OK, so I was at Best Buy last night and they had out the new $1,000 Samsung Blu-Ray player, connected to a Samsung HDTV. (Presumably via HDMI, but I do not know this for sure... and how is it that Samsung has their player out NOW, but Sony's won't be out until OCTOBER?) Anyway... I wasn't impressed. They had a demo disc running and while a couple of the demos (Chicken Little, Kung Fu Hustle, some Swiss watch video shot by NHK) were pretty impressive, some of the others (The Manchurian Candidate, Pirates of the Caribbean) didn't look any better than standard DVD. In fact, they looked WORSE, because while I was expecting HD video on a par with what I see daily on HBO-HD, INHD, or HDNet Movies, this was fairly heavily-artifacted video. Watching a normal DVD of Ultraviolet on my regular old Sony DVD player last night just emphasized the lack of quality on much of the Blu-Ray playback. Ultraviolet on DVD looked BETTER than much of the Blu-Ray playback I watched. In other words, the quality of Blu-Ray playback (or HD-DVD playback, for that matter) is largely contingent on the DVD mastering process doing what it's supposed to. I think any plans I might have had to buy a PS3 purely for Blu-Ray playback are now evaporated. Adam Sessler (from X-Play on G4) made the point that if a PS3 costs $600, and Sony's Blu-Ray player costs $1,000 and DOESN'T play games, then is the PS3's Blu-Ray player inferior in quality to the one in the $1,000 standalone player?