... and Blue Ray is the winner

I'd like to add a Blue Ray player to my setup (BV7 Mark III).

Of course I want to control it with my Beo4. This is Prio One!!

Which player should I buy? For a while I was thinking of the Playstation III but I'm not into videogaming (at least not yet ;-) so maybe this is just an extra lot of money. And naturally the most fantastic solution would be if the built-in DVD-player could be replaced, but I guess that this is not going to happen anytime soon. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 Happy to get some advice  

/Munin 

Well the PS3 uses a blue-tooth  remote so I guess the beo4 is out there. There are some USB remote sensors for 3rd party remotes.

Because a Blu-ray player can also play DVD discs and HD-DVD has lost the battle, there is no reason for B&O anymore to wait :-)

 

Bingo:

Because a Blu-ray player can also play DVD discs and HD-DVD has lost the battle, there is no reason for B&O anymore to wait :-)

 

 

Please give them a call and tell them

They are not known for taking up new technology too fast

I would wait 6 months until the technology has advanced. Most reviews I see are not that great.

Peter:

I would wait 6 months until the technology has advanced. Most reviews I see are not that great.

more likely to be 10years if any of their past performance ,they have not implemented digital tuner or free view in uk yet!!!!!!!!!

I really meant waiting to buy another make! I wouldn't hold my breath for B&O!

i think we should start a petition to B&O singed by beoworld members for their lack of  vision imho

Philips comes with a 350 dollar blu-ray player BDP7200 , so B&O can also put a box around it and charge 1500 euro for the same device :-)  It does not have to cost Struer much to build one that way..

 

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/CES_2008/Philips/CES:_Philips_Intros_$349_Blu-ray_Player/1338

 

DVD3 Blueray/HD-DVD will come in about 6 month told my dealer

HD-DVD?

Who wants HD-DVD??

Mr Anderson hasn't caught the announcement by B&O that they are dropping HD-DVD. It will be a BD only player.

Munin:

... and Blue Ray is the winner

I have a PS3 and have bought (or sourced) Blu-ray versions of my favourite action movies. Although they are generally better than upscaled SD DVDs, there's no way I would go out and spend over £15 on a Blu-ray, when the SD equivalent could be bought for £3 (300, The Departed etc etc).

Many Blu-ray DVDs have 'issues'. For instance, the camera panning on Ocean's 13 is laughable. It's like they've missed out frames. In some places it's agonising to watch.

Nothing compares to a HD movie through Sky HD or BBC HD. Devil Wears Prada, World Trade Center and Narnia were on recently and, my god, they were stunning. Way better than Blu-ray. The best part of a Blu-ray DVD is the audio as it's often uncompressed.

If you really insist on Blu-ray, go for the PS3. Simply as it's a) cheap, b) easy to resell, c) one of the few players that can be flash-rom upgraded and d) can do other things apart from Blu-ray playback (ie. store and playback audio, photos and so on).

The judder you are seeing isn't a fault with the Blu-ray discs. You need a player that can output a picture at 24 frames a second and A TV that can output such a signal.

It's all to do with the original film having been shot at  24fps and your TV showing it at a different framerate

It's all explained here: 

http://www.hdtvuk.tv/2007/10/explained_what.html 

I have a PS3 that has a 24fps mode and a Sony TV that can do 1080/24p 

You need to go into your BD settings on the PS3 and turn 24fps mode on (and hope your TV can cope with it)

Your assertion that TV broadcasts are better than Blu-ray can't be right simply for the fact that Sky and BBC HD broadcasts are 1080i while BluRays are 1080p. Sort the 24fps issue out and I think you'll find Blu-Ray is currently the best way to  view HD films

jonnyb:

The judder you are seeing isn't a fault with the Blu-ray discs

Are you sure? It's only on Ocean's 13 and the SD version does exactly the same thing! I gave the SD DVD to a friend and he remarked that his DVD player and TV showed the same juddery camera panning.

To me, that implies it was the compression used in the movie encoding.

It's to do with 3:2 pulldown and its inablilty to completely solve the problem with 24fps fitting into 30fps

24p mode on the PS3 with a TV that can do 1080/24p will sort the problem out 

jonnyb:

Your assertion that TV broadcasts are better than Blu-ray can't be right simply for the fact that Sky and BBC HD broadcasts are 1080i while BluRays are 1080p. Sort the 24fps issue out and I think you'll find Blu-Ray is currently the best way to  view HD films

Maybe, but I can see myself which is better and has less pixelisation! 24fps mode is *on* on my PS3. It makes no difference either way. I had someone over the other night and we both agreed that Narnia on Sky HD was the best picture we've seen so far.

If you look across the Internet, you'll see all sorts of negative comments about Blu-ray quality. It's common knowledge that some Blu-ray's are superb, whereas others are poor. I've found that myself - Layer Cake and Casino Royale are absolutely superb, whereas Ocean's 13 and 300 suffer from encoding issues.

Hell, most Blu-rays are encoded in MPEG-2, which is the same as a SD DVD. I thought movies through Sky HD were encoded using MPEG-4, which is a far superior codec?

Sorry, but I think you are wrong - that link you offered states that the difference 24fps offers is 'subtle'.

Well you seem to be describing failings with the transfer of the film to HD rather than any intrinsic failing of the format. All sorts of factors affect how an HD film looks, from the original grain of the film, to the bitrate it was transferred at.

It seems to me that the ones you've liked were good transfers and the ones you haven't were poor transfers. This isn't a Blu-Ray thing - it's a conversion thing. The HD versions of movies you're watching on Sky and BBC will have come from the studios themselves and they'll be compressed versions of the files they use on the Blu-Ray versions of the films - they won't be better, they'll be worse so that they can be transmitted via cable and the air.

Have you compared Narnia on Sky with Narnia on Blu-ray? Unless you're comparing like with like you can't say that Sky is better. Comparing Ocean's 13 on Blu-ray with Narnia on Sky is hardly scientific is it?

Ultimately, a good, high bitrate transfer of  film at 1080/24p on Blu Ray will *always* look better than the same film transmitted at 1080i on Sky. That's a fact.

Anyway, As I already said - 24p mode will only make a difference if your TV can cope with it. What TV do you have?

Incidentally, MPEG2 was only used on the very earliest Blu Ray discs in 2006. They've used AVC (MPEG4) for ages now.

Here's a random quote from someone who actually did a like-for-like comparison on Planet Earth (a title on BluRay which, by the way, benefits considerably from 1080/24p which is very noticeable if you're sensitive to it as you appear to be)

"I actually compared the clip of Planet Earth on BBC HD, to my Blu-Ray version, the same scene, and the Blu-ray version blew the SkyHD version away. Considerably better on my Panasonic TH-42PX60 Plasma." 

jonnyb:

Incidentally, MPEG2 was only used on the very earliest Blu Ray discs in 2006. They've used AVC (MPEG4) for ages now

So what? It's not the codec that ultimately matters - it's the bitrate. The higher the bitrate the less efficient the compression has to be anyway - and bluray will win out over low-bitrate TV tranmission any day

What TV do you own? 

jonnyb:

So what? It's not the codec that ultimately matters - it's the bitrate. The higher the bitrate the less efficient the compression has to be anyway - and bluray will win out over low-bitrate TV tranmission any day

What TV do you own? 

The codec very much matters. MPEG-2 creates a fair amount of artifacts when scaled up. Besides, Sky HD is transmitted at around 19 kBits/sec (see http://www.linowsat.de/0282/all/0282.shtml) which is more than sufficient. An SD DVD is played back at the same bitrate through a Blu-ray player as a Blu-ray DVD, compressed with the same codec.

Anything transmitted at around 20kBits/sec is going to be more than enough for top-quality PQ.

Munin,

The word goes that there will be an MKIV mid 2008 with a full HD DVD integrated. I'm not sure about upgrades to MKIII though, my reseller tells me there won't be easy upgrades since B&O aim to change more than just the DVD drive.

The Dane 

 

soundproof:

Mr Anderson hasn't caught the announcement by B&O that they are dropping HD-DVD. It will be a BD only player.

 

Ok where have you seen this info?

My swedish regional manager says it will be combo BR/HD-DVD 

moxxey:

jonnyb:

So what? It's not the codec that ultimately matters - it's the bitrate. The higher the bitrate the less efficient the compression has to be anyway - and bluray will win out over low-bitrate TV tranmission any day

What TV do you own? 

The codec very much matters. MPEG-2 creates a fair amount of artifacts when scaled up. Besides, Sky HD is transmitted at around 19 kBits/sec (see http://www.linowsat.de/0282/all/0282.shtml) which is more than sufficient. An SD DVD is played back at the same bitrate through a Blu-ray player as a Blu-ray DVD, compressed with the same codec.

Anything transmitted at around 20kBits/sec is going to be more than enough for top-quality PQ.

 

So, er, what TV do you own?

It's hard to have a discussion when you keep ignoring my main points...

Why don't you get a film on Blu-Ray and compare it with its equivalent on TV, sort your 24fps issue out... compare like with like and then come back to me?