Sonys new $ 2000 addition to Blu-Ray

[cal_tony]

http://www.dvdtown.com/news/sony-ready-with-2000-blu-ray-player/5891

For $2000, I just don't know.

I've rented just about every Blu-ray movie from Netflix that I thought I might want to watch.
Most were movies that I watched on DVD and I just wanted to see what they looked like on Blu-ray.
So, after doing that and after going back to Netflix and looking for straggler movies that I might have missed, I find that mostly, I'm using my PS3 to upscale DVDs on my big screen.

I guess its been almost 9 months since the Blu-Ray domination of HD and I still don't see all that many
additional Blu-ray movies coming on board from old stock.
Seems like there was more new stuff during the WAR.

In a few weeks it will be Kill Bill 1 and 2 but not much else.

I'm getting bored with the whole thing including this new $2000 player.

[lordsmurf]

Sony wants more money. No surprise here. They'll continue to kill and already-undesired format. Reminds me of everything else they've controlled in terms of audio/video formats in the past 30 years.

[orsetto]

The Blu-Ray story gets more and more interesting as time goes on: there are so many conflicting factors in play right now that I don't think anyone can claim to have any clear or accurate prediction of where Blu-Ray is headed in the marketplace.

This week many new players were announced in anticipation of the CEDIA conference. To the consternation of Hollywood, the majority of these new machines will be priced from $599 to $1199- much more than the mass-market push Hollywood was expecting for the holiday season. Privately, CE mfrs have admitted the end of the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray war has given them breathing room to try and sell some more profitable "elite" machines awhile longer: they are in no hurry to begin mud-wrestling over $199 price points on a product with slow demand. Mfrs are also beginning to grouse openly that the Sony PS3 scheme was a good idea that has now backfired spectacularly and is seriously undermining the market for standalone players. The loss-leader PS3 "stealth" ploy to get Blu-Ray into millions of homes ASAP worked to establish the format, but had the unanticipated side-effect of poisoning the well for all other players. The PS3 is actually so good that there really is no demonstrable advantage whatsoever to a $1199-$1999 Panasonic, Pioneer or Sony luxo player. All of the BD features that were missing, lagging, half baked or poorly-implemented in most Blu-Ray players are already dormant in the PS3, once activated these features work better on the PS3 than on any other machines. Why buy a $399-$1999 separate player if its no better or more capable than the PS3 you already own? The industry is faced with a Catch-22 of Sony's own devising, and they are not happy about it.

Blu-Ray as a format apparently appeals primarily to a younger demographic than DVD: a double-edged sword if there ever was one. The under-35 crowd is perfectly happy to use a PS3 as their home entertainment center: they were going to buy it regardless of BluRay simply because it was the latest gaming system, the bonus Blu-Ray playback and BD Live features completely obviated their interest in acquiring a separate dedicated BD player. The over-35 crowd is underwhelmed by the thought of a PS3 as their video hub, especially since the kids seized custody and have it in their bedroom. These older consumers would prefer a non-gaming video system in the living room, and so far seem satisfied with standard DVD. Blu-Ray absent the PS3 gaming feature is proving a tough, tough sell to the mass market.

Sales of Blu-Ray movies are steadily if slowly increasing, so there is still great potential for growth which can be artificially jump-started if Hollywood goes for broke and nastily prioritizes BluRay availability at the expense of DVD (unlikely, but a very real possibility). At this point Hollywood holds the make-or-break cards: if they don't cut entrenched DVD off at the knees, the mass market won't see any incentive to rush to Blu-Ray and non-PS3 players will languish as a niche product for the wealthy. Other formats have come and gone with a lot of sound and fury (RCA CED videodiscs sold like hotcakes for two years and then vanished), only time will tell whether BluRay ends up a novelty or becomes the new standard. Tick-tock...

[victoriabears]

The investment in DVD that many have made will not encourage another massive spending spree to get purported better quality images.

As I have said before if the money spent on creating new deliverable methods and the industries pre occuptaion with copy protection, were spent on artistic endeavours we would have better quality to watch.

if I were in charge I would presume that a large percentage of blank discs sold were used for illegal copies and charge a levy of , say $1 on every disc to cover loss of income.

[yoda313]

Question:

Why does it have analog audio out for surround sound when that will be locked down when hdcp is fully enforced?

Or is that solely for dvds down the road since you'll only be able to use hdmi for bluray after the hdcp switch?

I am happy with my ps3 and my pc bd-rom. Why buy another player? I think not......

[jagabo]

Why does it have analog audio out for surround sound when that will be locked down when hdcp is fully enforced?

Because nobody would buy it now without it. And most people have no knowledge of the analog sunset.

[MOVIEGEEK]

Question:

Why does it have analog audio out for surround sound when that will be locked down when hdcp is fully enforced?

Or is that solely for dvds down the road since you'll only be able to use hdmi for bluray after the hdcp switch?

I am happy with my ps3 and my pc bd-rom. Why buy another player? I think not......

Because many people have an older receiver that doesn't have HDMI.If the DAC's used in the player are better than the receiver then it can sound better than HDMI.

[Soopafresh]

Other than a handful of classic Coppola and Scorsese movies, there's little I want to see on Blu Ray

[nlec]

So the studios all picked sides during the war, and now that it's over they're still not releasing titles at a faster pace? Huh. Interesting.

I have an upconverting DVD player and a 1080p TV. I gotta tell you, the picture I get on the so-called "anamorphic widescreen" NTSC plain ol' DVDs looks damn good. I understand I'm not getting the full HD experience, and I also understand there are some titles out there that are remarkable in true HD. But from the reviews I've read there are plenty of HD movie discs that were done badly. So is the added cost of BluRay worth it right now? Not to me it's not.

[jagabo]

So the studios all picked sides during the war, and now that it's over they're still not releasing titles at a faster pace? Huh. Interesting.

They're probably waiting for the uncrackable BD+++++.

[SingSing]

The media companies have to figured out whether BD is going to replace DVD as a mass market goods, or end up like SACD for only a niche market. They most likely see enough from the checkout counter tickets and already figured it out. What do you think ?

Hmm, how much is typical a SACD player cost ?

[nlec]

They're probably waiting for the uncrackable BD+++++.

Which is not impossible, it just ain't here yet.

The other area of my interest in BD was the higher data storage capability. I would pay more for a PC burner that allows me to write 25 GB on a disc, but the cost isn't competitive yet. Maybe it never will be. Look at DL DVD9. There aren't many manufacturers selling reliable DL media and the cost remains stubbornly high. I'm starting to doubt there will ever be burnable BDs that hold anywhere close to 50 GB. The larger capacity was the only reason I was rooting for BluRay over HD DVD in the war.

[Xylob the Destroyer]

gee, all those cute little icons on the lower left corner of the unit, and no SACD?

[paulw]

Buy this OPPO when it comes out. Better value for money..

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1063625

[Nilfennasion]

At this point Hollywood holds the make-or-break cards: if they don't cut entrenched DVD off at the knees, the mass market won't see any incentive to rush to Blu-Ray and non-PS3 players will languish as a niche product for the wealthy.

Oddly enough, Hollywood has all the incentive it needs to do exactly that. All of their profit is in home video and television licensing. The one thing that keeps people going to cinemas, social networking aside, is that the image one gets in a cinema is far superior to DVD by virtue of far higher resolution and progressive updating.

Blu-ray Disc is what the studios intend to replace the theatrical exhibition circuit with.

[FulciLives]

They should be going in the opposite direction and making BD movie players that at worst cost as much as the PS3 and at best cost less.

They want to charge more and are "mad" that they cannot?

What the **** shit do greedy ass people smoke?

I paid $500 for my PS3 (80GB version bought circa December 2007) but I paid that much for BD movies and video games. I also got one hell of a media player.

However there was and is no way in HELL I would have paid $500 (or more) for a BD movie player that ... only plays movies.

By the way Sony just released a new 80GB version of the PS3 that is now $400 instead of $500 and the only difference (that I am aware of) is that you get 2 USB 2.0 ports on the new version (mine has 4 USB 2.0 ports). However this new version has the "vibration" controller whereas mine came with the non-vibration controller (and that controller alone costs like $55.00 or so).

So really if you want a BD player just get the new $400 PS3

Me loves mine!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[mpack]

The one thing that keeps people going to cinemas, social networking aside, is that the image one gets in a cinema is far superior to DVD by virtue of far higher resolution and progressive updating.

Better picture quality? - that must depend on the cinema. The last time I was in a cinema I was distinctly underwhelmed by the picture quality compared to a quality DVD playing on my 100Hz widescreen CRT that I have at home. In the old days I remember cinema picture quality being great, in those days the local cinema had just one big screen and a film projector. I don't know if the perceived loss of quality is because my standards have changed or because modern multiplex cinemas have inferior equipment.

"Progressive updating"? I'm not sure what that means in a cinema projector. I also don't understand all the hype about "progressive". Interlacing is a good thing: it gives the illusion of smoother motion without doubling the required bandwidth.

[jagabo]

Interlacing is a good thing: it gives the illusion of smoother motion without doubling the required bandwidth.

Only with material where every field is from a different point in time (eg, live sports). Not with film sources. I'd rather see 60 frames per second than 60 fields per second any day.

[mpack]

Only with material where every field is from a different point in time (eg, live sports). Not with film sources.

Film sources run at 24fps - I know that you knew that already. My point is that talking about the advantages of progressive when talking about a film source doesn't really make much sense. Maybe in NTSC-land there are problems displaying film sources accurately on a TV, but that isn't due to interlacing. In PAL land the film is shown at 25fps (50 fields/s) and the quality is no better or worse than in the cinema (resolution aside: I'm talking here only about the relevance and effect of interlaced vs progressive).

I'd rather see 60 frames per second than 60 fields per second any day.

That's a false comparison IMHO. The correct comparison would be 60 frames/s vs 120 fields/s, as these use the same bandwidth. Now which is better? (assuming that the display technology is suited to interlaced material).

Interlacing was invented for a reason - the people who invented it were not stupid, and the technical arguments in its favor remain to this day. In fact the pro argument gets better at higher bandwidths because the flicker (always the main reason to dislike interlacing) becomes invisible. Mark my words: in a couple of years time, after everybody has spent their cash on progressive players and TVs, the new hype will be 200Hz interlaced players...

[jagabo]

Interlacing was invented for a reason - the people who invented it were not stupid, and the technical arguments in its favor remain to this day.

The people who invented it work working with the limitations of electronics in the 1940's. In this day of progressive displays and MPEG 2/4 encoding there's simply no reason to maintain interlaced transmission.

[mpack]

The people who invented it work working with the limitations of electronics in the 1940's. In this day of progressive displays and MPEG 2/4 encoding there's simply no reason to maintain interlaced transmission.

The point of the first sentence wasn't in dispute, and the second is a bald assertion.

There is a reason for interlacing today - and it's the same reason as ever, ie. interlacing gives you the illusion of twice the framerate for half the bandwidth (or equivalently: you get twice the resolution for the same bandwidth). This is a fact - as true today as it was in the 1930s, and it will continue to be true tomorrow.

However, let's leave aside the benefits of interlacing, and examine instead the benefits of progressive. This feature comes at a cost in cabling, expensive high end electronics in the TV, player and so forth.... so what are the benefits exactly, other than for padding out the sales figures of Sony, Phillips et al? I ask this question because I am pretty damn sure that no human eye can see a difference between a 100Hz interlaced SD or HD image and one which is 100Hz progressive. So the only difference is that one of these costs more and wastes a lot of bandwidth!

[SingSing]

There is a reason for interlacing today - and it's the same reason as ever, ie. interlacing gives you the illusion of twice the framerate for half the bandwidth (or equivalently: you get twice the resolution for the same bandwidth). This is a fact - as true today as it was in the 1930s, and it will continue to be true tomorrow.

Video was consider high speed then, was consider dog speed now. There is no necessity o use interlace to work at half-frame rate. Mordern electronics can put out video at the true ( aka progressive ) frame rate and then some.

[mpack]

There is no necessity to use interlace to work at half-frame rate.

I'm afraid that contribution misses the point. No one has said that there is a necessity to use interlacing in the current era. In fact there was no necessity to use it in the past either. It was simply desirable to do so because it gives you a better picture. And that statement continues to be true today.

You pick the data rate (which is really the only fundamental difference between yesterday and tomorrow); I guarantee that an interlaced signal allows a better picture at that bandwidth than a progressive picture does.

[jagabo]

I'm afraid that contribution misses the point. No one has said that there is a necessity to use interlacing in the current era. In fact there was no necessity to use it in the past either. It was simply desirable to do so because it gives you a better picture. And that statement continues to be true today.

No, it gives a worse picture (especially on modern progressive displays) in exchange for smoother motion. And with telecined film broadcast digitally (probably more than half of what is broadcast) it requires more bitrate than either 24 fps or 60 fps progressive (repeat frames require almost no bitrate), causes more smearing of the chroma channels, cost us all more because we have to pay to develop and implement deinterlacing algorithms in our HDTVs, and gives no benefit at all.