-
Blu-Ray Players
What Blu-Ray player in the 250.00 to 300.00 range is a good bang for the buck so fas as picture and sound quality and of course ease of use?
Bob
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobB
What Blu-Ray player in the 250.00 to 300.00 range is a good bang for the buck so fas as picture and sound quality and of course ease of use?
Bob
i have a thread going on a Funai player I have purchased from WALMART for 68 $.
IF you want to pay out the nose and get a bunch if "features" of questionable value
get something like an OPPO.
Or go to Walmart and get a magnavox (Funai) for 68 bucks. Or splurge and get a
LG for 80$ , or a Sony for a 119, etc.
My first player was 400$, a Sony that was slow as CHRISTMAS and out of date in
six months. My second was a SHARP, died in less than a year. My fault, shoulda known better.
I love my new 68$ player, looks and sounds great, dies, and I trashcan it and get one
up to date. I HAVE SPENT ENOUGH ON BLU PLAYERS.
The day of the "250 to 300" BLU player is over.
Been over.:1:
-
I haven't really looked deeply into BDP's for a while. I'd start by deciding what features you need/want opposed to those you'd never use. Like, interested in 3D, want Wyfi capability, want streaming features to receive Netflix or other internet movie services, do you need it to play music formats CD/SACD, etc. If you even think you'd want to play any games the PS3 is still a main contender. Oppo is always mentioned as a good value. I'm not sure if either is in your price. I still have two 2nd gen Samsung that are going strong as far as reliability. I'm not sure what price Marantz starts at but I am happy with mine and easy to use, it even automatically loads the best audio track. I feel Panasonic or Denon would also be good choices. Since I have a decent size DVD collection upscaling video is an important feature for me as I don't care to replace all titles with BD. Wyfi is also a nice feature for receiving firmware updates.
Although prices have dropped I still believe quality parts and chips cost and generally you get what you pay for. I really need to read some current reviews to see how these cheap players fare in video performance. I know my daughter's Samsung 1500 didn't have the picture quality of my older 1200. It's like with DVD you could buy one for $40.00 but the PQ was not up to par with a $250.00 player. Of course, with BDP level performance maybe even poor is still very good.
-
The LG BD570 is nice, easy to use and is about as fast as average. I haven't seen any that are notably faster. It plays the music formats and streams YouTube, NetFlix, etc. They look pretty and have a good remote. I think i like the remote on my Sony better, but it's a close race.
-
The Sony BDP-S570 is a very good general purpose BD player and within in your price range. It has wireless wifi with a number of movie and music sites available. It's 3D capable with the firmware upgrade. It has very good picture and sound. I've read several articles praising it. There's a newer model, but I don't know much about it (BDP-S580). Being the S570 is an older model it should be discounted nicely. I've had one for about 6 months and really enjoy it.
-
This list could become endless with suggestions, but you need to know some facts about how to get the most out of a BDP regardless of the make or model.
1. Do you have HDMI ( for max res and PQ)
2. Does your AVR support or passthrough the newer audio formats DD True, DTS HD (7.1)
3.Does you T.V. support 24fps (Flim standard)
All the rest is bells and whistle as to Wifi, netflick, voodoo, Youtube support, If you do not have the basic support gear to get the most out of it you will also wonder what if.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by recoveryone
This list could become endless with suggestions, but you need to know some facts about how to get the most out of a BDP regardless of the make or model.
1. Do you have HDMI ( for max res and PQ)
2. Does your AVR support or passthrough the newer audio formats DD True, DTS HD (7.1)
3.Does you T.V. support 24fps (Flim standard)
All the rest is bells and whistle as to Wifi, netflick, voodoo, Youtube support, If you do not have the basic support gear to get the most out of it you will also wonder what if.
Very very true!
For anyone without a HDMI connection on their HDTV, they'd better decide which Blu-ray player they want ... and fast! The first step of the analog video phaseout went into motion at the start of this year. Any Blu-ray players introduced this year will have NO analog component video outputs, so anyone looking for something with component video outputs will have to look for an older model.
http://forums.audioreview.com/news-rumors/goodbye-hd-component-video-analog-sunset-has-begun-36227.html
As for the other stuff, Netflix is rapidly becoming standard issue on Blu-ray players and those functions might finally gain some traction for internet TV services in the living room (up to this point, they've had relatively limited usage because they were largely confined to PCs).
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Very very true!
For anyone without a HDMI connection on their HDTV, they'd better decide which Blu-ray player they want ... and fast! The first step of the analog video phaseout went into motion at the start of this year. Any Blu-ray players introduced this year will have NO analog component video outputs, so anyone looking for something with component video outputs will have to look for an older model.
http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=36227
As for the other stuff, Netflix is rapidly becoming standard issue on Blu-ray players and those functions might finally gain some traction for internet TV services in the living room (up to this point, they've had relatively limited usage because they were largely confined to PCs).
cart before the horse.
I HAD a receiver that was obsolete about six months or so after I bought it(maybe a little
longer), because it had component video switching.
I COULDN'T use that connection after seeing just how silly good HDMI is.
You need a monitor with an HDMI connection, not only for that best connection, but
any monitor that has all the new up to date stuff, will have HDMI.
If your set only has component, it is missing stuff like 1080p, 120hz, etc.
BUY AN OLDER BLU and you wind up with an obsolete(well, not up to date) BLU
player. This gives you two devices that need updating.
WHEN YOU get the BLU, get a new monitor with HDMI with it. COMPONENT is so
inferiour to HDMI I wouldn't even bother hooking a BLU up with it.
Solve the real problem, update your monitor.:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
cart before the horse.
I HAD a receiver that was obsolete about six months or so after I bought it(maybe a little
longer), because it had component video switching.
I COULDN'T use that connection after seeing just how silly good HDMI is.
You need a monitor with an HDMI connection, not only for that best connection, but
any monitor that has all the new up to date stuff, will have HDMI.
If your set only has component, it is missing stuff like 1080p, 120hz, etc.
BUY AN OLDER BLU and you wind up with an obsolete(well, not up to date) BLU
player. This gives you two devices that need updating.
WHEN YOU get the BLU, get a new monitor with HDMI with it. COMPONENT is so
inferiour to HDMI I wouldn't even bother hooking a BLU up with it.
Solve the real problem, update your monitor.:1:
If someone already owns a HDTV, and all they want is to add a Blu-ray player, why wouldn't they just buy a Blu-ray player? Buying a new TV doesn't address the original inquiry of which Blu-ray player they should buy, especially if their budget is under $300.
And even with HDMI connections, many of the older HDMI-enabled HDTVs have noticeably worse picture quality using the digital connection than with the component video connector.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
If someone already owns a HDTV, and all they want is to add a Blu-ray player, why wouldn't they just buy a Blu-ray player? Buying a new TV doesn't address the original inquiry of which Blu-ray player they should buy, especially if their budget is under $300.
And even with HDMI connections, many of the older HDMI-enabled HDTVs have noticeably worse picture quality using the digital connection than with the component video connector.
I have never seen a HDMI connection thats worse than component.
If someone already owns a HDTV set, why would they want a new one just to "add" a
BLU player? Maybe because a BLU player is just not effective with an inferiour set.
WHY buy PORSCH for a dirt road?
Back when they had live video clerks instead of a Red box, I would rent a BLU and
get the same comment, mainly that they had heard that BLU doesn't look any better than a DVD. And true, even tho there is an improvement with a 720p set and other inferiour devices, its not that much different than a decent DVD image.
Its only with a 1080p set that BLU really shines, and since they have, to the last one,
HDMI it stands to reason that you only need that on a BLU player.
If your monitor only has component, then you need a new set anyway.
BUYING an older, and probably inferiour BLU player to match your older, inferiour
monitor is throwing good money after bad.
I have an older set at the house, about five years old. And it has HDMI.
Using component is like the singer who has a great voice but "tears it up getting it out".
Get a new BLU player, and use the composite until you can afford a decent set
that doesn't belong in a MONGOLIAN VILLAGE. You will find that theres not much diff,
and you won't be compromising by getting a BLU player thats older and you will be stuck
with for awhile. COMPONENT is dead, involves two digital to analog conversions,
and you buy stuff to upgrade your system, not to accommodate obsolete tech, IMHO.
swallow hard and join the 21st century.:1:
-
Or perhaps your monitor does have HDMI, and you just want to use the older component
switching on an older reciever.
This would be a horrible decision. I had an excellent 1200 dollar receiver that had component
video switching. I USED a direct connection to my monitor, and a very good universal
remote with macros that made up for my receivers shortcomings. All of this was better
than compromising my system with an inferiour connection. I tossed a 1200 dollar receiver
after only four years(cry cry) so that I could get the new codecs and video
switching. WELL WORTH IT.
BLU is the best video delivery system on the planet , and deserves some accomodation.
A BLU image thru even a cheap 1080p set is more addictive than crack mixed with
crystal meth,..silly good. PAY THE MAN.:1:
-
Come on Pix, you are being a bit dramatic. Component is capable of 1080i and with decent cables the connection is not far off from HDMI. It could be, with standard video as most modern sets don't upscale via analog connections due to copy protection. Component is not as bad as you want to make it out to be though.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
Come on Pix, you are being a bit dramatic. Component is capable of 1080i and with decent cables the connection is not far off from HDMI. It could be, with standard video as most modern sets don't upscale via analog connections due to copy protection. Component is not as bad as you want to make it out to be though.
CAPABLE of 1080i? Thats like saying a girl has a great personality.
I know that you have a dlp 1080i, and didn.t mean to insult you, Mr P.
But the time has come for you to upgrade to 1080p, and not just for BLU.
I watched 2001 on ONDEMAND this morning in 1080i, which my set deinterlaced to
1080p. Deinterlacing gives a real improvement as opposed to upconversion,
progressive being so much better than interlace. This doesn't mean 2001 was an good
as BLU, but darn, it was close. WATCH it on your set and you start out with half the
rez of a 1080p;, and its downhill from there, as you lose a great deal whenever theres movement, and thats after two D/A conversions. SORRY, but the industry has passed
interlaced by. TIME to start shopping.:1:
-
I also have a 1080p Toshiba 40" and have seen 1080p, I still don't feel it's as large a difference as you make it. I do use HDMI for my 62".
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
I also have a 1080p Toshiba 40" and have seen 1080p, I still don't feel it's as large a difference as you make it. I do use HDMI for my 62".
Well, most people do, which is why 1080i is dead. Try finding one Technology as
passed interlaced formats by, and good riddance. They were always a con anyway.:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
I have never seen a HDMI connection thats worse than component.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
If someone already owns a HDTV set, why would they want a new one just to "add" a
BLU player? Maybe because a BLU player is just not effective with an inferiour set.
WHY buy PORSCH for a dirt road?
But, it's still more effective than sticking with DVD, right?
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
If your monitor only has component, then you need a new set anyway.
BUYING an older, and probably inferiour BLU player to match your older, inferiour
monitor is throwing good money after bad.
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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
Get a new BLU player, and use the composite until you can afford a decent set
that doesn't belong in a MONGOLIAN VILLAGE. You will find that theres not much diff,
and you won't be compromising by getting a BLU player thats older and you will be stuck
with for awhile.
So, you're now claiming that there's "not much diff" between 480i (composite) and 1080p (component)? Nice advice :rolleyes:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
Come on Pix, you are being a bit dramatic.
You noticed that too, huh? :cool:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
Component is capable of 1080i and with decent cables the connection is not far off from HDMI. It could be, with standard video as most modern sets don't upscale via analog connections due to copy protection. Component is not as bad as you want to make it out to be though.
Actually, component video is fully capable of carrying a 1080p signal, and in the early days of HDMI (before signal equalization and boosting switches became available), was preferred over HDMI for long cable runs.
Component video is well within the capabilities of existing HD video standards. It's getting phased out with Blu-ray players starting this year because of copy protection agreements with the studios.
-
I have always heard component maxed out at 1080i as in http://www.buzzle.com/articles/hdmi-vs-component.html but apparently there is now a digital version of component that can support 1080p http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_video
I just did a quick search if you have anything to show analog component does 1080p I'd be interested in seeing it. Thanks for the clarification. At this point it looks like what component is capable of depends on whether it's digital or analog.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
1080p over analog component video is supported by several manufacturers, including Samsung.
Blue Jeans Cable also has a good explanation outlining some of the reasons why you can't automatically presume that HDMI is always preferable. Keep in mind that BJC is generally very critical of HDMI because of its unreliable signal integrity over long distances and the poor basic design of the connector (that last point, I'm very much in agreement with).
The most important point is that with most sources, you're not looking at a pure unadulterated signal. At some point, the video signal is going to get rescaled, deinterlaced, or otherwise altered. And that will vary considerably between different HDTVs and HD devices. Even Blu-ray is a native 1080p24 format that needs either a 5:5 frame repeat or 2:3 pulldown applied just to display properly on a native 1080p60 display. In the early days of HDTV, more emphasis was given to the analog video path. That's why reviews of early HDMI-enabled HDTVs would point out instances where the component connection rated better than the HDMI connections.
Quote:
Consequently, there are always conversions going on, and these conversions aren't always easy going. "Digital to digital" conversion is no more a guarantee of signal quality than "digital to analog," and in practice may be substantially worse. Whether it's better or worse will depend upon the circuitry involved--and that is something which isn't usually practical to figure out on paper. As a general rule, with consumer equipment, one simply doesn't know how signals are processed, and one doesn't know how that processing varies by input. Analog and digital inputs must either be scaled through separate circuits, or one must be converted to the other to use the same scaler. How is that done? In general, you won't find an answer to that anywhere in your instruction manual, and even if you did, it'd be hard to judge which is the better scaler without viewing the actual video output. It's fair to say, in general, that even in very high-end consumer gear, the quality of circuits for signal processing and scaling is quite variable.
Quote:
So, which is better, HDMI or component? The answer--unsatisfying, perhaps, but true--is that it depends. It depends upon your source and display devices, and there's no good way, in principle, to say in advance whether the digital or the analog connection will render a better picture. You may even find, say, that your DVD player looks better through its HDMI output, while your satellite or cable box looks better through its component output, on the same display. In this case, there's no real substitute for simply plugging it in and giving it a try both ways.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
So, you're now claiming that there's "not much diff" between 480i (composite) and 1080p (component)? Nice advice :rolleyes:
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.:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
ANCIENT HISTORY
But, relevant if someone owns one of those sets, and is perfectly content with the HD picture quality they already get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
BECAUSE why bother putting a CORVETTE ENGINE in a 59 STUDEBAKER?
Still much for hyperbole, I see. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.:1:
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.
-
Quote:
=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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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?:1:
-
Pix, you aren't being rational here. I'd rather buy a BDP for $100.00 give or take opposed to dropping $600.00 give or take for a new HDTV when I have a HDTV with just not the latest technology. Component inputs on a TV are valuable even if a Progressive Scan DVD player not to mention a BDP. People were impressed with High Definition at 720p or 1080i, which by the way is all you can get from broadcast networks, the big step is not 1080i to 1080p, that may not even be that important at all with a smaller screen.
I think your big step was going from Vizio to Sharp and you think it was the 1080p. You really need to read the link posted to the Bluejeans article and pay attention.
-
Man...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
i have a thread going on a Funai player I have purchased from WALMART for 68 $.
IF you want to pay out the nose and get a bunch if "features" of questionable value
get something like an OPPO.
Or go to Walmart and get a magnavox (Funai) for 68 bucks. Or splurge and get a
LG for 80$ , or a Sony for a 119, etc.
My first player was 400$, a Sony that was slow as CHRISTMAS and out of date in
six months. My second was a SHARP, died in less than a year. My fault, shoulda known better.
I love my new 68$ player, looks and sounds great, dies, and I trashcan it and get one
up to date. I HAVE SPENT ENOUGH ON BLU PLAYERS.
The day of the "250 to 300" BLU player is over.
Been over.:1:
Do you HAVE to trash everything you don't own or use? The OPPO players are great pieces of gear, even the basic ones are marvelous. True I don't use SACD or some of the other audio formats BUT when that machine UPDATES itself its and amazing thing to watch. Also if I do run across a Blu-Ray it won't play you go on-line to their forums and you'll find probably find a solution. I don't own a $68.00 Funai, but I'm not going to disparrage gear I don't own or use, that's just stupidity.
Worf
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
My first player was 400$, a Sony that was slow as CHRISTMAS and out of date in six months. My second was a SHARP, died in less than a year. My fault, shoulda known better. I love my new 68$ player, looks and sounds great, dies, and I trashcan it and get one up to date. I HAVE SPENT ENOUGH ON BLU PLAYERS.
Pix, I'm just hoping that your luck with blu ray players has finally improved for the better. Reminds me of that commercial catchphrase from decades ago, "You could have had a V8!"
Granted, most have upgraded their BD players due to technological improvements, but that's some seriously bad voodoo that you've had to replace as many as you have because of flawed units. I'm not one to shop another guy's wallet, but I would definitely consider an Oppo if I had the same experiences as you, no matter if it cost me a couple hundred more than another manufacturer's player. Dependability and reliability would trump all other concerns.
After all, in the long-term, you're only shelling out more money to constantly replace price-conscious BR players than you would have spent if you had purchased, say, an Oppo BDP-80. :mad2:
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadAssJazz
Pix, I'm just hoping that your luck with blu ray players has finally improved for the better. Reminds me of that commercial catchphrase from decades ago, "You could have had a V8!"
Granted, most have upgraded their BD players due to technological improvements, but that's some seriously bad voodoo that you've had to replace as many as you have because of flawed units. I'm not one to shop another guy's wallet, but I would definitely consider an Oppo if I had the same experiences as you, no matter if it cost me a couple hundred more than another manufacturer's player. Dependability and reliability would trump all other concerns.
After all, in the long-term, you're only shelling out more money to constantly replace price-conscious BR players than you would have spent if you had purchased, say, an Oppo BDP-80. :mad2:
Only one (the SHARP) failed, and I managed to get it back with a memory wipe.
MY FIRST, a SONY, only had LPCM , couldn't tell what was coming out of it.
Gave it to my best friend, he had Cancer, but wanted one. Couldn't afford one.
I then bought the SHARP, paid too much, but all they had, only place I could buy one.
I LOVE my SHARP. But it got to where it would not play any of the newer discs, couldn't find a firmware update(thanks Sharp), so I bought the MAGNAVOX, and was pleasantly surprized, very nice. But cheap.
BEFORE throwing it in the dumpster, I THOUGHT I would try , in desperation, a reset
on the SHARP, and it worked , and without wiping the one firmware upgrade I could find for it. NOW it works great, the MAGNAVOX went back, happy ending.
THE fUNAI named MAGNAVOX was a very capable player, especially for 68 bucks,
but not even close to the SHARP aquos(a 232 price diff, after all.)
THE Aquos was a serious piece of kit, detachable power cord, full chassis, and most importantly, better DVD up-conversion. GLAD I could get it working, even tho I will
probably need a reset every once in awhile, and SHARP'S service stinks on ice. BIG SURPRIZE.
But they do make a great piece of kit. AND I have spent enough on BLU players,
although the first superfecta I hit at the track, I'M getting an oppo.:1:
-
All of this talk about blu ray players made me want to buy another one. And so I did. It's a sickness, I tell you! :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
Pix, you aren't being rational here. I'd rather buy a BDP for $100.00 give or take opposed to dropping $600.00 give or take for a new HDTV when I have a HDTV with just not the latest technology. Component inputs on a TV are valuable even if a Progressive Scan DVD player not to mention a BDP. People were impressed with High Definition at 720p or 1080i, which by the way is all you can get from broadcast networks, the big step is not 1080i to 1080p, that may not even be that important at all with a smaller screen.
And we're not yet even talking about the rest of home theater system. If someone also uses an older receiver that doesn't have HDMI switching, then that's yet another component that needs to get upgraded if HDMI is the primary priority. For someone who only wants to add a Blu-ray player, it is indeed irrational to expect them to upgrade the HDTV and AV receiver at the same time, if they already have those components in place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worf101
Do you HAVE to trash everything you don't own or use? The OPPO players are great pieces of gear, even the basic ones are marvelous. True I don't use SACD or some of the other audio formats BUT when that machine UPDATES itself its and amazing thing to watch. Also if I do run across a Blu-Ray it won't play you go on-line to their forums and you'll find probably find a solution. I don't own a $68.00 Funai, but I'm not going to disparrage gear I don't own or use, that's just stupidity.
Oh man, why did you have to bring common sense into the discussion? I think I'm gonna pack my ball and go home! :cool:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadAssJazz
All of this talk about blu ray players made me want to buy another one. And so I did. It's a sickness, I tell you! :)
"Come on come on, get down with the sickness"...(DAWN of the dead).:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
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
Quote:
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,
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
"Come on come on, get down with the sickness"...(DAWN of the dead).:1:
Good one. :thumbsup:
The Oppo BDP-93 has landed! Can't wait to get home and fire it up. Tron, Harry Potter, Unstoppable, Black Swan, The Fighter...not sure what to watch first.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadAssJazz
Good one. :thumbsup:
The Oppo BDP-93 has landed! Can't wait to get home and fire it up. Tron, Harry Potter, Unstoppable, Black Swan, The Fighter...not sure what to watch first.
DO YOURSELF a favor and try some SACD and(if you can find any) DVDA discs.
And of course some BLU music and music vid discs.
I played my DVDA of the DOOBIES The Captain and me yesterday. Listening
to South city midnight lady was fantastic. WHENEVER I think of the way
the industry pooch scr***d high res formats...GAWD :1:
-
[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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.:1:
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?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
DO YOURSELF a favor and try some SACD and(if you can find any) DVDA discs.
No worries, I used to own an Oppo DV981 (which has SACD capabilities) and I still have my John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Stan Getz, Concord Jazz, Stevie Wonder, Police and a few other SACDs in a box somewhere. The music will be heard eventually. But first on deck are the movies.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
"Come on come on, get down with the sickness"...(DAWN of the dead).:1:
How Disturbing
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
How Disturbing
Out of context, maybe.
WITH SERIOUS actors like Sarah Poley and Ving RAMES (among others)
DAWN OF THE DEAD was one of the best zombie movies, and that was some of the music
played. Thought it fit.
BTW Mr PEA, you're such a DLP fan, they have been offering a special value on
HSN shopping network, two DLP sets, a "73 and an 82"(stands extra).
THE 2600 (or so) 82" has me salivating at the mouth. MIGHT want to check it out
(along with DAWN OF THE DEAD). While you're at it, try ZOMBIELAND.:1:
-
Pix, you should check your movie to see who the band is that does that song.
-
[QUOTE=Woochifer]
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
I WATCHED a disc from 2009 yesterday thats 1080i, this tech is changing fast
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
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 480 interlaced and 720p,
but not so much between 480 progressive and 720p. I said the latter, not the former
Quote:
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 .
Quote:
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):1:
|