Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Best Blu-Ray players when it comes to load times?

This is topic Best Blu-Ray players when it comes to load times? in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000776

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-12-2009, 07:30 PM:

My Blu-Ray player sucks majorly when it comes to load times. It's one of the early Sony models. I imagine that they have gotten much better since I got this one. What has been your experiences with your Blu-Ray players? I understand that there can be a difference depending on the disks and I remember reading somewhere that some studios force a pre-load of part of the movie or something and that slows things down a bit. But still, I want a player that spins up the disk focuses the beam and starts.

On another note, I want a player that when I walk up to it, and it is OFF, and I press the eject button, the tray opens instantly. I don't want to wait for Linux or whatever it is running the thing to boot up first. When I hit eject, I'm willing to wait one millisecond for the power light to turn on, but beyond that the tray should open right away.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-12-2009, 08:10 PM:

I think the fat Playstation 3 is the fastest and pretty much the best in every aspect (except it can't bitstream audio despite having HDMI 1.3). Everything else is junk. I find it funny that dedicated consumer electronics can't even compete with a friggin' videogame system. How pathetic. Everyone knows that videogames are for kids.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-12-2009, 08:44 PM:

Certain "stand-alone" BD players have improved disc loading performance.

The Samsung BD-P3600 player has disc loading speeds that rival the PS3. The BD-P3600 has a lot of higher end features, like built in Wi-Fi, 7.1 channel output, etc. It also costs as much as a PS3, but without the gaming and media center capability boasted by the PS3. Reviews on the BD-P3600, such as one from Home Theater Magazine, complain about sluggish performance in other areas like chapter skipping. The PS3 is fast (compared to stand-alone BD players) in just about every area when it comes to Blu-ray playback.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-12-2009, 09:50 PM:

I just take a short nap while the disk is loading....

Mark

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 10-13-2009, 11:03 AM:

The PS3 is extremely quick on loading discs, so I'm definitely spoiled there! Coming from the first-gen Toshiba HD DVD player with its "you can feel yourself aging" startup and load times, it was a very welcome change.

I do believe some of the latest generation Blu-ray players have improved their boot and load times, because so many people complained about those attributes in the early models. A recent review of the Oppo BDP-83 at Audioholics says this:

quote:
Hit the Eject button and the player takes 3 seconds to wake up and open the tray. 16 seconds later you are playing your disc. That is performance that exceeds any other player we've tested to-date. This is an exciting new player that, sad to say, finally takes Blu-ray back to the speed and quickness of DVD players we're all used to manhandling.

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/transports/high-definition-dvd-players-hd-dvd-blu-ray/oppo-bdp-83-universal-blu-ray/comparison-setup

This player is not cheap, but the reviews that I've seen are very good.

CNet mentions this in its review of the LG BD370:

quote:
The BD370 may not have the best video quality in this price range, but it fares better when it comes to load times. It was able to load "Mission: Impossible III" in 14 seconds with the player on, and in 28 seconds with the player off. That's actually better than both the Panasonic DMP-BD60 and Samsung BD-P1600, which took 21 and 16 seconds, respectively, to load the movie with the players on. The BD370 wasn't quite as quick to load movies featuring more extensive menu systems. It took a minute and 26 seconds to get to the actual movie on "Spider-Man 3," for example; that's about as fast as the Panasonic DMP-BD60 and considerably slower than the BD-P1600, which took a minute and 7 seconds.

http://reviews.cnet.com/blu-ray-players-recorders/lg-bd370/4505-9991_7-33485559.html

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 10-13-2009, 01:01 PM:

The nerds on the AVS Forums are going ga-ga over the JVC XV-BP1.

Some who have purchased are claiming load times "as fast or faster" than PS3. They also say this player is very quiet and has a nice menu structure.

The negative to this player: Obnoxious blue lights.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-13-2009, 01:25 PM:

Do not get the first-generation Sony. One could thread several 35mm projectors in the time that it takes to load one disk (even a standard DVD). It also does not play audio CDs for some reason. I assume that the newer players are better.

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 10-13-2009, 01:35 PM:

Back nearly a year ago when I had done research for buying one for our theater, I found the Sony BD-350 wasn't bad, shorter load times and better reviews. The BD-350 was replaced by the BD-360, but I haven't looked at the reviews. Nothing however at the time including some higher end $1000 jobs, beat the PS3. We just didn't think our office would believe that we chose the PS3 because it was the best player, so we settled for second best.

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 10-13-2009, 06:32 PM:

How does the compression of Blu-Ray hold up on the big screen Joe?

Other than that, these days it seems like the workflow for the BR process is less lossless than that of a $1,600 35mm print, which is kind of mind-boggling to me [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-13-2009, 07:03 PM:

Me? (I figure I must be who everyone is referring to when "Joe" is mentioned). I haven't seen Blu-ray on the "big screen", but I can guarantee you that most discs will show noticeable compression artifacts when blown up. This can be prevented to some degree by having a quality player and projector, but it will never be as good as uncompressed video. Hell, even uncompressed video can be prone to banding.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-13-2009, 10:16 PM:

Bit depth means a lot. How many uncompressed HD streams are fully 4:4:4?

One of the big problems with big screen blowing up of Blu-ray video (which really means blowing up a highly compressed MPEG-4 AVC or Microsoft VC-1 video stream) is the image frames are not discrete. Not only do you have the blocking and banding artifacts that get increasingly worse as the compression level becomes more severe, but those compression artifacts are often sustained and held in place across multiple frames due to inter-frame compression commonly used on any highly compressed digital video bitstream regardless of format, be it AVC, VC1, MPEG-2, Flash Video, whatever.

This is one of the areas where digital cinema definitely one ups Blu-ray. Every frame in a JPEG2000 format virtual print is truly discrete. You're not going to have color blocks, mosquito noise, color bands and other stuff held over from other previous frames -unless someone really screwed up badly in the digital intermediate process and cooked some mistakes into the master itself.

Blu-ray can look fantastic on a big HDTV screen when the AVC or VC1 stream is well encoded. I think Blu-ray is great. It certainly beats the hell out of DVD. Nevertheless, I don't see it as a substitute for other better methods of showing movies on commercial movie screens. Although I don't think 2K d-cinema is better than 4-perf 35mm, I do strongly believe 2K d-cinema is better than Blu-ray.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-14-2009, 12:44 AM:

That is HUGE for someone like me who edits video as well. That is why I avoid formats like HDV and those Sony cameras that record direct to DVD or SDHC memory card. I only shoot video with DVCPRO HD since it is a true intraframe codec. 100mbps. Much too fast for a wimpy SDHC card (unfortunately). I have had to edit HDV once and it adds a lot of time to the process because it must be transcoded first.

That said, I believe the PS3 has the fastest load times. [Smile]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-14-2009, 12:48 AM:

This, with us getting a 1080p HDTV, what would be the better, or even best BR player to get since I'm gonna head to Costco one of these days ... thx-Monte

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 10-14-2009, 10:22 AM:

If you're getting a TV that can do 1080p at 24fps natively, I don't think that there a lot of picture quality differences between the units. If your TV needs the 3:2 conversion done for it, then the hardware is going to perform differently.

Since it sounds like you haven't gotten the new TV yet, make sure that the TV can do 1080p24 and then you'll have less to worry about on the player side.

Do you need discrete analog outputs, or does your receiver have HDMI for audio decoding, so that you can enjoy the lossless audio tracks? If not, you can save quite a bit of money by staying in the basic tier of players, like the Samsung 1600 or LG 370. If you need/want the extra features, the up-level players like the Samsung 3600 and LG 390 have analog outs, built-in memory for BD-Live, and wireless networking built-in.

The PS3 is nice for its speed and its ability to play media from your network and to play games. I'm not a big gamer, but I've found a half-dozen games that I've purchased for my own use and to entertain nieces and nephews. I've used the media player stuff quite a bit because I like to tinker and to create my own HD videos. The lack of an IR remote control is a pain, but it can be gotten around by using an IR adaptor or if you have a Harmony remote, the Harmony adaptor is a pricey but cooler alternative.

The Oppo BD-83 is an enthusiast's machine at a price that will only be attractive to a select crowd. I think it's hard to justify the cost for most people. The higher-end Denon, Pioneer, and other units are just rewarding small incremental improvements for large increases in cost, IMO.

I would head in the direction of the Panasonic, LG, and Samsung units because of their ability to access services like Netflix, Pandora, and Amazon Video on Demand. Even Sony replaced the 360 with the 460, which has access to some of those services built-in.

If the download services don't interest you (I love Pandora, so that has a big appeal to me, but I have it on my Squeezebox), then ignore all that stuff and look for reliability and speed. That's why the Panasonic and LG units would be higher on my list, but the Sony would be something I'd want to check out as well.

If you have a TV that can handle the video tasks well and a receiver that can handle the audio tasks well, the player becomes more of a transport than anything else, and most any player will play movies well (aside from the bargain basement models that I'd never suggest to anyone). If things like wireless network, analog outputs, access to services, media playback, and other features interest you, different models offer a different mix of those features, and which one is best is up to you for what you want.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-14-2009, 10:30 AM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
The PS3 is nice for its speed and its ability to play media from your network and to play games. I'm not a big gamer, but I've found a half-dozen games that I've purchased for my own use and to entertain nieces and nephews.

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves is a PS3 exclusive that could help Sony sell a lot of PS3 consoles. The game is getting a lot of great reviews.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-14-2009, 03:39 PM:

That's because it is good, just like the first one.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-14-2009, 06:40 PM:

Don't some of these players run on Linux? Coulda swore that I read that somewhere.

If that's true, it's kind of ironic that there's no Linux player yet.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-14-2009, 07:23 PM:

Regarding loading speed...

quote: Joe Redifer
I find it funny that dedicated consumer electronics can't even compete with a friggin' videogame system. How pathetic.

Maybe it's because they know kids are impatient and will hammer the buttons to smithereens if they don't respond instantly. (I've seen what kids can do to car stereos.)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-14-2009, 09:25 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Don't some of these players run on Linux? Coulda swore that I read that somewhere.

Prior the recent PS3 firmware update (which added Rainbow Brite™ disco sprinkles to the wave theme) it was possible to hack a PS3 box to run Linux in a dual boot setup. That's no longer the case.

Another point to mention regarding PS3 loading speed, the processing power of a PS3 console is far more powerful than any standalone BD player. I think that's the primary factor on why the PS3 works so great as a Blu-ray player. The PS3 is marked down well below what it costs to make the thing, with Sony expecting to make up for the huge losses on PS3 hardware from individual PS3 game sales.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 10-15-2009, 11:02 PM:

Love the PS3: it's too functional for my needs and fast. I wish there was a front display but I'd rather take fast load times.

Bobby, interesting point on the various compression models. Just today at work we were viewing a Blu ray in the cinema, and we saw what we thought was moiré on screen. Very strange artifact.

Not to say the whole thing was awful, but light years beyond DVD on the same screen.

I'd say we were projecting about 20' worth of image.

AJG

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-15-2009, 11:51 PM:

Moiré on screen? Y'know, that may not be a problem with the Blu-ray release itself. Often moiré can occur when a film element (or paper/reflective element) is scanned at slightly too low a level of resolution to resolve certain bits of detail in the image.

Intricate patterns on items like clothing or wall decorations, "frequency sweeps" like that seen in fences or striped carpet patterns receding into the distance and other details can be a big problem in image acquisition. Going to a higher resolution and later down-sampling often solves many problems, but doesn't always work either.

Sometimes you'll scan at a higher resolution and then still have strange moiré problems present when down-sampling to the target resolution. The moral to that story is "knowing better" on what sorts of stuff to include in the set decorations and costumes. Any costumes with a lot of vertical or horizontal stripes SUCK ASS. When in doubt, dress your actors in solid color clothing or outfits with simple color schemes. Paint the walls on the set solid. Go with solid color carpeting. Don't dig a hole for yourself. When I was on an MTV game show in 1990 I was very specifically told well in advance, do NOT wear a striped shirt.

I really really hate it when someone brings me an image to scan that was published via an offset printer. Halftone screens are just pure hell to deal with. I can eliminate some of the moiré by rotating the printed image by 15° or 30° in the scanning bed. That gets some of the darker printing plate screens to match up better with the square pixel grid. Still, you have to blend out halftone dots and do so without some strange grid like pattern being left behind in the image. Working in L*a*b mode, selectively blurring the "a" and "b" channels while doing less to the lightness channel can sometimes work wonders. Unfortunately, generally speaking if someone brings you a halftone screened color image to scan, you're screwed if you intend to get great image quality out of it. Shoot really high or really low with the scan resolution and then be prepared to use a lot of blurring and despeckling steps to get something that doesn't look like ass.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-16-2009, 03:39 AM:

Moire can even happen during the, umm, filming process when shooting digitally. Even if the movie is shot on film, it can moire when projected via digital cinema, especially at the wimpy 2K resolution.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-16-2009, 08:06 AM:

I've also seen moire issues with LCD video projectors and perforated screens. Certain combinations of lens, image size, and screen material are particularly bad, and there seems to be no way to predict whether a particular combination will cause issues.