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.

[crackinhedz]

First off, your HDTV has to be compatible with RGB Full. If not, you would say the colors are sub par or
"too dark"... (please enlighten us with the HDTV you are using)

Originally Posted by Marlon

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.

you obviously have no idea how digital signals work...read and understand.

maybe at a longer length cable they will hold the signal a little better, but to say there is a better "quality" in the picture, you seem to think 1's and 0's will look different? and not to mention, what cheap cable are you comparing it too?? you never say.


I wont sit and debate weather or not your blu-ray player looks better tha the PS3, it very well may. But every post you make seems to be flawed in which case isnt taken seriously.

[WickyWoo]

You're comparing the best BR player on the market to the PS3, one that has been tweaking mightily and lovingly by and for enthusiasts to what is essentiall the baseline model

All you're seeing is the result of superior and far tweakier processing in the Pioneer. Gimmme Pioneer over any other any day, but you're doing apples and oranges

And yes, above acertain minimum cables really don't matter for digital signals in the 3-6ft runs likely to be used at home. This has been tested with oscilloscopes.

[tntkain]

I have never seen the pioneer model so I have no idea how your picture looks, but I love my ps3 and the picture is fantastic and completely clear

[BStecke]

Did we really need another ill-informed thread for the same topic?

I'm sorry, but if you don't know well enough that you have to calibrate a set for each individual source, your opinion and "expertise" mean nothing to me.

[NutsAboutPS3]

Originally Posted by Marlon

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.

So when you connect your hard drives to your motherboard, do you spend a fortune on IDE or SATA cables to do that? Do you believe that the data read off the drive is different with cheap cables compared to expensive cables? It's digital, it just has to meet the minimum spec to guarantee perfect delivery of the digital data. If an IDE ribbon cable can manage it, I'm sure it doesn't cost a fortune to make an HDMI cable that can manage it.

[Redrox]

Never mind, this is not worth arguing

[Deciazulado]

As I think I've mentioned a couple of times, in digital video, black is set at level 16 and white at level 235 (of the 256 8-bit levels) (In analog US NTSC composite video those correspond to 7.5IRE and 100IRE respectively) A video device should expect those and be adjusted accordingly (calibrated) to that. Limited seems to follow that practice. Now on a 8-bit computer, black corresponds to level 0 and white to level 255. Full seems to follow that practice. So what happens is if you have a display calibrated for video signals, and you send video as 0-255 (making 16->0 and 235->255) the brighter tones near white will be blown out while the light greys will become white, and the darker tones near black will be below black while the dark greys will become black. In other words you'll have a exagerated high contrast image (more like a litho) with no shadow detail and blown highlights. Exagerating contrast also increases apparent saturation because the saturated colors are moved closer to the maximum values and for example, reds and oranges are made darker.

If your display can accept 0-255 levels too, you have to re adjust setting (calibrate) so they look = to the inputs calibrated with 16-235 video signals.


Lets say 16-235 signals look great (calibrated) when the picture/contrast/white setting is set to 90 and the brightness/black setting is set to 20.

Switching to a 0-255 signal might then look correct (calibrated) on that input by lowering the picture/contrast/white setting lets say to 75 and raising the brightness/black setting to 40 (<-Made up example, to give you a general idea of how values are going) if the video display handles the full 0-255 signal without clipping it at the ends.


On the other hand, if the display (a computer display maybe) expects 0-255 signals, when you input the normal 16-255 video, it will look dim and faded (pasty, low contrast) and maybe you'll have to push the picture/contrast/white setting to a 100 and still the 235 might not reach the LCDs maximum white limit (so video-whites will look a little dimmer than a computer 255 white signal) and maybe have to bring down the brighness/black setting to 10 or 0 to make the level 16 blacks look real black. (<-Again, made-up example, your display milage might vary )

If after you do that, you send a true 0-255 signal to computer display with the above settings, it will look wrong (overblown/dark contrasty) as explained earlier.

[Frode]

I think this thread adequately proves that some people have too much money for their own good :P .

[dialog_gvf]

Bottom line, $499 is a bargain for what the PS/3 represents:

- A pretty darn good picture
- 24p, excellent DVD upconversion, and TrueHD decode
- Continuous firmware updates and improvements
- Future proofing (Profile 1.1 and 2.0)

Gary

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Bottom line, $499 is a bargain for what the PS/3 represents:

- A pretty darn good picture
- 24p, excellent DVD upconversion, and TrueHD decode
- Continuous firmware updates and improvements
- Future proofing (Profile 1.1 and 2.0)

Gary

not to mention wifi Internet surfing! (free pOrn on the BIG screen! )

...lets see the Pioneer do that!

[jcdDigix]

I really don't understand why all the fuss here. The PQ coming out of My PS3 is awesome. Some movies may be different depending of the digital transfer, but Casino Royal which I consider as my BD reference disc is so clear on my PS3 that my eyes are not tired even when I sit 2 1/2 feet watching it (happened actually twice / personal record!).
An apple is an apple.
An orange is an orange.

[jctash]

I am avery happy with my ps3, but I wish the game selection would improve. The last few games I bought were dissappointing to say the least. I'm all about being patient though cuz the 360 was the same way.

[Marlon]

Ha, Ha, Ha, what great attempt to defend the PS3!!!!!!!

If, as you say, all things being equal digitally, then clearly it follows the inferior performance of the PS3 lies with the PS3 machine itself.

What a joke and what a great defence of the PS3. You'll have to take an extended shower to wipe all that egg off your face.

Also the article you recommend does not account for the differences that in reality exist between cables, so I reject it as a complete account of cable theory. It's obviously very incomplete. You have a pet theory and so you just explain cables in terms of that theory irrespective of the fact that there are patently obvious differences between cable performance. Just open your eyes and see for yourself, but even that seems too difficult for you.

[Frode]

I have an engineering background and I can verify that the article linked to earlier is pretty much right on the mark. The only thing it really lacks is that it doesn't go into what happens when you actually get enough noise that an error occurs. There's two layers of error detection and correction which will actually detect and correct for it. If it's not possible to correct an error you will get dropouts - the picture goes black and you lose synch, or the audio will drop out (or both). In other words as long as you have audio and video it works.

You say the PS3 has worse picture quality, but you're not willing or able to calibrate your gear to do a proper comparison of the two players. It's possible that the Pioneer is better (and I wouldn't discount it), but making claims like that without being able to back them up properly shows that you have no understanding what picture quality itself entails.

[WickyWoo]

If you want to continue this debate, and its a worthy topic, you need to calibrate your TV to the PS3's signal. If you continue to be unwilling to do so, then expect appropriate action.

[kabraal]

Ok…here’s the thing. I might agree with you in the future. I’d like to believe that standalone BD-players will do a much better job than a PS3. Especially when it will eventually come to $2000 Denon BD players. So I have absolutely no problem with you trying to compare a PS with a pioneer or whatever. But here’s the thing…try this:

Stop your hardheadedness, hook up your PS3 to your TV and calibrate your TV to get the best possible PQ in your “expert” opinion. Now unplug your PS3 and plug in your Pioneer. Don’t re-calibrate the TV. Just watch the same BD disc which you used for the previous test on your PS again.

I’m speculating here but what happens to your statements when you realize that the Pioneers PQ isn’t as good as it was before? What happens when you realize that the Pioneers PQ is now worse than the PS3? Will you come back here and write the same garbage only in favor of the PS3 now.

No one is trying to hit or your findings. Maybe you are right. Just listen for a while and realize that you are going about the comparison/review the wrong way

[Iceman_II]

From the free on-line dictionary of computing:

Troll:
An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other (electronic) communication which is intentionally incorrect, but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or the act of sending such a message. Trolling aims to elicit an emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply key. A really subtle troll makes some people lose their minds.

Is is just me, or do these threads, started by someone with a whopping 15 posts under his belt, and who appears to be completely unwilling to calabrate ANYTHING before putting down the PS3, appear to meet the definition of "troll"