Returned HD-DVD player. What should I buy? PS3?

[MowTin]

Bought a 360 HD-DVD player about a month ago for under $200. It was great. Shrek 3 and other animated movies looked amazing. Now I can't live without real HD movies (not the compressed cable crap)

Got a refund from BB thanks to the extended holiday return policy. I have $200 and I'm willing to add up to another $200 for some bluray.

But for $400 it seems that the PS3 is the best deal. Is it the best choice?

[evilchris]

If you have a great interest in the 1 or 2 decent PS3 games out there, then yes, it is the best deal. If you *only* want the BD playback, get a standalone for less.

[MowTin]

Originally Posted by evilchris

If you have a great interest in the 1 or 2 decent PS3 games out there, then yes, it is the best deal. If you *only* want the BD playback, get a standalone for less.

Would a standalone be better? The PS3's get firmware updates and from what I hear BD player firmware are not implementing all the possible features. If I get a standalone player I would be stuck right?

Can you recommend a player?

[crainger]

Stand alones are better. As Chris mentions software based players like the PS3 and 360 addon have a soft image that you just don't get with a standalone. Compare DVD playback on a PC compared to a decent player and you will see what he means.

Chris will do the recommending. I can't comment as we are pretty much still stuck with $1200 first gen players here. ::

[Peoples-Agent]

Is there a single BD player that is firmware upgradeable? ...surely there is.
I would rather buy a standalone over a PS3 after thinking about it, but not if it won't do me for a few years.

[Bad_Boy]

get a ps3.

[ViN86]

id get a PS3 to futureproof my purchase. id trade a little bit of quality for upgrade ability tbh.

[evilchris]

It isn't futureproof imo, but of course nothing ever is.

[LurkerLito]

At this moment I'd suggest the PS3 if you need to get one now. It's not futureproof but the most future proof player out there. It can decode TruHD to PCM, but won't do DTS-MA till a later firmware update (most likely not till you see it in standalone players) and also upgradeable to Profile 2.0.

But for a standalone, I'd recommend a Panasonic BD-30 if you have a receiver or prepro that can decode TruHD and DTS-MA, otherwise it would be better off waiting for the Panasonic BD-50 which at the moment sounds like the best upcoming player.

[S.I.N]

PS3 especially if you don't have the equipment to take advantage of standalone players. Not saying you might not but some have a Kia TV's and 10watt speakers yet seem to be torn as to if they should get the best or near the best. Its a great player for the price along with the other features which the PS3 has.

[Gaco]

Standalone players if you want to wait several minutes from when popping in the disc to the movies plays. PS3 if you want playback quite instantly.

I have no idea what evilchris means when he says that the PS3 is not futureproof (more than a SA player at the least) and he rarely seems to elaborate on his statements unless you ask him to..

Originally Posted by crainger

Stand alones are better. As Chris mentions software based players like the PS3 and 360 addon have a soft image that you just don't get with a standalone. Compare DVD playback on a PC compared to a decent player and you will see what he means.

Chris will do the recommending. I can't comment as we are pretty much still stuck with $1200 first gen players here. ::

Are you trying to compare the an external HD DVD drive with the PS3 bluray internal? While I can grant the fact that X360 playback is software based, I'd like to see some documentation of the PS3 being purely software playback as well or at least there being a difference in the picture unless you have a really large screen, like 50k$projector 100" size screen. The PS3 BD playback was planned from the beginning and a central part of Sony's stradigy was to offer people high quality blueray movie playback in the PS3. The reason why PS3 loads any movie a lot faster than any SA player is allegedly the Cell processor. How do you know that the PS3 hardware is not being utilized and is actually optimized for Bluray playback?
I'm not trying to say that the standalones are not any better at all, not the expensive line of BD players at least, but from what I've heard from people that has both, the difference is simply not there. Greatest difference at the moment is the PS3's inability to support DTS-HD MA and we don't know if it will in the future. What it will do is upgrade to a 2.0 player via firmware update.

I can hardly see why anyone would want anything but a PS3 as a BD player right now besides if you have some kind of inherent hate for gaming or consoles (*cough Jack Thompson cough*) or if you're simply aiming for a super high end hifi setup.

So based on what I have read (I haven't seen the difference side-by-side yet) my clear recommendations go to the PS3. As a bonus you'll also have a true HD console that IMO is kind of beginning it's development where Xbox360 has peaked, technically speaking.

[evilchris]

The PS3 is not futureproof because the HDMI chip it uses is completely unable to bitstream anything. If new codecs are added, you cannot just pray that Sony decides to make an onboard SOFTWARE decoder for it, like you are praying for with DTS-MA.

I currently run a Panasonic BD-30, and it allows me 100% access to *all* sound formats BD has. Your PS3 does not. I do not want to listen to DTS core when MA is available. It also does not take "several minutes" to load a movie. It is a 1.1 player that is superior to PS3 in both picture and sound. Facts.