Page 1 of scan v sony picture quality?

Hi,

Am I the only one who thinks picture quality is the most important feature of a dvd player? I hear a lot about mp3,vcd,dts etc but surely if the picture quality is crap then these issues are not that important. I say this because I have not yet heard any reasons from a picture quality point of view as to why you would buy a sony/branded over a scan! Has anyone actually compared the picture quality of both? I would be interested in the results. For example is the bit rate faster on a sony compared to a scan. Is pixellation worse on a scan?

Thanks for any help with this.

Am I the only one who thinks picture quality is the most important feature of a dvd player?

Well what use is picture quality when the player is broken?

Now wich player is totaly unreliable! .............Mmmmmmmm Sony or a scan ....................let me think this could be hard...........could it be scan!

Picture quality well what do you think , unless of course you like blue shadows!!!

yes it`s been compared... and shamefully whupped.

crisper, tighter, more detail, and much `clearer` colours... not sure there`s words for that, just that the scan stuff i`ve seen has been washy - more like the output i got from my wharfedale!

just wasn`t different enough from video to make me go "OOOH!"

BLACK blacks, not fadey something blacks, and reds that are locked TO THE PIXEL rather than to the nearest 4 pixels - red`s the colours that f***s up easiest y`see

I have a scan that works and no blue shadowing but just wanted the comparison.

Thanks for the second reply Iain M (much more constructive than the one before!)


Tom.

If Picture Quality is all your after, and price is not an issue, the the sony players wins no ifs or but about it. and this does not just apply to the scan, but almost every player on the market.

The Picture Quality has improved a great deal on the scan, and is now on par or above the rest of its class including the Brand name budget players under £200, and most under £300

But for picture alone you can not compare it to a sony.

But if your after the other things that the scan can do.
Or VFM enters in to it, well then Sony players are not for you.

This item was edited on Wednesday, 4th April 2001, 14:34

Thanks for the second reply Iain M (much more constructive than the one before!)

But the first was just has accurate.

Also shoudn`t we be takeing the TV that the player is used on, and connections into consideration as well.

This item was edited on Tuesday, 3rd April 2001, 19:12

now, now will you 2 stop flirting with each other:P

nah, gives us something to do... more interesting than a discussion on how many discs people have :)

and yeah, TV and stuff should be taken into account, but I think it`d be more relevant comparing similar level players. here the gap is quite large!

I`ve a scan and I think the pic. quality is spot on but I`ve never seen a sony in operation and I dont know anyone who`s rich enought to own one!

Yes, picture quality is the most important consideration.

However, for most newcomers, absolutely *any* DVD player will give an infinitely better picture than they`re used to from VHS, so the extra bit of quality they`d get with a Sony is academic. Multi-region hacks, MP3 playback and (most importantly) a low price are more significant factors - none of which you get with Sony hardware.

Also, how many people are getting the best possible picture (i.e. RGB) from the DVD player they have already? Even the cheapest player with a RGB connection to the TV will trounce a Sony connected via a composite lead.


Mike