Post by ram on Dec 27, 2008 3:59:53 GMT -5
Blu-rays and Glurpworld kinda fit each other, don't you think? ;D
Yes, I bought myself a Blu-ray player, Sony's entry-level BDP-S350. I thought about the Playstation 3, but ultimately I couldn't justify paying its asking price merely for the privilege of watching hi-def movies, because honestly that would be all I'd really use the PS3 for. I just don't see myself playing a whole lotta games on the PS3, since most of my gaming interest still lies with the PC. So the S350 was the better option for me, especially as it cost $150 less than a PS3.
While the S350 may be a "budget" unit, it's still a very handsome machine that exudes quality. The remote is decent, too. Earlier standalone Blu-ray decks had been criticized for being very sluggish performers compared to the PS3, but I'm happy to say that as a first time Blu-ray user, my experience with the S350 has been positive so far. I haven't actually timed it (geez, I'm not that anal - unless I were a paid reviewer) but I figure it's under 30 seconds from turning the unit on until the movie starts playing, which will hardly ruin anybody's life.
The Blu-rays I've bought so far: The Shining, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the 5-disc set of Blade Runner. (See, I wouldn't have had any money left for actual movies if I had splurged on the PS3, heh). Do I really need to say that they all look stunning in hi-def? Stanley Kubrick's films and the high def format were made for each other.
I have an early generation Samsung 27" HDTV (and it's an old-fashioned CRT no less!) which can only handle up to 1080i resolution, so it can't display the full glory of Blu-ray's 1080p picture. Besides, it would arguably be difficult to see the benefits of 1080p on a mere 27" screen.
That aside, I'm still floored by how good the Blu-ray movies look. While the resolution advantage of going from 480p (regular DVDs) to 1080i is subtle on a 27" screen, what is more obvious to my eyes is how much cleaner and more natural the 1080i picture is. By "more natural" I guess I mean the image is more "film-like." By a "cleaner" picture I mean that I don't see (or see very little of) the kinds of "digital" artifacts that pop up in a regular DVD image. Colors are better rendered, too. I know hi-def is the real deal when I can see the difference it makes on even a measly 27" tube.
On the audio front, unfortunately my receiver is an old beast that can't process Blu-ray's lossless high-res audio stream, so for now I'll have to be content with just hearing the "basic" Dolby Digital or DTS soundtrack.
Yes, I bought myself a Blu-ray player, Sony's entry-level BDP-S350. I thought about the Playstation 3, but ultimately I couldn't justify paying its asking price merely for the privilege of watching hi-def movies, because honestly that would be all I'd really use the PS3 for. I just don't see myself playing a whole lotta games on the PS3, since most of my gaming interest still lies with the PC. So the S350 was the better option for me, especially as it cost $150 less than a PS3.
While the S350 may be a "budget" unit, it's still a very handsome machine that exudes quality. The remote is decent, too. Earlier standalone Blu-ray decks had been criticized for being very sluggish performers compared to the PS3, but I'm happy to say that as a first time Blu-ray user, my experience with the S350 has been positive so far. I haven't actually timed it (geez, I'm not that anal - unless I were a paid reviewer) but I figure it's under 30 seconds from turning the unit on until the movie starts playing, which will hardly ruin anybody's life.
The Blu-rays I've bought so far: The Shining, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the 5-disc set of Blade Runner. (See, I wouldn't have had any money left for actual movies if I had splurged on the PS3, heh). Do I really need to say that they all look stunning in hi-def? Stanley Kubrick's films and the high def format were made for each other.
I have an early generation Samsung 27" HDTV (and it's an old-fashioned CRT no less!) which can only handle up to 1080i resolution, so it can't display the full glory of Blu-ray's 1080p picture. Besides, it would arguably be difficult to see the benefits of 1080p on a mere 27" screen.
That aside, I'm still floored by how good the Blu-ray movies look. While the resolution advantage of going from 480p (regular DVDs) to 1080i is subtle on a 27" screen, what is more obvious to my eyes is how much cleaner and more natural the 1080i picture is. By "more natural" I guess I mean the image is more "film-like." By a "cleaner" picture I mean that I don't see (or see very little of) the kinds of "digital" artifacts that pop up in a regular DVD image. Colors are better rendered, too. I know hi-def is the real deal when I can see the difference it makes on even a measly 27" tube.
On the audio front, unfortunately my receiver is an old beast that can't process Blu-ray's lossless high-res audio stream, so for now I'll have to be content with just hearing the "basic" Dolby Digital or DTS soundtrack.
