Blu-Ray Players

[Woochifer]

WRONG (as usual). In order to avoid 2:3 pulldown, BLU has a rate of 72hz.
EACH frame is shown three times(72 divided by three= 24). This gives a frame rate
of 24fps without pulldown.
WHEN THIS happens my set displays 1080p24.

And which of your TVs has a 72 Hz refresh rate? Do the math. Unless you owned one of Pioneer's plasmas, there aren't any HDTVs out there with a native 72 Hz refresh rate.

Blu-ray is not a 72 Hz format. You keep repeating this nonsense over and over. You might believe this, but that doesn't make it true.

Pixelthis says 2006 = "a decade old" .
Still irrelevant, like most of what you say.

And "a decade old" still doesn't apply to anything made in 2006. Nice try.

BECAUSE a "modern" player does not have component.

So, you're saying that your Funai player is the "modern" player, and the top-rated Oppo player isn't?

AND YOU WANT TO BUY A PLAYSTATION, and pay for a hackers crack addiction,

Judging from the responses here, us PS3 owners aren't the ones on crack.

THEY COST THREE HUNDRED BUCKS. Yeah, this would be a great first player.
WHY BUY A three hundred player when your TV is as old as dino bones?

And those models aren't the only ones still being made that have component outputs. If you're cheap, there are still plenty of current options to choose from.

IF ITS NOT 1080P. This is where BLU shines, and if your set won't display it, then
you're wasting your time with a BLU player

So, anyone buying a 32" HDTV shouldn't bother with Blu-ray either? At that screen size, any difference between 720p and 1080p is negligible in normal viewing.

It doubles the resolution. THIS is the one time (deinterlacing) that you can get a res increase on a signal.

Utter BS. Deinterlacing does not do anything to the native resolution of the DVD format.

Because it doesn't. 1080i is down converted and 480i is upconverted.
BOTH look rather decent. And similar.

And one is SD and the other is HD. Nothing at all similar about the two signals.

Not on my cable system. Without an adapter you can't get a signal.

And yet, the source signal getting fed to the cable system is still native 480i

AND dvd does still exist, and if you really wanted you could watch it on an old NTSC
set, but why bother? And any set you watch it on that is HD is going to upconvert it
weather you do or not. SO SURE its natively 480i, but it would cost you to actually watch
it in 480i.

And again, this is a native 480i signal. All of the processing in the world doesn't change this fundamental fact.

And an upscaled 480i signal is nowhere near the picture quality of a 1080p signal downscaled to 720p.

If your set is not 1080p, why waste your time? You need to be saving your coin to
buy a decent monitor.

Because if someone already has a HDTV and simply wants to enjoy Blu-rays, it's ridiculous to upgrade the TV first, given that whatever Blu-ray player they buy today will already have the HDMI output that you feel is so mandatory.

If they upgrade the TV next year or the year after, any Blu-ray player they buy right now for their older TV will work perfectly fine with their new TV.

Yes, they will enjoy a picture that looks like a really good DVD, they will have to pay
300+ TO GET A SONY OR AN oppo to see this incredibly average picture on
their obsolete set with component, when if they bought a new set, they could see a much
better pic with a 100 buck(or less) blu player. AND SPENDING 300 plus on a
BLU player when your monitor is obsolete is not unwise, ITS STUPID.

No, actually it's far more stupid to buy something that you don't need (i.e., a new TV) instead of something that you do need (i.e., a Blu-ray player). Plenty of Blu-ray choices in the $100 range will support that.

anybody follows your lame advice, they will be decidedly unlucky

Yeah, most of us are unlucky to be happy enough with our TVs and video devices to enjoy them for several years before upgrading them. The lucky ones are those like you who buy a new TV or Blu-ray player every few months, right?