Blu ray player advice

[dowie]

Just look up PLUGE. It's the basic set up pattern for brightness as used by broadcast TV engineers the world over. Once you've understood that then come back and ask a few questions.

once you've understood how to conduct a fair test perhaps you'll understand why the dubious claims you've posted don't really add up

your belief/expectations that the expensive player from the brand you're fond of will likely bias your judgement in a sighted test conducted subjectively by eyeballing test cards... its is pretty meaningless - the differences you've seen are likely in your head. There don't appear to be technical reasons for them and you've not provided any links to properly conducted tests demonstrating differences. How can a digital signal from a digital source differ to the point where the contrast differs etc..?

 

[dowie]

Back to my earlier point, the BD players I tried at home did NOT look the same. For example, the Sony 760 player was "brighter" than my PS3. I genuinely believe that this was an attempt to make the standalone player "stand out"

I can certainly see that a difference could occur in that case - a player adding things which aren't there in the source... but as far as actually just transmitting the picture as its supposed to be transmitted - the PS3 will do this just as well as any other - there is no reason for any differences, any claims made otherwise are highly dubious - people making these claims are perhaps imagining differences and don't understand why the sighted tests they're conducting are inherently flawed or they're just spouting complete BS.

 

[lucid]

once you've understood how to conduct a fair test perhaps you'll understand why the dubious claims you've posted don't really add up

your belief/expectations that the expensive player from the brand you're fond of will likely bias your judgement in a sighted test conducted subjectively by eyeballing test cards... its is pretty meaningless - the differences you've seen are likely in your head. There don't appear to be technical reasons for them and you've not provided any links to properly conducted tests demonstrating differences. How can a digital signal from a digital source differ to the point where the contrast differs etc..?

Look, you're talking bollix

I understand what you're trying to suggest. But there's a vast difference between the subjective claims of audio enthusiasts and the simple and verified method of adjusting a display for correct brightness by using a visible test pattern. If you can't understand that using a test pattern in this way is no different to measuring a voltage and reading the display of the meter then I'm sorry, but you are ignorant of how to properly set up a TV, and so you are unqualified to have a discussion about the differences in picture performance between sources.

 

[dowie]

So no technical explanation of how a digital signal from a digital source can differ to the extent that the contrast is different etc..? No actual tests you can refer to other than claims that you've definitely seen differences in a sighted test yourself?

While you may not be lying a more realistic conclusion is either that one of the players is actually changing/attempting to enhance the signal in some way or simply that you're seeing things that aren't there.

The claim you're making is about as dubious as me claiming that the colours on the BBC web page are so much clearer now I've upgraded my motherboard/processor.

Its digital content - they should look exactly the same - if you think you're seeing differences then you're being hopelessly naive in just jumping to the conclusion right away that one player is superior to the other. Its much more likely that your test is flawed or that the test hasn't been conducted fairly, one of the players is manipulating the signal in some way etc...

 

[lucid]

So no technical explanation of how a digital signal from a digital source can differ to the extent that the contrast is different etc..? No actual tests you can refer to other than claims that you've definitely seen differences in a sighted test yourself?

I've already told you that the standard industry tests for these are the broadcast standard test patterns. Do you even understand what that phrase means?: "broadcast standard"

Here's a PLUGE pattern:

This is a standard test pattern for adjusting a video monitor's brightness control. Speak to the engineers at your local TV studio; go to any University or college that teaches electronics engineering; speak to any broadcast editor or cameraman; they'll all tell you the same. The METHOD is to LOOK at the screen and make the necessary adjustments. This is done with a series of patterns appropriate to each adjustment. So you banging on about "tests you can refer to" when I've already told what every engineer uses as a standard method for picture evaluation just goes to underline how uneducated you are on the topic.

While you may not be lying a more realistic conclusion is either that one of the players is actually changing/attempting to enhance the signal in some way or simply

Halle-blinking-lujah!!!! That's exactly what I've been saying. The player changes the signal before it is transmitted via HDMI. So, a PS3 can look different to a standalone Blu-ray player; and it's not enough to say that "the picture is 0's and 1's so it must be the same".

As for your comment about the differences not being there.... The test patterns on Digital Video Essentials, Spears & Munsil, my own reference test pattern generator, an Accupel DVG-5000 or any other reference test pattern source provide the correct tools to allow professionals and amateurs alike to make objective assessments of video performance in all areas that there are user controls for adjustment. It's simple. One just has to read the appropriate test pattern.

This is a colour contrast test pattern. If you played the Blu-ray version of this through your own system you'd see certain sections of the colour bars lose definition between the brightness levels.

Spoiler

test pattern 1920x1080

* bear in mind, these are images lifted from the web and you are probably watching them on a PC monitor rather than a TV. Further, I have no idea how they were captured or if they have been enhanced or otherwise altered. Accordingly they probably no longer represent reference standard specifications.

The claim you're making is about as dubious as me claiming that the colours on the BBC web page are so much clearer now I've upgraded my motherboard/processor.

I'm not making a claim; I'm stating a fact. Blu-ray players process the video signal before it leaves the player. This results in subtle but visible differences in the picture performance.

As for what happens with your motherboard/processor.... who knows. I couldn't comment definitively until the video output was measured and assessed.

Its digital content - they should look exactly the same - if you think you're seeing differences then you're being hopelessly naive in just jumping to the conclusion right away that one player is superior to the other. Its much more likely that your test is flawed or that the test hasn't been conducted fairly, one of the players is manipulating the signal in some way etc...

The bold bit sums up my position and why I assert that in calibrations using broadcast standard test patterns that not all Blu-ray players are equal.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

I can certainly see that a difference could occur in that case - a player adding things which aren't there in the source... but as far as actually just transmitting the picture as its supposed to be transmitted - the PS3 will do this just as well as any other - there is no reason for any differences, any claims made otherwise are highly dubious - people making these claims are perhaps imagining differences and don't understand why the sighted tests they're conducting are inherently flawed or they're just spouting complete BS.

Agreed with your logic. As already stated, when I compared the PS3 to the 760, there was a definite visual difference. However, only playing with the settings in my projector, I could dial out those brightness differences, and post that really struggled to tell the two apart. Based upon that, I'd say they're "fiddling".

Of course there is one other thought. We and other forums talk about BD players just passing through data. Do they? For all we know, maybe all BD players actually do some complex processing before sending out a digital signal. Could be a question of how close to the "desired" output is all that processing doing.
Do we GENUINELY know whether BD players are just "passing through data", or is that supposition based upon 3rd hand comments?

 

[visibleman]

How can a digital signal from a digital source differ to the point where the contrast differs etc..?

Because it isn't a clean signal chain as you keep insisting - so it's not disc to HDMI/TDMS, instead the actual chain is (roughly) transport to decoder to video processor(/scaler) to HDMI/TDMS with the signal being 'fettled' at each stage.

There's plenty of books and white papers on video signal processing (just do a Google) if you really want to get a better understanding of it all.

 

[MOOGLEYS]

I have a Denon DBT3313 and I cannot see any difference over the PS3. Tbh the only difference is the Denon is quieter.

 

[V F]

How is DVD's, MOOGLEYS?

 

[MOOGLEYS]

How is DVD's, MOOGLEYS?

You say a what now DVD's in 2014 not in my house...

The only DVD I have is a Looney tunes box set.

 

[dowie]

I've already told you that the standard industry tests for these are the broadcast standard test patterns. Do you even understand what that phrase means?: "broadcast standard"

nope what does it mean objectively speaking?

So you banging on about "tests you can refer to" when I've already told what every engineer uses as a standard method for picture evaluation just goes to underline how uneducated you are on the topic.

You're still missing the point - by tests I can refer to I didn't mean waffle on about test patterns but refer to a controlled test, cite one, post a link etc... its all well and good claiming that you've used the super deluxe gold standard broadcast widget and have seen something but there are many reasons why you could have seen some differences and your conclusion is dubious as a result:

I'd say it's on par with standalone players in the £100-£150 range.

Halle-blinking-lujah!!!! That's exactly what I've been saying. The player changes the signal before it is transmitted via HDMI. So, a PS3 can look different to a standalone Blu-ray player; and it's not enough to say that "the picture is 0's and 1's so it must be the same".

except you've gone further than that and are pushing the idea that the expensive player is superior not just simply questioning what could be different as a result of your tests

I'm not making a claim; I'm stating a fact. Blu-ray players process the video signal before it leaves the player. This results in subtle but visible differences in the picture performance.

No you're making a claim - I'm asking if you have facts/evidence

The bold bit sums up my position and why I assert that in calibrations using broadcast standard test patterns that not all Blu-ray players are equal.

I'd assert that there is likely to be very little difference if at all and you could easily put that difference down to configuration settings, one player trying to 'enhance' the image etc..etc.. seeing a difference using test patterns then concluding that the expensive player is superior is dodgy.

for example you state:

They are noticeable in five areas: motion handling; below black; above white; colour contrast; and finally shadow detail (Gamma).

the below black, above white differences could easily occur depending on what setting you have "Y Pb/Cb Pr/Cr Super-White (HDMI): On" on the PS3 set to... is RGB set to full etc... could the expensive player also be adding shadow detail that isn't there depending on settings.

I'm asking if you had any tests you could refer to because I was interested in seeing if anyone had gone through this more methodically in a very controlled way and published the results....not refer to your post where you claim to have seen differences in a test that may or may not have been carried out well.

I'd suspect that double blind trials with config carefully checked, additional picture enhancements turned off etc.. would lead to people not being able to tell the difference between expensive players and a PS3. The whole industry could do with proper objective testing as currently its dominated by magazines/stores/manufacturers geared towards perpetuating myths and selling overpriced goods that will make either minimal or no difference at all above and beyond much cheaper products.

 

[lucid]

You're still banging on about double-blind tests because you're treating display chain calibration like some sort of speaker cable listening test. But in this case you really are barking up the wrong tree.

Test discs (which you or anyone can buy and use) are a standard diagnostic tool. Do I need a double blind test to use a spanner? No. It's a tool. So is a test disc. It's objective. Each test pattern is either displayed correctly or it's not. If one player can pass below black, but another can't, and each player is at its default settings (or has no adjustment at all) then the players a processing the signal differently. That's pretty simple to see.

For the record, I don't believe I said that it necessarily had to be a more expensive player that was better. In fact I think I was pretty clear that cheaper players than the PS3 are on a par with it.

 

[james.miller]

Christ

Lucid why are you finding differences with your eyes that Chris Heinonen couldn't with some very expensive testing gear? Also, why are you assuming these differences are positive ones? This is why dowie is asking you for something more substantial than 'because eyes' and not this diatribe on broadcast standards which has nothing to do with the discussion.

If you can see it, it can be measured. Please show us something, anything, that proves what you are seeing is real. Please.

 

[lucid]

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/2011/june-2011/sony-bdp-s580-blu-ray-player/sony-bdp-s580-hdmi-results-lg.jpg

 

[TALON1973]

After getting lambasted when I posted at the start and letting a few others post here's something else to think on.

If your saying a ps3 is as good as anything why do people buy expensive tv / monitors ? 1080p is 1080p on any set right ?? erm ......maybe on a technical basis yes . But it's all the other stuff behind the backround that wins. And why a ps3 .....which is 7 years old ....loses out

 

[dowie]

You're still banging on about double-blind tests because you're treating display chain calibration like some sort of speaker cable listening test. But in this case you really are barking up the wrong tree.

No its simply a valid test... if there are differences or one product is perceived to be better in some subjective way then it makes sense to remove yourself from obvious biases... its really not a hard concept to understand.

My main issue is are there differences, if there are then are there technical reasons for these differences - are the differences down to config, to one player being superior at simply passing the signal as is or are they down to one player trying to modify/enhance the signal.

Test discs (which you or anyone can buy and use) are a standard diagnostic tool. Do I need a double blind test to use a spanner? No. It's a tool. So is a test disc. It's objective. Each test pattern is either displayed correctly or it's not. If one player can pass below black, but another can't, and each player is at its default settings (or has no adjustment at all) then the players a processing the signal differently. That's pretty simple to see.

Yes an objective measurement doesn't require you to be blinded - however the reason I'd asked if there were any tests you could refer to is because passing below black could simply be down to a setting not being active by default on for example the PS3... Relying on your claim that you used a test card on both and used 'default settings' isn't particularly reliable - if however there are a bunch of independent tests/reviews showing that the PS3 is incapable of passing through certain data then you could indeed say that the other player was superior - you'd have tests you could refer to and a technical reason you could cite... which is what I was asking.

For the record, I don't believe I said that it necessarily had to be a more expensive player that was better. In fact I think I was pretty clear that cheaper players than the PS3 are on a par with it.

Its really not clear that more expensive players aren't either....

for example:

http://www.digitalversus.com/duels-...image-quality-really-any-different-ap879.html

CONCLUSION: NO REAL DIFFERENCE IN IMAGE QUALITY

Throughout this duel, we've seen that no matter what device you use—whether it's a PlayStation 3, a basic Blu-ray player or a high-end model—the sharpness and colour fidelity of your Blu-ray discs will effectively be identical and equally as faithful to the source.

However, that doesn't mean you should go out any buy any old Blu-ray player. There are still important differences between products, particularly in terms of build quality, responsiveness, options and extras.

Another key extra is "image enhancing" technology, as found in the Panasonic BMP-BDT500, which can boost detail in the image or accentuate contrast (by modifying the gamma). Obviously, some users like these kinds of functions and the added boost they can bring to movies, but that in no way means a player with these functions delivers better image quality. The original picture—the one encoded on the disc—is altered by these functions, which is why we test Blu-ray players with these things switched off. That said, we understand that the results may look flattering and may please certain users. Each to their own.

As far as we're concerned, ever since we started testing DVD and Blu-ray players, we've aimed to measure how accurately these devices display the actual image as encoded on the disc (or other source) with no extra tweaks. After all, the "pure" unadulterated images look just how the directors and producers indented them to look. We're happy with this test procedure and we'll be sticking to it for the foreseeable future.

All I can see is that a high end player might have additional features, might have enhancements to the image that people find subjectively pleasing and can upscale DVD's better, output analogue audio better etc... I've not seen much to suggest that there is anything different in the image quality of a high end player above a PS3 as far as reproducing the image as encoded is concerned.

After getting lambasted when I posted at the start and letting a few others post here's something else to think on.

If your saying a ps3 is as good as anything why do people buy expensive tv / monitors ? 1080p is 1080p on any set right ?? erm ......maybe on a technical basis yes . But it's all the other stuff behind the backround that wins. And why a ps3 .....which is 7 years old ....loses out

Thats just a really bad analogy - there are obvious differences between displays there aren't necessarily obvious differences between device's designed to read/pass through digital information - assuming both are capable of doing so to the required standard.

 

[lucid]

Do you know what, I'm past caring.

The opportunity was there to learn something and gain some insight. Even when presented with figures from one of Chris Heinonen's own tests you're still adamant. Who is being subjective now?

 

[dowie]

Still adamant about what? I'm open to being shown that there are differences which can be seen in blind testing or for technical explanations about why a particular player isn't capable etc.. I've not seen any so far - I don't think its unreasonable to ask for evidence.

 

[kona786]

Lets just keep it simple - the PS3 will output a very high standard of Bluray quality picture for most of us.

For those that truly want the best i.e. the last ~5% of truly best 1080p BR quality, you need to invest in a high end player and have the rest of the high end AV kit to go with it.

I can understand that there is or might be some post processing going on at the player level - and if you are bothered by the output then you have to pay handsomely to get what you want.

Is the last ~5% of 'quality' really worth pursuing? That depends on the person.

 

[james.miller]

Do you know what, I'm past caring.

The opportunity was there to learn something and gain some insight. Even when presented with figures from one of Chris Heinonen's own tests you're still adamant. Who is being subjective now?

Let's be fair though. That was the worst player he reviewed and far from the norm. The s570 and s580 had some pretty alarming video output problems, yes, but the s590 fixes that at least with one format. Can't remember if it was rgb or YCbCr but it got a perfect score. And it wasn't anything like oppo money as I recall.