After
just a few delays (cough, cough) it appears that Sony's first Blu-ray player -- the BDP-S1 -- has finally landed, and a few days early to boot. At last word the player was expected on or about Dec 4th 2006, but a few lucky Blu-ray fans picked one up from Best Buy today; no word on
pre-orders from the Sony Style store as of yet. The early results are good and some have already started to enjoying that 1080@24P that we have all been waiting for. Sure 3:2 pulldown works great, but there is nothing like a native frame rate to bring out the best in film. Early indications seem to point to a lack of Dolby TrueHD or DTS HD decoding, but you can still enjoy uncompressed audio tracks via discrete analog cables or HDMI. As cool looking as this player is, a PS3 at Ebay prices may still be a better deal than a stand alone Blu-ray player.
posted Nov 28th 2006 11:17PM
At least we know where all the blu-ray diodes went...
Well this unit has the added bonus of having a IR port so that you can use a universal remote. The PS3 can't do that. ;)
with all of sonys Quality control problems, that seem to be company wide I have trouble being 1st buyer.
The best is out! :) Finally!
Full throttle for Blu-ray!
This is from the web page HDGuru."What this player will not accept are all types of CDs (CD-ROMSs/CD-R/CD-RW, or the CD layer of hybrid discs etc.; VCDs/Super VCDs; DVD audio discs; Super Audio CDs; DVD-RAMs; HD DVDs" "BDs with cartridge; BD-REs/BD-Rs" "DVD-RWs/DVD-Rs; and DVD-Rs of VR mode" DVD-RWs/DVD-Rs cannot be played on this player due to the physical condition of the disc or the characteristics of the recording device and authoring software"
Nuff said.
Does it at least have HDMI 1.3?
Now I have to decide whether to order this player, or wait for a PS3...
Did anyone catch the BDP-S1's cameo in Casino Royale?
Besides the IR what does this have/do that the PS3 don't/can't??
This player will upscale while the PS3 will not.
Which displays can handle 1080/24p natively? By this I mean not upscaling to 60hz refresh common in LCDs. I guess a 72hz LCD would work showing the same frame 3 times but its hardly the same as a film experience.
It's not a problem with direct multiples (ie 24fps to 48/72/etc fps), but with 3:2 pull-down (ie 24 fps to 30/60/etc fps) you can get noticeable stutter and other video anomalies.
yes more Blu-ray players the better!! Now that makes Samsung, Panasonic, Pioneer & Sony (including the PS3). Bring it on!!!
Actually, in theaters, the shutter closes 2-3 times per frame, which would otherwise make the picture extremely flickery.
No, it does not. Film is 24 FPS.
It has HDMI 1.3.
Does someone actually own the Pioneer Blu-Ray? I tried to buy one and 6th Ave told me not available to probably March 2007 because of bugs... I bought the Panasonic instead...other than the menu feeling really cheap (courier-like font for the menus...I would think there should be something better looking than that...), it works great. Well, maybe they can change it with a firmware update, but it seems to be their standard GUI.
Yes, it's filmed at 24 frames per second, but the shutter closes 2-3 times per frame to avoid flicker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_projector#Shutter
This is crap. $1000 for Blu ray or $499 or even $199 for HD DVD players that has better picture and sound just check the HD DVD reviews if you dont believe me. PS How many of you guys that likes BD actually has one???? Please email me a picture of you standing next to your player at dominiward@yahoo.com
Here's what I don't understand. Why in the world would anyone pay 50% or more for a stand alone BD player when they can get a PS3 for far less? Not to mention that HD-DVD so far has consistently proven better and again is 50% or more less expensive. I'm also wondering how any of the electronics companies making BD Players stand to make money when $ony seems to be lone benefactor from BD with just the PS3 alone! Completely snuffing any and all others with greatly reduced price that not one of the other stand alone makers can seem to come close to.
Why don't people understand, if Blu Ray does win this format war over HD DVD, SONY will be the ONLY company that controls the hardware the software and the media. Eveytime you buy anything that has the BD logo you are paying $ony royalties no matter what brand or item it is. Why would people want just ONE company deciding what they can't or can't watch or buy?
And what makes you think that Toshiba will not collect royalties if HDDVD wins over Blu-Ray? Why do you think that negotiations broke down in the earlier stages? It's because no party wants to share the royalties. Toshiba still gets money from every DVD device sold, and they own the name DVD, that's why they don't want a merger. Put it like this, it's all about money for these guys. No one loves you more than they love your money. Sony is bad, but blu-ray is not only backed by sony, whereas HDDVD is backed pretty much by Toshiba. If I had to choose between the two of lesser evil, I would choose Sony any day than give Microsoft (HDDVD supporter) control of my living room. It's bad enough that they have a monopoly over computers.
Greg said: "...SONY will be the ONLY company that controls the hardware the software and the media." -AND- "Why would people want just ONE company deciding what they can't or can't watch or buy?"
You must be giving us the "Weekly World News" supermarket interpretation!
-Software Content under Sony's control:
Sony Pictures, Columbia Pictures, Columbia/Tri-Star, some of MGM, and finally their music video/concert division. And of course the computer and video games businesses.
-Software Content NOT under Sony's control:
(can be released in any format, not just Blu-ray)
EVERYBODY ELSE!
Such as Warner/New Line, Universal, Fox, Paramount/Dreamworks, Disney/Pixar/Miramax, Lionsgate/Artisan, Weinstein, Image, Eagle Rock, A&M, etc... MICROSOFT.
Obviously, this is a simple does of common sense. HD DVD, Blu-ray, or ?? There's nothing preventing furthur technologies from "winning" the $$ from consumers.
Theaters will soon retrofit their theaters for digital projection with 4000 lines of resolution (double the current resolution). What's to prevent a future "Super HD-disc" format (& applicable super-HDTV displays) from being released, and which will top both HD DVD and Blu-ray?
As Cindy Lauper sings: "Money changes everything".
And Hollywood (& electronics companies) want to keep selling us more and more technology... and to re-buy it over and over (and over) again.
hd dvd is bad for your health, use Blu-ray instead! :)
Film is shot in 24fps but it is shown @ 72fps. The shutter in a theater is a triple blade so basically what happens in slow motion the drive gear advances the film stock one frame. The shutter opens and closes 3 times for 1/72nd of a sec each. The drive gear advances to the next frame. 24 frames * 3 "showings" each for 1/72nd of a sec makes up 1 sec of film. If the film was shown @ 24 frames per second some people would be able to see the individual frames. It would look like flashing images to them. Other people would develop headaches as the flashing is just outside their perception but the eyes would try to focus on the flashing image.
As someone else pointed out the problem with most HDTV is not them running at a frame rate higher than 24 it is that it is not a multiple of 24. This results in a compromise known as 3:2 pulldown. Most HDTV and all SDTV run @ 60hz. So what happens is that every other frame is show and extra time.
Like this:
Film: A B C D (each 1/24 sec)
HDTV: A A B B B C C D D D (each 1/60 of sec)
now the film has 4 frames and each runs for 1/24 of a sec so this segment is 1/6th of a second.
The HDTV displays 10 frames made up of the original 4 each for 1/60 of a sec for a length of 1/6th of a sec.
The problems is that some frames are shown "more" than others.
In slow pans on a complex background the film will "judder" or jerk as it displays some portions longer than others.
Remember each frame is only shown for a very short time so the problem is not obvious but it does detract from the film.
So show the original film is a good goal. However the problem with an HDTV is that you may want to show Video content which would look horrible @ 24fps. If you tried watching sports @ 24fps it would look like a mess. So the HDTV runs at a higher rate that is a multiple of 24 to avoid having "uneven" frames.
If it runs @ 48hz then it just shows each frame twice.
If it runs @ 72hz then it shows each frame three times.
If it runs @ 96hz then it just shows each frame four times.
If it runs @ 120hz then it shows each frame three five times.
The ultimate goal would be sets with 120hz displays and the ability to accept inputs @ 24fps, 25fps, 30fps, and 60fps.
120 would allow even (not 2:3 or any other conversion) of all types of input. Remember most video is either 30fps or 60fps. Games likely would want to run @ 60fps if possible, so would computer displayed on a HTV. PAL content is going to be 25fps and US Films will be 24fps.
Now we are not there yet but I imagine eventually top of the line displays will be 1920x1080 @ 120hz and handle full input range 480i/480p/720p/1080i/1080p @ 24/25/30/60fps.
you dont need a display device with 120hz, that is unnecessary. all you need is a device that can display 24hz AND 60hz. you wont find in LCD, you will find that in DLP, which is superior to LCD in image quality anyway.
the infocus 4805 can do it all and many other DLP devices can as well, the colorwheel just slows down or speeds up.
fujitus plasma 50''display, hook up to a h20 satelite box by hdmi cable to rgb1-dvd12 input. best picture intown.
"This player will upscale while the PS3 will not."
YET!! [url=http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/11/30/ps3-to-get-upscaled-dvds-1080p-24-sacd/]See here[/url]
Looks like Engadget has jumped on the HD-DVD train, all I see is negative information from this site. What did Bill Gates Purchase you? Give me a
break!!! Give both sides of the story, otherwise you are a worthless piece of space on the net, and we know there is enough of that negative fluff to go around!!!