Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions Bluray Question

I got a cheap bluray player for an early Christmas present.

I hooked it up with a nice HDMI cord and popped in planet earth. It looks amazing but some parts, mainly dark parts like around tree trunks and other thing gets a really bad snow effect. Its like white dots flashing on and off constantly in certain parts. Also my mom watched Meet the Robinsons and noticed the same problem in that movie.

So do what do you guys think the problem is? A faulty bluray player or my TV?

bluray player is a sony s-300

my TV is a sammy HL-S5687W DLP

thanks in advance

Poorly calibrated TV? I would get a calibration disc, wait is there one for Blu Ray? I haven't looked.

Well, I would try a different connection, maybe another HDMI cable or a component cable.

I would then try another TV if at all possible.

Also you might try updating the firmware:

http://esupport.sony.com/perl/news-item.pl?mdl=BDPS300&news_id=232&mdl=BDPS300

I was thinking about getting this player but after reading these comments on the website I think I will hold off:

Can a disc with DTS-HD audio be played on the Blu-ray Disc® player?

Yes. However, the sound quality is the same as conventional DTS audio sound because the player does not support DTS-HD decoding or HDMI bitstream output.

and this one:

Can I play discs with Dolby® Digital Plus or Dolby® TrueHD sound on the Blu-ray disc® player?


The Blu-ray Disc® player has Dolby Digital Plus decoding functionality.

You can also enjoy conventional Dolby Digital sound from Dolby TrueHD streams. However, the player does not have Dolby TrueHD decoding functionality and does not support Dolby TrueHD or HDMI™ bitstream output.


so basically this player does not decode or pass the signal to the receiver to be decoded for dts-hd or dolby true-hd.

Thanks ill try updating the firmware and see what that does.

hopefully it works better for you after that. If not I would think about an exchange.

It sounds like a good player for the money, I just think that it is odd that you can get an hd-dvd player for less that will decode all the new sound formats.
Thats just one more reason I hope hd-dvd wins the format 'war'

I will likely get a bluray player in a few months though b/c there are a lot of bluray only movies I want to see in HD, and i fear that this format war will continue for some time.

I keep waiting for a HD-DVD player with out all the audio codecs if it will save me a few bucks on the player, as the new receivers have all the codecs and I would rather spend those few extra dollars on a new receiver.

I agree I would rather have a player that passes bitstream through so that the receiver can do the decoding (even if the only change is that the dolby truehd button lights up on my 3808 ). I find it odd that these players are more expensive then the ones that do the decoding. I guess the players with this ability also have the ability to decode these formats. IF they came out with a player without all the audio codecs that required the decoding to be done in the receiver the manufacturer may be able to lower the price.

What really stinks is the bd-300 mentioned above does not have the ability to pass bitstream or decode dts hd or dolby truehd- it downgrades them to dolby digital and dts.

It can however, decode dolby digital plus.

I have heard that DD+ sounds very good, better than DD.

I watched a dolby digital plus movie the other night and was pretty impressed.

I think that truehd and dts hd are both better formats.(spec-wise... I have not compared the three formats)

For most consumers it may not be a big deal that this player does not take advantage of these 2 formats.

IMO, the new HD sound formats are half the reason I want an HD player. Many people may not care about this and just want 1080p.

the bd-300 offers 1080p but it does not support dolby truehd or dtshd. My a2 decodes both truehd and dts hd, but only does 720p/1080i.

For someone like me who only has a 720p set and wants to take advantage of the hd audio formats the a2 is a clear winner. someone else may insist on having 1080p but could care less if the new audio formats are downgraded.

Of course if someone wants the best of both worlds they can step up to a higher end Hd DVD player or bluray player. I have no intention on spending that kind of money on an HD player yet

That would be me. I want 1080P and all the audio codecs sent out to my receiver which is why I think if they removed the audio codecs, it might drop the price. I am not willing to buy into HD dvd nor BR yet but I am thinking this time next year I just might.

I feel sorry for the average consumer that gets into HD. That may seem unlikely, but I'm sure it happens--I doubt it's only audio/video geeks like us getting into it. So much for plug and play. There is way too much info to be gathered and not enough loose ends tied up by the manufacturers.

Yes, HDMI gives us one simple hook-up solution, but good luck trying to figure how to get that one cable to do everything.

Just ranting in general. Just watched Spiderman 3 and am still peeved I'll never get those two hours back. . .

Ha ha. I haven't seen it, mostly because of Tobey Maguire. Tobey Maguire has to be one of the most unattractive people to ever play a superhero. I can't stand his face when he's straining. So to whoever is my enemy on this message board, please change your avatar to Tobey Maguire's straining face if you want to break me.

Oh, man, I just had this vision of everyone on the board using Tobey Maguire avatars.

When you say straining, I picture him in the bathroom after burrito night. . .

Yes, I'd like to have back the two hours I spent watching Spidey 3. I, too, find Maguire to be an unattractive person. The thing that bothered me most about that movie was that, at one point, all these lovely women were supposed to find him so irresistibly attractive. I'm pretty good at suspending reality for purposes of theatrical enjoyment, but that was just too much for even me to swallow.

However, in the right role, I can accept Maguire. I liked him in Seabiscuit. Though, if I thought about it for a minute, I probably could come up with a few actors I'd have preferred in that role.

Yeah, I didn't buy into that for one minute--the girls suddenly finding him attractive what with him and his new hairstyle and bad dance moves. He was starting to make me feel uncomfortable.

It just felt like most of the actors were on autopilot.

Could be a Blueray thing.

I didn't think the movie was great, but when he thought he was a stud and dancing on the street my wife and I were killing ourselves laughing. I got a new respect for him in the movie because he pulled off the scenes really well. Trying to be cool and hot and not coming close...

Here's a couple shots for you guys..

The movie, watch the expressions of the girls on the street, not impressed at all Ha.
Dancing

Reality is even worse,

I know what that snow is on the screen. it is not the tv or anything else.i have that movie and it is zoom on the camera.because they do need to zoom way in on some parts and we all know what happens when we zoom way in on something snow.

brandan