LG BH200 vs. Samsung BDP-UP5000? - Page 5

I so far havent had any problems with my BH200. So far so good. If all goes well I plan to buy another one. But want to put a few miles on the current one I have first.

My thoughts exactly, I've only had mine for a few days, but it's gotten plenty of use....no problems at all so far, and it runs smooth.

I am retiring and will be traveling exclusively in an RV. I have Toshiba XA2s and Pioneer BDP-51FD players currently. Both are bulletproof and superb for PQ and audio.

Sadly I must sell those and get a dual player since RVs have precious little space for those larger players.

So this LG BH200 versus Samsung BD-UP5000 topic, while perhaps passe to the general populace, is extremely important to me now.

I have read the problems with discs on both and it seems the LG has fixed dixc issues while the Samsung plods along with known issues.

get the LG BH200. Should be getting 2.0 soon and imho has a very nice picture with Qdeo chip.

I have both and if you don't need the analog output of the Samsung BD-UP5000, I recommend the LG BH200 as the players stand now. The announced upcoming firmware update for the BH200 is the reason I think it will be the better player and if you can wait until that happens, one of two things will be apparent. It will deliver on the promise of the player or the player will continue to be a disappointment. Neither player is up to the standard of your HD-XA2 for HD DVD or Pioneer BDP-F51 for Blu-ray, both combo players have shortcomings needing attention and neither company has delivered yet. The better upside potential of the BH200 means that if the firmware update is really good, the price will likely go up. Samsung has a history of abandoning their Blu-ray players or doing a poor job supporting them, either way the player's value drops like a rock after replacement players come out. The BH200 is smaller which is important to you as well.

Chris

I would personally wait until August 31st. If the BH200 firmware hasn't arrived, just go with the cheapest you can find, BD-UP5000 OR BH200.

Thanks for the replies. I had a hunch the BH200 was better supported.

I won a unit on eBay and hooked it up. Works just fine. It does remind me one more time just how much better HD DVD looks and sounds. Same player and Blu is soft while HD DVD is sharp. Sound on Blu is not as crisp either. I am pleased though that I have a smallish player to use as I travel. Thanks for the help in choosing this unit.

If it was a BH200 that you won, hook it up to a network and download the latest firmware. It includes BD-Live (2.0)...all you have to do is add a 1GB USB drive to the front.

Placebo...the best HD DVDs and Blus are virtually indistinguishable (and with a very large screen, sometimes Blu is ever so slightly better).

Placebo

I can't verify for myself but I'm talking about minute differences when the screen is magnified by a great order. Blu zealots and anal types are the ones who get caught up in those futile comparisons, though.

Yep, I've definitely seen examples of both disks that were really clear and sounded good, and others that were pretty bad. All about the encodes...

Ha, pretty funny. Try a Blu-ray and HD DVD of the same title, pick any with identical encodes, there must have been a couple hundred or more made. There is nothing inherent about HD DVD that makes retrieving and decoding identical data better than with Blu-ray. Since any HD DVD encode can be replicated precisely on Blu-ray, what you claim just isn't possible. Blu-ray is capable of 60% higher bitrates than HD DVD and the reverse isn't true, most Blu-ray encodes can't be replicated on HD DVD. Any advantage has to be with Blu-ray, that should just be the end of the discussion but every now and then someone will post this claim you made.

Of course an excellent HD DVD can look better than a poor Blu-ray and if that is all you are saying, so what?

Chris

I don't know about all HD-DVD's and Blu Rays, but I noticed quite a difference of PQ when comparing the Mummy HD-DVD and the Mummy Blu Ray. Mummy Blu Ray's PQ is noticeably better. Placebo has no effect here.

Note: Comparing sound would not be fair as only one has a lossless codec.

These are the same encode so they should look the same...player differences?

They aren't the same encode. The Blu-ray should have higher bitrates.

However, was the The Mummy one of the heavily DRM'd Blu-ray's that Universal initially put out?

Early on, while the 'war' was ongoing, I thought every BD title I saw displayed, looked like absolute crap. But....I now chalk that up to early crap Sony-BD players.

The first Sony standalone, the BDP-S1, made by Pioneer offered excellent video quality including 1080p24Hz directly. The BDP-S1 and PS3 both still look great to me. Read Kris Deering's review of the BDP-S1 at Secrets of Home Theater High Fidelity if you think the player offered poor video quality.

Chris

Poor quality had more to do with dodgy MPEG2 encodes in the early days of BD.

Here is a link to the ones I compared

Blu Ray
http://www.amazon.com/Mummy-Blu-ray-.../dp/B001A4VH34

HD-DVD
http://www.amazon.com/Mummy-HD-DVD-E.../dp/B000IONJGU

The HD-DVD version gives a cloudy\\burry appearance.