i doubt this is true.
A lot of debate is currently going on concerning the Blu-ray capabilities of the Playstation 3.
Many people (including myself) consider it one of the best Blu-ray options right now, perhaps only topped by the just-released Panasonic DMP BD30. The main reason for this has been that the PS3 is upgradeable to both Blu-ray profile 1.1 (Bonus View) and coming profile 2.0 (BD Live) and, of course, an attractive price tag compared to dedicated players.
However, many say that the picture quality of the unit is not at par with its stand-alone competition. Being a Playstation 3 owner, my eye caught the following headline in the latest edition of Home Cinema Choice Magazine. "Sony's PS3 is the best Blu-ray player you can buy." The headline was in a "Fact or Fiction" section of the magazine. Guess what: the magazine gave the notion a "Fiction" seal.
The reason they gave: "Increasingly, the Blu-ray performance of the PS3 doesn't really stand up to videophile scrutiny. While its excellent clarity and fine detail reproduction is without question, motion is not the console's strongest point. Fast panning shots in Sony's own flagship 'Casino Royale,' are prone to stutter, whereas the company's own dedicated players render the same scenes perfectly. It is also prone to visual artifacts not seen on the latest dedicated players."
i doubt this is true.
Who gives two monkeys if it's better on not? A Blu-ray player is, at the end of the day, just a Blu-ray player. It doesn't matter if another player is "better" or "more advanced".
Indeed, the PS2 isnt a great DVD player.
And PS3 is a good Blu-ray player, but it wont be the best.
Its a gaming machine, although it doesnt seem like it at the moment, but it is a gaming machine (even though they are trying to sell them as media centers and $#@!, but in the end of the day is a "play"station)
What can you expect?
There will be better players in the future, but it doesn't mean the PS3 will not be good enough for Blu-Ray movies. The same situation happened with the PS2.
Yeah but I don't see why they couldn't be fixed with firmware, unless it's a hardware problem
I just think they want money, course at the same time, the PS3 does do more than one thing, and it could very well mean it isn't as great but does anyone really care?
i would be very surprised if these observations were made on a fully updated, properly configured [1080p/24] Without 1080p/24 on, motion does suffer from the conversion.
Not that i think the PS3 is the best player, but the faults mentioned are more than minor.
I guess with the price of the PS3 with its built-in bluray is going to be a budget player compared to the rest of the new blu-ray players on the market?
When ps2 came out the dvd players on that were pretty crap compared to stand alone players on the market. I just hope the lasers that read discs on PS3's last longer than the first generation ones did on ps2? lol
Last edited by Panini; March 29th, 2008 at 19:40.
Hardcore videophiles will buy a standalone Blu-Ray player. Casual people and gamers will buy a PS3 because it's much cheaper and has more capabilities than a standalone player. All my friends who own a PS3 don't even use it for Blu-Ray movies, but it's there if they want to use it.
The PS2 wasn't a good DVD player (it can't even play burned DVDs!) but it made sense because DVD players cost at least $250 when the PS2 came out, but couldn't play games.
PS3 is the best value for your money, it does so much for so little. But if you're a hard core videophile, you can afford to be and movies are all you care about... then you'd want to be spending additional cash for a good dedicated player.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)