Panasonic DMP-BD35 & DMP-BD55 Features (1 Viewer)

[Sanjay Gupta]

Yeah, but that requires 'SIX' presses of three seperate buttons on the remote to just turn on the subtitles and in case you need to change the language of the subtitles, then even more button presses. Then ofcourse 'SIX' more presses of three seperate buttons to turn off the subtitles.

 

[tls36]

Should things like Polaroid images or other low quality sources be converted to HD just because we can? Maybe next can take mono voice recordings and convert them to Super CD? If the res is crummy to start with than why transfer to HD, wouldn't DVD make more sense. Ever hear the expression you can't make a silk purse from a sows ear????

 

[DonniedD]

 

[DonniedD]

Dave, Would you please explain how your have your BD35 audio hooked up?
I don't understand how to get 7.1 whereas there is only one HDMI on the BD35

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

I am wondering why you would compare the 'bitstream' audio from the BD35 with the internal decoding of the PS3. If you have to compare the audio quality of the two, then you ought to set the PS3 to bitstream also, only then can you compare the two.

 

[Yumbo]

Got it yesterday and had a play.

The splash screen is nice.
The lack of noise while clicking etc and PS3 on-screen pop-ups is nice.
It's not THAT slow.
Getting used to not having bluetooth remote.
Using same codes as Panasnic DVD player on Yamaha system remote.
Subtitle button doesn't work, but going via display is ok. Similar amount of clicks anyway on any Panasonic player.
Remote layout is a bit low.
Getting to speaker setup was confusing. Sound was ok anyway...some tweaking may improve it. Sounds strained or fatiguing compared to regular processing by Z9.

Bottom line for me - only reason for lossless is because it's forced by certain titles - music ones especially.

The Z9 more than handles regular tracks just fine.

Sony doesn't do slow scan like the PS3, but the Panasonic does, go figure.

Anyone tested resume play (eject and play from same spot with non-BD Live discs)?

 

[tls36]

Yumbo I agree on your summary. Overall a super player, also found a way to do 4X3 better as some found this annoying. But, my opinion is squewed anyways as I ONLY bought this for HI DEF, may have some limitations for other aspects. The DVD upscaling is better than I expected though.

 

[GlennH]

This comment betrays a lack of understanding of the resolution available in film-sourced material, even some 70-year-old film sources. Do you actually believe that anything that is 4:3 must by definition be a "low quality source?" Maybe you should take a look at Casablanca (1942), The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), etc., to see the picture quality, if not appreciate the content.

 

[Steve_Pannell]

Can someone please answer 2 questions for me:

1) Is the only difference between the BD35 & BD55 the 7.1 analog outputs?

2) If the answer to (1) is yes and I'm not really concerned right now about 7.1 would you recommend the BD35 as a good Blu-ray player for a first-timer?

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

The difference between the BD35 & BD55 is:
1) Up to 7.1 (Hi Resolution) Analog output.
2) Shock absorbing feet.
3) Coaxial & Optical digital audio outputs (for DVD audio quality). (BD35 has Optical only).
4) BD55 plays DiVX encodes, BD35 doesn't.

The BD35 is a great Blu-ray player for a first-timer. Too bad you didn't buy it yesterday when Sears had a sale on-line for it at $149.00 & price matched it at their B&M stores. It sold out in a couple of hours.

Paul

 

[Steve_Pannell]

Cool. Thanks.

Sounds like the differences are not worth an extra $100 (to me) so I'll probably go with the 35.

Wish I hadn't missed the sale but that's typical for me.

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

FYI:

It's been posted that Costco has it at many of their B&M stores at a better than the MSRP price and I'm told their box includes an HDMI cable (Most do not.) so that other stores don't have to honor price matching.

 

[Paul.S]

The 55 also has isolation feet which I think the 35 does not.

 

[tls36]

GlennH I don't doubt some of the old classics are fine films, just that the audio and image quality are so poor that I don't know if they deserve the HD transfer from old film stock.

 

[Lew Crippen]

The resolution of ‘old’ film stock is very much higher than DVD allows—and also higher than HD. Besides which, resolution is not the only factor to consider in HD reproduction—colors are much better in HD than DVD.

Take a look at The Adventures of Robin Hood or Casablanca if you are not convinced. As for me, I can’t wait to have some older classics such as The Red Shoes or Black Narcissus made available in HD.

The audio will not benefit from any of the new HD-only techniques.

 

[David Norman]

It still seems like you think that Old 35mm Film is not equivalent to current film. Assuming it was properly shot, the elements have been properly cared for, and it is transferred correctly even old film has far more resolution available than BluRay is capable of

On the audio side you may have somewhat of a point that modern soundtracks are louder/clearer/more directional, but even old 35mm can have significantly higher resolution/color depth/contrast than BR offers. That doesn't even get into 70mm films.

 

[tls36]

I figured the older film stock was not capable of the color saturation of new film stock. It would probably be a lot of work to clean up the old reels - if done properly I am sure they could look better. Look at what Lucas did to the Star Wars films once they were re-mastered, looking at them side by side - the improvement is striking. Now about the sound - yes, limitations due to the way they were recorded. I found a way to help play 3X4 for anyone interested, but it involves the zoom function. Paid $338 for my BD55K, wonder how low the price will go to on Black friday? Anyone want to make a guess?

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Older film stock is actually far superior to modern film stocks---the ancient silver nitrates yielded a gorgeous image that can't be equaled by anything made today.

On the down side, they're extremely flammable/explosive.

But any 35mm film is going to have far more resolution than HD can handle, so virtually any such movie would benefit from an HD transfer. Watch the HD version of Casablanca and tell me that doesn't look marvelous.

 

[tls36]

Casablanca is indeed a classic film. What was the original aspect ratio?

 

[Patrick Sun]

1.37:1