Print

[dokworm]

Well, I finally got to see a blu-ray player in action, and the image quality was amazing.
Unfortunately it was amazingly horrible, soft, grainy barely better than DVD. The HD-DVD player was simply miles and miles ahead in image quality. It really did look bad for Bluray, and they were being displayed on the same HDTV.

If Sony stick with MPEG2 for their releases then HD-DVD is going to eat them alive.
Why on earth would they do this?

I am amazed and appalled.

[blame canada]

where did you see it? just curious. Also, blu-ray SEEMS to still be kinda beta, so they could always improve quality. BTW, was it on an hdtv?

[jwin767]

QUOTE(dokworm @ Jun 29 2006, 04:55 AM)

 and they were being displayed on the same HDTV.

[twistedsymphony]

yeah they had a side by side setup at my local Best Buy... the HD-DVD looks SOOO much better.

the VC-1 Codec has it all over MPEG2... why Sony is releasing these disc with MPEG2 is beyond me.

Not to mention they have yield problems so they're only able to use 80% of the 1st layer....

And if the space constraints weren't enough just about every Blue-Ray disc is loaded with HD "Previews" for other titles.

Note to Sony: Making a quality first impression is far more important then hocking your other titles... no one will want your other titles if the disc they already bought sucks.

I was reading a review that was linked from slash dot a couple of days ago... They had some screen shots of xXx as produced by the BD player side by side with the Superbit DVD release being played on the same player and showing how there were jaggies and other artifacts presents in the BD release that didn't exist on the superbit... not to mention the superbit seemed somehow clearer...

...truely sad indeed.

[KAGE360]

posted a review a while ago....

http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?showtopic=524303

picture quality aside, it also really troubles me that these early blue ray players can only read single layer disks, why would anyone buy something that cant be used in a couple of years

does anyone know if the present HD-DVD players have the same single layer limitation?

[calderra]

QUOTE(dokworm @ Jun 29 2006, 04:55 AM)

If Sony stick with MPEG2 for their releases then HD-DVD is going to eat them alive.
Why on earth would they do this?

There would seem to be one rather obvious solution here... that being Sony sucks. But I think you meant a real reason that gives them the benefit of the doubt. But yeah, at least the first wave of BluRay players, well... suck. Big time. And Sony is very screwed as it stands.

BluRay costs twice (or thrice) as much with actually LESS performace.
And unless something comes along to change the picture... this also seems true in the console war. PS3 is way more expensive than 360, and we're still waiting to see any graphical one-upmanship at all.

So BluRay players are generally going to be $1,000+ and NOBODY is gonna wanna buy that (er, virutally no one). And PS3 still isn't showing any backup, even at the cheaper price... and on that note... I still have to wonder how a standalone player is 3x the price of a gaming console with the same technology. The standalone CAN'T PLAY GAMES, and has a WHOLE LOT LESS CONNECTIVITY (Wi-fi, wireless controllers, network card, etc...) yet remains so much more expensive. HOW!?

 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/uhh.gif)
If you were to run the price total on parts of the PS3 necessary to actually play BluRay, you might run up to about $200 of the system's cost- giving some benefit of the doubt, a $100 drive and $100 worth of processors / connectors necessary for linking it all up to a television. Heck, I'll even thrown in a $200 hunk of cash and claim that's necessary to fit a small portion of Cell in there to help out. That's still just $400. Those same parts in a box by themselves? $1,500-$1,800.

W. T. F.
Why not just release mini-PCs instead of so-called "standalone" players that could apparently be cost-reduced to AT LEAST the sub-$500 range to play BluRay right now? The PS3 "core" system already does it, and there's tons of stuff you could hack out of that box to make it much cheaper. Oh, right, because winning a format war means ludicrous price-gouging on "next-gen" technology.
 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/uhh.gif) I really, really don't get it.

[epsilon72]

*crosses fingers and hopes for 1080p output capability on the HD-DVD players themselves*

[KaRiL]

@calderra
Its not price gouging, Sony(and MS) sell consoles at a loss because they can make the money back on games
Sony isnt making nearly as much per blue ray disc sold, so they can't afford to sell the BD players at the same price as the PS3
besides, if you think the quality on a stand alone is bad...I'll bet the BD player in the PS3 is worse

I'll still reserve final judgement until sonys BD player is reviewed,  I've never bought anything samsung.. ... not on purpose anyway.

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(KaRiL @ Jun 30 2006, 09:49 AM)

... I've never bought anything samsung.. ... not on purpose anyway.

Really? I've been nothing but pleased with my samsung products.

My Samsung Xbox DVD drive(s) have all held up much better then the other ones. My samsung Cell phone has FAR outperformed the Nokia, Motorola and LG phones I had before it. My Samsung PC monitor lasted years and years, the only reason I got rid of it was I wanted a bigger screen. Similarly both my NEC and Sony monitors crapped out on me in 2 years and 6 months respectively. I had a Samsung DVD player for years that was still working when  I sold it to a buddy of mine because I needed cash and had an Xbox for a player (it replaced a VERY expensive Sony unit that crapped out after 7 or 8 months).

I don't know I've always had very good luck with Samsung products.

Canon too, I've never owned a Canon product that I didn't love dearly.

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(calderra @ Jun 30 2006, 01:48 AM)

There would seem to be one rather obvious solution here... that being Sony sucks. But I think you meant a real reason that gives them the benefit of the doubt. But yeah, at least the first wave of BluRay players, well... suck. Big time. And Sony is very screwed as it stands.

BluRay costs twice (or thrice) as much with actually LESS performace.
And unless something comes along to change the picture... this also seems true in the console war. PS3 is way more expensive than 360, and we're still waiting to see any graphical one-upmanship at all.

So BluRay players are generally going to be $1,000+ and NOBODY is gonna wanna buy that (er, virutally no one). And PS3 still isn't showing any backup, even at the cheaper price... and on that note... I still have to wonder how a standalone player is 3x the price of a gaming console with the same technology. The standalone CAN'T PLAY GAMES, and has a WHOLE LOT LESS CONNECTIVITY (Wi-fi, wireless controllers, network card, etc...) yet remains so much more expensive. HOW!?

 
If you were to run the price total on parts of the PS3 necessary to actually play BluRay, you might run up to about $200 of the system's cost- giving some benefit of the doubt, a $100 drive and $100 worth of processors / connectors necessary for linking it all up to a television. Heck, I'll even thrown in a $200 hunk of cash and claim that's necessary to fit a small portion of Cell in there to help out. That's still just $400. Those same parts in a box by themselves? $1,500-$1,800.

W. T. F.
Why not just release mini-PCs instead of so-called "standalone" players that could apparently be cost-reduced to AT LEAST the sub-$500 range to play BluRay right now? The PS3 "core" system already does it, and there's tons of stuff you could hack out of that box to make it much cheaper. Oh, right, because winning a format war means ludicrous price-gouging on "next-gen" technology.
  I really, really don't get it.

the answer to your confusion is quite easily really.  video game systems are sold at a loss while home electronics are sold for profit.  while some components between a blu ray player and the ps3 are similar, the qaulity is worlds apart.  much like the ps2 and xbox of this generation, dont expect the video play back of the ps3 to be anything above sub-par for a blue ray player.

[yourM0M]

back on topic, i saw a blu-ray sammy at circuit city yesterday....it was xXx and what the hell that S is garbage.....the movie looked horrible, i dont see how they can sell that as HD......cant wait till they have a HD-DVD hooked up next to it.....shouldve asked the salesman to put in xXx in the 360 on the tv next to the blu-ray

the picture quality changed so frequently to being grainy as hell....and closeups of objects like one guys thumb when he was holding somehting was blurry as all get out......it was like watching a brodcast signal split over 20 tv's in a store

[Johnny Johnson]

I haven't seen Blu-ray in action yet, but did see HD-DVD, and was totally blown away!

[Kamasutra318]

There seems to be a problem with HDMI output on Samsung's player, which you can read about here. And it seems Lionsgate's releases look a good deal better than Sony's with the exception of the newer movies like Ultraviolet -- I know it's a bad movie, but I'm talking about picture quality. The audio in their releases, on the other hand, is the best fidelity you're gonna find since it's PCM (uncompressed). Overall, an unimpressive start as expected. I hope the movie encoders learn how to use H.264 well soon.

[incognegro]

QUOTE

the VC-1 Codec has it all over MPEG2... why Sony is releasing these disc with MPEG2 is beyond me.

MS owns some of the rights to VC-1 (its really a MS product since it uses an enhanced wmv9), so sony is having problems deciding on the right codec for blu rays without having to pay royalties (allegedly) cause we all know how sony hates to pay royalties (see: lack of rumble in ps3 controller). They want to use Mpeg-4 avc (H.264) but from what I hear VC-1 is still slightly superior (I could be worng on that account). Sony is banking on the fact that they have 50 gig discs coming out eventually (whenever that is) so the extra space will make the movies look better. But even if the had 50 gig discs and still use mpeg2 it would still not compare in quality. So sony needs to do something!

This post has been edited by incognegro: Jul 6 2006, 02:28 PM

[Kamasutra318]

I don't know much about this royalties thing, but as far as I know VC-1 is a SMPTE standard and adopted as a mandatory codec in both HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc specifications. Sony's reasoning for using MPEG-2 for now, from what I've read, is that they haven't had enough time to work with the newer codecs to discover their idiosyncrasies. In other words, they deem MPEG-2 "good enough" for now.

I haven't seen any tests pitting H.264 against VC-1, and I am unable to do any myself since I lack a VC-1 encoder. The technologies implemented in H.264 would seem to give it the advantage at mid to low bitrates, but at high bitrates -- which is more relevant to Blu-ray -- it would be too presumptuous to say that either is better without visual testing (unless lossless was used from H.264's High 4:4:4 Profile). Also, while H.264's added complexity can be disadvantageous in software, it should be negligible if correctly implemented in hardware since full speed decoding would be a given.