Blu-ray alright really

Apart from the excruciatingly slow boot time, that is. The Panasonics are the Blu-Ray players to beat. I boycott Sony products on principle. While they are probably getting some royalties, Sony's share in the royalty pool is only 30% or so. The fact it does not support Profile 2.0 to connect to the Internet is a feature, not a bug - the very first thing the media companies are going to do with a net connection is spy on you. As for 720p, they are playing it safe, as there are many HDTV panels that don't support 1080p, like my 3 year old Sharp Aquos (I will upgrade when I move later this year).

"The conventional DVD was much better under the influence of the Blu-Ray player, colours were shaper and the sound quality much better." I'm not quite sure what you mean by colors being sharper, but I'll buy that DVDs look better with the upscaling. However, as far as I know there is NO way they actually *sound* better. Dolby Digital is what it is, and it'll get sent to your receiver just the same.

Why did you spend £250 on a Blu-Ray player when a PS3 would perhaps cost only £30-40 more or and is one of the best BR players out there anyway. Plus you won't then need to buy a new 2.0 profile player cos the PS3 is already supports it or will do with updates.

"Sounds better?!" No why would a SD DVD sound better on a BR player?......unless maybe you have it hooked up analog.

Since when did 720p become low res? There is still much debate as to whether 1080i advantages outweigh the negatives, especially in an average sized living room. Furthermore 720p is such a big step up from 480p that most will find it more than satisfactory.

Your scam to make us pay 400 for a piece of shit that won't even record will not fly! Take your blue ray and send it back to japan . I will not buy it!

The PS3 is still the best blu-ray player on the market. Its already got profile 2.0 (and can upgrade to any future profiles), it starts discs up way faster then any of the standalone blu-ray players, and it happens to play games on top of it. Its also not that much more (and in some cases exactly the same price) then the standalone players. Right now, its the way to go. Also - discs here in Canada aren't twice as expensive. There's a premium, but its nowhere near 2x.

nice review but if i were u a would of gotten just the base ps3 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-Playstation-Console-40GB-Version/dp/B000WNDP5M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1219265526&sr=8-1 for 30 quid more you would get full 2.0(not that big of a deal but some poeple enjoy it) and more importently a media center that you can stream donwload movies music photos and store them on your hard drive and on ocasion if u feel like it play a game or two the downloadable ones start at like 10$ there nice pic up and play (but ps3's fans do have a humming nosie which isent loud but noticable)

A submission by Mr. Ferrell that is not only unbiased but one with which I actually concur -- How surprising! I too bemoan the failure of the HD-DVD standard, but it proves the old maxim "whoever dies with the most units installed in toys wins". Notwithstanding its victorious standard, Sony will probably be disappointed by the continued slow uptake of the HD standard in media playback devices in view of the virtually unprecedented switch to the DVD standard. Firstly, DVD was a much more compelling choice over VHS, not only from the resolution standpoint, but also from the supposed durability standpoint, the smaller form factor, the increased storage potential, the more innovative user interface (versus virtually none in VHS), and the ability to include loads of extras from directors commentaries to mini-documentaries, interviews with actors, etc. These last three factors also distinguished DVDs favorably from the bulky, somewhat imponderable LaserDisc format, predated and then coexisted with DVD for about 12 months before disappearing completely. The Blue-Ray standard competes with DVDs really only in the arena of resolution. It does this exceedingly well, so long as you have a 1080i or 1080p display. If you own a conventional television or a so-called HD monitor limited to 780p, then the difference is not as noticeable, particularly when compared to upscaled DVDs. Considering that the installed base of HD monitors is still limited compared to standard TV installations and that the percentage of HD monitors capable of true 1080p is much smaller still, few people find HD compelling as a voluntary upgrade. Add to this the still miniscule number of films available in Blue-Ray format and the crappy state of the current economy (as opposed to the high flying 90's when DVDs took off), and the prospect for significant Blue-Ray penetration looks more bleak still. Unfortunately, it is a bit of a chicken and the egg thing -- prices for players (forget about recorders!) won't come down and movie selection won't go up until the user base expands, while the user base won't expand until prices come down. Unless Sony and its partners are willing to significantly discount the technology (which they were willing to do to win the standard wars, e.g., the sake of players at cost or even a loss in their PS3 consoles), the market penetration for Blue-Ray will probably remain lackluster.

Setting up was not difficult but required a bit of care. For some reason the default television settings were set to 720p which is so low that you would notice any difference. Setting it to 1080i was not a problem, but quite why anyone would ever buy Blu-ray and have a low resolution television is beyond me. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- wlecome to the world of hd 1080i is not a higher resolution then 720p 1080i is an interlaced single which mean at every fram its acrtualy only 540 lines of pixels but with 720p you get 720 pixels showen ever time meaning that 720p is better for things such as sports and fast moving but slow moving things are better with 1080i cuz u don`t notice the blur that can come from the interlacing method also your tv's native resolution is the best setting you should have it on

Too expensive?? I don't know about you but you wouldn't catch me spending 70 quid on a DVD player! It wasn't long ago that you would have to spend 170 quid just to get a half decent one. Seriously, 250 pounds for a high def player is a bargain...since when have we all become so damn cheapskate??

I own a Sony Blu-Ray player and 60" projection TV, and pretty much agree with everything you said. The disks do take much too long to boot, but once they do, it's really nice to look at. In addition, I'm a projectionist at a top 20 theater in the U.S. We have one digital cinema projector at the theater, and one of the things I noticed when it was first installed is that the resolution on the digital projector was only a little better than on a 1080i screen. The main advantage is that the digital projector is progressive scan. Usually, I can't tell the difference between the digital projector at work and my blu-ray and WEGA TV at home. The only time I can is when we're showing a very colorful movie, such as Apocalypto--then Christie Professional beats Sony Home. Technically, the digital cinema projector should be able to beat home systems on two fronts--3D and frame rate. The Christie we have at the theater has a RealD 3D system installed on it, which is really good for most 3D movies (sorry, "Fly Me to the Moon" gave me eye strain due to the divergence.) The other thing is frame rates. The Christie we have at work can go to around 100FPS while keeping a reasonable resolution and color depth, which my TV can't even come close to. But, keeping in mind that almost no movies are being produced at frame rates other than 24FPS, this is likely going to remain a bullet point for selling the projector rather than a reason to buy a ticket for a movie.

Uh no all digital tv's display progressivly. 1080i is still 1920x1080 720p is 1280x720 Film is 24fps. Your digital tv refreshes at 60hz. When outputting 1080i to a digital tv it takes those two interlaces frames that it is receiving at 60frames per second mind you. And reassembles them to 1080 progressive scan lines. Thus retaining your image detail. Anyone who downconvertes an orginal 1080p source to 720p is a moron. Yay we lost image detail. You probbaly think lcd is better than plasma too. Baffles me how much the blind try leading the blind anymore. And regardless of what resolution your display is you gotta take into consideration where the video is being scaled whether in a standalone unit, the player or the televisioin. Pick the right one for the job. Most idiots probably dont realize finding a standard dvd player that outputs 480i native res of sd dvd is best to send to your television which more than likely will scale that video to your displays native resolution better than your so called "up convert" dvd player. And how the hell can a blu-ray player make a compressed 5.1 DTS/DD sound better? Unless it has maybe burbrown dacs and your running 6 channel analog out. Your full of crap. sorry

"The DMP-BD30 choice was mostly because it had the latest Profile 1.1 functionality you can get out of Blu-ray until Profile 2 machines that allow internet connections start to appear" There's not been anything latest about 1.1 since the DMP-50 became available: http://www.empiredirect.co.uk/content/products/details/index~modelcode~PAN-DMPBD50.htm £100 more... worth it though. Bloody thing was 6 months late comining. Bad timing on that buy Mr Farrell!

No offense Nick but i would say that you were not ready for Blue-Ray instead of the other way around. 1) PS3=best vfm and best player out. 2) 720p>1080i btw 3) The sounds from your upscaled dvd will be exactly the same. 4) 720p !=low res

..Lotus Esprit? Showing your age much?

Have to concur with previous posters on sound quality unless you had a really old DVD player or were using some really bad connection tpye/connevctors. Assuming you are running sound thru a receiver, it is receiving the same 1's and 0's as your old DVD player... unless you have one of them magical sound upconverting Blu-ray players :) The fact that you couldn't get this basic thing right, calls into question the rest of the 'review' and is yet another fine example of - who's editing these articles again?

So when I drive a 1988 Volvo 240, which player should I get? :-) On a more serious note, I have a PS3, and I gotta say it's pretty decent with bluray movies. Upscaling isn't as good as my Denon 3808 does it, but you really do get a lot for your buck with this machine.

"I'm not quite sure what you mean by colors being sharper, but I'll buy that DVDs look better with the upscaling. However, as far as I know there is NO way they actually *sound* better. Dolby Digital is what it is, and it'll get sent to your receiver just the same." Not true, each discrete sound channel of a bluray disk is uncompressed wheres Dolby Digitial on a DVD is compressed!

does all this talk of disc thingies mean that Blue Ray and DVDs are not backward compatible with my VHS tapes?!! Pffft!

Hang on... You set it up t 1080i over 720p? I'm starting to wonder if you know what your talking about! 720p will give you a better quality picture than 1080i would and is only bettered by 1080p (which is great but you really do need 50" + to appreciate it)...

..but you'd have a problem hearing in on a TV. If you use a DVD as an audio player then you'll notice differences in sound quality if you've got it hooked up to a high quality system. They're not important for most uses, especially movies. I wouldn't trust a BluRay to upscale. It will but its got a vested interest in showing that a high definition disk is definitely better than an upscaled one.

In the UK with PAL TV, standard definition is 576 lines of resolution. That's why 720p doesn't look that much better. You really need 1080 lines to get an amazingly better picture. (It's different in countries where SD is only 480 lines or less, NTSC sucks big time). As for those who think 720p is better than 1080i - bollocks. 1920 x 1080 is way better than 1280 x 720, the interlaced picture of 1080i is only a very small drop in picture quality.

You are a little too quick to harass Nick about the sound quality thing. Considering his DVD player died it is quite possible that his old player didn't do any decoding, and also possible he's not using a receiver. So maybe not he's getting decoding and thus he would notice an improvement in sound quality.