Follow up post:Vindicating the 'criticism of PS3' post

[Marlon]

Firstly, let me say that there is really no such thing as a bad blu-ray 1080p picture, so even at its lowest, which is the PS3 and samsung bdp-1000, it still looks good. What my previous post was about are the degrees of differences between the different players that I've owned. The results I posted about the PS3 are relative to the performnace of the elite pioneer. Please keep that in mind. Also I'll be only using 'Eight Below' as my test film. This wonderful film is made all the better by the fantastic tranfer quality, which can be regarded as a reference standard. It's an incredible blu-ray experience.

I thought I'd try some tweaking of the settings and try and get the ps3 to equal the performance of my pioneer LX-70 (otherwise known as the elite BDP-94HD). The most important setting to try was the 'full RGB' setting. So what were the results? They were certainly a mixed bag. Noticed how you've got 2 setting for RGB (full or limited)? well thats because the most obvious problem with the 'full' setting is that it makes the picture too dark, so yet again the problem with skin tones persists, but now in the opposite direction. Now the actors looked like they had an artificial suntan. NOT GOOD AT ALL. The colours are still not as good as the pioneer, its as simple as that. Also combine this with MUCH poorer contrast levels of the PS3, I find the PS3 an inferior machine to the pioneer. Finally, the PS3 shows more grain than the pioneer.

My answers to some of the objection are:

1.) Concerning settings. If I try to compensate for the poor contrast levels of the PS3, especially in darker areas of the picture, then this will over expose the picture in the ligher areas. The PS3, in comparison to the pioneer, is quite unbalanced in its colour and contrast levels. I really can't be bothered with the PS3 as a blu-ray player and the Lx-70 just leaves it in the dust. Settings can't compensate for inferior performance INHERENT in the PS3 itself.

2.) HDMI cables matter. How can you argue with someone who can't even SEE the differences that different cables make? How can someone be so BLIND? I mean the picture is right there in front of your eyes! How incompetent! Its just crazy to say that the cheapest hdmi cable can compare to a high end Nordost cable which has a purity of 99.9999% oxygen free copper, with silver conductors, triple layer shielding, gold ends and constructed to the highest standards. I also own an audioquest model 3 reference cable as well which I use for my games and the nordost for films.

3.) Its all digital so its all the same. I actually strictly agree with this view, BUT, since the design, layout, construction and build quality of blu-ray players, and cables for that matter, are critical factors aswell, and if not made to high standards, these factors can also INTRODUCE NOISE into the signal pathway and thereby affect the picture quality (PQ). The pioneer is incomparably better made than the PS3, so it therefore follows from that alone that it'll have better PQ, despite the digital connections of both machines. The problem with the digital argument is that it is isolated from real world factors and as such is a flawed argument. Hasn't ANYBODY noticed that a cable is mechanically inserted and connected to a player and a TV? That is not too digital is it!!!!! This alone defeats the argument.

4.) Great reviews for Pioneer, more so than PS3. Some posters have said how great the reviews have been for the PS3. Well, the reviews for the pioneer have been better still and uniformly terrific. I haven't read anyone say the same things for the PS3 as reviewers have said for the pioneer. The pioneer is 'absolutely, positively magnificent' said one reviewer. Another said that Casino Royale on the pioneer was the best they had ever seen. Many recommend the pioneer as the best player on the market and NOBODY says as much for the PS3. So on and so forth, I'm sure you get the picture, but on second thoughts, apparently many of you don't.