Digitalbits says upconverting players don't work

Bill Hunt is at it again. He claims that Toshiba's goal to make upconverting players play SD in an HD quality picture won't work. Read here...

Quote:
For the record, this idea that upconverted standard DVD video quality will EVER look as good as true high-definition video is complete hogwash. Upconverting basically takes 480p video and mathematically adds scan lines to increase the effective output resolution to 1080p. The problem is that this process effectively magnifies the original video image. So if the 480p video has warts or defects (whether on the original film print or compression artifacting in the DVD master), those are going to be even more noticeable when upconverted. It's the old "garbage in, garbage out" principle. On the other hand, many of the new transfers being done for true high-definition releases on Blu-ray (and for a time HD-DVD) are actually being done at 2K or even 4K or higher resolution, and then they're downconverted to 1080p. That allows the maximum possible image detail to be included in the signal. An upconverted 480p DVD is NEVER going to be able to compete with that. That's not to say that upconverted DVDs may not be good enough for some consumers, but this idea that you won't be able to tell the difference is utter nonsense. Anyone who becomes interested in high-def, and there are more and more such consumers all the time, will see right through this.

Okay, yeah, a 480 line image pushed to deliver 1080 will not necessarily be a true 1080. But the fact that a player - be it HD, BR, or SD - can redo the picture and put forth an image that enhances the original is IMHO acceptable. I know that BR is mastered specifically for HDTVs, but an upconverting player is another alternative to help make the SD picture more of a higher quality.

I must add that with upconverting players and DVD, it's going to make Blu-Rays competition more stiff than imagined. They would be doing themselves a favor by lowering prices to be more accessible. High prices, will not make adopting a format easy, it will instead make the current format more secure.

Pretty bold statements. Alls I know is on my ISF calibrated and modded Mits 65815 fed by my Oppo and HD DVD players playing the same movie (upconverted SDVD vs. HD DVD), close up scenes can be EXTREMELY difficult to choose between when flipping back and forth. Obviously, when regarding intricate details in the background, the HD DVD picture is much cleaner, but I wouldn't simply discount a properly upconverted SDVD. These are my observations, and I am the type of guy who gets up in the middle of a movie to flick away a speck I noticed on the screen.

Griz

Well heck, Toshiba should've never waisted their time with HD-DVD then. Why not just go with Super upconverting DVD players to begin with.

Quote:
Well heck, Toshiba should've never waisted their time with HD-DVD then. Why not just go with Super upconverting DVD players to begin with.

I have a feeling that was meant to be sarcarstic, unieye, *wink* but I will be the first to say HDM did not blow me away when I first saw it. I guess the Oppo is just that good of an upconverter.

Griz

Quote:
On the other hand, many of the new transfers being done for true high-definition releases on Blu-ray (and for a time HD-DVD) are actually being done at 2K or even 4K or higher resolution, and then they're downconverted to 1080p.

That's a bit of misinformation. Warner scanned Bladerunner at 4K for ALL the versions they released. Blu-ray, HD-DVD, and DVD. Then downconverted it to 1080P and 480i respectively. Technically any DVD that is mastered in HD is done this way and that's most modern releases.

[Post edited by Movielover316 on Mar 6, 2008]

Bill Hunt again reaffirms his 'Richard Head' status

The guy would have you actually believe that Bleu-Ray was superior to a a LIVE PERFORMANCE, because the Bit Rate of a Bleu Ray player is actually higher than that of the Human Brain.

Can't beat that Lossless 7.1 audio you get from Bleu as well, since you only have 2 ears and probably suffer from a small amount of hearing loss, you can't get the full experience of a LIVE PERFORMANCE's audio unless you hear it played back on Bleu Ray as well.

"But the fact that a player - be it HD, BR, or SD - can redo the picture and put forth an image that enhances the original is IMHO acceptable."

But that doesn't seem to be what Toshiba is saying. They do seem to claim that they will make a pciture as good as an hd mastered image. That's bull fuckin horse shit.

I agree the Upconverted technology is way overated, just my opinion though.

All this Hatred "ahem"... interest over a hardware that is STILL NOT OUT YET, just makes it MORE interesting for people like me to scrutinize- when it comes out. Now I can't wait to check it out.

Who knows... these COLORFUL criticism may just be a smokescreen, to stave off that FEAR of sudden COMPETITION against blu-ray.

Hey xplaytendo... as a Blu-ray supporter, I come out the winner if the Toshiba Super-Upconversion becomes a success - consider...

If Toshiba possibly scores a 'hit' with S-Up technology and sales, this will put even more pressure on Blu-ray to lower the prices of it's players/discs, perhaps faster than they want to, although the prices will come down anyway in time.

So, I say - bring it on Toshiba, and may you hit a 'home run' with S-Up. Then the Blu-ray industry will respond with even lower prices.

Still, there's no way a disc played on a S-Up player will ever rival true High-Definition - once you get used to HD discs, you will always notice that SD-DVD (even upconverted) doesn't look as good. It's acceptable for general viewing, and I still buy and watch SD-DVDs on sale, but HD is where I'm see my primary movie collecting for the future (Blu-ray), not adding a S-Up player.

-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

[Post edited by Love Hendrix! on Mar 7, 2008]

This is not new, upconvert has been with us for a few, and I see no difference. Now Toshiba, who lost this war all on their own, wants to introduce a SUPER upconvert. They should have put their effort into HD DVD and we would'nt even be having this discussion.

I think the current generation upconverting players do a "decent" job only. It certainly makes DVDs look crisper, but the level of detail remains the same.

Super-Resolution upconversion though, should actually *increase* the available visible detail thanks to extra information gleaned from multiple frames of the movie. How well it works all the time remains to be seen. However, under ideal conditions the results seem to be impressive (at least from some Super-Conversion slides from Intel Corp).

BTW, anyone who says it's hard to tell the difference between DVD from a HD-DVD...just what movie were you watching, and how far do you sit from your screen (please do tell the screen size). I find that people generally sit too far from their TVs to appreciate the available detail on the HDTVs. For example, my friend who owns a 40" HDTV oftens sits about 8 feet from his TV. At that distance, HD material looks better but than the same DVD but not overwhemingly so. If I sit say 5 feet away, the improvement is just massive. Not only does the screen fill up more of your vision, the detail is right there in your face. Lovely. I suggest those of you who don't see much of a difference between HD-DVD and DVD to SIT CLOSER. You won't regret it.

BTW the thread title is misleading. Bill Hunt didn't say that upconverting players don't work, he's just saying that upconversion is no replacement for native HD media.

I think there's entirely too much ill-will on these message boards against Bill Hunt and thedigitalbits. That site has been pretty darn honest and spot on for all these years I've been reading it. I remember back in '98 or so when they started championing anamorphic video on DVD...

It only goes to show where some members side on which format... & which 'technology' they believe is DOOMED... even before THAT product comes out. That by itself is premature.

Let the product OUT. Buy it. Review it. Then VENT the conclusion here. Saying that a development of an upcoming 'product' is a waste of a company's time, is irrelevant. As if any of the members here are INVESTED on the vaporware. As if the company manufacturing the box -even care about what people say here. Yes, it's vaporware until I see them on retail shelves.

[Post edited by xplaytendo on Mar 7, 2008]

Why do Blu supporters need to say upconverted DVD is "crap", just to make themselves feel better about their investment? I have HD DVD, I will buy Blu soon, and there is certainly a difference. I am watching these movies on a 120" screen through a 1080p projector, so if anyone is going to notice differences, it's me. Background detail is certainly much better in HD, and HD discs are just generally sharper than upconverted HD. This does NOT make upconverted HD crap, it just makes it not as good. I love watching movies in HD, but even at 120", upconverted SD looks good. If you compare them side by side, or if you sit 4 feet from the tv, it doesn't hold up, but what kind of idiot does that?

[Post edited by interplanetaryspy on Mar 7, 2008]

YCH,

Screen size = 65" Mits - ISF calibrated by Craig Rounds THE man for Mits CRT RPTVs.
Viewing distance from screen to front and center seating position = ~9 feet
Movies compared = 300, Transformers, Batman Begins, and Happy Feet (I have a three year old son) *wink*

I am able to easily flip between my Oppo and Toshiba from my seated position. I start one about 30 seconds after the other, so I can watch a small bit, and then flip to watch the same piece on the other player. While the HDM was consistently better, there were times I did not know for sure which source I was on. In those instances, it was always when focus was on closer items, and backgrounds were a bit blurred anyway. But in scenes like the city fight in Transformers, you could definitely see the HDM shine when looking at the detail of the buildings' windows and such. And the panned out shots of all the penguins from a distance in Happy Feet, the individual penguins were much more defined.

Make no mistake, I realize HDM is better, otherwise, I wouldn't continue to purchase movies in it. But our picky eyes are not the majority. For most people, they merely want to watch the movie. We prefer to "experience" it. I just want to drive the point home that a well designed upconverting player WILL satisfy the viewing needs of the average consumer. HDM is NOT as big of a leap in quality that justifies the investment to John and Jane Doe. Adding to that, if Toshiba has come up with a way to match the processing/upconverting capabilities of, for example, a Lumagen device, and package that power into the DVD player itself while keeping costs down, then they are going to sell a lot of players. But cost is going to be a big factor there. The power of a Lumagen doesn't come cheap.

Oh, and I can't move my seats any closer. It would be too much work!!!!

Quote:
HDM is NOT as big of a leap in quality that justifies the investment to John and Jane Doe.

Well said. JP Morgan just made a statement today, that we are officially in a (short) recession.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/07/news/companies/JPMorgan_recession.ap/?postversion=2008030714

Many here in the message board are finicky about their audio/video rig (w/ the budget to back), so we make the most of our setup, but WE only make a SCANT PERCENTAGE of the population. As in 'A SINGLE DIGIT... At the end of the day... does the 'leap' justify the cost, for the Average Jane & Joe?

[Post edited by xplaytendo on Mar 7, 2008]

While I don't have the statistics, the fact that even home theater fans like you can say that up-conversion is "good enough" in light of HD discs does not bode well for the said John and Jane consumer.

This is just one of many things I don't get about the mass market casual/regular consumers. The jump from DVD to HD is probably the biggest digital video quality jump in a long time. Sure everyone values money differently, but it rubs me the wrong way when people say HD-DVDs or Blu-Ray discs' video quality "isn't that much better than DVD." I want to poke their eyes out because they obviously do not value progress when they see it. I mean, since when have we EVER had a 6x jump in spatial video resolution?

[Post edited by YCH on Mar 7, 2008]

Quote:
While I don't have the statistics, the fact that even home theater fans like you can say that up-conversion is "good enough" in light of HD discs does not bode well for the said John and Jane consumer.

This is just one of many things I don't get about mass consumers. The jump from DVD to HD is probably the biggest digital video quality jump in a long time. Sure everyone values money differently, but it rubs me the wrong way when people say HD "doesn't look that different from DVD." I want to poke their eyes out because they obviously do not value progress when they see it. I mean, since when have we EVER had a 6x jump in spatial video resolution?

YCH,

Not once did I say upconversion is good enough. I am merely stating that upconversion is not as primitive as some make it out to be, and that the average person doesn't care. Did I not say HDM is better?

Sure HDM is an outstanding luxury. But we are fanatics. We enjoy the differences while looking for them. But let me give you an example of what the average person sees...

My theater area nicely accomodates 8 to 10 individuals, so I have regular movie nights. I just recently got into HDM, so I had been exclusively running my Oppo. The weekend after I got my HD DVD player up and running, I invited some regulars over to "break it in". We watched Batman Begins. The verdict? They could not tell. I then tossed in the SDVD version into the Oppo and flipped back and forth. The verdict? They thought both pictures looked great. Only after I started pointing out the differences, did they start to see. But that's the point... I had to point it out. And even after that, their unified response was, "But we aren't watching the details in the background." I wanted to slap them all.

So there you have it. Although we know HDM is all that and a bag of premium potato chips, the average person just doesn't care enough.

Griz

Quote:

Not once did I say upconversion is good enough. I am merely stating that upconversion is not as primitive as some make it out to be, and that the average person doesn't care. Did I not say HDM is better?

Sure HDM is an outstanding luxury. But we are fanatics. We enjoy the differences while looking for them. But let me give you an example of what the average person sees...

My theater area nicely accomodates 8 to 10 individuals, so I have regular movie nights. I just recently got into HDM, so I had been exclusively running my Oppo. The weekend after I got my HD DVD player up and running, I invited some regulars over to "break it in". We watched Batman Begins. The verdict? They could not tell. I then tossed in the SDVD version into the Oppo and flipped back and forth. The verdict? They thought both pictures looked great. Only after I started pointing out the differences, did they start to see. But that's the point... I had to point it out. And even after that, their unified response was, "But we aren't watching the details in the background." I wanted to slap them all.

So there you have it. Although we know HDM is all that and a bag of premium potato chips, the average person just doesn't care enough.

Oh I know, I'm not lumping you in with the regular folks. I just expressed my frustration with "regular joes and janes" who don't know jack about stuff, nor care for it. Not that it's really their fault, but sometimes people should be a little bit more perceptive.

Also, if that's a photo of your living room you posted earlier, I can immediately tell already that your 65" TV isn't a big enough TV for those sitting at the back row. To really show the difference to those in the back seat I'd say you should go 90" or something

My friend has a 60" HDTV, and I really wouldn't sit more than 6 feet away. But then I'm super picky like that.

[Post edited by YCH on Mar 7, 2008]

Quote:
Also, if that's a photo of your living room you posted earlier, I can immediately tell already that your 65" TV isn't a big enough TV for those sitting at the back row. To really show the difference to those in the back seat I'd say you should go 90" or something

Tell that to my wife, YCH! *wink*

Quote:
I just expressed my frustration with "regular joes and janes" who don't know jack about stuff, nor care for it. Not that it's really their fault, but sometimes people should be a little bit more perceptive.

A certain individual here boasted, that they do a "disservice to themselves" by owning a upconverter instead of a hi-def player. Well, that's an insult. People who buy upconverters don't "disservice themselves" in any way. To them, hi-def format IS NOT as important a priority, as their other list of priorities in their daily lives. Their passion for 1080p & firmware 2.0 jargon, doesn't top their to-do list, considering their OTHER routine (such as outdoor activities, internet, family life, WORK... or the strive to put food on the table), given economic times. These same folks (which makes up the majority of pool) are NOT uneducated, nor ignorant about the latest tech of times... it's just not a HOBBY that they can afford, nor an activity that they WANT (as a choice) to try.

Digital Upconverters work for the Majority, and will continue to do so, in the unforseen future... not because they perceive that it "matches" THE HI-DEF criteria (that us fanatics go by)- but simply because it's GOOD ENOUGH for them given their budget constraint, or based on their own lifestyle.

[Post edited by xplaytendo on Mar 7, 2008]

First, many of us have to work to make a living, most of us don't have jobs that pay $50k/year...plus, yet again, most of us can't see a big difference, a real difference in real 1080p against upconverted 1080p.

Don't you think is sad that most of us actually say that upconverted video is very close to actual 1080p? Who cares about having 6x more space on the disc, about having 1766400 more pixels when the difference, while noticeable, doesn't shine at all? It's not worth having all that extra space and resolution when the upconversion works barely good enough, it's sad for the new format, it's lame, after all they invested, regular SD could actually rival HDM with upconversion...

Oh, and Bill Hunt being another sold dog in the Blu Empire, can only throw those kind of messages agains this 'new technology'...and no, the subject is NOT misleading...

mvckalel said -

Quote:
"Don't you think is sad that most of us actually say that upconverted video is very close to actual 1080p?"

MAJOR FACTOR - depends on the screen size!

Upconverted SD-DVD is nowhere near as close to true HD1080 on a screen size of 50" or larger - you can easily see the difference. I can also easily tell when comparing a DVD at 480p resolution to the same disc at 1080p upconverted. And HD-DVD and Blu-ray Hi-Def is even more noticeable over SD-DVD - like I said, ONCE YOUR EYES GET USED TO TRUE HI-DEF 1080, they will never fail to notice the difference compared to standard resolution sources, regardless of upconversion or not.

-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

Quote:
Upconverted SD-DVD is nowhere near as close to true HD1080 on a screen size of 50" or larger

Not if you're sitting almost 15 feet away!

I can see why the digitalbits would be anti upconversion they are after all funded by the BD camp.

I can see upconversion players having a place in this industry. High def players require constant firm ware upgrades, let me tell you its a pain in the ass to download and burn an ISO disc. I'm not saying its impossible, just tedious. Most people don't have the capability, know how, or desire to mess with such updates.

The average consumer wants a plug and play device, for this reason I believe upconversion players will always have an audience to appeal to.

I am man HD DVD supporter, alot of the vets in here know this to be true, and I say that upconvert technology is overated. Now that HD DVD has lost, some HD DVD supporters are already trying to run up support for Toshibas SUPER upconvert. Be reasonable here, if they could not win with HD DVD, how do they expect to sale this SUPER upconvert.
No I do not want to give Toshiba the benefit of the doubt and give the SUPER upconvert a chance. All they had to do was put 110% into their HD DVD technology, and we would be talking about all the new titles coming out on HD DVD in 2008.
It will either be Blu Ray or HD DVD downloads in the future.

mvckalel, great post and very true.

Hendrix...

Quote:
MAJOR FACTOR - depends on the screen size!

Upconverted SD-DVD is nowhere near as close to true HD1080 on a screen size of 50" or larger - you can easily see the difference.

This is also true but what percentage of the population has a screen bigger than 50 inches? It's a very small number I bet and even most of them are probably still very happy with a good upconverting DVD.

I agree with you theres a difference between HD DVD/Bluray and DVD but the difference is not that drastic. it's not like the jump we made going from VHS to DVD. Now that was a great leap in video and sound.

A family friend of mine has a beautiful home theatre in his basement which he spent MAJOR coin on and last summer we watched some DVD's at his house on his 8 foot wide Stewart screen and let me tell you, it looked (and sounded actually) pretty darn fantastic. I would bet that 90% of the world would be more than happy with his setup, in fact they probably can't even dream of having a setup like it.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree a lot with what mvckalel said in his post. Is there a difference between hidef and upconverted DVD? Yes. I don't know if it's enough of a difference to warrant investing in a new movie player and rebuying movies for the majority of people.

[Post edited by Falcon01 on Mar 8, 2008]

Quote:
Screen size = 65" Mits - ISF calibrated by Craig Rounds THE man for Mits CRT RPTVs.
Viewing distance from screen to front and center seating position = ~9 feet

That is your problem. You exceed the maximum distance for resolving 1080i (and are way too far to resolve 1080p). The maximum distance for your screen size is 8.5" (see http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html ) so I am not surprised.

/carmi

Thanks Falcon...

I would LOVE to have a dedicated home theatre room in my house so that I could buy one of those $44k projectors and a great sound system, but I don't. Still, I wouln't sit 6 feet away from the screen...

Again, the thing is, that you need to be closer to see the detail...closer, detail...it just doesn't make sense how this 'new' technology can't be taken advantage of unless you're close to it...sometimes we want much more than we can handle (yeah, make fun of it)...

Quote:
I would LOVE to have a dedicated home theatre room in my house so that I could buy one of those $44k projectors and a great sound system, but I don't. Still, I wouln't sit 6 feet away from the screen...

Again, the thing is, that you need to be closer to see the detail...closer, detail...it just doesn't make sense how this 'new' technology can't be taken advantage of unless you're close to it...sometimes we want much more than we can handle (yeah, make fun of it)...

Firstly, it doesn't take $44K to get a great display and sound system. I've come to realize that a lot of these self-professed "videophiles" and "audiophiles" subscribe to snake-oil type things (fancy cables with no clear engineering/scientific bearings are the worst).

Secondly, it makes plenty of sense that despite larger screens, we have to sit closer to appreciate all the detail. Simply because screen sizes and people's old habits have not caught up with the huge increase in resolution offered by 1080p. And our eyes have not improved/evolved for the better between the release of SD and HD content. So while sitting 10 feet away from a 30" CRT running a regular cable source may allowed you to see all the details, sitting 10 feet away from a 50" 1080P HDTV displaying 1080p content results in your eyes not seeing all the available details simply because it exceeds the visibility threshold. Put another way, there's more pixel per unit area of your vision now, and if you don't sit close enough you won't be able to resolve the details. If you choose to sit that far due to comfort or living room distractions, keep that in mind and you only have to temporarily stand closer to remind yourself that yes, there's extra detail to be seen but you're choosing not to see it. I really cannot be arsed to dig out the numbers and do the calculations but trust me on this. I'm sure you can do the numbers yourself should you feel inclined it's easy (maybe a little tedious) and straightforward.

This next comment isn't necessarily directed at you, but there was someone else here who says it's "feels weird" to be close to a HDTV. Why is it silly? In the cinema, the screen covers at least 60 degrees of your vision (at the center, I'm guessing? Please provide link for a typical cinema setup if you know of one) Even at the last row, the screen is still covering quite a large area of your vision. Why then do so many people insist that the HDTV be placed far away and result it only covering maybe 15 degrees of their vision, or less. I think one reason is that many people have a misguided notion that to reproduce the "theater experience" one must sit further away from the screen. This is only beneficial if you have a screen that enlarges as you move further. With a fix screen size, you'd have to sit at the appropriate distance to resolve all displayed detail and approximate the viewing conditions of your local cinema.

[Post edited by YCH on Mar 8, 2008]

Quote:
I would LOVE to have a dedicated home theatre room in my house so that I could buy one of those $44k projectors

There are a few 1080p projectors that can be had for less than 3k today, and a couple very close to 2k. Even more choice if you go 720p, as so many models now will run you just over 1k ($1,200 range), and they look very sweet if you have any control over ambient light in your room.

Gosh I just saw this:



Griz, is this really your HT seating setup? That is sooo sweet. I know how much this sort of thing costs, and if you complain about the price of Blu-ray players I'll hunt you down!

I'm just wondering with all that why you aren't going front projection?

Quote:
I'm just wondering with all that why you aren't going front projection?

Skyhawk,

Thanks for the compliment! I finished the basement myself (about 1400 square feet). The reason I decided against front projection is because that area down there is more of an entertainment facility rather than a dedicated theater, so there are many times I have people over to watch movies, but a couple may want to shoot pool on one end, and some others may want to play cards on the other end. It's more of an open area with the theater in the middle, so even though I can control lighting, there are times of ambient light from the card and pool tables. I am far too picky to watch front projection with any bit of light wash, so I settled for RPTV. My next house, though? I will build a dedicated theater area with front projection and HEAVY use of sound control techniques. I am thankful my son can sleep through my Outlaw amp applying mass quantities of pain and suffering to the speakers! There are times my neighbors call wondering why they weren't invited to movie night, and the basement isn't even a walk-out!!!

And yes, I will complain of BD player prices. *wink* While I am not afraid to spend money (after "the boss" approves of course), I wait for the deals before I dive in. That seating, for example, I scored for $2200 shipped to me. I am a VERY patient buyer. That's why I waited on buying into HDM. Got my A35 and 10 good movies (not the freebies) for $200 shipped to me. And that was BEFORE the Toshiba announcement.

Griz

[Post edited by Griz on Mar 9, 2008]

Quote:
That is your problem. You exceed the maximum distance for resolving 1080i (and are way too far to resolve 1080p). The maximum distance for your screen size is 8.5" (see http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html ) so I am not surprised.

majortom,

While I am always open in taking suggestions from "professionals", I find the rules are just that... suggestions. Many years ago, in my car audio days, an "acoustic engineer" argued with me that you could not produce more than 160dB SPL using car audio equipment. I was one of the original designers/builders of what was nicknamed the "Green Machine" in dB Drag SPL competition. 160dB was nothing. *wink*

And if my screen is too small for my viewing distance (by only six inches, which if I sit forward in my seat I am well within 8.5 feet), then why is it I can easily tell the difference between my Oppo upconverting and my A35 upconverting? But yes, I can tell the diff between HDM and upconversion. I am just saying the average Joe doesn't see enough difference to actually CARE.

Griz

Quote:
That seating, for example, I scored for $2200 shipped to me.

That's freakin' unbelievable. The center consoles themselves here in Canada go for $800 for good quality, while the seats go for about $1,100 EACH. I did look at some cheaper alternatives last week, but they weren't "full leather" (vinyl lowers and back) , and were uncomfortable to me even when reclined. The cheapest was $700 for each chair, and $500 for the consoles without any storage area - just the cup holders. They looked really cheap and tacky too!

Umm... do they deliver to Canada? For even a $4,000 delivery charge it would be worth it!

BTW, about front projection. Ambient light wont affect your PQ much with bright sports or stuff like that. But if it were me, NO ONE plays pool or cards when the feature is about to start!

And as far as prices go, I paid a lot more for my HD DVD player than I did for my 40GB PS3 that I got more than 6 months later. No regrets though, I did get to watch HD DVD and collect titles for over a year now. Then again, I paid twice the amount for my very first CD player than my PS3, and it sounded like crap compared to my vinyl albums! $800 spent, and we never used it much except for the convenience factor every now and then. MP3s at 120Kbps sound ten times better than that first DVD player did. It was seriously that bad, and I can't even remember the brand now....