I am going to be one of those people that have both formats.

I have a source that can get Panasonic at employee pricing, is it worth getting this player, or would a PS3 be better?

Thanks

Panasonic's BMP-BD10 BD player is much better as a BD player than the PS3.

-Robert

Anthem,

You may want to wait until CES to see what announcements are made. I think the Panasonic is currently the best choice, but many expect them to announce a new player at CES.

The primary reason to choose the Panasonic over Sony/Pioneer is the announced support for Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA, but it's possible Sony/Pioneer will announce support for those at CES. I would choose the Sony/Pioneer over the Panasonic if that announcement were made.

Robert, can you try to give us specifics on why the Panny is such a better player than the PS3?

I am going to be one of those people that have both formats.

I have a source that can get Panasonic at employee pricing, is it worth getting this player, or would a PS3 be better?

Thanks


Anthem...
My 2 cents worth - I have the Panasonic and it absolutely terrific. Picture and sound are both exemplary.
Guessing you are an Anthem user as well - I have the Panny running through a D2 to my Panasonic 65" plasma and it is nirvana.
Can't comment on the PS3 but I can say I am not impressed with the XBox36p HD drive - have already encountered 3 discs that won't play on it...
/\/\

Panasonic's BMP-BD10 BD player is much better as a BD player than the PS3.

-Robert

After doing several Blu-ray installs over the past two weeks I would say the PS3 is the best Blu-ray player out there. Don't get me wrong, the Panasonic is very good, but for PQ and AQ, I feel the PS3 is the best. It also loads quicker and did I mention it plays all Playstation games ever.

~Josh

Robert, can you try to give us specifics on why the Panny is such a better player than the PS3?
Because he doesn't sell the PS3. :rolleyes: @ Robert.

I'm not going to list all of the differences between Panasonic's dedicated high end stand alone BD player vs. Sony's Play Station game console that can play BD discs.

Just consider these few items:

1. PS3 does not play DVDs.

2. Poor video resolution selection.

3. Inferior audio quality.

4. Inferior image quality.

I am sure many avs members can point out more benefits to Panasonic's BMP-BD10 BD player.

Esox50, I work very hard to provide honest and accurate technical and industry information on avs and other forums. I do it because I enjoy presenting truthful and helpful information. We sell many products and my participation does generate sales. But you statement is totally untrue and baseless.

It is true that we do not sell the PS3 and for two basic reasons. First, we do not sell gaming consoles, my business niche is limited to HDTV products. Finally, I only select products that I believe in and the PS3 did not suite my standards.

-Robert

Just consider these few items:

1. PS3 does not play DVDs.
Played DVDs just fine last night for me. :confused:

2. Poor video resolution selection.
Are you talking about upscaling?

Just for the heck of it, I connected the PS3 via composite to a CRT monitor I have. I A/B'd DVDs off a PS3 vs. a $1,000 Pioneer Elite unit, and the PS3 looked better.

3. Inferior audio quality.
I've done A/B demos, this is simply not true.

4. Inferior image quality.
See above.

Esox50, I work very hard to provide honest and accurate technical and industry information on avs and other forums. I do it because I enjoy presenting truthful and helpful information. We sell many products and my participation does generate sales. But you statement is totally untrue and baseless.
What about my statement is untrue? Have you started carrying the PS3 in the last 15 minutes?

Cmon. All of your "reasons" above are generalizations. Please be more specific. Until then, it's just an opinion of someone who sells one product and not the other. You'll have to excuse me since I don't know you personally. :)

1. PS3 does not play DVDs. The PS3 does play DVDs, it just doesn't upscale them (at this time).


3. Inferior audio quality. Through HDMI, the audio quality is the same. The Panasonic does have the advantage of 7.1 analog outputs for those without HDMI; the Panasonic will also apply [optional] bass management to HDMI output and analog output, something the PS3 can't do.

The PS3 already decodes Dolby Digital Plus and TrueHD, and both the PS3 and Panasonic will decode all advanced audio codecs with a software update.

The Panasonic BD player will play DVD-Audio disks, but won't play SACDs. The PS3 will play SACDs, but not DVD-Audio disks.

The PS3 is the first product to use a HDMI 1.3 transmitter, so it can be updated to output Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA through HDMI [on titles authored in basic BDMV] to a future HDMI 1.3 receiver for decoding. The current firmware on the PS3 limits the hardware to HDMI 1.2 functionality, but that will almost certainly change next year.
4. Inferior image quality.I think the two are pretty close. The Panasonic may have had a more significant advantage back when CUE wasn't an issue, but the more recent firmwares introduced that. No BD player has perfect PQ output at the moment. I would give the Panasonic an edge, but I think the difference is more subtle.

The PS3's image quality is likely to improve with a future software update. In addition, through an interview, Sony announced plans to add 1080p24 to the PS3 in 2007. The Panasonic's BD output may improve if they eliminate CUE, but the current model is unlikely to ever support 1080p24 output.

One key advantage of the Panasonic is the bundled remote control and IR receiver, so it can be used with any universal remote out of the box. Getting IR (or a universal remote) to work on the PS3 is a real hassle -- it requires a discontinued PS2 IR receiver and some tedious key remapping.

The key advantage of the PS3 is upgradability. All the current standalone BD players are unlikely to see much vendor support beyond 2007. Sony intends to support the PS3 well past 2010, so it will continue to see regular software updates to improve its functionality / performance. The PS3 will fully support the BD-Java Live profile with a future software update, whereas the Panasonic's hardware is incapable of doing so; whether any Blu-ray titles will use that functionality in 2007 remains to be seen.

I was not trying to get into a debate on Roberts credibility. That is not my job.

I am just suprised that he stated the Panny is better and didn't give a reason.

Robert, How much time have you spent with a PS3?

The Panasonic and Pioneer are the BEST Blu ray players on the market! I have spent enough time with all of them to be able to say that (especially this weekend)... ;)

The Panasonic and Pioneer are the BEST Blu ray players on the market! I have spent enough time with all of them to be able to say that (especially this weekend)... ;)

A few months ago, when I decided to get a BD player, I was conflicted between betting the Panasonic at that time, or waiting for the Pioneer. I have Pioneer 59avi and really love it.

But at that time, I had a Denon 5800. 7.1 analogs in, but no HDMI, so getting more than 5.1 from the advanced codecs meant using the analog in. The Panasonic, with it's 7.1 analog outs then became the obvious choice.

Since then, I replaced the 5800 with the Denon 4806ci. It of course had HDMI inputs, eliminating the need to be concerned about the number of analog outs. Do I now regret not waiting for the Panasonic? No, not really. I'm sure the Pioneer is a great unit, but I do love the Panasonic. The picture and sound are great. Upconversion is great. I only wish it had a more informative display: time left, bit rates, etc.

I never thought I would see the day when someone was arguing a game console being better than a 1300$ dedicated player and to top it off, with a very intelligent industry salesman with much experience

the PS3 is a friggin game console, nuff said

-Gary

Gary,

That "friggin" game console is a lot better than your Samsung player. Nuff Said.

I never thought I would see the day when someone was arguing a game console being better than a 1300$ dedicated player and to top it off, with a very intelligent industry salesman with much experience

the PS3 is a friggin game console, nuff said

-Gary

If that industry salesman doesn't know the PS3 plays DVDs (and he said it doesn't), then he isn't qualified to discuss it.

I never thought I would see the day when someone was arguing a game console being better than a 1300$ dedicated player and to top it off, with a very intelligent industry salesman with much experience

the PS3 is a friggin game console, nuff said

-Gary
Gary,

It's not a matter of arguing. It's a matter of seeing people categorically dismissing something because it's a game machine.

I'm sure someone could make the case that the PS3 is not as good as a stand alone. But make the case!!! ;) When someone comes in here and gives no reasons for that assertion/opinion (especially when the product in question is not part of a product offering through him) it's a little more than ridiculous. And when I questioned it, you saw the response I got. He was completely wrong on one count, and very general on all the other "issues".

I have the PS3 right now, and I assure you it is a great piece of machinery and a tremendous value. It's performance is easily comparable (+/- 10% in just about every category? Just a SWAG on my part) to the other standalones. Is the PS3 the best BD player out there? Define "best" or "better" would be my response. For some people "better" is tweaking out that last iota of sharpness that maybe a specialized standalone can give you. For other people, maybe getting upscaling right now for DVDs makes a standalone "better" than the PS3.

Right now, for a measly $600, I have access to HD games AND HD discs and will ride this machine out until I see a standalone worth (to me) paying up to $2,000 or so. Yes, I have spent that much before on standalone DVD players in the past. This is a great position to be in (i.e. having a PS3 to "hold me over"), and I anxiously await hearing about some new standalones at CES next week. And that goes for HD DVD players as well. I want to check out the XA2 soon.

In the end, keep an open mind. We should be discussing current players' pros & cons, not dismissing products and/or arguing over issues that wil be usurped by better players wihin the next 6 months anyway. :D Technology and peformance ALWAYS advances, that's one great thing about this stuff.

And to Robert, I hope you understand where I'm coming from. And for the record, I will give you serious consideration when I find the standalone BD and/or HD DVD players of my choice.

Now that's 'Nuff said. :)

These points are misinformed at best.......starting with PS3 not playing dvd's which is just plain wrong.



I'm not going to list all of the differences between Panasonic's dedicated high end stand alone BD player vs. Sony's Play Station game console that can play BD discs.

Just consider these few items:

1. PS3 does not play DVDs.

2. Poor video resolution selection.

3. Inferior audio quality.

4. Inferior image quality.


-Robert

While the PS3 was first and foremost designed to be a next gen gaming console, it has proven itself to be a phenomenal home media center, including a top quality Blu-ray player. Check out these reviews, which are from Home Theater publications, not gaming mags.
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hd-dvd-bluray/1927/shootout-3-blu-ray-disc-players.html

http://ultimateavmag.com/hddiscplayers/1206ps3blu/

You would have never seen the xbox or PS2 being seriously compared to high end DVD players, but you are seeing the PS3 being chosen by many HT enthusiasts as their Blu-ray player of choice. Why? Because not only is the PS3 a very good BD player right now, but it also is the most future proof in that its HDMI 1.3 and has very good firmware upgradability for both audio and video tweaking.

The PS3 does play DVD's. Its not that bad either. It also does an outstanding job with CD playback. The audio quality of the PS3 can't go unspoken because those who have played around with one know what I'm talking about. It sounds great.

Well the PS3 plays DVDs just fine, but it doesn't upscale them (yet).

I'm not sure why the resolution selection is poor. I know some people are unhappy that they can't play 720p games at 1080i/1080p, but since we are talking about BD's... they can be played at 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, or 1080p. That pretty much covers it.

As far as audio/video quality goes, I personally believe that it's a close enough call to be in the realm of personal preference.

Robert certainly deserves props for his actions and words on this forum, and in the way that he conducts his business. I have my eye on an A2 purchase from him at the moment. However, in regard to these PS3 BD comments I think he's off the mark.

Gary,

That "friggin" game console is a lot better than your Samsung player. Nuff Said.

Sorry, I have to agree very much here with Gary and Robert.
The PS3 is trying to be all things to all people.. something which the electronics industry has always tried to do with very poor results.
A dedicated player will always put out the superior picture and audio.


do you own the Samsung?.You run it at 1080i into a vp50 and you get perfection.
You run the ps3 into the vp50 and you get a mess.

do you own the Samsung?.You run it at 1080i into a vp50 and you get perfection.
You run the ps3 into the vp50 and you get a mess.

end of discussion, thats me exactly, Samsung 1080i HDMI into VP50, after the firmware updates I am 100% happy with that setup and the analog audio quality is very very good, oh wait the PS3 doesn't even have that :rolleyes:

-Gary

I have owned the Samsung, I now have a PS3 and a Sony BDP-S1. I have compared all three and I do know what I am talking about.

The PS3 is every bid as good as the other two players (heads above the Samsung). If you say that the PS3 isn't as good as the other two. I doubt you have seen it in action.

All three players ran HDMI to a 1080p display.

1080p/60 from these units(any BR player) is not gonna touch 1080i into the DVDO VP50, the Samsung + VP50 combo is 4000$ retail, a 600$ console is not gonna touch that and it ain't about the price, it's about the combo of a nice clean HDMI 1080i feed (Sammy) into the worlds best 1080i deinterlacer (DVDO VP50) ;)

-Gary

1080p/60 from these units(any BR player) is not gonna touch 1080i into the DVDO VP50, the Samsung + VP50 combo is 4000$ retail, a 600$ console is not gonna touch that and it ain't about the price, it's about the combo of a nice clean HDMI 1080i feed (Sammy) into the worlds best 1080i deinterlacer (DVDO VP50) ;)

-Gary
That really sums it up Gary I agree.
The PS3 is a typical one solution for the non videophile

I am not using any kind of scaler/video processor, so I don't know how that combo works. It just seems that if you want the best signal possible to your DVDO VP50, why would you go with the softest player on the market? Have you tried any other source?

I have two BR players (Sony and PS3). I have been using my Sony BDP-S1 because of the 1080p/24 output which my projector will accept and display. I had the Samsung and took it back to Best Buy because I never could get the picture to sharpen up. Even with firmware. IMHO both of the Sony players put out a better image than the Samsung.

I am not using any kind of scaler/video processor, so I don't know how that combo works. It just seems that if you want the best signal possible to your DVDO VP50, why would you go with the softest player on the market? Have you tried any other source?

I have two BR players (Sony and PS3). I have been using my Sony BDP-S1 because of the 1080p/24 output which my projector will accept and display. I had the Samsung and took it back to Best Buy because I never could get the picture to sharpen up. Even with firmware. IMHO both of the Sony players put out a better image than the Samsung.

I too bought the Samsung and returned it immediately. PQ was horrible and did not do 1080P (a blurry mess). The PS3 produces a superior image. I did take back the PS3 also, but only because of no IR and I couldn't incorporate it into my MX-3000 remote. I will wait for Pioneer to fix the issues with their player or wait for CES to show something even better... :D

1080p/60 from these units(any BR player) is not gonna touch 1080i into the DVDO VP50, the Samsung + VP50 combo is 4000$ retail, a 600$ console is not gonna touch that and it ain't about the price, it's about the combo of a nice clean HDMI 1080i feed (Sammy) into the worlds best 1080i deinterlacer (DVDO VP50) ;)

-Gary


Now wait a second, are you saying that outputting 1080i from a 1080p source into a scaler, have it deinterlaced back to 1080p will give you better results than using unaltered 1080p in the first place?

Please explain how that works. The simple truth is, there is no difference in quality between using 1080i with proper deinterlacing to 1080p and native 1080p. You will get something worse if the deinterlacer isn't up to the job, but you will never get better results from deinterlaced 1080i than from native 1080p. It can be equal, but never better.

What you can do with a dedicated processor is more processing of the signal, say output 48Hz instead of 60Hz. 48Hz should be your framerate of choice if film is the source.

Besides that I think the DVDO is not the best deinterlacer, your statement is really odd. I've yet to see better looking deinterlaced 1080i than native 1080p and I've tried alot of processors and projectors (including 9" CRT and several digitals, as well as broadcast grade processors). I've also tried several sources, HD DVD, BD, HDTV broadcasts, broadcast masters and uncompressed HD. Equal is the best it gets, but never better.

What's this about the PS3 not playing DVDs? It plays DVDs just fine... :confused:

^ Sorry that was my silly mistake. The PS3 plays SD DVDs, but does not up-convert them.

-Robert

Now wait a second, are you saying that outputting 1080i from a 1080p source into a scaler, have it deinterlaced back to 1080p will give you better results than using unaltered 1080p in the first place?

Please explain how that works. The simple truth is, there is no difference in quality between using 1080i with proper deinterlacing to 1080p and native 1080p. You will get something worse if the deinterlacer isn't up to the job, but you will never get better results from deinterlaced 1080i than from native 1080p. It can be equal, but never better.

What you can do with a dedicated processor is more processing of the signal, say output 48Hz instead of 60Hz. 48Hz should be your framerate of choice if film is the source.

Besides that I think the DVDO is not the best deinterlacer, your statement is really odd. I've yet to see better looking deinterlaced 1080i than native 1080p and I've tried alot of processors and projectors (including 9" CRT and several digitals, as well as broadcast grade processors). I've also tried several sources, HD DVD, BD, HDTV broadcasts, broadcast masters and uncompressed HD. Equal is the best it gets, but never better.

the Samsung doesn't deliver true 1080p(so you are comparing 2 1080i deinterlacing solutions), it takes the 1080p interlaces for 1080i and if you select 1080p as output on the sammy it deinterlaces with a internal chip, then outputs 1080p, the DVDO VP50 is the best 1080i deinterlacing there is, I wouldn't claim it is better than everything else, but there is nothing that will beat it either ;) I run the Sammy into the VP50 and output the 2.40 portion of 1080p, which is 1920x800p, I use a 2.40:1 setup, a CRT, the NEC 1352LC
believe me the Sammy and VP50 is nothing near to a slouch or a piece of soft ****, the firmware updates are vital ;) I have never looked at the Sammy without the VP50

sadly the Sammy and my Toshiba D1 both have the chroma bug(they use the exact same identical decoder chip BTW)

-Gary M.

I never thought I would see the day when someone was arguing a game console being better than a 1300$ dedicated player and to top it off, with a very intelligent industry salesman with much experience

the PS3 is a friggin game console, nuff said

-Gary

The world was also thought to be flat at one time. It's not impossible for the PS3 to be better, not even close to impossible. Just seems like a pompous statement imo. And to quote Sony, which is always dangerous, they felt the PS3 would be the best player released at the start here. My guess because of the engineering dollars they were pumping into it. Probably greater then all the other players combined.

I never thought I would see the day when someone was arguing a game console being better than a 1300$ dedicated player and to top it off, with a very intelligent industry salesman with much experience

the PS3 is a friggin game console, nuff said

-Gary
To someone who uses an HDMI audio processor, the PS3 is an excellent Blu-Ray player. With TrueHD support and consistent updates, I wouldn't doubt that it's the best digital transport out there for BD playback. Sure it doesn't have a high quality analog section, but many people who care most about audio quality have moved to HDMI for BD/HD DVD purposes. Re-digitizing multichannel analog audio in order to achieve good room correction and post-processing doesn't really exude quality.

I do have to say Gary that you have made many ridiculous sweeping comments lately with nothing to back them up. The cost of the player doesn't explain everything. Also, don't fall for the opinions expressed by those who sell standalone players.