Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

First Look: Samsung's BD-P1000 Blu-ray DVD Player

Tags:
  • Article Discussions
  • Samsung
  • DVD Players
  • HD
  • Blu-ray
  • Tom's Guide
Last response: in Tom's Guide
Share
June 19, 2006 4:58:19 PM

Samsung's BD-P1000 first Blu-ray player follows Toshiba's HD-A1 HD-DVD to market by about two months. Dan Bradley once again puts his own money on the line to bring us a first look.

More about : samsung p1000 blu ray dvd player

June 19, 2006 7:54:25 PM

Honestly at $500 and $1000, I don't think I will be getting either standard very soon. Hell, my TV is only a 640p/1080i and I got that on double discount (last one in the store for a product that was being discontinued and it was the floor model. Good deal overall.)

DVD was a major leap in quality above your standard VHS, but I scored a high end 6 head VCR for cheap after DVD hit the market and honestly, aside from the menus, the size of the media, and the fact that the quality did not slowly degrade over time, I was still perfectly content with my VHS.

HDDVD and Blueray will not have any of those advantages over DVD so we will have to see how much of a quality boost we will see. I suspect we will get a noticable improvement but I doubt it will be jaw droppingly amazing and certainly not worth the pricetags on the units.

On the other hand, I suspect the prices will plummet quickly and be at around 200/300 within two years, then down to around $100/150 within four to five years, at which point we will all be drooling for the next big video standard.
June 19, 2006 8:21:23 PM

I would'nt say the box is more colourfull that the Tosh's
Related resources
June 19, 2006 8:21:43 PM

Quote: "if a cleaner power feed is desired"

Please! I have some snake oil for sale if you're intrested.
a b Ô Samsung
June 20, 2006 5:35:04 AM

Yes, it does play 50GB discs.
The press release states clearly that it plays dual-layer 50GB discs: http://www.samsung.com/PressCenter/PressRelease/PressRe...

About 1080p:
Is it a big deal? LCD televisions are not plagued by the same problems as CRT's. For example, a 480i and 480p signal look exactly the same. Actually all non-CRT's deinterlace before putting on the screen. Why? In a CRT a beam scans each line. In an LCD there's a backlight with filters for each pixel.

So what's the advantage of 1080p over 1080i? I'm not sure exactly. Perhaps they will double the frame rate for things like sports where there's fast moving action. The only reason we still have interlaced is because it was cheaper for Cable and Satellite to modify 480i to 1080i than to just make it 1080p.

So don't freak out if you don't have a 1080p TV. There's a LOT more issues that effect picture quality than that. I don't think there will be many titles in 1080p for years to come, nor do I think the difference would be very obvious.
June 20, 2006 8:26:57 PM

Actually there is a difference between 480i and 480p on LCD. To display 480i on an LCD, there's de-interlacing involved, which, unfiltered, will just double each of the 240 interlaced lines at a given instant and display it. The end result would be 240 lines progressive at 60 frames per second. When an LCD takes in a 480p signal it has information to fill 480 lines at a time without having to line double. I would guess most LCD tv's have some sort of filter when de-interlacing to interpolate and blend between the 240 lines, but it would still fall short of a true 480p signal. This is the same thing that would happen with 1080i and 1080p, only with more lines involved.

If I'm way off the mark on this let me know, but from past video effects editing and DVD encoding experience, this is usually what happens.

to be honest, I have no idea why the HDTV spec even includes an interlaced format. The whole reason for it in the first place was because of the flicker present in 60hz scanning on old CRTs. I can understand the reduced cost for converting 480i to 1080i, but it just seems to make a mess out of format conversions. Having 500000 different types of tvs, each with slightly different feature sets, formats, and statistics is a completely unnecessary nightmare.
June 20, 2006 11:32:55 PM

Quote:
Yes, it does play 50GB discs.
The press release states clearly that it plays dual-layer 50GB discs: http://www.samsung.com/PressCenter/PressRelease/PressRe...


Right. In fact, Bradley misreads the user manual. It says, on page 8 where he has cited it, "Single-sided" disks. Not "Single-layer". Since I don't think anyone's even announced a "Single-sided" Blu-ray disk, I'm not sure I'm upset with this limitation.

Quote:

So don't freak out if you don't have a 1080p TV. There's a LOT more issues that effect picture quality than that. I don't think there will be many titles in 1080p for years to come, nor do I think the difference would be very obvious.


Pretty sure all titles on Blu-ray which are coming out this year will be 1080p. At least, that's what it says on the packaging. Shouldn't matter, though: the player can interlace these titles for those with 1080i TVs, and they should still look phenomenal...

... provided we get an upgrade to 50GB disks, or VC-1/H.264. Or both.
June 21, 2006 12:10:57 AM

How can "HD-DVD win round one" when you haven't even tried a blu-ray disk
June 21, 2006 12:43:00 AM

Quote:
The sooner dual layer discs are introduced with improved video quality and a studio puts out a title on both formats concurrently, the sooner we'll be able to properly compare and draw more informed conclusions.


If a company puts out a movie on both formats are they really going to make a difference between the formats? Wouldn't they just use the most common denominator of disk space use and quality and put that version on both formats?
a b Ô Samsung
June 21, 2006 8:57:53 PM

Standard and High-Definition dual discs

The reason why they should put Standard Definition (480i) and High-Definition (1080p) movies on the same disc is to encourage people to invest in High-Definition period. (TV, players and media)

People with Standard Definition DVD players will buy these discs and, once they have collected several will likely buy a High-Definition player much sooner than they would normally. Many people with HDTV's still need encouragement to buy a High-Def DVD player.

The main drawback is the cost of manufacturing dual-layer (50GB for Blu-Ray) discs. Actually, both formats could easily fit on a 25GB disc if they use the H. 264 codec instead of MPEG2 for the high-definition content but there must be some licensing payment issue because they are using MPEG2 on single-layer discs now and it is NOT possible to fit a 1080p file onto 25GB at the MAXIMUM quality (although it would look darn good). Maybe the industry wants to milk more money by having people still buy SD so they'll buy ANOTHER version in HD a few years down the road?

I'm one of the people that would buy hybrid SD/HD discs if the price was right and definitely buy a High-Def player sooner.
June 22, 2006 1:03:45 AM

Quote:
How can "HD-DVD win round one" when you haven't even tried a blu-ray disk

Agreed. It's more like HD DVD is looking better going into the fight but without disks to play you can hardly describe a round 1 winner especially since he misread a pretty important feature like dual layer support. Personally I'm rooting for BD since it's the techno next step not the cheapo next step. What do consumers care if a disk costs 80c to make instead of 50c when we're still gonna pay AU$35-$40 for the end product anyway.

PhotonBoy's got a good point about buying in dual format. There needs to be incentives to get the second version. Maybe they could have an offer where if you buy the DVD version you get $10 off the BD or HD version or if you buy the HD version you can get the DVD for $10. Practically this means there'd be cheap copies flooding the market but so what - they only need to do it for 12 months and then they've got their critical mass.

:?: A question for those who know. Is the biggest difference between 1080i and 1080p going to be the processing power required? I would think that for the PS3 or any non-hardware decoder to go 1080p it's got to have twice the power of 1080i since twice as many lines per second. Does this mean the XBOX360 will never be able to display 1080p or is it's power way above what's needed for decoding?
June 22, 2006 2:15:25 AM

For me, there is no winner. I sure am not going to throw away something like 3000.00$ to get hd-dvd and a screen to go with it. I don't watch that much tv (30 minutes to 1 hour a week). I don't watch that much movies (1 or 2 a month).

Instead, i'll get myself another hard-drive........
June 22, 2006 3:05:57 PM

As long as driver support for decoding mpeg2, h.264, etc. is present, I don't think it takes a whole ton of processing power to display 1080p as compared to 1080i.

About 1080p...is there currently even a tv under $3000 that ACCEPTS a true 1080p signal and displays it? Careful. A lot of monitors say 1080p but don't actually deal with 1080p signals. Most take in 720p or 1080i, convert it to 1080p with a chip, interpolate, then filter it back down to 720p to display. (result is a bit smoother picture with less aliasing, but not nearly as crisp as true 1080p)

Before we can really decide on any winners in BD and HD-DVD, the Playstation3 needs to enter the ring. Like it or not, I really think it's going to make or break the format based solely on it's success or failure.
June 22, 2006 4:50:07 PM

Thinking the same thing.
June 22, 2006 4:57:19 PM

The winner will be the company that make both formats available on the same player. Just like CD's and DVD's.
September 19, 2010 3:21:11 PM

This topic has been closed by Reynod
!