PS3 Blu-Ray Player vs Sony BDP-S350

[Blade Runner]

Hey everyone.

I'm going to get a new TV soon and I want to start enjoying HD movies. I don't know whether I should get a PS3 or a stand alone Blu-Ray player. There isn't that much in cost difference but I already have a 360 which I am happy with regarding games.

I was also wondering, are all Blu-Ray player standards the same at the moment? Is it all at the same level or is there Entry level and then better standards?

Does anyone know how the Blu-Ray player performance of the PS3 and the Sony BDP-S350 compare?

Thank you.

[Dazzyman]

My JPN PS3 lens died couple of months ago. Didnt think I could fix it so parent lent us the money to buy a USA one and gave us £30 for a lens motor kit off ebay so if I could try to fix it (as their where getting their first HDTV) and if I could they could use it to watch all me BR films.

I fixed it fine when I was up to it few weeks after USA model arrived and when we ordered parents a telly from Sony Centre in Leeds we snagged the 350 BR player for free. We pretty much use the PS3 for it all though because BR players are miles slower to load up your talking 3mins to 30seconds to boot it. Theirs all different models out their of BR players some cant do the new 1.1. When their actually playing a film all the newer models theirs no difference over a PS3 in quality they all have 24p etc.. as well

You can though get region free 350 BR players now which you cant do with a PS3. I checked after we got ours free incase but it was £150 all in to get it sent their and back and it chipped (now its dropped down to £50).

If it was me Id go for a USA/JPN PS3 everytime cost is marginal over a player, you get all your films cheaper from USA and you get a games machine pretty much for free.

[kernow]

The main thing about a PS3 being a good blue ray player is that it can constantly have software updates to improve the features. it makes a pretty decent player especially with the remote, and you have the option of gaming on it too.

[honeymustard]

I'd go with the PS3, even though you're content with a 360, there might be some decent exclusives down the line that you won't want to miss out on :P

[Anpanman]

Yep and if there isn't much difference in price, the PS3 'may' hold its value better than a standalone player incase you want to sell in the future.

[sj33]

It's been mentioned, but the PS3 is the most future-proof Blu-Ray player because they can software update and are not limited by storage. For example, they upgraded it to BD1.0 spec through new firmware, and have slowly added new features like 720p downscaling and 24Hz support. It's also a very good player in terms of picture quality.

[charlesr]

PS3 doesn't have IR, thus making it fiddly to turn into a useful AV device, needing bluetooth>>>IR converter units. Unless you are prepared to have another remote control lying around.

[kernow]

You could have it hidden away in a closed cupboard though and still use the BT remote . hehe

I never liked/got on with those all in one remotes anyway really.

[Escape-To-88]

I was asking the same question a few months ago, reckon with the price of Blu-ray players at the mo for the features, functionality etc. worth a punt on a PS3.
I personally needed a blu-ray deck and PVR and didn't want a load of boxes lying around so for space reasons opted for a PS3.
Also as far as I'm aware it's also one of the quickest starting BR players and only loses an absoute touch of detail compared to the more expensive players.

[charlesr]

You could have it hidden away in a closed cupboard though and still use the BT remote . hehe

I never liked/got on with those all in one remotes anyway really.

I got a Harmony remote and although I spent 2 weeks setting it up (), the customisation level made it all worthwhile, and Lucy reckons it's the best thing ever, because she can just press "Watch DVD" or "Watch TV" or "Listen to music" and everything works. And on the rare occassion it doesn't work because someone pressed a button on a unit or something, she just presses "help" and it asks her questions till everything is fixed. They work with RF too, so can do Bose and Sonos etc, but not bluetooth.

I presume they will release a bluetooth enabled version at some point and then the PS3 will suddenly be the best choice for bluray player.

[sj33]

I presume they will release a bluetooth enabled version at some point and then the PS3 will suddenly be the best choice for bluray player.

I think the PS3's Bluetooth is encrypted, so it might not be that simple I'm afraid.

[CMcK]

Last months Blu-ray round up in What Hi-Fi had the PS3 last of the four machines they tested. Soundly beaten by the Panasonic and Sony mid range models. Seeing the prices of the Sony 350 model I'm going to ditch my PS3 and get a proper standalone player.

[Lyris]

CMcK: Ignore any other tests which are subjective rather than objective.

I've seen many claims from similar sources that the standalone players are more colourful, "sharper", more dazzling, vibrant, etc. None of these are backed up with any data and seem to be written by people with a misunderstanding of how digital video works.

The video on a Blu-ray Disc is almost always 1920x1080 @ 24fps with chroma sampled at 4:2:0. That is a very, very close match for today's 1920x1080/24p displays. The fact is, there's very little video-wise that can go wrong.

If you're using Component outputs, or have a TV with a lower resolution, that muddies the waters a bit. But don't buy a standalone player if you're expecting better picture quality. In terms of 1080p BD video playback, the PS3 gets it all right (in fact, the Criterion Collection, videophile Joe Kane, and Sony's own Japanese Blu-ray Disc QA and authoring centre use Playstation 3s as reference players).

You won't read this in a hi-fi magazine, perhaps because they depend largely on advertising from CE companies, not Sony Computer Entertainment, but perhaps for other reasons.

BTW, here is an off-screen shot comparing a test pattern from two BD players. Same cable, same TV, same settings, same disc. As you can see, all the fine details are shown in both cases. The only difference is in one of the player's white level output (I'm not sure which of the two is right), which is adjusted for on the TV anyway.





(Images are copyright HDTVtest, who I wrote the article for).

[Dazzyman]

All I know is in living room we have both a PS3 and the Sony 350. We notice zero difference between the quality and even though its easier for parents to use the 350 remote over the PS3 they use that because it takes so damn long for the 350 to boot a film.
If it was better it be in my bedroom as that was the deal when I got them it they could have my PS3 and Id get the free player but the PS3 is better for it due to speed of use.

Companies are in the business to sell low and mid range BR players so their going to push them. It aint like the days of PS2 DVD player compared to rivals their is no difference.

[CMcK]

I guess it is a bit early for there to be noticeable differences between systems.
I remember the difference in picture quality between the Samsung 807 DVD player I owned and the Pioneer 717 that followed it less than a year later. More impressive was the difference between the 717 and 575 that replaced it. The 575 was so much better via scart I could hardly believe it.