Sony PS3 Slim to BDP-S370 Very Bad Move

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

007L2Thrill

New member
Feb 9, 2010
2
0
0
Visit site
maxflinn:007L2Thrill:maxflinn:007L2Thrill:

So not to start an argument, I am understanding this right, there are a few posts that I have come across saying there is no differences in BLU RAY players, plus it goes for mains cables and HDMI cables, but it does seem to be the same people, to me are you sure you are in the right hobby as I can tell the difference and many other people on here can and the what hifi crew, plus Clare as posted this

Clare Newsome:maxflinn:

there are many who say blu-ray players barely differ at all ...

There are many who say lizards rule the earth, too, but it doesn't make it true....

So she feels there are differences as well.

But one good thing is, if you feel that none of them make much difference then it will save you a lot of money.

as ive stated clearly , i have not compared blu-ray players myself , so i dont know from experience whether or not they do indeed differ in playback quality , i have read many different views on this , some claim there is a difference , and some claim there isnt , i dont know who,s right , although im leaning towards the view that there are no appreciable differences , and im perfectly entitled to say so if i like , its a free world we live in , im sure yourself , and anybody else would agree ?
emotion-21.gif


Max, soz mate it was not intended towards you or anyone, it was just was my one penny thought scanning the posts and being a bit drunk and I only quoted Clare's reference and I needed to post yours other wise it would of made no sense, so I apologize if you thought it was towards you.
emotion-21.gif


Peace to all, and remember we are all here to have fun, now I will shut up and go and have something to eat.

Thanks.

no problem at all , im a little drunk too , but being irish , im going to get a bite to drink
emotion-19.gif


Cheers mate!
 

professorhat

Well-known member
Dec 28, 2007
992
22
18,895
Visit site
As usual, it seems to be coming back to the age old "demo before you buy" mantra. If you can't see / hear a difference between an expensive <enter product type here> and a cheap <enter product type here>, then you've saved yourself some cash. But if you can, then you know your money has been well spent
emotion-2.gif
 

007L2Thrill

New member
Feb 9, 2010
2
0
0
Visit site
professorhat:

As usual, it seems to be coming back to the age old "demo before you buy" mantra. If you can't see / hear a difference between an expensive <enter product type here> and a cheap <enter product type here>, then you've saved yourself some cash. But if you can, then you know your money has been well spent
emotion-2.gif


Agreed and Very well wrote! I wish I wrote mine like that as I always putting my foot in it, plus drinking and writing does not help either.
emotion-2.gif
 

aliEnRIK

New member
Aug 27, 2008
92
0
0
Visit site
FunkyMonkey:
I find the panning scenes on the PS3 are a bit juddery even in the native 24Hz playback. I found the same scenes judder free playing back at 60Hz on Sony's latest model, the 470. Strange, but true. But it shows how powerful the picture processign is on the latest blu ray players.

Ive found the PS3 juddery with my sony tv. I believe its more noticeable on my tv than my dads pioneer (Which is possibly why BB doesnt see a difference)

I agree with whats been said before. as long as ALL the information is taken of the disc and sent via hdmi to the tv then theoretically all bluray players ARE the same (Thats a big IF mind)

However, I believe its the processing of said information where poorer bluray players fail. If theres a very fast scene then a poor processing chip is going to show up its faults for example (Which is why better blurays are 'smoother' with certain scenes)

Im certainly fascinated and cant wait for my 370 to show up so I can compare the 2
 

TKratz

New member
Jun 13, 2008
17
0
0
Visit site
bigboss:What I meant was, when a 1080p/24 disc is being played back on a 1080p/24 display, there is usually no appreciable difference in the quality between players. Anything beyond that, is extra processing by the players which may not be as the director intended.

Good point Bigboss, and I believe this is key.

You should decide for yourself whether you want the pure image or a processed one. I am not afraid to admit that I am a purist. I want exactly what the Director intended. In this case I will still argue, that for Blu Ray playback it is not that difficult. Just make sure to get a plyaer with a 'source direct' function, then you are ready to go. (Of course this does not consider the DVD or Audio capabilities).

If you however want a processed picture, you should probably audition different players, as this can be handled in numerous different ways (I don't see the point, but that is probably just me). You should find out which procssing you like the most, but it is no longer what the Director intended.

And just to make clear, a 1080p24 signal is not always smooth, especially when panning fast. That is part of the standard. Some would call it the 'Cinema feeling' other would find it annoying, but it is the intention.
 
F

FunkyMonkey

Guest
I want 24Hz playback, so please, Sony, give me that option as you did on the PS3.

TKratz:

And just to make clear, a 1080p24 signal is not always smooth, especially when panning fast. That is part of the standard. Some would call it the 'Cinema feeling' other would find it annoying, but it is the intention.

This is a ludicrous statement simply because I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER seen juddering on panning shots in the cinema. I believe this is purely a digital artefact foudn on lesser Blu Ray players, and one major reason I decided to upgrade from the PS3.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Some people are getting confused here about audio.

There is no "noise shaping" taking place on DTS hd-ma or True HD to 24bit- LPCM. Thats one of the points of using a lossless codec.

Whilst better players/receiver may utilise this for CDs/Sacds - and this may be worth paying for - there is no need using a lossless codec.

On an slightly different note to get the very best audio out of your PS3 u should select

Settings --> Music Settings --> Bitmapping --> Type 3

Settings --> Music Settings --> Output Frequency --> 44.1/88.2/176.4
 

TKratz

New member
Jun 13, 2008
17
0
0
Visit site
FunkyMonkey:

TKratz:

And just to make clear, a 1080p24 signal is not always smooth, especially when panning fast. That is part of the standard. Some would call it the 'Cinema feeling' other would find it annoying, but it is the intention.

This is a ludicrous statement simply because I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER seen juddering on panning shots in the cinema. I believe this is purely a digital artefact foudn on lesser Blu Ray players, and one major reason I decided to upgrade from the PS3.

No, I am not talking about judder based on the lack of 24Hz playback combatibility. This is only a matter of how smooth the picture is perceived. And if you didn't notice this in the cinema, thats fine. I didn't either until I was made aware. Doesn't annoy me either. It is how a movie is supposed to be
emotion-1.gif
 

aliEnRIK

New member
Aug 27, 2008
92
0
0
Visit site
edsib1:
Some people are getting confused here about audio.

There is no "noise shaping" taking place on DTS hd-ma or True HD to 24bit- LPCM. Thats one of the points of using a lossless codec.

Whilst better players/receiver may utilise this for CDs/Sacds - and this may be worth paying for - there is no need using a lossless codec.

However, they are in fact 'compressed' onto the bluray disc and need 'uncompressing' to work . Id imagine uncompressing 'on the fly' might be difficult for some cheaper type amps
 

aliEnRIK

New member
Aug 27, 2008
92
0
0
Visit site
FunkyMonkey:
This is a ludicrous statement simply because I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER seen juddering on panning shots in the cinema. I believe this is purely a digital artefact foudn on lesser Blu Ray players, and one major reason I decided to upgrade from the PS3.

Im sorry but judder DOES exist at the cinema. 24hz is 24Hz regardless of where its watched. Higher end projector screens etc attempt to mask these problems, but the fact is that it exists whether 'youve' seen it or not
 

strapped for cash

New member
Aug 17, 2009
417
0
0
Visit site
TKratz:
bigboss:What I meant was, when a 1080p/24 disc is being played back on a 1080p/24 display, there is usually no appreciable difference in the quality between players. Anything beyond that, is extra processing by the players which may not be as the director intended.

Good point Bigboss, and I believe this is key.

You should decide for yourself whether you want the pure image or a processed one. I am not afraid to admit that I am a purist. I want exactly what the Director intended. In this case I will still argue, that for Blu Ray playback it is not that difficult. Just make sure to get a plyaer with a 'source direct' function, then you are ready to go. (Of course this does not consider the DVD or Audio capabilities).

If you however want a processed picture, you should probably audition different players, as this can be handled in numerous different ways (I don't see the point, but that is probably just me). You should find out which procssing you like the most, but it is no longer what the Director intended.

And just to make clear, a 1080p24 signal is not always smooth, especially when panning fast. That is part of the standard. Some would call it the 'Cinema feeling' other would find it annoying, but it is the intention.

Hi TKratz

Sorry if I sound extremely pedantic here, but I would still consider problems with panning shots a limitation of technology rather than what the director intended (or director of photography, to be precise).

Unless used for artistic effect (which may be the case on a limited number of occasions), filmmakers wouldn't desperately want a picture that was distractingly unclear to some viewers. Panning is always a problem, using conventional film or the latest digital cameras. If filmmakers could eradicate this problem, I'm sure most of them would elect to do so.

I only make this point to suggest that technology that can improve picture performance isn't necessarily a bad thing. Even a director can't account for how up to date the projector may be in different cinemas. I've seen the same film in different cinemas before and been amazed at the difference in picture quality... There are too many random variables in any system of playback to suggest there is an ideal standard.

Sorry, just chipping in with my two-pence worth...
 

TKratz

New member
Jun 13, 2008
17
0
0
Visit site
strapped for cash:Sorry if I sound extremely pedantic here, but I would still consider problems with panning shots a limitation of technology rather than what the director intended (or director of photography, to be precise).

Nothing wrong in being pedantic, not in my book at least
emotion-5.gif


I do not agree however. I wouldn't define this as a limitation of the technology. I can't say for sure, but I assume that camera's shooting at 50Hz or even 100Hz could be build if that was the aim, but the standard is 24Hz. Therefore, if this is a limitation, it is not to the technology but rather to the standard.

If Director's do not like the standard, they should work towards changing it.

strapped for cash:Unless used for artistic effect (which may be the case on a limited number of occasions), filmmakers wouldn't desperately want a picture that was distractingly unclear to some viewers. Panning is always a problem, using conventional film or the latest digital cameras. If filmmakers could eradicate this problem, I'm sure most of them would elect to do so.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as saying picture is unclear with the current standard. But as already mentioned, if the standard is really considered flawed, someone should do something about it.

strapped for cash:I only make this point to suggest that technology that can improve picture performance isn't necessarily a bad thing. Even a director can't account for how up to date the projector may be in different cinemas. I've seen the same film in different cinemas before and been amazed at the difference in picture quality... There are too many random variables in any system of playback to suggest there is an ideal standard.

Well, I disagree. Please tell me what an improvement to the picture performance is then?

The problem is, that what one finds an improvement, someone else could consider a flaw. You could for instance argue, that adding a blue tone to the picture is an improvement.

I do not want Sony, Panasonic, Samsung or anyone else to tell me how to improve the picture. This is not standardised and therefore their interpretation of how to improve the picture might be very different from mine.
 

strapped for cash

New member
Aug 17, 2009
417
0
0
Visit site
Hi TKratz. Glad you don't mind my being pedantic!
emotion-5.gif


The fact remains that 24 frames per second has been an industry standard since the advent of the talkies in the late 1920s. Which is not to suggest it is a standard that should be upheld as an ideal. 24fps has inherent flaws, obviously being judder and motion blurring. A higher frame rate on cameras should in principle help reduce these problems, and ,who knows, maybe this is how things will go in the future...

All I'm getting at is that the idea that this "is what the director intended" is a rather romantic notion that seems common among videophiles. The director, and his collaborators in the filmmaking process, make use of the equipment available that means the film can be screened in cinemas. This isn't an artistic choice, it's what technology and standardised systems of projection in cinemas dictate. And what you're left with as a viewer is a picture that has real problems conveying motion. It's also why I have no issue with an effective interpolation between frames (I appreciate this can also go horribly wrong) if it actually enhances the viewing experience.

You wouldn't be happy if somebody installed components from a Model T Ford in your new Aston Martin, yet we seem to uphold a technological standard that dates back almost a century as some kind of holy grail...

I'm now preparing to be gunned down by other forum members who may well have a more intimate knowledge of AV technology than myself!
 

TKratz

New member
Jun 13, 2008
17
0
0
Visit site
strapped for cash:

The fact remains that 24 frames per second has been an industry standard since the advent of the talkies in the late 1920s. Which is not to suggest it is a standard that should be upheld as an ideal. 24fps has inherent flaws, obviously being judder and motion blurring. A higher frame rate on cameras should in principle help reduce these problems, and ,who knows, maybe this is how things will go in the future...

All I'm getting at is that the idea that this "is what the director intended" is a rather romantic notion that seems common among videophiles. The director, and his collaborators in the filmmaking process, make use of the equipment available that means the film can be screened in cinemas. This isn't an artistic choice, it's what technology and standardised systems of projection in cinemas dictate. And what you're left with as a viewer is a picture that has real problems conveying motion. It's also why I have no issue with an effective interpolation between frames (I appreciate this can also go horribly wrong) if it actually enhances the viewing experience.

You wouldn't be happy if somebody installed components from a Model T Ford in your new Aston Martin, yet we seem to uphold a technological standard that dates back almost a century as some kind of holy grail...

Well, I actually do not disagree on your point about the very old standard, and that movies would probably improve with a higher refresh rate. I do not want to retain an outdated standard at all costs. Where we disagree is how to fix the problem. I believe the only way is to change the standard, all other initiatives only apply artefacts in the process.

I don't know if the it has ever been investigated what the directors actually wants, but I am not convinced they would prefer the different manufacturers suggestions on how to render and improve the image rather than the pure image. As already noted this can be done in so many different ways, and some of them may be in the opposite direction of the intention.

Then rather leave the raw image in my opinion...
 

strapped for cash

New member
Aug 17, 2009
417
0
0
Visit site
Hi TKratz

Reckon we can reach a compromise!
emotion-5.gif


I appreciate fully the purist's perspective (i.e. the greater fidelity to source material the better). Perhaps my main problem is with the phrase "as the director intended". Since the director (or Director of Photography) doesn't really have any choice but to use cameras that are 24fps, there isn't any choice being exercised on their part.

I just happen to think the term "as the director intended" paints an overly romatic and inaccurate picture of the reality of the situation. If it was substituted for "as comes closest to the source material", it would more accurately describe the conditions of production (now I'm being really pedantic).

Beyond that, whether you think some picture processing technology is a help or hindrance remains subjective. I just wanted to try and dispel the notion that, by insisting on a 24fps rate, we are somehow preserving a filmmaker's artistic integrity. Hope that makes (some) sense!
 
Interesting article about moving image formats.

Another article about telecine judder.

Judder or not depends on what your TV is capable of.

24 frame per second is the film frame rate and most (?all) film sourced blu-ray discs are encoded at that frame rate.

60 frames per second is the video display rate on most TVs.

Since 60/24 is not an integer number, there is a motion artifact associate with going from 24 to 60 frames per second. Since they usually show one frame twice and the next frame 3 times (and repeat).....3:2

People would prefer to have 24 fps output to avoid this artifact. The 24 can be multiplied to 48, 96 or even 120 without adding such artifacts.

24hz is an important TV feature for watching blu-ray movies. Without it, movies are juddery because the 24hz video is converted to 60hz for 'play it safe' playback. Because 24 into 60 doesn't go, judder occurs.
 
I'm not sure if I managed to explain it well. This article explains it better:

"The easiest way to explain 24Hz & 60Hz frame rate is by understanding how movies are shot and then adapted to video. Theatrical films are usually shot on 35mm film running a frame rate of 24 frames per second, which means that when they are projected back at the same rate, images appear with natural movement.

In contrast, some media such as NTSC video runs at a rate of 60 frames per second. For consistency, US HDTVs continue to use a 60Hz rate either as interlaced or 60 complete frames if using a television with progressive scan. US broadcasts are still transmitted at 60Hz and early high-definition disc players of both formats output video at the same rate.

Like with movies, video shot specifically at 60Hz and then played back at the same rate appears perfectly natural and accurate - so the key to cohesive movement is that the display playback speed must match the original.

The problem arises when transferring movies shot in 24fps to 60Hz video. Speeding up the picture to match the faster frame rate can cause distracting sound and visual changes, which obviously isn't the best solution.

To overcome this, a process called '3:2 pulldown' was developed. This takes the original 24fps movie frames and alternates them in a pattern of 2s and 3s - first frame is displayed three times, the second frame twice, the third frame three times and so on. This repetitive sequence basically stretches four movie frames into 10 video frames, allowing the original 24fps content to be played at 60Hz without appearing sped up.

However, the problem with 3:2 pulldown is that it can cause picture judder or jerkiness in the movement. The effect is negligible and most viewers never notice it as it's usually only slow camera pans that visibly suffer.

So, the only solution for home cinema perfectionists is to restore the video to its original 24Hz playback rate. This would be timely and expensive with standard-definition content but for high-definition formats like Blu-ray and HD-DVD it's considerately easier.

This is because most high-definition films are naturally encoded as 1080p/24 video frames and players use their own 3:2 pulldown for their standard 60Hx video output. But now some players also offer a raw 1080p/24 output that ignores 3:2 pulldown and transmits video over HDMI using 24Hz (it's actually 23.97 but it's impossible to tell the difference).

For this to work, the signal must be transmitted to a television that can properly synch with the 24Hz frame rate, or convert it to an even multiple such as 42Hz, 72Hz, 96Hz, or 120Hz. Not all televisions are compatible so even if your high-definition player can output 1080p/24, your television might not be able to display the benefits.

And, in most cases, even if you have a television that is compatible with the 1080p/24 signal, the improvement over 1080p/60 is very subtle - so it's not an essential specification. Also, 1080p/24 only improves content that was originally shot at 24fps and that doesn't include extras which can look extremely poor if converted - so you may have to change your player back to its standard rate unless it does it automatically.

But, if you're a perfectionist viewer who demands to see the film as it was originally intended then 1080p/24 should provide generally smoother motion without any audio defects."
 

strapped for cash

New member
Aug 17, 2009
417
0
0
Visit site
Don't worry big boss, the first explanation makes perfect sense.
emotion-21.gif


I stand by my last statement though -- however fussy it may sound. If we use the phrase "as the director intended" it suggests a given film's director sat down, thought about different possible frame rates, and decided 24fps was the way to go:

1) They didn't make any such decision -- 24fps is an industry standard not an artistic choice

2) To imply it's entirely the director's decision is misleading anyway. Filmmaking is a collaborative process, with a director reliant on the skills and expertise of all involved. Directors don't point the camera, that's the job of the cinematographer/director of photogrpaphy. A director may be very specific about shot composition, tracking speed and direction, etc; but I doubt the frame rate of the camera is something directors consider often, if ever. Technicians, if anybody, would more likely contemplate such factors.

In short, my main bugbear is with rhetoric that paints a romantic picture of 24fps being in some way associated with artistry; and your posts demonstrate that a more accurate description would be "I want to watch a film without picture artifacts caused by video conversion processes", which of course doesn't have the same ring to it...

I know I'm being very picky. No doubt the phrase "as the director intended" is here to stay, though I still think it's essentially a flawed description.

Anyway, I'm up much too late and contemplating things far too useless to anybody to justify it...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
some very good posts here , i can see on the one hand , how the saying "as the director intended" is kinda romanticised ...

but i feel the way movies are filmed obviously suits them being shown in the cinema , which has always been what they were made to do , ive often heard mention of the "dreamy , filmic look" , that you often get at the cinema , and i think i understand that , i wouldnt like to see how movies look in a cinema , altered , maybe for the worst , just to make peoples enjoyment of said movies on their own tvs better ...

id rather put up with a little judder from time to time at home , and still be able to enjoy movies at the cinema the way i always have ...
 
strapped for cash:

To imply it's entirely the director's decision is misleading anyway.

Well actually, it is the director's decision. Technology is there to make 30Hz, 60Hz movies etc. Most of TV programmes are made that way, but for some reason, movie directors decide at 24Hz.

It's the conversion that's more likely to cause judder rather than 24Hz on its own. If your TV doesn't support 24Hz, you will notice the judder.

Perhaps that explains aliEnRIK's statement:

aliEnRIK: Ive found the PS3 juddery with my sony tv. I believe its more noticeable on my tv than my dads pioneer (Which is possibly why BB doesnt see a difference)
 

Clare Newsome

New member
Jun 4, 2007
1,657
0
0
Visit site
And of course in the US - where the NTSC broadcast standard is 60Hz - you have 120Hz (and multiples of) TVs.

Here in UK, we've a PAL heritage, PAL being 50Hz. Hence 100Hz and multiples of.

Just thought that point was worth making, as many of the facts/figures earlier in this thread have been taken from US sources, so aren't as strictly applicable to UK.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts