Cheaper Blu-ray Coming Your Way

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Amazon offering titles for $9.99 now - http://news.punchjump.com/article.php?id=7530

[DaDude]

Get a Samsung BDP-1500. It's under $200. Has frequent firmware updates to allow playback of new movies with no problems.

I just got back from Best Buy and that player is $250. Looks like I won't be getting Blu-ray anytime soon. :(

[Ayepecks]

$100 is the magic number for me. I've seen them for under $200.

[DaDude]

$100 is the magic number for me. I've seen them for under $200.

I don't know. Best Buy almost always has the lowest prices and the BDP-1500 is $250 both online and at the store. I wonder when these darn players will fall to a reasonable price level.

[Boz]

I can send you my reciept from Best Buy where I paid $180 if you want to buy it. Just go to them and say I just had a buddy buy in AZ the BD1500 for $180 and demand they price match it for you. I bought it within 30 days so if you really want to get it I can help you there.

[jerzdawg]

It's $199 @ Amazon, free shipping and no tax (except NY) BD1500

[DaDude]

Some, depends on your viewing distance. I had a 42" edtv (480p plasma) a while back that was in my office that I was watching with hd footage and it looked better then DVD even though edtv resolution not hd. Considering you have a smaller tv the distance will play a big part. The hd details will play it's part and be visible but if you are closer to tv. If you are 6,7,8 ft away from tv you will not see a significant difference because all those details in 720p will not be visible until you come closer making it indeed pointless to go Blu-ray. It's all about what you see. At 32" and normal viewing distance it will be harder to appreciate the quality as difference becomes so small that it's really pointless for you to upgrade for the money. When you get 40" and above that's when you start seeing a benefit of hd and when you can somewhat justify the price difference.

The fact is your friends are right, with your setup you will not experience blu completely and you will definetely have more bang for buck if you have an already good upscaling DVD player and wait until you get a bigger tv.

Thanks for the advice. But I think I'm leaning towards Coldgunner and StevoFC's comment. I watch DVDs through an excellent Sony upconverting DVD player and the picture looks great. However, when I watch an HD cable channel, the picture is much better, even though some channels tend to use a lot of compression. Assuming Blu-ray's picture quality is better than HD cable, then I'm sure I'll see the difference between DVDs and BDs if/when I get a Blu-ray player.

[DaDude]

Ever thought about getting back into games? I mean, once the PS3 hits $299, i'm snapping one up ASAP. I want Blu-ray and i want a PS3...so it makes sense to get one of the best Blu-ray players on the market AND get a great gaming machine.

You know, I've been doing some thinking and I think a PS3 might be the way to go. After all, I've been curious to try out GTA IV (though that's the only game I'm really interested in playing). But $400 is a lot of money. When the price hits $299, then I'll think about getting one.

[DaDude]

Contrary to popular belief aside from speed PS3 is simply not that great at Blu-rays. I have done side by side comparison and not only that PS3 can't bitstream/passthrough DTS-HD or MA or TrueHD to reciever but it's picture quality is so so compared to standalones these days. Even though it converts DTS-HD/MA or TrueHD to LPCM and passes that to the receiver and should theoretically be identical to the original track on Blu-ray disc bit for bit in reality it is not so. I hear a significant clarity improvement and fuller sound coming from my standalone going into Denon receiver via audiophile bitstreaming then going from PS3 as LPCM to the same receiver and I have good calibrated system both audio and video. PS3 is far from bad though, but if you are into movies don't play games PS3 is not that of a good deal if you want best possible quality out of your BD movies.

Ok, I'm responding to this post now (3 months later) because now that I actually have a Blu-ray player, I understand what you're saying, lol. Now, that I have the Samsung BDP-1600 and just re-read your post, I'm so glad I didn't get a PS3 as a Blu-ray player. My Sony receiver is old and I bought it over 3 years ago. It only has a coaxial and optical inputs and can only get surround sound with DTS or Dolby Digital signals. If it gets a PCM signal, it will get downmixed to 2.0. So, I will not get any surround sound if I was using the PS3 as a Blu-ray player. Thankfully, my Samsung player has three options: PCM, Bitstream (re-encode) and Bitstream (audiophile). The PCM option is what the PS3 does and that's a no no with my old receiver. I like the Bitstream (audiophile) option because it sends the raw Dolby Digital or DTS signal to my receiver and my receiver decodes it just fine. But the downfall with this is that I don't get secondary or effect audio. So, I set mine to Bitstream (re-encode), which converts all the audio to DTS, rather than PCM, so my old receivers can get surround sound and the same time, I get secondary and effect audio. Of course, since the audio gets converted to DTS, the sound is slightly degraded, but I don't notice it and it still sounds great! So, I'm glad these Sammy players have that nice option.

[+StevoFC MVC]

The PS3 would have worked fine for you. It would have output 5.1 with no problems...

Look here for the available options... http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en...udiooutput.html

To output Dolby Digital or DTS audio, you must connect the PS3™ system and the audio device using a digital optical cable and switch to [Digital Out (Optical)] under [Audio Output Settings].

[DaDude]

The PS3 would have worked fine for you. It would have output 5.1 with no problems...

It doesn't matter. I don't play games anymore. My PS2 and Xbox are just sitting on the shelf collecting dust. I haven't touched those in years because I'm sick of them. The same thing will happen when I get the PS3, except, I'll probably just end up using it exclusively for movies. That's actually the reason I didn't buy a PS3. Like I said, I had no idea what that post meant until now.

Edited June 15, 2009 by xraffle

[+Fahim S. MVC]

It doesn't matter. I don't play games anymore. My PS2 and Xbox are just sitting on the shelf collecting dust. I haven't touched those in years because I'm sick of them. The same thing will happen when I get the PS3, except, I'll probably just end up using it exclusively for movies. That's actually the reason I didn't buy a PS3. Like I said, I had no idea what that post meant until now.

You obviously still don't understand the post.

The PS3 CAN bitstream Dolby Digital and DTS.

What it can't do is bitstream Dobly Digital HD and DTS Master Audio. It outputs both as PCM.

Unless you have an amp that can decode either format then it makes no difference to you.

As for stand-alone picture vs PS3 picture - I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference unless you had both side by side - whilst the picture from a standalone may be better, the PS3 picture can't exactly be described as bad and it would have far more longevity for upgrades than your Samsung player to support what appears still to be a somewhat volatile format....

[DaDude]

You obviously still don't understand the post.

The PS3 CAN bitstream Dolby Digital and DTS.

What it can't do is bitstream Dobly Digital HD and DTS Master Audio. It outputs both as PCM.

Unless you have an amp that can decode either format then it makes no difference to you.

As for stand-alone picture vs PS3 picture - I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference unless you had both side by side - whilst the picture from a standalone may be better, the PS3 picture can't exactly be described as bad and it would have far more longevity for upgrades than your Samsung player to support what appears still to be a somewhat volatile format....

I see. Thanks for clarifying that.

Hmm. I didn't know that there was even a difference in picture quality between the PS3 and standalone players. I know the PS3 is the most future proof player, but it's also the most expensive one. Right now, there aren't any firmware upgrades for my BD-P1600 player because it's still a new player. So far, I've played tons of BDs on it and they've all played flawlessly. So, I'm still happy with my purchase. Besides, many people here at Neowin use standalone players to play their BDs and they all seem to be doing ok.

[chrisj1968]

I know same went for CD's and the burners, I paid over ?200 for my first CD burner. Doesn't alter the fact that media is just too expensive for most, burners aren't too bad as they're a one off cost, and if they're only charging about 7p royalties then TDK etc are taking the mick with their pricing.

I guess it is done pricing wise to deter illegal copying until the format moves to another format

[soniqstylz]

A year ago the PS3 was the best choice for a blu-ray player, simply from the standpoint of being futureproof, having media capabilities, and pricing.

That's not really the case anymore, so congratulations on your purchase.

[PGHammer]

Ok, I was speaking to a few people I know and they told me that getting Blu-ray on my TV is pointless. They said 32? is too small and it?s only 720p. They said I must have a big TV that?s 1080p in order to experience the full benefit of Blu-ray. Is there any truth to that?

There are displays that support 1080p (TV displays, not PC monitors) as small as 32"; they are just expensive. There are 1080p monitors that support HDMI as small as 23"; I should know, as I own one (Acer X/H233H.bmid), and it was barely $200 (US/retail, and it was *not* on sale at the time; I've seen the same monitor sub-$200 on sale at the same retailer).

So it's far from pointless (and that's just the 1080p argument).

And what the heck is wrong with 1080i? 1080i was certainly good enough for pre-Blu (not just HD DVD, but even regular DVD), and most broadcast content never even gets that tall (remember, Disney/ABC/ESPN never goes above 720p, and neither does FOX).

Also, here's a rather surprising point: despite the hue and cry over 1080p in areas *other* than movies, what supports it gamingwise? Name so much as *one* PS3 game that supports 1080p today. Where are most of the PC titles that support 1080p? (Yes; several actually exist.)

My interest in a BD player is as a replacement/upgrade for my current DVD player (likely an upgrade, as my current DVD player is a combi-deck that doubles as a VCR).

However, until standards-compliance is settled (right now, the only way to assure standards-compliance is to buy a PS3, which is a rather expensive way to do so for a non-console-games player) why should I?

It would make more sense to buy a BD recorder for my PC than a standalone BD playback deck right now (worse, it would also be cheaper), and that doesn't even consider the 1080p argument.

So, therefore I would pass; however, 1080p isn't why.

[DaDude]

A year ago the PS3 was the best choice for a blu-ray player, simply from the standpoint of being futureproof, having media capabilities, and pricing.

That's not really the case anymore, so congratulations on your purchase.

Why is that? Fahim just said that the PS3 is the best choice because it has more longevity for upgrades.

[DaDude]

There are displays that support 1080p (TV displays, not PC monitors) as small as 32"; they are just expensive. There are 1080p monitors that support HDMI as small as 23"; I should know, as I own one (Acer X/H233H.bmid), and it was barely $200 (US/retail, and it was *not* on sale at the time; I've seen the same monitor sub-$200 on sale at the same retailer).

So it's far from pointless (and that's just the 1080p argument).

Well since I have a Blu-ray player now, I can now safely say that the rumor about Blu-ray being pointless on a 720p 32" TV is NOT true. I see a big difference. Of course, it depends on the transfer of some BDs. Some movies like "Superman" and "Final Destination" are just a minor boost from their DVD counterparts. But movies like "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" and "Iron Man" are a HUGE upgrade.

[[DGS]]

Why is that? Fahim just said that the PS3 is the best choice because it has more longevity for upgrades.

soniqstylz said that because he probably doesn't have one..

the PS3 is still up there along a few other standalone players

[DaDude]

Ok, one answer would be nicer. One person saying the PS3 isn't the best player while another person saying it's not is not very helpful to me. Someone with ACTUAL knowledge on the subject, please answer me.

[+StevoFC MVC]

Ok, one answer would be nicer. One person saying the PS3 isn't the best player while another person saying it's not is not very helpful to me. Someone with ACTUAL knowledge on the subject, please answer me.

There isn't a single answer to which is the best...

There isn't a "best" player for everyone. Everyone needs/wants different features. The ps3 to me is the best bang for the buck because I do game occasionally, and I like it's media playing abilities. I can stream just about anything on my iMac to it. No standalone player right now does that. But, others might use something else for the features I mentioned, so a stand alone player is perfect for them.

Are you able to think at all for yourself? Or do you need to be told how everything works? lol

[DaDude]

Are you able to think at all for yourself? Or do you need to be told how everything works? lol

No, to me, a standalone player is the best bang for MY buck. It plays BDs perfectly and I spent less than half the price of the PS3. It consumes less power and I don't play video games anymore. But there are people here that are insisting that I should've gotten a PS3 because it's "futureproof." That's why I was asking for some input. And what you said makes sense. We all want different features. But people here are saying that the PS3 is the "best" player and they're stating it as if it's fact. So, if it's a fact, I'd like to know why.

[DaDude]

As for stand-alone picture vs PS3 picture - I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference unless you had both side by side - whilst the picture from a standalone may be better, the PS3 picture can't exactly be described as bad and it would have far more longevity for upgrades than your Samsung player to support what appears still to be a somewhat volatile format....

I originally thought that rumor was nonsense because I always thought all Blu-ray players have similar picture quality. Turns out I was wrong and the rumors are right. Yesterday, I was speaking to my friend, who lives out of state, and he owns a PS3 and a Sony standalone player. He claimed the standalone has a much better picture than the PS3. I'm shocked about that as the PS3 is one of the highest rated Blu-ray players out there.

[jerzdawg]

I originally thought that rumor was nonsense because I always thought all Blu-ray players have similar picture quality. Turns out I was wrong and the rumors are right. Yesterday, I was speaking to my friend, who lives out of state, and he owns a PS3 and a Sony standalone player. He claimed the standalone has a much better picture than the PS3. I'm shocked about that as the PS3 is was one of the highest rated Blu-ray players out there.

fixed that for you... that was the case back when the PS3 was first released as there were not as many players on the market... while PQ wont be vastly different among the mid-range players we should start to see more and more cases of difference... especially as the $100 sanyo players start hitting the market and the $600+ high end players continue to be released. I would be curious to know the model of the Sony stand alone your friend has... you would think Sony would keep the ps3 as the "best looking" as it clearly should be the most common bluray player in homes right now...

[+StevoFC MVC]

I would be curious to know the model of the Sony stand alone your friend has... you would think Sony would keep the ps3 as the "best looking" as it clearly should be the most common bluray player in homes right now...

A friend of mine has an older Sony Blu-ray player and it's a piece of garbage. My ps3 is 100x better. His barely reads discs even after firmware updates. He has called support many times and all they say is "Blu-ray was still new when you got your player, so there are a lot of problems with the one you have" And that's all they say. After they have him power it on and off a few times...which takes forever.

I'm sure some of the newer ones are good now. But the older models are complete ****.