Is 1080p output truly right or wrong and nothing in between?

[TKratz]

Let me start by apologising up front if this becomes a little technical and theoretical.

Recently I have been involved in quite a few discussions on Blue-Ray players at a Danish forum. These discussions are now becoming annoying, because everytime excellent performance of a Blue-Ray player is highlighted one person jumps in with the remark: "Well, that might be true. But why pay a lot extra when PS3 does it at least as good".

The argument is always the same and very simple. 1080p signal outputs are digital. They can either be right or not right. According to Joe Kane (which apparantly is the guru of Blue-Ray) PS3 delivers a correct 1080p output. And that's it then! All manufacturers should immidiately stop further delopment of Blue-Ray players and we should all go out and buy a PS3, as it can't be done any better than this!

Please note this discussion only concerns 1080p output, not onboard decoding. There of course might be other reasons for buying a stand alone Blue-Ray player, but for instance the Denon 2500 transport is a good example. This would according to the above be waste of money.

I do not believe this is true, and I trust that when WHF finds Denon 2500 superior to PS3, it is (and not just a placebo effect as you want the expensive player to be best. Another argument used again and again). The problem is that I do not have the proper in-deph knowledge to provide counter arguments. So what is the catch?

 

[Gerrardasnails]

TKratz:
Let me start by apologising up front if this becomes a little technical and theoretical.

Recently I have been involved in quite a few discussions on Blue-Ray players at a Danish forum. These discussions are now becoming annoying, because everytime excellent performance of a Blue-Ray player is highlighted one person jumps in with the remark: "Well, that might be true. But why pay a lot extra when PS3 does it at least as good".

The argument is always the same and very simple. 1080p signal outputs are digital. They can either be right or not right. According to Joe Kane (which apparantly is the guru of Blue-Ray) PS3 delivers a correct 1080p output. And that's it then! All manufacturers should immidiately stop further delopment of Blue-Ray players and we should all go out and buy a PS3, as it can't be done any better than this!

Please note this discussion only concerns 1080p output, not onboard decoding. There of course might be other reasons for buying a stand alone Blue-Ray player, but for instance the Denon 2500 transport is a good example. This would according to the above be waste of money.

I do not believe this is true, and I trust that when WHF finds Denon 2500 superior to PS3, it is (and not just a placebo effect as you want the expensive player to be best. Another argument used again and again). The problem is that I do not have the proper in-deph knowledge to provide counter arguments. So what is the catch?

Nonsense. If that were true, the same could be said of non upscaled dvd playback and 576i is 576i or nothing!

 

[Anonymous]

Surely the unfortunate position in all this is at the moment there is no consistancy in the performance of the panel on which this 'best blue ray player' is watched on.

It makes me smile when reviews try to deferenciate between the best input source ( which is of course the most important ( garbage in garbage out ) but the majority of people over saturate their screens and were pleased by their poor performing LCD.

I realise the reviewer is trying to establish the current cream of the crop.

For most the PS3 is more than adequate, is there better 1080p sources, surely, most multipurpose kit cuts corners.

But I always love to see my neighbours blueray (ps3) on an LCD TV (32") thats been set up by Stevie Wonder. Makes you wonder if its all worth while.

 

[Clare Newsome]

TKratz:
Let me start by apologising up front if this becomes a little technical and theoretical.

Recently I have been involved in quite a few discussions on Blue-Ray players at a Danish forum. These discussions are now becoming annoying, because everytime excellent performance of a Blue-Ray player is highlighted one person jumps in with the remark: "Well, that might be true. But why pay a lot extra when PS3 does it at least as good".

The argument is always the same and very simple. 1080p signal outputs are digital. They can either be right or not right. According to Joe Kane (which apparantly is the guru of Blue-Ray) PS3 delivers a correct 1080p output. And that's it then! All manufacturers should immidiately stop further delopment of Blue-Ray players and we should all go out and buy a PS3, as it can't be done any better than this!

Please note this discussion only concerns 1080p output, not onboard decoding. There of course might be other reasons for buying a stand alone Blue-Ray player, but for instance the Denon 2500 transport is a good example. This would according to the above be waste of money.

I do not believe this is true, and I trust that when WHF finds Denon 2500 superior to PS3, it is (and not just a placebo effect as you want the expensive player to be best. Another argument used again and again). The problem is that I do not have the proper in-deph knowledge to provide counter arguments. So what is the catch?

Ah, how I love the Flat Earth society - they haven't been anywhere (ie tried a better player) so the earth can't possibly be round...

The only knowledge you need in an argument of this type is to have tested a wide range of kit with your own eyes (and ears - don't forget audio performance, too) and buy what you think is best within your budget. If you're happier with a cheaper player, that's great -more money for discs.

But we blind-test players, so have no way of knowing whether we're experiencing a £150 Sony or a £1600 Denon - we let our eyes and ears decide, not the price-tag. In some cases - for example entry-level Sony and Panasonic players - the cheaper players can beat pricier competition (like the PS3!)

If you want to throw in some technology, start talking about picture processing, superior video chipsets etc etc - all ways of taking the raw 1080p data from a BD disc and making more of it before you watch it.

I've got a link to a White Paper that has far more technical data on it - i'll go away and find that, post the link, and you can read away to your heart's content...

UPDATE - HERE YOU GO

 

[Anonymous]

TKratz:According to Joe Kane (which apparantly is the guru of Blue-Ray) PS3 delivers a correct 1080p output. And that's it then!

Clare gave a very good reply - let me just add:

Any device that aims at being a high quality device for playback of portable optical media (DVD, BD) needs to be very well designed not only from signal processing point but also optically and mechanically as well. This does make a difference to what you see and hear. I would imagine that's where the higher end DVD/BD players have the edge over a combined games/BD device like the PS3.

But note that if the PS3 would be sold at normal margins rather than at a loss, it
would probably retail at around £1000.
The current manufacturing cost to Sony for a PS3 is just under $450. So it's not a "cheap" solution at all.

See here: http://www.isuppli.com/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=19842

Mr K.

 

[TKratz]

Thanks for the feedback and the link Clare. Your are an angel

It is a very interesting article. It contains a lot of useful information. If it was plain simple I guess there wouldn't be a lot to compete about?

Well, your message about not seeing the players in action is very true. There is no need, as the theory provides all the facts you need (a lot of people has criticised him on this account). If you see a difference, your eyes deceives you, and you are a victim of the placebo effect. It is reasurring to learn that you blind test your Blue-Ray players also (I knew you blind tested caples, but I wasn't sure about players).

I therefore assume we can conclude that the statement: "It doesn't require a lot of image processing to output a 1080p signal from a Blue-Ray disc, it just has to be done correct" is not true? (reminds you a bit of the various HDMI caple discussion, doesn't it?

Either you get a signal or you don't, there is nothing in between).

 

[Anonymous]

i defy anyone to say that they see or hear no difference between the panasonic bd35 and the denon 2500bt. Even my mrs noticed the difference.