Couple of BD questions before I buy a player

[Mr_Sukebe]

I'm seriously considering buying a Samsung BD later today, but have two questions that I've not done a very good job of searching the answers on:
1. I've seen comments of the Samsung being unable to deal with newer CODECS. What's the deal on this? Does this mean that it can't output the new codecs via it's analogue outputs?
2. There was a link I remember seeing which had details of the video codec used on BD disks. From what I can see, I simply need to avoid buying BD disks using MPEG2, and focus on just VC1 encoded disks. Anyone have the link?

[jw250]

I really don't want to get into a format 'mines better than yours' debate. Its pointless.

What isn't pointless is telling you to avoid purchasing this player at all costs. It is a very very poor product. I'm not referring to the format that it supports (BD) but the 'machine'. If you want your hi-def to look little better than upscaled SD on a budget £150 DVD player, then be my guest. Otherwise wait for another BD player from Pioneer or Panasonic for similar money or get a Tosh HDDVD, which performs as it should. The Samsung does not.

[Mr_Sukebe]

Originally Posted by jw250

I really don't want to get into a format 'mines better than yours' debate. Its pointless.

What isn't pointless is telling you to avoid purchasing this player at all costs. It is a very very poor product. I'm not referring to the format that it supports (BD) but the 'machine'. If you want your hi-def to look little better than upscaled SD on a budget £150 DVD player, then be my guest. Otherwise wait for another BD player from Pioneer or Panasonic for similar money or get a Tosh HDDVD, which performs as it should. The Samsung does not.

Thanks for being a little more positive this time around. However, doesn't exactly answer my questions, though I do appreciate the effort.

[mattym]

Originally Posted by jw250

I really don't want to get into a format 'mines better than yours' debate. Its pointless.

What isn't pointless is telling you to avoid purchasing this player at all costs. It is a very very poor product. I'm not referring to the format that it supports (BD) but the 'machine'. If you want your hi-def to look little better than upscaled SD on a budget £150 DVD player, then be my guest. Otherwise wait for another BD player from Pioneer or Panasonic for similar money or get a Tosh HDDVD, which performs as it should. The Samsung does not.

is it really that bad? really?

im sorry Mr Sukebe old bean, i cannot answer your questions, but i too an very interested in the answers

[gazzared_typer]

Try this link here for a comparison of 3 BD players

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...3&print_page=y

This might help

EDIT: Shouldn't this be moved to the Blu-ray player section?

Gazza

[mattym]

compare and contrast

Originally Posted by jw250

I really don't want to get into a format 'mines better than yours' debate. Its pointless.

What isn't pointless is telling you to avoid purchasing this player at all costs. It is a very very poor product. I'm not referring to the format that it supports (BD) but the 'machine'. If you want your hi-def to look little better than upscaled SD on a budget £150 DVD player, then be my guest. Otherwise wait for another BD player from Pioneer or Panasonic for similar money or get a Tosh HDDVD, which performs as it should. The Samsung does not.

Originally Posted by reviewer dude

BOTTOM LINE The firmware upgrade for the Samsung BD-P1000 puts it on much firmer footing. Anyone buying it now can expect to experience full picture resolution from Blu-ray movies, along with all the visual punch that the best discs in the format now provide. The player's audio features come up short compared to the other two players reviewed here, however, and the lack of an Ethernet port means there's no way to experience the Web-driven extras that Blu-ray Disc producers are promising. That said, Samsung has put in the effort to make the BD-P1000 a better player, and it shows.

With all the movie studio and consumer electronics muscle standing behind Blu-ray Disc, I expected to see great performance from the format, and my second round of Blu-ray Disc player testing has proved that out. The comparisons I made of the same movies on Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD showed the competing formats to be capable of delivering equal quality in all respects, including picture sharpness, stability, and depth. Granted, the main disc that I used for that test, Mission: Impossible III, is an exemplary transfer of a recent movie. But it puts to bed the notion that the controversial decision by Sony Pictures and other studios to use MPEG-2 instead of newer video compression formats like VC-1 and MPEG-4 AVC was a fatal one.

pays your money and takes your choice, but seems to be ok? Personally i'd wait for a PS3 though...

[dino2021]

Originally Posted by mattym

is it really that bad? really?

The one I saw in richer sounds was, I would be gutted if I spent the cash on it, better wait for a Ps3 if you want a cheap BR player.

[Packetfront]

Originally Posted by Mr_Sukebe

2. There was a link I remember seeing which had details of the video codec used on BD disks. From what I can see, I simply need to avoid buying BD disks using MPEG2, and focus on just VC1 encoded disks. Anyone have the link?

MPEG2 is actually a better codec than VC-1 if you have space on the disc for it.

VC-1 was primarily made for HD-DVD with it's limited storage on the discs, MPEG2 is a well proved codec that is mature.

I would recommend buying the BD50 discs with MPEG2 as they got the storage so that MPEG2 really shines and it does!

You can say that the higher bitrate MPEG2 have the better it performs, however VC-1 peaks out at a certain bitrate and won't be improved, also MPEG2 introduces less artifacts than VC-1.

However VC-1 is not bad, but it was designed for a different purpose, to save space on the disc.

[Mr_Sukebe]

Have to say that I agree that right now the PS3 makes sense.
However, if RS have already reduced their players to £600, they might go lower as part of the January sales, putting them into range of the probable UK price of the PS3.
As I'm not a console user, I would be quite happy to not have a PS3 and take the benefits of having BD now in a quieter package.

Lets still try to keep this thread away from another format war.

From the very useful link, at least we've answered one of the questions. The Samsung cannot decode the new lossless audio codecs onboard, though there was a comment that this might be resolveable via a firmware upgrade. Personally I don't like "mights", and am going with the assumption of "no" at the moment.
I did try calling Samsung to get confirmation, only to be eventually told the same. At least the second person I talked was able to ask someone else in his team just what blueray was, nice LOL.

Now if only I could find that link about video coding on BD disks.

[mattym]

hers one (warning: hddvd fanbois may find this site offensive)

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3338

[Nic Rhodes]

Not much wrong with the Samsung in my book except the limited features, like the audio codec support. Others can give this but much more money.

Re the Codec support on video. I would not loose too much sleep over them tbh. VC1 I think is both technically and visually better to my mind. AVC is getting these but is really designed for a different market and always looks 'soft' to me... and MPEG2 is okay at high bit rates but still behind VC 1 but the difference is not night and day. It is inefficient however and not a smart solution by any means. It will cause other knock on problems depending on formats.

[Packetfront]

The end of this codec disussion forever and all preaching from Microsoft that VC-1 is the best thing ever....

There are links to technical documents within the document about this.

Here is the document that proves it all and the TRUTH!

http://www.tv-plattform.de/download/...2_Schaefer.pdf

[Nic Rhodes]

2 year old comparison. REALLY? Now how old is VC1 and how many changes have been made to the VC1 codec in say the last 3 month alone?

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Mr_Sukebe

1. I've seen comments of the Samsung being unable to deal with newer CODECS. What's the deal on this? Does this mean that it can't output the new codecs via it's analogue outputs?

The Samsung can only decode Dolby Digital, LPCM and DTS-HD (not Master Audio!). This isn't really a big problem as this tends to be all that is on offer on BluRay discs (apart from MA on Fox releases) - and it should be noted for LPCM (found on most Sony releases) it is pretty impressive.

2. There was a link I remember seeing which had details of the video codec used on BD disks. From what I can see, I simply need to avoid buying BD disks using MPEG2, and focus on just VC1 encoded disks. Anyone have the link?

It's not quite as simple as that - there are quality issues with some of the MPEG2 releases but many are fine. TBH if you don't have a HD DVD player and want (for example) Paramount titles though then it's a choice between an MPEG2 encode or nought - and they aren't that bad!

[Packetfront]

Originally Posted by Nic Rhodes

2 year old comparison. REALLY? Now how old is VC1 and how many changes have been made to the VC1 codec in say the last 3 month alone?

And where is the updated drafts that prooves your point?