Blu-ray Discussion Thread - The One and Only

[quote name='GizmoGC']I have a LG BH200 which can be made Region Free. The only way for you to go Region free is to track down a LG BH200 ($200+) or one of the shady players on eBay right now (Momitsu - about $150). I think the Oppo's can be made Region free with a hardware hack, software hack is a bit risky. Problem is, thanks to Blu-ray's every chaging spec, you will need to update the firmare every once and a while to play newer Blu-rays, and doing so may make those region free players no longer region free (Momitsu).

My BH200 and TV (Toshiba Regza) pass 50i stuff just fine. I think I had an issue once with one disc where the audio was out of Sync, so I just switched it to 720p and it worked fine. That converter is $180...better off just getting a region free BD player.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the direction. I'll take a look into the specs on the player and the tv. Hopefully it's the player that has the converter in it. I did try the PS3 on 720p and 1080i, but I still just had a blank screen.
 
[quote name='thelonepig']Thanks for the direction. I'll take a look into the specs on the player and the tv. Hopefully it's the player that has the converter in it. I did try the PS3 on 720p and 1080i, but I still just had a blank screen.[/QUOTE]

The PS3 is known to have issues with discs that are authored in 50i (or even trailers on the discs...so you can't get to the main menu). So likely a new player would be your only solution.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']I just listed it. No reason to use a video game console to watch Blu-rays on. That's so 3 years ago.
[/QUOTE]

quality post, you sound like a hs girl

[quote name='GizmoGC']

In your opinion. My opinion is not having an actual Display or a remote makes it not really a feasible player. Not to mention the power the PS3 uses, constant firmware updates, chance of burning out the laser faster, and (now) being pretty damn slow in comparison to other players. You can buy a stand alone for about $100 now and they do far more features (streaming, Netflix without a silly disc, Pandora, Amazon VOD, Cinema Now, playing various video files etc.) that the PS3 can't do. Sorry you don't agree with me. But if you are on a fixed income and just have to also have something to play videogames on, get a PS3. I'll never touch one again - especially not for Blu-ray. It's a 'toy' and I don't want a 'toy' to watch movies on.[/QUOTE]

lol you have yet to list any reasoning that makes it a bad BLU RAY PLAYER. All those have nothing to do with watching a blu ray, pandora? lol thats part of your reasoning? any player uses power and is also at risk for a damaged laser. You seem butthurt.

Oh and the constant firmware updates that can upgrade it to a 3d player are so bad. You're too funny
 
[quote name='mcdaking84']quality post, you sound like a hs girl



lol you have yet to list any reasoning that makes it a bad BLU RAY PLAYER. All those have nothing to do with watching a blu ray, pandora? lol thats part of your reasoning? any player uses power and is also at risk for a damaged laser. You seem butthurt.

Oh and the constant firmware updates that can upgrade it to a 3d player are so bad. You're too funny[/QUOTE]

Oh god. Nevermind. If I wanted to have a Blu-ray/PS3 rocks discussion with 14 year olds I'd join Blu-ray.com. On to the Ignore list.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']Oh god. Nevermind. If I wanted to have a Blu-ray/PS3 rocks discussion with 14 year olds I'd join Blu-ray.com. On to the Ignore list.[/QUOTE]

lol I am honored, and it seems like you are the 14 year old. The ps3 is 3 years ago, lol. Also i am still waiting for a legit reason, you have any proof on how much slower the ps3 is . you have provided basically no reasons

let me guess bluray.com proved how wrong you are?
 
Gizmo, your reasons for not liking the PS3 as a blu ray player do seem weak at best but the point that blu ray players can be had at $100 or so is valid. If those $100 players can do Netflix and Amazon on demand then by all means people should seek that out. But that being said I don't see any reason why current PS3 owners should be balked at for using their device for a blu ray player.

Lets agree to disagree on the rest and move past this discussion so the thread doesn't stray too far off topic.
 
[quote name='ZForce915']Gizmo, your reasons for not liking the PS3 as a blu ray player do seem weak at best but the point that blu ray players can be had at $100 or so is valid. If those $100 players can do Netflix and Amazon on demand then by all means people should seek that out. But that being said I don't see any reason why current PS3 owners should be balked at for using their device for a blu ray player.

Lets agree to disagree on the rest and move past this discussion so the thread doesn't stray too far off topic.[/QUOTE]

Best post in this thread all day.
 
[quote name='ZForce915']Gizmo, your reasons for not liking the PS3 as a blu ray player do seem weak at best but the point that blu ray players can be had at $100 or so is valid. If those $100 players can do Netflix and Amazon on demand then by all means people should seek that out. But that being said I don't see any reason why current PS3 owners should be balked at for using their device for a blu ray player.

Lets agree to disagree on the rest and move past this discussion so the thread doesn't stray too far off topic.[/QUOTE]

Again, having an Actual Display and an Actual remote (and not some crappy Bluetooth one or rigging it up to accept a normal remote like Harmony) is a good enough reason not to use a PS3 as a Blu-ray player.

Stand Alones do far more now than what a PS3 can do in terms of watching movies. Not going to discuss it playing games since I am talking about movies. Netflix is built in to the players, no need for a disc. Some play MKVS. Some have Pandora, VuDu, CinemaNow, Amazon VOD etc. All far better options than what the PS3 has to offer.

If you want to use a PS3 as a Blu-ray player go ahead. A serious movie watcher would never have a videogame console as their movie playback device. Not in 2010 at least when there are far more better (and cheaper) options. You are all welcome to use it, I just offered my opinions. Sorry that my opinion does not reflect your opinion.
 
[quote name='mcdaking84']lol I am honored, and it seems like you are the 14 year old. The ps3 is 3 years ago, lol. Also i am still waiting for a legit reason, you have any proof on how much slower the ps3 is . you have provided basically no reasons

let me guess bluray.com proved how wrong you are?[/QUOTE]

No, I'm not 14. You can tell by the way I am able to have an actual conversation instead of a few random sentences strung together.

Speed:
http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/home_av/others/0,39037627,62059977,00.htm

Where's the PS3 on this list? While Sony's wunderconsole long held all our disc-loading records, it's much less impressive in 2009. We found the PS3 Slim took 1 minute 47 seconds to load Pirates of the Caribbean, a full 24 seconds slower than even the Samsung BD-P1600[ Gizmo note - a 1.5 year old player]. Don't get us wrong, the PS3 Slim is still the best value in home theater today, but it's no longer the speed champ.
Click to expand...

And that was several months ago before all the newer, super fast players arrived. PS3 (Slim atleast, the Fat PS3 is likely even worse) is slower. Slow. Slow. Do you need me to hit Google for anything else?

How about power usage:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10318727-1.html

PS3 SLIM SAMSUNG 3600
Standby 0.36 0.21
Idling 75.19 16.12
Blu-ray 80.90 21.91

Again, another Blu-ray player that is discontinued and newer (faster) models have already arrived.

And PS3 is 3.5 years old.

Anything else? Amazing how even last years discontinued models proved my point. PS3 was great in 2006, 2007 and even 2008, but from 2009 onwards it's no longer a great player (or a must-have).
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']No, I'm not 14. You can tell by the way I am able to have an actual conversation instead of a few random sentences strung together.

Speed:
http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/home_av/others/0,39037627,62059977,00.htm



And that was several months ago before all the newer, super fast players arrived. PS3 (Slim atleast, the Fat PS3 is likely even worse) is slower. Slow. Slow. Do you need me to hit Google for anything else?

How about power usage:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10318727-1.html

PS3 SLIM SAMSUNG 3600
Standby 0.36 0.21
Idling 75.19 16.12
Blu-ray 80.90 21.91

Again, another Blu-ray player that is discontinued and newer (faster) models have already arrived.

And PS3 is 3.5 years old.

Anything else? Amazing how even last years discontinued models proved my point. PS3 was great in 2006, 2007 and even 2008, but from 2009 onwards it's no longer a great player (or a must-have).[/QUOTE]

Yeah you don't come off as a 14 year old at all with your elitist attitude with no backing. At least now you provide some sort of backing.

So I'm not a serious movie watcher because I have a blu ray player that loads movie 30 seconds slower and uses more power. LOL, That is amazing. As a standalone player if it is 4 years old and is comparable to newer models, than it is good enough as a stand alone player.

How many players can be updated into 3d? Still neglecting that?
 
[quote name='mcdaking84']Yeah you don't come off as a 14 year old at all with your elitist attitude with no backing. At least now you provide some sort of backing.

So I'm not a serious movie watcher because I have a blu ray player that loads movie 30 seconds slower and uses more power. LOL, That is amazing. As a standalone player if it is 4 years old and is comparable to newer models, than it is good enough as a stand alone player.

How many players can be updated into 3d? Still neglecting that?[/QUOTE]

Elitist attitude? Sure. I have a dozen BD players and several hundred movies. Thanks.
And my backing was just proven with a speed and power test. Two things I mentiomed along with no Display and no 'real' remote.

PS3 Slim is only 6 or so months old. PS3 Fat is (now discontinued) like 3 years old. All the comparisons are against the PS3 Slim, which shows that at the time, the newer (which were several months old at the time) players still outranked it. And now we have a whole new generation of faster players.

3D is crap and no one cares about it. Do you have a 3D TV? No. Great, so that update is useless for you and 99.9% of people who own PS3s. Might as well tell me they are adding an update to help people with 3 arms so I can file that with the other useless features it has.

But how many players can be updated to 3D (some are 3D Ready right now. Others will get firmware updates) ? About 10 right now. Four from Sony, Three from Samsung, 1 from LG (though they are working on getting others the update for the 570/590), 2 from Toshiba, 2 from Panasonic and many more coming out. But 3D is a fad, and unless you have a 3D TV, it's a moot point.

But was that it? Anything else I can help you with?
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']A serious movie watcher would never have a videogame console as their movie playback device. [/QUOTE]

As long as the PS3 plays blu-ray's just like any other player and there is no difference in video/audio, then it's all good.
By your reasoning, being a serious movie watcher means having features unrelated to actually viewing blu-rays like a display(tells you you're watching a movie) or low power consumption(i lolled). The PS3 can also play video games so it must also be a good device. Oh wait you already stated you don't play ps3 games.

Please stick to the price argument cause it's the only one.
 
[quote name='Tony208']As long as the PS3 plays blu-ray's just like any other player and there is no difference in video/audio, then it's all good.
By your reasoning, being a serious movie watcher means having features unrelated to actually viewing blu-rays like a display(tells you you're watching a movie) or low power consumption(i lolled). The PS3 can also play video games so it must also be a good device. Oh wait you already stated you don't play ps3 games.

Please stick to the price argument cause it's the only one.[/QUOTE]

Already stated why. Display, Real remote, not using a 'toy' to play movies etc etc etc

My arguments are fair. You, as a PS3 owner, are going to object, so feel free to. In the context of Blu-ray, I would never use a PS3 ever, ever again.
 
[quote name='ZForce915']*sigh*

I tried.

/leaves thread.[/QUOTE]

As did I. No point in arguing with people who own PS3s and refuse to try something else that offers more features for a movie watcher.
 
Can't believe you brought up that "toy" argument again.

Wonder why they use the word "play" on the precious remote of yours? That blu-ray "player" is a "toy" and it plays movies to entertain you.
 
[quote name='Tony208']Can't believe you brought up that "toy" argument again.

Wonder why they use the word "play" on the precious remote of yours? That blu-ray "player" is a "toy" and it plays movies to entertain you.[/QUOTE]

Because Home Theater enthusiasts consider the PS3 a "toy" - just like Xbox 360 with the HD DVD drive before it. They want a real player with a real display and a real remote. They don't want to have to plug-in a videogame controller to do a firmware update (unless that's changed from when I got rid of my PS3 a few years ago) or fashion some doohicky to get it to accept Harmony remote codes. Again, feel free to defend the PS3 as much as you want since it's the player you have, but I just don't consider it a viable player anymore when their are far more choices that offer far more features, load discs faster, use less power etc. I really loved my 32" Westinghouse 720p TV, but I've since upgraded since technology has moved on and newer TVs offer better features. It doesn't make the Westinghouse any less of a great TV, but it's outdated and there are better options available. But I won't defend the Westinghouse when there are obviously better TVs available - that would be just silly.

My remote does not have the world 'play' on it. It's a sideways Triangle. :cool:
 
What exactly is the problem needing a remote for the PS3? It works and works well.

And anyone who is serious about streaming video to their TV/home theatre uses a home theater PC, not a $100 blu-ray player. Or just buy a VGA or DVI cable and go from your computer to TV, who really gives a crap about streaming video anyway? Also, loading times from a blu-ray ripped to a hard drive will be faster than any player reading from disc media. For me I don't really mind just letting the PS3 load it.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']Because Home Theater enthusiasts consider the PS3 a "toy" - just like Xbox 360 with the HD DVD drive before it. They want a real player with a real display and a real remote. They don't want to have to plug-in a videogame controller to do a firmware update (unless that's changed from when I got rid of my PS3 a few years ago) or fashion some doohicky to get it to accept Harmony remote codes. Again, feel free to defend the PS3 as much as you want since it's the player you have, but I just don't consider it a viable player anymore when their are far more choices that offer far more features, load discs faster, use less power etc. I really loved my 32" Westinghouse 720p TV, but I've since upgraded since technology has moved on and newer TVs offer better features. It doesn't make the Westinghouse any less of a great TV, but it's outdated and there are better options available. But I won't defend the Westinghouse when there are obviously better TVs available - that would be just silly.

My remote does not have the world 'play' on it. It's a sideways Triangle. :cool:[/QUOTE]

There's no point of arguing with them. The people who still think the PS3 is the best Blu-Ray player are still stuck in the past with the people who think that AVG or Avast is the best free anti-virus program. It may have been true 2-3 years ago but times change.

It's also worth mentioning that most standalone player are near silence while playing a movie. If the PS3 is anything like the old 360 HD-DVD attachment...yikes.
 
[quote name='neocisco']Best post in this thread all day.[/QUOTE]

Agree.

[quote name='GizmoGC']Already stated why. Display, Real remote, not using a 'toy' to play movies etc etc etc

My arguments are fair. You, as a PS3 owner, are going to object, so feel free to. In the context of Blu-ray, I would never use a PS3 ever, ever again.[/QUOTE]

Good for you.

Meanwhile, other people spend their money on more important things. You feel not playing PS3 games is important. I don't think a display is important. No reason to talk down to people who's device does exactly what it's supposed to do.

I only buy Blu these days. I don't even watch my DVDs. Yet I own and quite enjoy my PS3. I don't see the need to waste money at this point and time.

For someone who tried to make the point that it was your opinion, you certainly seem to keep talking down to those who don't see any problem with what they are using. If you'd like to find a consensus to your argument, it's not going to be here.
 
Gizmo's not really one to argue with about Blu Ray equipment.. the man knows his stuff.

I'll be the first to admit that the PS3 isn't the best by far. Netflix ready players, Amazon VOD, Pandora.. those are all fantastic features. I have two PS3's so I'm not looking into upgrading to a standalone anytime soon, but when I do, I'll probably go to Gizmo for advice on which to go with.

The fact that I can't even use my Harmony 1100 remote with my PS3 without an adapter really pisses me off, though.
 
The PS3 certainly has its benefits by far. Plus most of the stuff like Netflix, Pandora, etc can easily be added to the PS3. But by far there are far more options out there now that are better than the PS3. Heck you can just build a HTPC like I have. :)
 
[quote name='lionheart4life']What exactly is the problem needing a remote for the PS3? It works and works well.

And anyone who is serious about streaming video to their TV/home theatre uses a home theater PC, not a $100 blu-ray player. Or just buy a VGA or DVI cable and go from your computer to TV, who really gives a crap about streaming video anyway? Also, loading times from a blu-ray ripped to a hard drive will be faster than any player reading from disc media. For me I don't really mind just letting the PS3 load it.[/QUOTE]

You may not have seen or used some of the newer stand alone BD players. Many will stream from a Desktop PC/MAC or play using an external HD. My BD590 (and BD390) currently streams just about any movie file within a few seconds of hitting play. It can also use TVersity and other things with a little knowledge (I personally have not done so yet as I don't find Hulu streamed to that great). It's far more versatile than a HTPC right now (unless you want to do other things with it). I feel bad for some of the HTPC crowd when they have to wait for updates to play newer BDs. I sold my Mac Mini because my BD390 was half the price and did far more things from a HTPC standpoint.
 
[quote name='Scorch']Gizmo's not really one to argue with about Blu Ray equipment.. the man knows his stuff.

I'll be the first to admit that the PS3 isn't the best by far. Netflix ready players, Amazon VOD, Pandora.. those are all fantastic features. I have two PS3's so I'm not looking into upgrading to a standalone anytime soon, but when I do, I'll probably go to Gizmo for advice on which to go with.

The fact that I can't even use my Harmony 1100 remote with my PS3 without an adapter really pisses me off, though.[/QUOTE]

The sad thing is I've owned/reviewed/"tested" far more Blu-ray players than most men have seen women naked. I think I've had almost every BD player out in America come through my hands at some point. It's pathetic :lol: And I know not to use a PS3 again for several reason:
SA have a Display
SA have a real remote
SA use less power
SA load discs faster
SA offer far more 'on demand' software (VuDu, Amazon VOD, Blockbuster, Cinemanow)
SA offers MKV playing
SA are silent

And several other reasons I just can't think of right now. PS3 did its job - it killed HD DVD :)( ) , but people really shouldn't fool themselves into thinking it's still the top player. It's not. If you're on a budget and just have to watch Blu-ray and play PS3 games...sure. But if you are a movie watcher only, there is no reason to spend $300 on it when you can get one with far more features for half the price. Stores are giving them away now in hopes of selling HDTVs, 3DTVs and BD Software.

It's hard to look at the list of things the PS3 does not do, or does poorly, and still recommend it.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']It's far more versatile than a HTPC right now (unless you want to do other things with it). I feel bad for some of the HTPC crowd when they have to wait for updates to play newer BDs. I sold my Mac Mini because my BD390 was half the price and did far more things from a HTPC standpoint.[/QUOTE]

And this is where we part. That statement is just plain crazy talk. There is nothing more versatile than a HTPC.

Last time I had an issue where my computer couldn't play a new release was when Requiem For A Dream/The Quick And The Dead was released (almost a year ago) and even then, it was only a day or two until the firmware came out. Add in AnyDVDHD, goodbye region codes/forced trailers/any type of waiting.
 
I went back and checked, to see where anyone said the PS3 was the best BD player out there. I couldn't find it, at least in the current discussion. No one tried to. I'm sure that everyone knows that the current models out there are better.

The argument was that the PS3 wasn't a 'viable' option. The argument simply wasn't based in fact. People were making the point that if they already had a PS3, there wasn't any point in going SA if they still played PS3 games. And it's a completely valid point. I think if the point had been framed like 'if you want to take the next step, consider a SA' then this would have never happened. But to say that anyone with a PS3 isn't 'serious' about BD was condescending.

If one's priority is to have the best viewing experience possible, then no - the PS3 isn't the right choice. Others may have different priorities and we have to respect that.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']And this is where we part. That statement is just plain crazy talk. There is nothing more versatile than a HTPC.

Last time I had an issue where my computer couldn't play a new release was when Requiem For A Dream/The Quick And The Dead was released (almost a year ago) and even then, it was only a day or two until the firmware came out. Add in AnyDVDHD, goodbye region codes/forced trailers/any type of waiting.[/QUOTE]

We'll have to talk. We have problems with tons of BDs when trying to take screenshots on almost a weekly basis (and we use AnyDVD). Disney/Fox/Warner change on a weekly basis.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']It's hard to look at the list of things the PS3 does not do, or does poorly, and still recommend it.[/QUOTE]

but I'm still waiting to hear of any... I don't know what a "real" remote is, but I know the one I have for the PS3 is not "fake"...

when the argument is a proper display menu and load times... I don't see a big deal there.
 
[quote name='DestroVega']but I'm still waiting to hear of any... I don't know what a "real" remote is, but I know the one I have for the PS3 is not "fake"...

when the argument is a proper display menu and load times... I don't see a big deal there.[/QUOTE]

It's a Bluetooth remote, not a 'real' IR remote like every other TV/device uses. Meaning you can't program a Harmony remote to accept the Bluetooth remote meaning you need to buy a silly adapter. Already explained twice.
 
I have to say I am happy with my PS3 60 gig when it comes to playing my blurays. However I also bought it to play games on. My add on for the 360 for HD-DVD was not bad however I would rather play both HD-DVD and BluRay on my LG combo player or even my LG combo drive for the PC.
 
[quote name='Tony208']and everyone uses a Harmony remote[/QUOTE]

Just keep defending the PS3. It's no longer the best viable player in 2010 when there are other players that are faster, uses less power, have more streaming options etc. Gees, some of you guys act like it'll be the bee's knee's for the next decade.
 
Maybe I shouldn't get in the middle of this but I feel like it's common sense, if you want to play video games then buy a PS3. If you want to only watch movies (or prefer to play your games on a 360/Wii/PC) then buy a blu-ray player.
 
[quote name='RockMySocks10']Maybe I shouldn't get in the middle of this but I feel like it's common sense, if you want to play video games then buy a PS3. If you want to only watch movies (or prefer to play your games on a 360/Wii/PC) then buy a blu-ray player.[/QUOTE]

again that was true 2 years ago, now...not so much
 
I don't see how that still is not true. For me the PS3 is fine however I do like my LG players better. The PS3 is fine for a gamer that is just looking to be able to play a BD in 1080p and isn't looking for the greatest player out there. Sure it has its drawbacks but for an average user it is fine. If you are only looking for a BD player then no I don't suggest a PS3.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']I have a Harmony remote and prefer the PS3 remote.

Some people can't accept others preferences. It's all a game of absolutes.[/QUOTE]

So you have an All in One Remote and prefer not to use it for everything? Yeah...
 
[quote name='neocisco']Maybe he likes the button layout better. Gizmo, you really need to chill.[/QUOTE]

I'm quite chill.

Infact, I'm playing my really sophisticated Xbox right now. Man this thing is really awesome! Who needs an Xbox 360 when the Xbox plays games? Who needs a 360 when the Xbox plays games just like the Xbox 360? ;)

(Though using the Bluetooth remote and not the Harmony proves my point exactly)
 
But honestly, I'm just watching an MKV on my BD590 and after plan to hit up VuDu with a little Netflix after (Look Mom, no disc!).

So...how would I do that on the PS3?
 
Some people just don't want to do all that, they want to keep it relatively simple. Also, maybe someone who already has a PS3 doesn't want to add yet another device to their entertainment center. You need to accept that just because a certain piece of equipment doesn't provide a satisfactory experience for you doesn't mean it can't provide a satisfactory experience for someone else.
 
[quote name='sendme']I don't see how that still is not true. For me the PS3 is fine however I do like my LG players better. The PS3 is fine for a gamer that is just looking to be able to play a BD in 1080p and isn't looking for the greatest player out there. Sure it has its drawbacks but for an average user it is fine. If you are only looking for a BD player then no I don't suggest a PS3.[/QUOTE]

Because Blu-Ray player prices are so low now, it's possible to get a standalone BR player plus a used Xbox 360 for the same price as a new PS3.

That would be the best of both worlds if you have to game. A console to game on plus a Blu-Ray player you won't have to replace or feel embarrassed about in 2-4 years when PS4 or whatever comes out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='neocisco']Some people just don't want to do all that, they want to keep it relatively simple. Also, maybe someone who already has a PS3 doesn't want to add yet another device to their entertainment center. You need to accept that just because a certain piece of equipment doesn't provide a satisfactory experience for you doesn't mean it can't provide a satisfactory experience for someone else.[/QUOTE]

Please accept the fact that the PS3 is no longer the bee's knee's of Blu-ray players. As I said, in 2010, anyone buying a PS3 for Blu-ray are losing out (couple hundred bucks and several worthwhile features). No one in their right mind would pay $300+$20 for a Remote ( :roll: ) for a PS3 Blu-ray player to just play Blu-rays on. They would grab a $150 WiFi BD player that loads discs faster, uses less power and typically has more movie-like features.
 
Show me anywhere I said that the PS3 is "the bee's knees" or some variation on that theme. You can't because I didn't. It's become crystal clear that you're not really paying attention to what some people have been saying. The majority of people (including myself) are saying that the PS3 is a satisfactory player, NOT the best player. For people who have bought the PS3 to play games on, it can also be a fully sufficient player for that individual's needs. Your needs clearly are not in line with theirs and that's fine; however, applying your desires to someone else's situation is shortsighted and simply a matter of not considering alternate possibilities.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']But honestly, I'm just watching an MKV on my BD590 and after plan to hit up VuDu with a little Netflix after (Look Mom, no disc!).

So...how would I do that on the PS3?[/QUOTE]

You are right, the ps3 can't (without some work) and that makes it a shitty blu-ray player. You've won.
 
Noticed a few drops on Amazon right now: Is $47.99 a good price for Star Trek the Original Series Season 2? Season 3 also dropped to $47.99.

Breaking Bad Season 1 is $25.99 and Season 2 is $29.99.

Tempted to get Breaking Bad, but I may wait for a larger collection or additional price drops.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']So you have an All in One Remote and prefer not to use it for everything? Yeah...[/QUOTE]

This is what pisses me off about the PS3.

To get off this PS3 thing would the harmony remotes work with a HTPC? I'm planning on building one sometime and just wondering if the remote would work on it.
 
[quote name='gunm']Noticed a few drops on Amazon right now: Is $47.99 a good price for Star Trek the Original Series Season 2? Season 3 also dropped to $47.99.

Breaking Bad Season 1 is $25.99 and Season 2 is $29.99.

Tempted to get Breaking Bad, but I may wait for a larger collection or additional price drops.[/QUOTE]

$26 for 7 episodes is still ridiculous. It's the reason I still only have S2 on Blu-ray.
 
Hey Gizmo how's the picture quality on season 2? I REALLY want to get both seasons on blu but want to make sure the quality is there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top