A comparison of PS3 and 360 as media players

[mrcorbo]

I never claimed it was. I will quote wikipedia: "The term 1080i assumes a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9, implying a frame size of 1920×1080 pixels. Each frame of 1080i video consists of two fields of 1920×540 pixels each."

You said:

So what you are meaning are 60 fps interlaced and progressive video files?

Using "60 fps" to describe both interlaced and progressive content is either odd or wrong since fps would either have to mean "fields per second", which would be an unusual way to describe progressive content, or "frames per second", which would be incorrect for the interlaced content.

I'm sure anyone else reading this is fascinated by this semantics debate.

 

[mrcorbo]

Then I would say your problems with seeking are due to network performance (I assume you use DLNA to stream to your PS3).

I access the files over the network when I use my laptop, too. I just don't use DLNA. If DLNA is the problem, then the fact that I am forced to use that on the PS3 is itself a problem with the PS3. The worst that ever happens on the laptop when the network performance degrades is that playback freezes temporarily until the stream catches up. The PS3 errors out and stops playback. Maybe when I finally get GbE out there this would no longer be a problem if I was ever forced to use the PS3 to stream.

 

[-tkf-]

I'm sure anyone else reading this is fascinated by this semantics debate.

It´s not really wrong to consider 50i 50 frames pr second, even if they are only "half" frames. There is more motion picked up by 50i than 25p and the look is very different.

In the tv industry we make a choice of progressive vs interlaced based on motion.

 

[mrcorbo]

What if the DVD ripper performs this color coding? And also, what about content recorded from TV (which can be both SD and HD)?

Also, wouldn't you manually have to set what color encoding you want, or does the container or codec give you this info?

It's not a setting. During the production process whoever is doing the mastering of the source material is doing it on displays calibrated to the recommended standard for that type of material. If your display is calibrated to the same standard as the displays that were used to create the media it should look identical and "as the creators intended".

It's possible to do the color conversion when ripping and re-encoding a DVD, but what if the playback device is also doing this conversion? Then the adjustment is then being done twice and will be off again. Better to leave the media standards-compliant and let the playback device sort out if a conversion needs to be done, IMO.

 

[mrcorbo]

It´s not really wrong to consider 50i 50 frames pr second, even if they are only "half" frames. There is more motion picked up by 50i than 25p and the look is very different.

In the tv industry we make a choice of progressive vs interlaced based on motion.

Half-frame, huh? OK, I can see that. You have double the temporal resolution and half the visual resolution when comparing 50i to 25p.

Some (if not all) of this extra motion has to be lost, though, during the blending done during deinterlacing to prevent combing artifacts when shown on non-interlaced displays.

 

[-tkf-]

Half-frame, huh? OK, I can see that. You have double the temporal resolution and half the visual resolution when comparing 50i to 25p.

Some (if not all) of this extra motion has to be lost, though, during the blending done during deinterlacing to prevent combing artifacts when shown on non-interlaced displays.

Of course a lot depends on the de-interlace process but unless it´s a really bad de-interlacer you will get the motion. For us it´s often an artistic choice to go with progressive to get the "stutter" look that is so popular. But there is no doubt that you loose motion. Interlaced just look like video and that is one of the main reasons why it´s avoided.

 

[tuna]

I access the files over the network when I use my laptop, too. I just don't use DLNA. If DLNA is the problem, then the fact that I am forced to use that on the PS3 is itself a problem with the PS3. The worst that ever happens on the laptop when the network performance degrades is that playback freezes temporarily until the stream catches up. The PS3 errors out and stops playback. Maybe when I finally get GbE out there this would no longer be a problem if I was ever forced to use the PS3 to stream.

You can use http streaming for the PS3 if you like.

What kind of media server do you use, they are usually not bug free from my experience.

 

[tuna]

It's not a setting. During the production process whoever is doing the mastering of the source material is doing it on displays calibrated to the recommended standard for that type of material. If your display is calibrated to the same standard as the displays that were used to create the media it should look identical and "as the creators intended".

How can you know which color standard the "creators intended"?

 

[mrcorbo]

How can you know which color standard the "creators intended"?

I don't understand the question. The type of content dictates which you use. That's what makes it a standard.

 

[mrcorbo]

You can use http streaming for the PS3 if you like.

What kind of media server do you use, they are usually not bug free from my experience.

I tried Orb, PS3 Media Server and J River Media Center. Unless they all had exactly the same bug...

 

[tuna]

I tried Orb, PS3 Media Server and J River Media Center. Unless they all had exactly the same bug...

Did you try http streaming?

 

[tuna]

I don't understand the question. The type of content dictates which you use. That's what makes it a standard.

So what content uses which standard? I am not trolling here, I really want to know.

 

[mrcorbo]

So what content uses which standard? I am not trolling here, I really want to know.

SD content (525 line NTSC and 576 line PAL) would generally follow the BT.601 recommendations. HD content (720 lines and greater) would generally follow the BT.709 recommendations. If you're dealing with ripped DVDs or BRs, these would be the two you would be concerned with. There is also sRGB for computer displays (very similar to BT.709 ) and xvYCC for wide color gamut displays, but I don't know that any consumer format uses this latter format.

 

[tuna]

SD content (525 line NTSC and 576 line PAL) would generally follow the BT.601 recommendations. HD content (720 lines and greater) would generally follow the BT.709 recommendations. If you're dealing with ripped DVDs or BRs, these would be the two you would be concerned with. There is also sRGB for computer displays (very similar to BT.709 ) and xvYCC for wide color gamut displays, but I don't know that any consumer format uses this latter format.

Ok, thanks for the info!

So which of these does you windows media player use, and which does the PS3 media player use (regarding files, not DVDs and Blu-rays)?

 

[mrcorbo]

Ok, thanks for the info!

So which of these does you windows media player use, and which does the PS3 media player use (regarding files, not DVDs and Blu-rays)?

Well, my displays are both HDTVs, so they are calibrated to the BT.709 recommended values. I have J River Media Center set up to use the MadVR video renderer. This renderer will, based on the resolution of the source, do a color conversion for SD content with very high precision (it upsamples to 16bit per channel, performs the conversion, then dithers back down to 8bit per channel for output to the display) to correct the colors for output on my display. HD content is left untouched. As for PS3? No idea.

 

[tuna]

Well, my displays are both HDTVs, so they are calibrated to the BT.709 recommended values. I have J River Media Center set up to use the MadVR video renderer. This renderer will, based on the resolution of the source, do a color conversion for SD content with very high precision (it upsamples to 16bit per channel, performs the conversion, then dithers back down to 8bit per channel for output to the display) to correct the colors for output on my display. HD content is left untouched. As for PS3? No idea.

What will happen with a SD file that was converted from and HD source?

Also, why did you claim your Windows PC was better than the PS3 in the following quote?

"Windows Media Center has a very easy display setup wizard that walks you through the process of getting correct settings for color, contrast, etc. Not sure what your on about WRT frame rate. My PC will play 24p,25p,30p,50i/p,60i/p. Can your PS3 handle all of those? Dedicated BluRay players do NOT run things better than any recent vintage PC and the PS3 doesn't run files any where near as well as any recent vintage PC, even one with modest specs. "

 

[mrcorbo]

What will happen with a SD file that was converted from and HD source?

1) I wouldn't do this.

2) If I did do this, I would make sure to insert a script to do a color conversion to BT.601 prior to re-compression so my file was compliant to the standard.

Also, why did you claim your Windows PC was better than the PS3 in the following quote?

"Windows Media Center has a very easy display setup wizard that walks you through the process of getting correct settings for color, contrast, etc. Not sure what your on about WRT frame rate. My PC will play 24p,25p,30p,50i/p,60i/p. Can your PS3 handle all of those? Dedicated BluRay players do NOT run things better than any recent vintage PC and the PS3 doesn't run files any where near as well as any recent vintage PC, even one with modest specs. "

Which part are you questioning? The bulk of that was not implying the PC was better than the PS3, but was arguing that the "problems" in the post I was replying to were not endemic to the platform and there was at worst parity. The last part you already questioned and I already answered.

 

[Arwin]

As for PS3? No idea.

Isn't this kind of the reason why the two of you shouldn't be having this discussion? Neither of you seem to know enough about both platforms, and neither of you seem interested enough in what the other is saying.

Over here, with three PCs in the house, two PS3s and one 360, all I can add to the discussion is this: the PC runs everything in a browser window or otherwise related to Flash better, and the PS3 runs everything it can run in full screen better. But they're getting closer and PC is starting to get there. I've also seen some 'regular' bluray players in action, and most of them do not seem to have anything near the PS3's image quality. The difference is even bigger when it comes to DVD upscaling. I don't have a BluRay player in my PC yet, so I can't compare that aspect. Also, I pretty much don't ever run anything other than official DVDs, BluRays, or stuff from youtube or videogaming sites.

But even still, this is all highly subjective. Without some proper Digital Foundry style testing you can keep on discussing for ages. Fortunately it seems there's some kind of subjective measurement available: HQV 1.0 and 2.0. I can't find HQV 2.0 scores yet for PS3, but some ATI graphics cards seem to get pretty close to the maximum of 210. Even there though, there's a clear difference in quality between the different price ranges (from 97 to the worst scoring Nvidia to 201 for the best scoring ATI):

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hqv-2-radeon-geforce,2844-10.html

At the very least, we can conclude right away that not all HTPCs will be equal.

 

[mrcorbo]

Isn't this kind of the reason why the two of you shouldn't be having this discussion? Neither of you seem to know enough about both platforms, and neither of you seem interested enough in what the other is saying.

This particular tangent really has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I don't know the answer to this because other, more readily apparent, deficiencies of the PS3 as a media player *for my setup and for how I choose to consume my media* have already revealed a better choice *for me*.

Over here, with three PCs in the house, two PS3s and one 360, all I can add to the discussion is this: the PC runs everything in a browser window or otherwise related to Flash better, and the PS3 runs everything it can run in full screen better. But they're getting closer and PC is starting to get there. I've also seen some 'regular' bluray players in action, and most of them do not seem to have anything near the PS3's image quality.

That particular statement actually makes it very hard for me to take the other "subjective" quality assessments you made seriously.

The difference is even bigger when it comes to DVD upscaling.

It does seem quite good at that.

But even still, this is all highly subjective. Without some proper Digital Foundry style testing you can keep on discussing for ages. Fortunately it seems there's some kind of subjective measurement available: HQV 1.0 and 2.0. I can't find HQV 2.0 scores yet for PS3, but some ATI graphics cards seem to get pretty close to the maximum of 210. Even there though, there's a clear difference in quality between the different price ranges (from 97 to the worst scoring Nvidia to 201 for the best scoring ATI):

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hqv-2-radeon-geforce,2844-10.html

At the very least, we can conclude right away that not all HTPCs will be equal.

I have specifically not based any of the opinions I have expressed on relative quality because I haven't done the testing necessary to make any definitive claims in that area. My gripes with the PS3 are with performance (again, empahasizing this is in my setup with my devices), interface and format support. The only thing I will say WRT quality is there is nothing that would prevent an HTPC from achieving, at worst, IQ parity with the PS3 as long as you are using fairly modern hardware and up-to-date software.

 

[joker454]

I'm still interested in an HTPC for all the mud I have just slung but for a streamlined experience, for someone who is a heavy purchaser of digital content, neither the PC nor PS3 offered me a better experience than the 360 but please keep in mind that I bought the 360 (two in fact) on launch day and am intimately more familiar with its nuances. There are definitely some plusses for going HTPC for my household but to be honest now I'm in hold mode as I await MSFTs Live TV flesh-out.

Fair enough dude, I think for what you do a console may very well be the better way to go. There's also the option of fixed function boxes like the stuff Popcorn Hour, Boxee, etc make. I use a Popcorn Hour C-200 in the bedroom and while it started out as a pile of crap, they eventually fixed it with firmware updates to where it's now badass. It plays all my bluray rips flawlessly over the network, and does stuff like fast forward and rewind at full speed as well. The consoles typically stumble when you need to do fast seeks, rewinds, etc over network but the C-200 does it with no problem. It's instant on as well and it's silent. Also comes standard with rf remote, so we put the unit behind the dresser so we don't even see it. My wife uses it to watch Friends DVD's, I ripped them all to raid so she can instant access anyone she wants complete with full menu support.

PS3 runs everything it can run in full screen better.

Is your pc very old? This shouldn't be the case anymore. Back in 2007 perhaps, but not now.