Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Ships the First Blu-Ray Player
DigitalDame2 writes "PCMag.com reports that beginning June 25th, consumers will be able to purchase the first Blu-Ray player: the Samsung BD-P1000. The BD-P1000 is twice the price of the HD-A1 ($999.99 list), but supports full 1080p playback, something the first generation of HD-DVD players do not. It also up-converts conventional DVDs to 1080p to improve video quality and comes with HDMI, Component, S-video, and composite outputs. The BD-P1000 will be sold at more than 200 retail locations, including Best Buy, Tweeter, and Circuit City, and 10 Blu-Ray titles will be available as well."
I'm not sure about this, but I think it's that DVD players do it better than most TVs. I know my 720p TV does an awful upconversion by itself - but with an upconverting dvd player it looks MUCH better.
I've seen TVs that do it well though - it is just that some don't.
Unless you aren't happy with how it looks right now, its probably not worth the investment.
There are only 5-10 tvs that will even display 1080p right now, not even the Sony SXBRs can (NOTE many TVs actually display 1080p, but only accept 1080i input, like the SXBR for example).
As can be seen on this chart 720p will do for for most people. The human eye can't resolve the extra detail in the picture from 8' on a 42" diagonal.
Since no one specifies what algorithm they use the only way you really know is to do some viewing tests. Most likely since the device supports BluRay it has a pretty powerful scaler and will look better than your TV scaler.
Since the image is converted to digital it will be of better quality because it won't have to be converted to analog ever.
For example:
normal DVD player > converted to analog > analog signal over 480i connection > at tv > converted to digital 1080p > displayed
bluray player > conversion to 1080p > digital signal to tv > displayed
The reason it's in the player is because it's easier to upgrade your player to have a decent scaler than it is to upgrade your TV to get a decent scaler (lots of $$ just for the new TV), or to buy a standalone scaler (standalone scalers aim for the top end of the market).
Ultimately though, you want a scaler that can work with many different inputs, so that your Dreamcast, DVD player, and your video recorder all look good. So having your best scaler be in the DVD player isn't optimal either. Fortunately, scalers in newer TV's are starting to get better (eg. with names like DCDi showing up more).
HR-HDTV - full res HDTV quality encodes
If you think the HR xvids are equivalent to full res HDTV, you are missing out.
They are only 960x540 and the bitrate is nowhere near enough to prevent artifacts like macroblocking and mosquito noise.
Don't get me wrong - the HR encodes are better than most any analog tv signal, but it is rare that they are better than a good DVD much less the equal of HD.
Actually, that is precisely correct. Full motion image rescaling is a nontrivial task. The TV is rarely (though there are notable exceptions!) the best choice to do the scaling. You want the video to be rescaled before it hits the TV by something a bit more beefy and slickery than what the TV will through at it.
The claim here is that the player's scaler is going to be better than the TV's, but probably not as good as a dedicated scaler. I'm sure you can turn the player's scaler off if you want that done by other equipment.
Is their claim truthful? Who knows? Most likely is is better than the TV, but I've seen some good TV-based scaling.
My home theater setup? http://tom.digitalelite.com/caudroplex.html
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
-Tom
Most Blu-Ray titles appear to be $20 on Amazon, and if you order a few early you get 10% off all Blu-Ray titles for a year.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1080p moves can easily fit on HD-DVDs (even with extras included, though nearly all HD-DVD extras so far are the old 480i/p ones found on DVDs), and that's what most of the studios are doing. I suspect that the limitation to 1080i in the current Toshiba and RCA players is simply a matter of those companies deciding that a) not many people have 1080p displays (even most people with PCs max out at 1600x1200) and b) they could keep costs down by using slightly less capable internals. If the latter is true, then it's an excellent move since, until the PS3 comes out, there don't seem to be any Blu-Ray players on the immediate horizon which can compete with HD-DVD in terms of price.
Shorter answer (since I rambled): Yes, the 1080i limitation is a situation specific to the two currently available HD-DVD players and not a problem with the technology overall.
Capable of 1080p60.
Of course... There isn't any 1080p60 CONTENT. And there isn't going to be, except maybe technical demos, for quite a while. Nearly all films are shot at 24p and any decent HDTV will inverse-telecine back to 1080p24 from 1080i30 telecined frames. And any video-source material out there will be shot in either 720p or 1080i, so really, the 1080p60 is just an additional tick-box on the feature list at this point.
Heck, force 24 fps film to be output at 1080p60, and it could look WORSE than telecined 1080i30 because of cadence problems.
The whole "but ìt's only 1080i" is a total red-herring. From the dvdtalk review:
"In the last couple of days, several technical issues have been put to rest, at least for me. The first was the common accusation that the initial HD DVD players like the Toshiba HD-A1 are deficient because they don't output "full 1080p" resolution, that they are "1080i only." I don't see this as a practical concern. All HD DVD and Blu-ray discs will encode film-sourced material in full 1920x1080 progressive scan resolution at 24 frames per second, which is the film industry standard.
Unfortunately many folks are confusing 1080i acquisition with 1080i transmission. The primary reason we get interlacing artifacts in a 480i, 576i, or 1080i signal is that the frame was originally captured in interlaced format, with the odd scan lines and even scan lines being recorded at two different moments in time. When you reassemble two fields that are offset in time, you get jaggies, moire patterns, barber pole effects, and line twitter. That is not true of either HD DVD or Blu-ray film transfers since the image is scanned progressively from a film frame that represents a single moment in time.
Therefore we would expect to see none of the common evidence of deinterlacing when watching HD DVD or Blu-ray movies that are being transmitted via 1080i. Our first look at HD DVD in 1080i confirms this expectation. After hours of viewing three different HD DVD movies there is simply no evidence of any artifact that might be attributed to the fact that the signal was transmitted in 1080i format. The picture is as clean, stable, and as artifact-free as it could be. There is no visible defect in the image that would be eliminated by switching to 1080p transmission."
Make your decision on HD-DVD vs Blu Ray, but don't do it based on this bogus 1080i issue.
Pioneer was first and this is even a burner.
c les/viewarticle.jsp?id=43466
Why buy some Korean crap (read: Samsung) when you can get real Japanese quality.
The BDR-101A drive will be bundled with Sonic Solutions' Roxio Blu-ray Disc software and a blank TDK 25GB write-once (BD-R) disc with a $999 suggested retail.
http://camcorders.consumerelectronicsnet.com/arti