5 Reason Why You Shouldn't Buy An Blu-Ray Player Yet

[DakotaDave]

Feb 5 2008
Five reasons you shouldn't buy a Blu-ray player yet
John P. Falcone

Per CNET


Don't overpay for an obsolete Blu-ray player like this $,1000 Pioneer Elite BDP-95FD

(Credit: Pioneer)


With HD DVD looking more and more like it's on the ropes, it would seem like the ideal time to commit to Blu-ray--right? Not so fast. There are at least five reasons to stick with your good old-fashioned DVD player--at least for the next few months. (And, as always, there are some key caveats and insider secrets for those who can't resist pullling the trigger as soon as possible.)

1. Nearly all current Blu-ray players are obsolete: The Blu-ray standard is still evolving. Most models currently available use the original Profile 1.0 standard, while some newer models use Profile 1.1 (which adds the ability to show picture-in-picture commentaries). Later this year, the first Profile 2.0 players--which add the ability to deliver online special features (BD Live)--will become available. Ironically, both of these are designed to bring the Blu-ray standard in line with HD DVD players, which have long been able to deliver these features.

A couple of the most recent Blu-ray players (the combo players from Samsung and LG) can be updated from Profile 1.0 to 1.1 with a downloadable firmware update. But the PlayStation 3 is, supposedly, the only existing Blu-ray player that will be fully upgradeable to Profile 2.0. So if you don't want your Blu-ray player to be obsolete, the PS3 is your only choice until 2.0 models--such as the Panasonic DMP-BD50--hit later this year.

Caveat: Does anybody really watch those PiP-enabled commentaries? Or want updated trailers downloaded from the Web? Beyond the hardcore cinephiles, I think the answer is a big "no." In other words, if you're among the vast majority who only wants to watch the movie, you're not really gaining anything with a 1.1. or 2.0 player. Those older Blu-ray players should play everything else on the disc (the non-playable features are just grayed out on the menu). With the older players hitting the discount racks to make way for newer models, getting a Profile 1.0 player is a nice way to score a Blu-ray player on the cheap ($300 or less).

2. Blu-ray is best on a big-screen TV: Can you see the difference between standard DVD and Blu-ray? Yes--but it may not be as noticeable as you would think. Like all high-definition material, Blu-ray discs look their most-impressive at bigger screen sizes, where DVD can sometimes start to look a bit soft. Put another way: if your TV is 37 inches or smaller, you probably won't be getting a huge advantage from Blu-ray.

Caveat: Eagle-eyed videophiles--or those who sit especially close to their 1080p TVs--may well see a difference. Rule of thumb: if HDTV programming looks noticeably better than DVD playback on your TV, then Blu-ray will be a worthwhile investment.

3. There are still very few movies available on Blu-ray: As of February 5, 2008, there are less than 450 current Blu-ray titles available in North America (not counting discontinued and adult titles). That stacks up well to HD DVD (around 400). But it's a drop in the bucket compared to standard DVD, which has at least 90,000 titles available (including TV shows).

Caveat: Sure, it's small now, but the number of Blu-ray titles is growing slowly but surely. In fact, Blu-ray and HD DVD adoption (combined) has actually outpaced that of the original DVD format, which took three or four years before it really went mainstream.

4. Blu-ray still has growing pains: How many times have you popped a brand new DVD into your player, only to be greeted with a message that you need to update the firmware to view the movie? Probably never, but Blu-ray early adopters have faced this message more than they would like to admit. (To be fair, HD DVD has had its share of disc compatibility issues as well.) To make matters worse, many early Blu-ray players can't update via Ethernet, so you'll need to burn a CD to update the player. If you're reading Crave, burning a disc probably isn't a problem--but there are many less-tech-savvy people that love DVDs, but have no idea what an ISO file is.

5. Prices have nowhere to go but down: Even without competition from HD DVD, Blu-ray prices seem to be on a one-way ticket downward. Older players can be purchases for about $300, so don't be surprised to see Black Friday 2008 specials at $249 or $199. Caveat: See item number 1: the cheaper players are likely to be older models that are effectively "obsolete."

So there you have it: there's absolutely no compelling reason to dive into Blu-ray, at least for the next few months. But as with all of the items above, the conclusion comes with a big caveat of its own: the Sony PlayStation 3. It's the only player that's futureproof, it doubles as a top-notch game machine and network digital media streamer, and it's readily available for $400. Oh--it also happens to be a great Blu-ray player, and it does a fine job of upconverting your standard DVDs to high-definition resolutions. As such, it remains the exception to the rule, and the only Blu-ray player that we can enthusiastically recommend for the time being.

[videoworx]

Yes, and there were plenty of people who told Columbus not to sail across the Atlantic...

This thread is ridiculous.

[elfman]

I've kinda been doing this anyway. I want to get as good a BR player as I can, but I don't see stretching to spend $400+ for a nice machine that MAY not work with 2.0 spec. If there were a $150 player that was current, then maybe I'd get that and consider it a disposable player in a year or two, but not with the prices the way they are now. I'll wait for that amazing machine that'll be coming around the bend later this year (isn't that the thing we all say to save money while living on the bleeding edge? haha).

Just my 2c.

(edit: spelling)

[Derb]

Hmm

Well I don't see a single reason there not to buy into BD.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Derb

Hmm

Well I don't see a single reason there not to buy into BD.

1) All of the standalones are flawed, crippled, extremely slow, or in most cases some combination of the three.

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by Ruined

1) All of the standalones are flawed, crippled, extremely slow, or in most cases some combination of the three.

Because a second generation HD-DVD player didn't take 45+ seconds from power off to eject...

[videoworx]

Originally Posted by Sycho

Because a second generation HD-DVD player didn't take 45+ seconds from power off to eject...

You're not playing this game properly. This thread is about bashing Blu-Ray, not that other format.

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by videoworx

You're not playing this game properly. This thread is about bashing Blu-Ray, not that other format.

Wow, I spit up my drink when I read that.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Derb

Hmm

Well I don't see a single reason there not to buy into BD.

Agreed, the caveats basically nullified the reasons not to buy. It should read: if you don't have a large HDTV, don't buy into bd. If you get a stiffy from watching PiP commentaries, then get a ps3, or wait to buy into bd. If you only want to buy classic movies and not new releases, then wait to buy into bd. If you are shocked that an electronics component you buy now will be worth less in the future, and you'll get more advanced electronics for the same price then that you are paying now, then don't buy into bd yet.

Seems like a, "If you aren't into HD, then don't buy into blu-ray yet."

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Sycho

Because a second generation HD-DVD player didn't take 45+ seconds from power off to eject...

Yes, but many Blu-ray players take 30-45 seconds to startup, and then on top of that another 1.5-2 minutes to load a movie (especially BD-J & BD+ titles)! Some of them make the HD-A1 look like a speed demon.

Also, all of them are crippled without final BD2.0 support plus many have flaws such as the LFE bug affecting Panasonic and Denon players. Many without decoders for advanced codecs such as the BD30, as well.

Most of their upconversion abilities are also poor compared to the HD DVD Players and Oppo players.

No getting around it, the current BD standalones are big losers compared to what the HD DVD camp offered. HD DVD is no longer viable, but that doesn't make the current crop of BD players any less sucky.

[videoworx]

90 percent of consumers won't care about going online with their movie player. They won't notice the difference between upconversion quality. And, as Ruined has astutely pointed out, they won't notice the lack of advanced audio codecs.

About the only thing they will notice is boot-up time and disc access time. I agree, all but the PS3 suck in this department.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by videoworx

90 percent of consumers won't care about going online with their movie player. They won't notice the difference between upconversion quality. And, as Ruined has astutely pointed out, they won't notice the lack of advanced audio codecs.

About the only thing they will notice is boot-up time and disc access time. I agree, all but the PS3 suck in this department.

We are not just talking average consumer here anyway, we are also talking about people like us who are buying into these things now. I find it sad that I cannot find a standalone player that works well - the BD30 was really the only close one (despite its lack of BD-Live), but the LFE bug sunk that player as well. So now I am stuck at square one waiting to see if the April-June players can be at least somewhat fast (i.e. comparable to Toshiba HD DVD players in speed), offer me at least BD1.1 featureset, advanced codec bitstreaming, and no major flaws.

[Wilson]

Originally Posted by Derb

Hmm

Well I don't see a single reason there not to buy into BD.

Exactly. If anything it said "go buy a PS3 now"

[umainebearman]

I think number 1 and number 5 are big enough reasons not to buy.

Is profile 2.0 the FINAL upgrade?? Yes I most definitely do watch and listen to all commentaries. I would also like to think if there was a feature on my disk I could take advantage of it regardless of whether its useful to me or not.

As far as number 5 is concerned yeah sure profile 1.0 and 1.1 players will go down but do you honestly think that when 2.0 players hit those prices aren't gonna be jacked up.

Oh and theres no compelling reason to buy a ps3.

[Pirate]

Yeah, I had a bunch of folks over last night to watch Casino Royale and none of them could really enjoy the pristine picture or room-shaking sound, because they knew that my current player wasn't profile 2.0. Sad, really.

[videoworx]

Is profile 2.0 the FINAL upgrade??

I hope not. The whole point of an "incomplete spec" means there's room to grow. I don't care if it makes older players obsolete - that's the whole point of progress. I look forward to buying (or upgrading to) a Profile 6.8 spec BD player in a a few years.

[Taxi]

Originally Posted by Ruined

1) All of the standalones are flawed, crippled, extremely slow, or in most cases some combination of the three.

I really think this argument gets more voice than it deserves.

I popped in Bladrunner last night to initiate my new Denon 2500 player, and I was expecting to have to wait for it, even after switching inputs from Tivo to DVD, sitting down, etc.. Nope. The movie was already 30 seconds into the opening credits, and I had to rewind a bit to see the start. Cars, a Disney title, took longer to load for sure, but not the 2-3 minutes that some have said. I was not displeased in the experience at all.

When I bought my player last night, I compared it side-by-side to the only other player I was still considering, the Pioneer 95FD. The Denon is light-years faster than the 95, so that was the deciding factor for me. I will use Denon's work around for the LFE bug, and keep looking for them to fix it in firmware. (And even if they don't, I don't think it will impact me that much.)

[elfman]

Originally Posted by Pirate

because they knew that my current player wasn't profile 2.0. Sad, really.

That's my bigest concern right now. Do I buy a player that can play movies now but won't be able to do many of the extra things that 2.0 will do? Or do I wait and get one that will do all that 2.0 promises?

I'm sorry, but I'm not dying to get a BR player enough to justify locking myself in that way. If someone else feels like that's the right thing for them, then great. But I would say the same thing if it were HD-DVD in that spot, or if some other tech wasn't "finished".

And if it were a matter of a simple firmware update for a player, I'd jump right in as well... but apparently it's not - it's more complex than that.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Taxi

I really think this argument gets more voice than it deserves.

I popped in Bladrunner last night to initiate my new Denon 2500 player, and I was expecting to have to wait for it, even after switching inputs from Tivo to DVD, sitting down, etc.. Nope. The movie was already 30 seconds into the opening credits, and I had to rewind a bit to see the start. Cars, a Disney title, took longer to load for sure, but not the 2-3 minutes that some have said. I was not displeased in the experience at all.

When I bought my player last night, I compared it side-by-side to the only other player I was still considering, the Pioneer 95FD. The Denon is light-years faster than the 95, so that was the deciding factor for me. I will use Denon's work around for the LFE bug, and keep looking for them to fix it in firmware. (And even if they don't, I don't think it will impact me that much.)

The BD30 and it sibling Denon player are the only two fast Blu-ray standalone players, I would not call them slow. And yet that does not invalidate my statement, (as I will expain in the next 2 paragraphs). However, every other Blu-ray player standalone makes the HD-A2 look like a dragster... Even the Sharp.

But the BD30 and the Denon both suffer from the LFE bug. The workaround (which I actually posted here before Denon posted ) is good for the Denon because the firmware was written to give the user trim control over PCM output, which unfortunately was not the case with the BD30 (Panasonic instead opted for this control only over analog). So I would say the Panasonic is flawed, Denon not as much.

But even the $1000 Denon is not the final Blu-ray spec. The only players slated to support BD Profile 2.0 the first half of this year are the Playstation 3 and Panasonic BD50. If the BD50 can ditch the LFE bug, I will consider that the first Blu-ray standalone player that is not crippled, flawed, and/or extremely slow. The BD30 and Denon came close to this criteria, but in a couple of areas fall short of the mark.

Now, before you go off saying that you'll never download a Godzilla ringtone with BD2.0, realize that most of the authoring houses were adding downloadable OFFLINE features after the fact (i.e., such as popup trivia tracks) via HD DVD's online capabilities. Meaning that even with a "final offline profile" BD1.1 player, in the future you will likely miss out on offline extras that were locked on the disc or added after the disc was pressed. The same authoring houses that made those HD DVD online extras will be making the BD ones later this year. And before you cry "but most players aren't even BD2.0!" - they actually are, because the PS3 will support BD2.0 and it has sold magnitudes more than all the BD standalones combined.

While the Denon 2500 is probably the best standalone under $1000 right now, I find it unacceptable that I'd spend $999 on a player and still be missing out on future extras/features (both online & downloadable offline) plus still have no guarantee that I won't have to use a workaround for the entirety of the players life for proper LFE output... Not to mention said $1000 player has near-identical BD output to a player half its price and has DVD upconversion that fails most of the HQV tests - upconversion quality that loses out to a $100 Oppo, and is on par with $400 BD players... completely murdered by any of the $600 HD DVD players with Reon. I'm not trying to crap on the player you bought, I just don't see it as a winning purchase for most people because of all these issues. It simply isn't complete nor does it comparitively excel in HD or SD output quality, and it is all the worse with the hefty pricetag. Maybe the next batch or two will yield a player that makes the grade in all categories, and doesn't cost more than an HDTV.

Its not because I'm cheap or I don't have the cash... Heck I'm sitting on mounds of cash as I just sold off most of my HD DVDs and all of my large PSX/PS2 collection (including the rare gems). I just don't want to feel like I'm getting taken to the cleaners with my purchase, I want to feel that I got something resembling a fair deal. For me right now, that would work out to the following:

$400-$500 - Fast, consumer grade BD1.1 player with no glitches or at least workarounds for them (i.e. similar to your new Denon but w/ panasonic build). Yeah its crippled, but at least its not too much $$$.
$600-$700 - "High end" build quality version of the above, or player that adds BD2.0, full decoding of all codecs, or Reon HQV to the above
$900-$1000 - Reon HQV upconverting, BD2.0, and full decoding of all codecs
$1200-$1500 - Realta HQV upconverting, BD2.0, and full decoding of all codecs
$1500-$2000 - I don't want to pay $500 extra for high end 7.1 channels of DACs/analog 7.1 I will never use

I'd say most of the BD players out right now feel like they are worth $199, the Panasonic maybe $299 despite its flaw... If Denon can come out with a successor to the their 3800 BD player that cuts the price by $500-700 by dropping analog 7.1 output, while at the same time adding BD2.0 and retaining Realta upconversion - well that player would most certainly pique my interest. Although with Super Upconversion on the near horizon it is even tough to justify spending that much for Realta upconversion that may be completely dated in less than a year.

[Pirate]

I think it really comes down to priorities. If you want to watch Blu-ray movies now, and don’t mind upgrading in the (near) future, then there are several good reasons to buy into the format.

I for one do no regret spending the $320 on my slow-ass Sharp player, because, regardless of speed, I’ve been able to see some wonderful films in excellent high-definition presentations.

However, I agree that the current crop of players are too expensive given their limitations, which is one reason why I went with one of the cheapest players.

[Jast3r Rogu3]

1. Nearly all current Blu-ray players are obsolete

Oh my, how can you take this seriously after reading FUD like this.

[sub780lime]

Obsolete means is not being used regularly or it has been replaced by something newer. Neither of these are true yet. Sure most current Stand-alones cannot do Profile 2.0, but that does not make the players obsolete. The Profile only really effects Special Features, so the movies will continue to be watchable.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by sub780lime

Obsolete means is not being used regularly or it has been replaced by something newer. Neither of these are true yet. Sure most current Stand-alones cannot do Profile 2.0, but that does not make the players obsolete. The Profile only really effects Special Features, so the movies will continue to be watchable.

So if I can play a game on my Pentium4 2.4ghz PC and GeForce 5900 with all the special features turned off, my Pentium4 is therefore not obsolete?

Profile 1.0 players are already obsolete. They have been replaced by 1.1 players. 1.1 players will be obsolete when the BD50 arrives.

[videoworx]

So if I can play a game on my Pentium4 2.4ghz PC and GeForce 5900 with all the special features turned off, my Pentium4 is therefore not obsolete?

Good comparison. Since you obviously upgraded your PC, to take advantage of newer games or operating systems that the P4 couldn't handle, why not use the same logic for a modern movie playback device (which is, for all intense purposes, a PC)? The BD-30 may not handle all the audio codecs you desire, but it can play every single Region A Blu-Ray disc on the market. In two years, it probably won't - that's the nature of progress.