy with their current HDTV, why should they buy a new TV when all they need is a Blu-ray player?

BECAUSE if their TV doesn't have HDMI then its way past time to upgrade.
WHY buy a BLU player except as a replacement for a busted DVD player if your set
can't get the full use out of it? Why put the cart before the horse? IF your set is so
old that it doesn't have HDMI then that is what you need to concentrate on.
And while in the store buying that new set, shell out a few bucks on a new BLU player,
they will be even cheaper then(if thats possible)