or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players › One-and-Only PS3 as Blu-Ray Player Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

One-and-Only PS3 as Blu-Ray Player Thread - Page 1014

post #30391 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpauls View Post

Good idea. I'll try it tonight. I thought that simply setting all the enhancements to their default (off) position insured no video processing was happening, but perhaps not. BUt then if the picture looks identical to the PS3 the question will become, why doesn't the PS3 offer enhancements as good as the Qdeo chip?

The only things the Oppo player does better than a PS3 are:

- 3D -- Oppo will give you better sound quality because the PS3 cannot provide lossless audio while sending 3D (so far - nobody knows if this is something that can be fixed in some future PS3 update)

- Playing music discs. The PS3 does not sound very good when playing discs via HDMI or digital out. The PS3 sounds MUCH better playing music delivered via server/Ethernet. Something goes very wrong when it plays physical music discs. The Oppo player sounds quite good and this new model may play high-res disc formats that the PS3 does not play (like DVD-Audio and SACD... only early PS3s could play SACD, but then there's the issue that the PS3 doesn't sound particularly good when playing discs)

- Playing DVDs - the Oppo disc players will playback DVDs ALMOST as good as the Lumagen Radiance processors. The PS3 isn't bad at playing DVDs -- most standalone Blu-ray players from the big Asian brands are pretty bad at making DVDs look good. The PS3 and Oppo players are both better than the average Blu-ray player at reproducing DVD, but the Oppo is even better than the PS3

If you need all 3 of those things, you have to decide whether the cost of the Oppo is really worth paying to have those 3 improvements over the PS3. (Besides your Netflix issue - which sounds very strange... the adjustable bit rate you get when using Netflix (bitrate changes as the internet connection speed varies while you are connected to Netflix - perhaps the Oppo advantage comes from the same processing that makes DVDs look better than the PS3 can make them look).

Your comparisons of Blu-ray image quality have some element that you are overlooking if you think the Oppo and PS3 look different. The PS3 has been studied and studied and studied by industry professionals (like Joe Kane) and the PS3 is well-recognized as being "accurate" - which means when you use the proper PS3 settings (see the PS3 FAQ), the data leaving the PS3 is a perfect match for what is stored on the disc (except the disc data is in YCbCr 4:2:0 and what leaves the PS3 and all disc players is YCbCr 4:2:2 unless you have selected RGB which is not a good idea, IMO.). Since you can't have better playback than accurate playback, if two accurate disc players (the Oppo players are also accurate players in that they produce what is on the disc without altering it when the settings are correct) don't look the same, then settings in the players aren't equivalent or, if you are using two different inputs to an AVR/processor or video display, there are settings in the AVR/processor or video display that are causing the differences. The way around that is to put the players near each other and swap the HDMI cable between them rather than switching inputs.
post #30392 of 32083
re: ps3 music disc deficiencies...

i have one of the early SACD compatible models, and to my ears, whatever issues the ps3 has playing music discs must not apply to SACD - they sound phenomenal on my setup.
post #30393 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post

The PS3 has been studied and studied and studied by industry professionals (like Joe Kane) and the PS3 is well-recognized as being "accurate" - which means when you use the proper PS3 settings (see the PS3 FAQ), the data leaving the PS3 is a perfect match for what is stored on the disc

I get your point. But just to have a little fun debating let me ask you a question. Why do you believe that the data exactly as it appears on the disk represents the ultimate in picture quality? Where did this idea come from? Do you just accept it as an axiom? You may have been fooled into thinking this is akin to setting your stereo tone controls to flat in audio hifi. This is not the same thing.

The data on the *master* recording is the ultimate in video fidelity. The data on the BR disk is highly compressed even at 1080p. It makes sense to introduce some post processing especially in the areas of noise reduction and detail enhancement to such data. The eye needs this in order to create the illusion of sharpness and that the missing details are still there. I agree any high grade player should also offer a bypass mode.

Let me ask you this. Do you also believe the digital samples on your audio CD are the ultimate in audio fidelity? Would you like to hear them played back without a low pass filter? It would sound like utter noise filled with high frequency aliasing. Do we say then that this filter is distorting the music?
post #30394 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpauls View Post

It makes sense to introduce some post processing especially in the areas of noise reduction and detail enhancement to such data. The eye needs this in order to create the illusion of sharpness and that the missing details are still there. I agree any high grade player should also offer a bypass mode.

no. it makes no "sense" at all, if you think that's getting you "closer to the master"... it MAY be more preferable to you to view it that way, but don't fool yourself into thinking that using noise reduction/detail enhancement is in any way making the picture more "accurate" or "better"... just "more preferable to you"...

your cd analogy doesn't "work"...
post #30395 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

no. it makes no "sense" at all, if you think that's getting you "closer to the master"... it MAY be more preferable to you to view it that way, but don't fool yourself into thinking that using noise reduction/detail enhancement is in any way making the picture more "accurate" or "better"... just "more preferable to you"...

your cd analogy doesn't "work"...

I think that's the key here. He finds the oppo 93's picture quality of BDs to look/appear better than the PS3. If this is the case and the PS3 is not capable of post processing noise reduction filters to match this, then I think rpauls should keep his oppo 93. Seems to me that he likes it better. But if rpauls doesn't think it's $500 better, then keep the ps3.
post #30396 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpauls View Post

The data on the *master* recording is the ultimate in video fidelity. The data on the BR disk is highly compressed even at 1080p. It makes sense to introduce some post processing especially in the areas of noise reduction and detail enhancement to such data. The eye needs this in order to create the illusion of sharpness and that the missing details are still there. I agree any high grade player should also offer a bypass mode.

There are threads and threads here at AVS of why a vast majority of AVSers hate any of the so called enhancements you talk about.

Noise filtering, removes sharpness.
Edge Enhancement, produces ringing.
Auto Color, destroys the directors intended color balance.
Dynamic contrast, removes black details and white level details.
Motion smoothing, can only be done in the display since HDMI is limited in refresh rates and can not match displays native refresh rates.

Every time a popular movie would come out on DVD/Bluray with these processes applied to them to make Joe user happy, the video purest start threads here with screen shoots showing their displeasure. The studio's sometimes would release collector additions without the the so called enhancements.

The only worth while enhancements are resolution upscaling, de-interlacing, and color space upscaling (Deep Color) if your display is capable. With current displays only taking 1080p and having native 1080p, upscaling doesn't apply to Bluray. With 99+% of all Bluray content being progressive the de-interlacing doesn't apply. The PS3 is supposed to do color space upscaling if your display is capable.
post #30397 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by russr View Post

I think that's the key here. He finds the oppo 93's picture quality of BDs to look/appear better than the PS3. If this is the case and the PS3 is not capable of post processing noise reduction filters to match this, then I think rpauls should keep his oppo 93. Seems to me that he likes it better. But if rpauls doesn't think it's $500 better, then keep the ps3.

Actually, I'm planning to keep the PS3. It's the undisputed best at Netflix, and it's extremely close to the Oppo quality in BR playback in my estimation. I watch more Netflix than BR, so Netflix performance is the most important.

The question about the merits of post processing is a side issue.
post #30398 of 32083
^^^

all due respect, the bluray playback should be exactly the same between the ps3 and the oppo, ASSUMING you are not applying any processing...

in reality, it will be same, regardless of whether is a bargain priced player under 100 bucks, or something that's been stuffed in a big heavy case and is priced at thousands of dollars...

it's not "hard" to read disk, send data... the "differences" in bdp's (for bluray playback) come down to speed and usability...

the questions about post processing aren't a side issue if you couch them in the context of "it gets closer to the master"... that's simply wrong...
post #30399 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpauls View Post


Actually, I'm planning to keep the PS3. It's the undisputed best at Netflix, and it's extremely close to the Oppo quality in BR playback in my estimation. I watch more Netflix than BR, so Netflix performance is the most important.

So was it ever brought up that the PS3 is the only player,right now, streaming 1080p DD+?
post #30400 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by jedurocher View Post

So was it ever brought up that the PS3 is the only player,right now, streaming 1080p DD+?

Yes, that's a great benefit of the PS3. I just figured everyone already knew about it on this forum. I love the 5.1 and the subtitles too. Still have not seen any proof that even a single 1080p stream exists though. Have you?
post #30401 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpauls View Post

I get your point. But just to have a little fun debating let me ask you a question. Why do you believe that the data exactly as it appears on the disk represents the ultimate in picture quality? Where did this idea come from?

I thought you were wasting your time and energy with this before but I was mistaken. If you are serious about the above questions, the real time wasting begins now.
post #30402 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimwhite View Post

You're obviously not an engineer

Guilty as charged.

But like I said, if there was a dramatic, drastic, night and day difference between the two players I could see investing some time to maybe find out why. But when you're talking about microscopic (and maybe even imagined) noise it seems like wheel spinning. I would think any good engineer would know when to stop spinning the wheel (I've worked with some).

I get that this is a hobby and all but there is such a thing as overdoing it. This is supposed to be fun, not cause headaches.

Blu-ray on the PS3 looks great. Everyone knows that. It's been established. Why go looking for imperfections (real or imaginary) that are barely perceivable to the human eye? Just pop in the disc and watch. Odds are better than good that it's going to look and sound fantastic.
post #30403 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpauls View Post


Still have not seen any proof that even a single 1080p stream exists though. Have you?

Not sure there is even a way that you can really check if it is.
post #30404 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpauls View Post

I agree. The grain is part of the art. But it is nice to have various levels of noise reduction so that the viewer can choose what he wants.

Why would Sony be obsessive about not doing any post processing? That would be a really dumb goal, and they don't strike me as stupid. Post processing is essential in the digital world. Where did this idea come from that the raw digital decode from the disk is the ultimate truth in video?

It's not the same as setting your tone controls to flat on a stereo in the analog world.

Grain is a limitation of the art form. If film could have been made without grain, it would have been made that way because visible grain takes you outside the movie... it is artificial and not something seen in life. (and this is coming from someone who worked for Eastman Kodak Co. for 34 years). Millions, probably 100s of millions of dollars were spent during R&D on new films trying to reduce the visibility of grain. It's not romantic, and it's not artistic. It may be inescapable though - shooting around a campfire is going to require high-speed film and possible push processing, both of which increase grain. When a movie is trying to create

Post processing is like you making the Mona Lisa look the way you want the Mona Lisa to look rather than the way DaVinci created it (plus centuries of patina). The director and cinematographer sweat over how their movie looks on Blu-ray - they do all the processing to make the images look the way they are SUPPOSED to look using displays that have no processing of their own. When you dink with controls to change the way the movie looks, you're saying you know better than the artists how their work should look.

If the creators of the work were not involved in how the disc looks and made a sloppy end product they gave to the night manager at the 7-11 to master for them on his computer at home so that what was on the disc was a complete mess... OK, they deserve people messing with the final product (if it is worth watching at all) to make it look acceptable. But that's not what happens. You have professionals & artists creating Blu-ray discs and spending a lot of time making them look just right.

This is the whole reason people calibrate video displays... you get closer to the appearance the artists intended. Your display is made as accurate as it can be made - it may not be perfect, but it will be closer to perfect after calibration.
post #30405 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post

Grain is a limitation of the art form. If film could have been made without grain, it would have been made that way because visible grain takes you outside the movie... it is artificial and not something seen in life. (and this is coming from someone who worked for Eastman Kodak Co. for 34 years). Millions, probably 100s of millions of dollars were spent during R&D on new films trying to reduce the visibility of grain. It's not romantic, and it's not artistic. It may be inescapable though - shooting around a campfire is going to require high-speed film and possible push processing, both of which increase grain. When a movie is trying to create

Post processing is like you making the Mona Lisa look the way you want the Mona Lisa to look rather than the way DaVinci created it (plus centuries of patina). The director and cinematographer sweat over how their movie looks on Blu-ray - they do all the processing to make the images look the way they are SUPPOSED to look using displays that have no processing of their own. When you dink with controls to change the way the movie looks, you're saying you know better than the artists how their work should look.

If the creators of the work were not involved in how the disc looks and made a sloppy end product they gave to the night manager at the 7-11 to master for them on his computer at home so that what was on the disc was a complete mess... OK, they deserve people messing with the final product (if it is worth watching at all) to make it look acceptable. But that's not what happens. You have professionals & artists creating Blu-ray discs and spending a lot of time making them look just right.

This is the whole reason people calibrate video displays... you get closer to the appearance the artists intended. Your display is made as accurate as it can be made - it may not be perfect, but it will be closer to perfect after calibration.

That's a really good answer Doug. I was not aware that the film creators worked specifically with the BR disk version of their film in order to make it look as they wanted it to. I was thinking they worked with higher resolution master recordings during the artistic creation phase and that compression and conversion to BR was a step that happened later in production process after all the editing was done.

However, if it really is done as you say that is a perfect reason to respect the exact unaltered content of the BR as the ultimate standard of video quality.
post #30406 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpauls View Post

I get your point. But just to have a little fun debating let me ask you a question. Why do you believe that the data exactly as it appears on the disk represents the ultimate in picture quality? Where did this idea come from? Do you just accept it as an axiom? You may have been fooled into thinking this is akin to setting your stereo tone controls to flat in audio hifi. This is not the same thing.

The data on the *master* recording is the ultimate in video fidelity. The data on the BR disk is highly compressed even at 1080p. It makes sense to introduce some post processing especially in the areas of noise reduction and detail enhancement to such data. The eye needs this in order to create the illusion of sharpness and that the missing details are still there. I agree any high grade player should also offer a bypass mode.

Let me ask you this. Do you also believe the digital samples on your audio CD are the ultimate in audio fidelity? Would you like to hear them played back without a low pass filter? It would sound like utter noise filled with high frequency aliasing. Do we say then that this filter is distorting the music?

Everything answered in another post (should be within 1 or 2 of this reply).

The artists who create the final product PRE-PROCESS the data that is captured on the disc. They make the images on the disc look exactly the way they think they should look. All you have to do is read about master cinematographers describe their process during the creation of Blu-ray discs. They SEE the final product and if it doesn't look the way they want it to look, they make changes... processing the images before they are put on the disc.

Your CD player analogy is just silly (the filter in disc players doesn't alter the music bitstream, it prevents decode artifacts from contaminating the analog output making the analog output true to the original master). Audyssey is a post-processing example, not the filter in the disc player. Audyssey doesn't try to change what is on the disc though, it changes what gets to your ear so your room is less of a passive post-processing variable. So even though Audyssey changes the bitstream from the disc when it is played back, the end result should be closer to hearing the original disc when monitored in a reference environment. The digital decode process is what it is and better recordings are checked to insure they sound as good as they can sound BEFORE the master is committed to pressing thousands or millions of copies. The sad thing about the music industry is that in the last 20 years it has become fashionable in popular music to make recordings that (mostly) sound like lo-fi, over-processed crap even before they get committed to disc. Movies haven't sunken to that level - though there are certainly plenty of slap-dash productions-on-the-cheap and it really doesn't matter much what you do to them at home. But you can't tell me you know how to make Avatar look better at home than it does on the disc James Cameron worked on... or that you're better than cinematographer Allan Davieu at making his movies look right on Blu-ray when he was the one responsible for how the disc plays back in your house. Now... that said, if your theater room has purple walls, purple carpet, and purple lights and you calibrate your video display to compensate for all the purple contamination in your room so a good movie appears accurate when you view it... that post processing would be appropriate (though your non-neutral theater room would just be goofy) because it was trying to get back to the appearance of the original.

If you think there's not enough detail in a Blu-ray disc, you are probably sitting too far from the video display because 100% of the detail in the images is perfectly visible without sharpening or edge enhancement (which add ringing artifacts to video - and you wouldn't listen to music that had that much ringing added so why would you want to look at images with ringing added? If you sit too far from the TV, you can artificially make detail more obvious (though the ringing also wipes out some fine details also... like in hair or beards or fabric textures).
post #30407 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post

Grain is a limitation of the art form. If film could have been made without grain, it would have been made that way because visible grain takes you outside the movie... it is artificial and not something seen in life. (etc.)

When shooting on film, its limitations and idiosyncrasies are known to the cinematographer, who compensates for -- and even uses -- them as part of his art.

It's not possible to say categorically that removal of the grain produces the image that the filmmaker would have preferred had it been possible. Had it been possible at the time to shoot in low light without grain, the film might well have been shot differently -- but it wasn't. So we end up with something that's distorted on two levels -- it was shot in a way that was intended to compensate or account for grain that's now been removed, and so it just looks... wrong.

It's not even necessarily possible for filmmakers themselves to know what they "would have" done 30 or 50 years ago. They weren't thinking about that at the time. They were creating their art using the tools and media available to them, in a dynamic hands-on process that created the work that we saw. They knew that they couldn't get inky black in a night scene without grain, so they lit and blocked to account for that. If they knew that they could, they would have lit differently, and the movie would have been different. That's not a change we can make retroactively in software.

But categorical statements on these issues just aren't possible. Filmmakers -- directors and cinematographers -- are not categories. They're hundreds and thousands of individuals, each of whom thinks about these things differently -- and whose opinions evolve over time as they learn more and capabilities change. And every film is different, too.

That's why I think the best approach is to try to get as close to what the art looked like when it was made -- unless someone who has the right to change it (eg, the director) wants to change it. (And even then they should think twice. I'm talking to you, Friedkin and Coppola.)

It's a moving target. What we saw in the theaters had more grain than the work prints had; every succeeding generation of prints looked different, and worse. Which one is the original?

That's why I don't think there's a categorical "correct" approach to grain removal. You can point to recent restorations like "The Sound of Music" or "The Bridge on the River Kwai" or "The Sand Pebbles" and say "yes, like that." But "that" is simply the result of a series of choices made during restoration and mastering by people with good taste, respect for the art, and a clear goal of producing a new digital master that looks and feels correct. Not something to can achieve through simple filtering.
post #30408 of 32083
Right now I am using my Sony PS3 as my bluray player. Thinking about upgrading to the Arcam BDP-100 to go along with my Arcam AVR 600.
Is this a good idea? Is there a major difference in performance between the two? Thanks for the help. John
post #30409 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickyardz View Post

Right now I am using my Sony PS3 as my bluray player. Thinking about upgrading to the Arcam BDP-100 to go along with my Arcam AVR 600.
Is this a good idea? Is there a major difference in performance between the two? Thanks for the help. John

Uh-Oh! You better take cover ;-)
post #30410 of 32083
How does the PS3 fare with DVD up-conversion when compared to other players? ...excluding premium priced players such as a Pioneer Elite or Oppo
post #30411 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickyardz View Post

Right now I am using my Sony PS3 as my bluray player. Thinking about upgrading to the Arcam BDP-100 to go along with my Arcam AVR 600.
Is this a good idea? Is there a major difference in performance between the two? Thanks for the help. John

No worries, the Arcam should perform as well on BD as the PS3 does.
post #30412 of 32083
Was thinking about moving my PS3,this is why I was thinking about getting a stand alone bluray player.Thanks for the info
post #30413 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by smosleh View Post

How does the PS3 fare with DVD up-conversion when compared to other players? ...excluding premium priced players such as a Pioneer Elite or Oppo

I don't know how the newer ones are but my old fat PS3 is unusable for up-converting DVDs. After about ten minutes the fan kicks into ultrahigh gear and sounds like a jet engine. You can't hear the audio because the machine is so loud. It's really my only significant complaint with the PS3. I use my old Toshiba HD DVD player for up-converting.
post #30414 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye911 View Post

I don't know how the newer ones are but my old fat PS3 is unusable for up-converting DVDs. After about ten minutes the fan kicks into ultrahigh gear and sounds like a jet engine. You can't hear the audio because the machine is so loud. It's really my only significant complaint with the PS3. I use my old Toshiba HD DVD player for up-converting.

That was your experience. I had a fat one and it upconverted just fine with absolutely no increased fan noise. The new slim does the same thing; upconverts fine with no added fan noise.
post #30415 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuJac View Post


That was your experience. I had a fat one and it upconverted just fine with absolutely no increased fan noise. The new slim does the same thing; upconverts fine with no added fan noise.

My old FAT PS3 also does a great job of up converting. No noise issue here.
post #30416 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye911 View Post


I don't know how the newer ones are but my old fat PS3 is unusable for up-converting DVDs...... It's really my only significant complaint with the PS3. I use my old Toshiba HD DVD player for up-converting.

While a complaint for some, not an answer to the question.

I have a "fatty" and a slim. I bought the slim bc I wanted another BD player that kicked butt on up-conversion and was close to my Oppo 971. (i have young kids and LOTS of movies) I tried Sony models and Samsung models. The only player that came close to my "fatty" was another PS3, so I bought another one. Plus, with all the new streaming, etc, even more reasons to buy.
post #30417 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by smosleh View Post

How does the PS3 fare with DVD up-conversion when compared to other players? ...excluding premium priced players such as a Pioneer Elite or Oppo

From Home Theater Magazine's (March 15, 2010) review of the PS3 (slim) used as BD player:

Quote:


Video Performance

As with previous incarnations of the PlayStation 3, the video output with Blu-ray Disc is flawless according to the benchmark discs I test with. When it first launched, the PS3 didn't support 1080p/24 output, but Sony rectified this some time ago with a firmware update. The 1080p/60 output has also improved with firmware updates, especially with upconverted 480i DVDs. It doesn't add any artificial sharpening or artifacts, and it has nearly perfect deinterlacing. The best upconverting Blu-ray player I've used is the OPPO BDP-83, which still beats the PS3, but not by much.

Here's the full (stellar) review of the PS3 if you want to read it:

http://www.hometheater.com/content/s...blu-ray-player
post #30418 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickyardz View Post

Right now I am using my Sony PS3 as my bluray player. Thinking about upgrading to the Arcam BDP-100 to go along with my Arcam AVR 600.
Is this a good idea? Is there a major difference in performance between the two? Thanks for the help. John

I'm reviewing the Arcam Blu-ray player right now. I also own a "late" "fat" PS3 (fans are quiet all the time).

The Arcam doesn't load discs quite as fast as a PS3 (and the PS3 is no longer the fastest-loading "Blu-ray player), Sony's $200 MSRP 3D BD player loads discs faster than the PS3 as do some other new models from other Asian brands. The Arcam player cannot do 3D, cannot play DVD-Audio discs, cannot play SACDs (the PS3 won't play DVD-A and most PS3s except early ones won't play SACDs, and the PS3's 3D playback is limited to lossy Dolby Digital or DTS even if you select TrueHD or DTS-HD MA). The Arcam player sounds GREAT playing CDs. The PS3 sounds pretty bad (comparitively) playing CDs (but sounds MUCH better playing music delivered via Ethernet). The large size of the Arcam Blu-ray player lets them spread things out inside so there's an inch or more of space between the different boards (cuts down on crosstalk from EMI/RF) and there is nothing but empty space to the left and right of the center-mounted drive mechanism (I think four of the tiny $200 Sony 3D Blu-ray players would fit inside 1 Arcam player). Right now there's a bug in the Arcam player... in 24p mode, it jumps forward randomly, usually at chapter-points - could happen 1-4 times during a movie. You can back-up the 1 or 2 chapters it skips forward and see what was skipped easily enough, but there's no skipping forward in 60Hz mode. A firmware fix is in progress. I like the Arcam player... but I don't know the MSRP (intentionally, I don't want to be influenced one way or the other just yet).

If you ever plan to get into GOOD 3D, now may not be a good time to buy a non-3D Blu-ray player. I was skeptical about home 3D but I have to say, it can be freakin amazing on a good display with good glasses and sitting close enough to fill your entire field of vision. Personally, I wouldn't even consider a player that's not 3D capable right now, I really like 3D that much. Seeing "live action 3D" rather than just animation in 3D is what has changed my mind. The IMAX Grand Canyon 3D disc (and other IMAX 3D features), Step-Up 3D, and even Resident Evil:Afterlife were the 3D sources that moved 3D past novelty to be something really interesting (haven't seen Avatar 3D at home yet - but suspect that will be something else and a half). So if animated 3D isn't enough to convince you that 3D at home is a good thing, hold on... the "real life" 3D stuff is a whole different deal (though Resident Evil:Afterlife is heavily CG'd with live action added, the CG attempts to re-create a "real" world rather than an animated version of a real world).
post #30419 of 32083
Thanks for the heads up Doug. Right now,no plans to get into the 3D scene.
post #30420 of 32083
Quote:
Originally Posted by jedurocher View Post
Not sure there is even a way that you can really check if it is.
I believe the movies on Netflix annotated for "5.1" are also 1080p/24.

I know I watched one last week. I'm sure it was streamed 1080p/24 because the PS3 won't "upconvert" to 1080p/24 and my DVDO Edge showed it was getting 1080p/24 from the PS3. Bottom line: Netflix stream was 1080p/24. Video quality was better than the standard HD/720p stream.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Players
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players › One-and-Only PS3 as Blu-Ray Player Thread