High Def Forum
Thank you for visiting. This is our website archive. Please visit our main website by clicking the logo above.

10 Reasons Why High Definition DVD Formats Have Already Failed

mayank
11-17-2006, 01:12 AM
http://consensus123.blogspot.com/2006/11/10-reasons-why-high-definition-dvd.html

pjc
11-17-2006, 07:22 AM
Great article. I can't wait to hear from all the critics.

SLedford
11-17-2006, 08:53 AM
I find myself agreeing with everything said in this article. Have always thought that the release of HD-DVD / BD was premature, given the low penetration of HD televisions in the market. The war makes it worse, since people like myself (who would have a HD television and might have purchased a high def player) are sitting on the sidelines.

There are a limited number of people who jump in early, frequently justifying this with comments like "you only live once - enjoy high def DVDs now". And these tend to fall into two categories:
- those that are willing to buy both formats (very expensive and out of reach financially for most), or
- fanatically commited to one format, almost with religious intensity.

I don't think that the formats will completely fail - niche market is more likely.

paulc
11-17-2006, 09:09 AM
Every post I have made relating to HD optical formats attempts to get folks to buy... nothing. The vote with your wallet approach. If enough of us did that, they'd sit down and re-jigger the whole thing so there's only one standard. However, I also know the impossibility of that task, there are just way too many "gotta have the latest thing NOW" folks who will kinda keep the "war" going for a while. It's a shame.

fryet
11-17-2006, 12:20 PM
I disagreed with most of the article, but I actually did agree with the following statement at the end:

"High definition is headed for a niche market at best, not an industry takeover. "

So long as HDTVs are outnumbered by old TVs, you can't call the players anything but niche either. I don't consider that a failure, though, which is what the article suggests. There is a market for HD quality recordings, however it won't be replacing DVD any time soon. It will probably take around 10 years before HD is mainstream, and until then DVD will probably the be method of choice for consumers to purchase movies. I don't consider Laser Disc to be a failure in a format, either, as it served a niche market as well, although it is a shame because Laser Disc conceivably could have taken over the entire market if it had done better. But apparently in the mind of writer, niche market = failure = shouldn't have even bothered to try. Personally, I am glad that HD is here, and look forward to this market growing.

mshulman
11-17-2006, 12:49 PM
I disagreed with most of the article, but I actually did agree with the following statement at the end:

"High definition is headed for a niche market at best, not an industry takeover. "

So long as HDTVs are outnumbered by old TVs, you can't call the players anything but niche either. I don't consider that a failure, though, which is what the article suggests. There is a market for HD quality recordings, however it won't be replacing DVD any time soon. It will probably take around 10 years before HD is mainstream, and until then DVD will probably the be method of choice for consumers to purchase movies. I don't consider Laser Disc to be a failure in a format, either, as it served a niche market as well, although it is a shame because Laser Disc conceivably could have taken over the entire market if it had done better. But apparently in the mind of writer, niche market = failure = shouldn't have even bothered to try. Personally, I am glad that HD is here, and look forward to this market growing.

I agree too. I don't see why people think this is going to all of a sudden take over. DVD's are going to remain #1 for quite some time. Just like regular TV's were #1 (still are). But today, its harder to find a regular TV in the stores. Someday it will be true with DVD vs HD-DVD/Bluray.

The only issue today is having 2 formats. If HD-DVD can continue as it has so far, then this may not go on for too much longer. I'd go as far as saying that if the PS3 has no effect (or little effect) on Bluray sales, then movie studios will start supporting HD-DVD.

My personal option BTW is that the PS3 won't have a big impact. If it does, it won't be until you can walk in to a store and buy one. By that time, I think MS will probably have hundreds of thousands of the HD-DVD add ons in circulation.

SLedford
11-17-2006, 12:56 PM
I agree with your assessment that the writer was equating niche market to failure, and I think that is because he was looking at HD-DVD & BD as failed replacements to DVD. I think that they both serve the same niche purpose that laser disks served (demostrate that there was something better than VHS).

When DVDs came out, the quality bar had already been set by laser disks. In 8 - 10 years, the replacement will be on the market for HD-DVD & BD, and it will be discussed and anticipated for years before the release date. HD-DVD & BD will set the bar that must be matched or exceeded by the next generation product.

The timing for the next generation product will be better - HD TV ownership may be mainstream by then. Also, hopefully the industry will have learned that there must be ONE FORMAT ONLY when this new product is released.

davecramer74
11-17-2006, 03:15 PM
well with HD DVD being backwards compatible to play my old dvd's, which i have a shitload of, ill make the leap and pay 200 bucks for the HD dvd for my xbox360. I personally thing sony's stupid for going blu-ray. I guess they didnt learn their lesson on the beta tapes eh? My opinion is HD dvd will become the standard.

Ive owned every console out there. Ill prolly buy the ps3 at some point. but it wont be for the blue ray features. It will be because i want to play Gran tourismo on it.

Mineo1983
11-17-2006, 05:03 PM
I disagreed with most of the article, but I actually did agree with the following statement at the end:

"High definition is headed for a niche market at best, not an industry takeover. "

So long as HDTVs are outnumbered by old TVs, you can't call the players anything but niche either. I don't consider that a failure, though, which is what the article suggests. There is a market for HD quality recordings, however it won't be replacing DVD any time soon. It will probably take around 10 years before HD is mainstream, and until then DVD will probably the be method of choice for consumers to purchase movies. I don't consider Laser Disc to be a failure in a format, either, as it served a niche market as well, although it is a shame because Laser Disc conceivably could have taken over the entire market if it had done better. But apparently in the mind of writer, niche market = failure = shouldn't have even bothered to try. Personally, I am glad that HD is here, and look forward to this market growing.



thats exactly how i felt after reading this article. Hd is deffintaly picking up the pace. Blockbuster is even starting to have Hd titles to rent! Comcast has been upgrading there hd material l. its great.

3dhdron
11-17-2006, 08:28 PM
i agree with the article, UNLESS, the prices on HD DVD/BlueRayHD players drop and soon..... i shoot 3DHD HDV video footage now.......useing a Sony HD1 HDV camcorder and a anaglyph optic lens attachment.....but i can't burn HD DVD discs or BlueRayHD Disks to watch on my 1080p HD LCD monitor.....so when will they have a home HD DVD Recorder????? i have a Mac with Final cut HD but i can only export my 3DHD edits back to HDV TAPE .i have also shot some field sequential 3DHD footage with a NuView and my HD1 HDV Camcorder.....it works too!!!!!!!.....i am looking foward to CES 2007 i have herd that Phillips WOW 3DHD no glasses system and a new JVC 3DHD no glasses system plus some others will be shown at CES....looking foward to watching my 3DHD HDV tapes on one of the 3DHD NO GLASSES systems :hithere:

K4X9
11-17-2006, 09:02 PM
WOW!! I cant believe how sort-sided people are! These are the same people who said DVD will never replace VHS. HD-DVD(or Blu-Ray) is here and its not going anywhere. The more HDTV they sale the more HD-DVD(or Blu-Ray) players they will sale. As the price drops of HD-DVD(or Blu-Ray) player the more they will sell. I cant believe that people would think that DVD will still be around in 4 or 5 short years. Come on how many DVD did they sale the first year. It will take time for people to even know what the hell HD-DVD even is. Not many people have even herd of HD-DVD. We know what it is because we are HDneards but ask some of the people you work with (not if you work at CC or BB) I bet 8 out of 10 have no ideal we your talking about.

borromini
11-17-2006, 09:16 PM
WOW!! I cant believe how sort-sided people are!... short-sighted too...

SLedford
11-17-2006, 10:59 PM
VHS being replaced by DVDs was very different from HD-DVD & BD replacing standard def DVDs:

(1) The public ALREADY had a television at home that would benefit from the improved picture offered by DVDs. Most of the public today DO NOT HAVE a television that would benefit from HD-DVD or BD.

(2) VHS did not offer a very good picture, so the perceived improvement offered by DVDs was noticeable. I don't see as big an improvement with HD-DVDs over standard DVDs.

(3) There was ONE DVD format offered (ignoring DIVIX) when DVDs were being released as a new product. There are two non-compatible formats competing for high def DVD market.

Yes, more HD television sets are sold each day, and a number of these new owners will buy one or both formats. But the article correctly pegged this as a niche market for some time to come.

paulc
11-18-2006, 02:17 PM
Totally agree. It seems video HD is where the most significant improvement is seen. Movies shot on film in HD go from hardly better to a little bit better; after living with this for 6 months, I now feel the widescreen aspect is just as important as the increased resolution.

The HD DVD format war IS going to leave one side stuck. Stuck with an investment in discs that will play on their equipment, but what happens when that equipment fails and nothing is on the market? A lot of folks I know went for the better quality of beta, eventually losing a ton for those that did collect tapes.

BTW, I'd more put any "blame" on th HD side. There was a time when the only format of discussion was BD... the HD side seemed to crop onto the scene long after there was a ton of information about BD floating around.

AND I wouldn't completely dismiss the effect the PS3 may have. Not saying it WILL have a huge impact, just that it COULD work out that way.

GLOW
11-18-2006, 05:57 PM
I agree that both formats will probably fail (AKA become niche) but this article is poorly thought out. The problems start with #1. "With the debut of HD DVD at an underwhelming 720p/1080i".... give me a break! I thought there was no difference between 1080i and 1080p (as evidenced all over the forums here), hell even many here will tell you there's no no big difference between 720p and 1080p :rolleyes: ... so I wonder what Joe Sixpack thinks about the difference between 720p, 1080i, and 1080p.

The whole article sounds like a jaded old a/v enthusiast who thinks he's "above" a format war (he is probably more worried about paying his kid's college tuition than buying/replacing new components for his system).

bruceames
11-18-2006, 06:29 PM
Well, if worse comes to worst and HD DVD fails, and zero universal players get made because BD just kicked royal ass from here on out...then I will have three HD DVD players (two A1s and an Add-on) to fall back on to play my beta-discs. So I'll be good, thank you very much. ;)

But no way that's happening. Worse case for HD DVD now is the Universal players, meaning HD DVD is here to stay. HD DVD is really an enhanced form of DVD, and with the single-sided, equally-priced combos an eventuality, DVD and HD DVD will be as one. Besides, we're still talking 5 inch optical media here, and the public's been scarfing on that for the last 25 years.

Bottom line: The article (besides being stone-age) is sour grapes BS.

leevitalone
11-18-2006, 09:14 PM
I understand there is not much diff. in pq with reg. dvd and hd dvd anyway. If your tv is 40" or bigger and you sit close you will see a diff.
and with the cost of equipment and movie purchase, and the split of studio production they are digging themselves into a place where not many will be willing to take sides. greedy bastards! there is no need for excessive prices anyway. 1st gen or not. the basis is flat out greed. I'll keep my prog. scan deck.

mshulman
11-18-2006, 10:29 PM
For those that think HD-DVD or Bluray will just be a niche market - why do you think this?

Granted there will be other media formats out in the future that can exceed its capacity..etc, but since each format can support the highest resolution TV's support, what need would there be for any new format to replace it?

Consider Laserdisc. It was DVD quality, but the size of a record. Only reason it needed replacement was due to this fact. HD-DVD and Bluray are small already. They have the necessary picture quality, size..etc.

What more could any new format offer that these two can't?

SLedford
11-18-2006, 11:23 PM
mshulman,

A lot of this depends upon your definition of a niche market. I have seen projections saying that 7 - 20% of US homes have a high def television (a much smaller percent are getting high def broadcasts). Only a fraction of the HD television owners have bought either HD-DVD or BD. So right now this is a niche market, by my definition.

Will these formats grow to become mainstream? I certainly hope so, and I will eventually do my part to help. But the BEST that HD-DVD / BD can do right now is 20% of the viewing public market, and that would only happen if 100% of HD television owners buy this new technology.

Standard DVDs (like any new technology) were a niche market for a few years. HD-DVD and BD are niche markets right now. Whether they become mainstream or not will depend upon:
- how quickly the general public buys HD televisions
- how quickly the price on players drops and movies become available

Steeb
11-18-2006, 11:56 PM
I understand there is not much diff. in pq with reg. dvd and hd dvd anyway. If your tv is 40" or bigger and you sit close you will see a diff.

You've been misinformed. The difference is huge.

mfabien
11-19-2006, 07:13 AM
HD DVD is certainly a niche market presently but it will grow and present owners may have great influence for people who own or will own an HDTV. And to them I say:

I love my HD-A1 because:


The HD picture quality is great and so is the Top Menu functions
The lossless sound of DD TrueHD makes dialogs and side noises an "in your room" presence unmatched by any other sound technology. And DTS-HD MA is coming.
by accident, the player is among the best CD player in existence, some costing thousands of dollars. And if HD DVD would lose the war (an unlikely event, in my opinion) I would treasure my HD-A1 for playing CD's in uncompressed PCM over 5.1 multichannel analogs. Same applies to a DTS track of a DVD-A, simply great sound.

borromini
11-19-2006, 08:32 AM
I can relate to that...there are many personal and business aquaintances whom I've had the pleasure of advising on HD and advocated some of those same points. The adoption of HD is definitely going to take place...due to the Internet and advertising. HDTVs are in the conscience of most folks that are currrently or eventually buying a new TV.

GLOW
11-19-2006, 08:57 AM
You've been misinformed. The difference is huge.

Agree 100%. I'm so sick of people saying otherwise. I'm currently using a 34" Sony CRT HDTV from a viewing distance of 5-6' and I see a HUGE difference. The detail is always there, even with smaller sets. When I add a large SED to my living room (viewing distances of approx 10-14', depending on where you're sitting), I am not expecting much of a difference from what I am seeing now.

bruceames
11-19-2006, 09:48 AM
It's unfortunate that most tech junkies seem to think that you can't see much of a difference in smaller HDTVs (which is probably because they haven't yet given smaller displays a try). It has the effect of discouraging some to buy into it (and subsequently HD DVD/BD) because they can't afford the 37" and above (my definition of large screen anyway). If one always adjusts their viewing distance relative to the screen size (say, a 2:1 ratio), then the difference will be just as noticable (which, as Steeb says, is huge). I have a 20" Gateway HD moniter which is only 2-3 feet from my face and HD looks fantastic on it (although I rarely use it for HD as I have a 27" Westy right next to it that I view HD DVD instead)

People need to realize that HDTV does not have to be big to be enjoyed and the sooner this misconception is unmasked, the better. Because if some people are waiting for under $500 huge displays (because they've been misinformed to think that HD can only be appreciated on the "big guys"), then they'll be waiting a long time, to the detriment of the (competing) format's penetration rate.

SLedford
11-19-2006, 03:08 PM
Had Sunday lunch today with my church small group at a friend's house. He had a football game on his analog 27" television. His comment was that it was hard to watch the game at his house after watching other games in HD at my house.

The difference is noticeable for most (but not all) people. He will probably be buying an HD television soon because of his exposure to HD television at my house.

He will probably not jump right into HD-DVD or BD, but you can bet that he will eventually.

By the way, I read everything I can related to HD programming and most statistics indicate 15 - 20% of American households have HD televisions, with a substantial number of these not getting HD programming. But there was an article the other day indicating that there were only 7 million HD television sets in homes, a number closer to 7 - 10%. Do we have a good feel for what is the actual number of homes in the USA with a HD television?

Maybe the difference is in counting households rather than television sets. For example, my home is one household but we have 2 HD televisions (Great room, game room - DVDs only).

bruceames
11-19-2006, 03:34 PM
That article claiming 7-10 homes must be the # of homes that also have HD programming as there are several sources saying that is the case and also that HDTV pentration at now at least 15-20 percent of homes.

paulc
11-21-2006, 10:55 AM
You've been misinformed. The difference is huge.

Depends! Going from watching a regular DVD on a 4:3 CRT to a HD or BD disc on a HD TV is huge. However, going from watching that same regular DVD on a 16:9 HD TV to the same display with a HD/BD disc just isn't that huge. After 7 months or so living with a 16:9 display, I've come to believe that it's "16"9ness" is as important as the increased resolution, if not more so than all those extra pixels.

I've made fairly careful experiments between a few movies that I have available in HD vs. their DVD counterparts... lemme tell you, there wasn't near as much difference as some might want to see. Yes, there was a difference, yes the HD version was better, but simply not in any earth shattering way; a lot of the differences were actually pretty subtle.

Steeb
11-21-2006, 03:53 PM
Depends! Going from watching a regular DVD on a 4:3 CRT to a HD or BD disc on a HD TV is huge. However, going from watching that same regular DVD on a 16:9 HD TV to the same display with a HD/BD disc just isn't that huge. After 7 months or so living with a 16:9 display, I've come to believe that it's "16"9ness" is as important as the increased resolution, if not more so than all those extra pixels.

I've made fairly careful experiments between a few movies that I have available in HD vs. their DVD counterparts... lemme tell you, there wasn't near as much difference as some might want to see. Yes, there was a difference, yes the HD version was better, but simply not in any earth shattering way; a lot of the differences were actually pretty subtle.

I couldn't disagree more. There's absolutely nothing subtle about the differences, both in PQ and AQ.

SLedford
11-21-2006, 09:52 PM
Steeb,

I agree with you - I think that the HD picture is generally far superior to up converted standard def television even on a smaller set. I say generally, because some of the up converted stations (such as National Geographic on my Comcast hookup) look pretty good.

I have a lot of folks over to watch Razorback football and interestingly enough, about half cannot tell the difference between an up converted standard def picture & a HD picture. I know they cannot because we toggle back and forth with other games (not always in HD) during commercials. On a positive note, those that cannot tell the difference think both pictures (HD & SD) are pretty good.

It will be hard to convince these folks that they need to spend more to get a HD television, and even harder to sell them on HD-DVD or BD.

I did an experiment once when TNT showed Gladiator (one of my favorite movies) in HD. I put in my Gladiator DVD and moved to a chapter ahead of the movie. Paused the movie till the television broadcast caught up, then toggled back and forth. Didn't have them exactly the same, but it was close. I have to agree with paulc - the HD picture was superior, but not "blow me out of the water" superior.

Some of this may be because of the compression TNT was using with Gladiator - my HD television picture may not have been as good as it can get (or match HD-DVD / BD).

ah802
11-21-2006, 11:12 PM
Looks like your average TV replacement to one of the new systems gives a very positive response. But for enthusiasts in this forum who enjoy good systems already.. the difference isn't quite as spectacular.

From my perspective:

Jumping from a standard analog TV to digital broadcast = step up
Jumping from a standard digital broadcast to DVD s-vid = step up
Jumping from DVD resolution to digital broadcast 720P = step up
Jumping from broadcast HDTV to High Def 1080p DVD = step up

Of course you can consider half steps, from VHS-tape, through WS 1080i but in the main, if you take two steps up... the difference is obvious, four steps and it's nothing short of spectacular. But many of us have enjoyed half step increments, like PC home theaters, component connections, over compressed downloads of HD etc. For the industry to really get the public moving, they will have to pull-out all the stops at each step and at the moment I don't see the will, when HD broadcasting is suffering, high def DVD material is still lagging badly, and manufacturers are still waging hardware wars. It took the feds to mandate most of the digital/hd world.. and broadcasters are going into this kicking and screaming. The manufacturers and hollywood had an opportunity to excel, but instead of taking on this challenge and producing new exciting visual content, they've cloaked themselves in protective drm wrappers and are determined to wring the every dime from low budget box office failures.

This is not over by any means, but to describe HD as niche market is really to deny the PQ future. Take two steps up, and you'll be converted... four steps and you'll be a member in this forum.

paulc
11-22-2006, 11:58 AM
I did say movies, but perhaps wasn't more emphatic about the source. SD DVD movies to HD version of the same movie are a step up. BUT, SD video (live sports) to HD is a 2 steps up. I'd call that a "huge difference." Not so for movies. Don't forget that filmmakers traditionally manipulate the film to suit their artistic choice. A very dark and grainy film is going to look awfully similar in SD and HD (funny story, since I got my HD TV haven't gone to the movie theaters as much; just saw one that all the way through I kept muttering to myself "damn he totally crushed the black there").

As for "up-converted" I suspect adding more pixels is not the issue; all of out fixed pixel displays convert to their native resolution. It's more the processing of the signal the broadcasters do that "makes a difference." Keep in mind that just adding more pixels does not make for a "sharper" image, it's a software function that actually changes pixels to create an image that appears sharper. Mostly I've noticed this kind of thing done in the network news shows. Look at NBC SD-4, look at NBC HD-705. Both have been converted to my panels native display resolution, so both are "upconverted." The HD version looks sharper, it obviously has been "enhanced" via video picture processing.

MrRadman11
11-22-2006, 01:37 PM
well with HD DVD being backwards compatible to play my old dvd's, which i have a shitload of, ill make the leap and pay 200 bucks for the HD dvd for my xbox360. I personally thing sony's stupid for going blu-ray. I guess they didnt learn their lesson on the beta tapes eh? My opinion is HD dvd will become the standard.

Ive owned every console out there. Ill prolly buy the ps3 at some point. but it wont be for the blue ray features. It will be because i want to play Gran tourismo on it.

I concur.

ambcorp2000
12-01-2006, 09:40 PM
I find it strange that mostly everybody just AGREES. Have we lost our ability to think independently?
I am not related to Sony or the competing other party but still believe that at least one of the formats has a great future. The reason is simple guys... I am fed up of DVDs that can barely store 4.3gig of data. My videos, songs, photos, data would do much better on a disk that can store more than ten times the amount possible on DVD data.
My data bulk is growing just as fast as mankind's insatiable apatite to gobble up resources and digital media is going to be no exception. PS3 as I had assumed did create a mad rush at least to begin with and hopefully will be a trend setter.
READ MY LIPS - ALL OF YOU WILL HAVE A COMP SUPPORTING ONE OF THE FORMATS VERY VERY SOON NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK TODAY!!

SLedford
12-02-2006, 11:15 AM
ambcorp2000,

I see quite a lot of disagreement in this thread, and even more heated discussion in other threads. We are not all of the same mind on this matter.

Yes, in the next year or so computers will start having a HD-DVD or BD drive, which will have the same effect that it had with DVDs - help push acceptance of high def DVDs.

I too like the improved picture that both HD-DVD and BD deliver and when there is a universal player, I will jump in. Most of the posters are not saying that this will be a total failure - they are saying that for the foreseeable future, it will be a niche market.

Let me recap the reasons:
- Unlike standard DVDs, to enjoy this new format, you must have a high def television. Although the number is growing, the high estimate of families with a HD television is right at 20%.
- The format war and player prices are hurting acceptance by those with HD televisions. I bought my first DVD player 6 months after the format came out for $399 + tax. That worked with all DVDs with all studios (ignoring the stupid DIVIX fiasco). For me to do the same today would be much more expensive, since it would require two players.
- I get an outstanding DVD picture on my HD television. The last time I had a large group over to watch a DVD movie (Narnia) the group repeatedly commented that they didn't see how the picture could get much better. Granted, non of them have seen the HD-DVD or BD demos, but they are partially right - the picture improvement from SD-DVD to high def DVD is (IMO) not as impressive as the improvement from VHS to DVD.

IMO this will remain at best a niche market for some time to come. I sincerely hope I am wrong and will be happy if you are able to say "I told you so" in the near future, but Sony / Toshiba / studios have screwed this thing up badly.

Steeb
12-02-2006, 11:34 AM
I am fed up of DVDs that can barely store 4.3gig of data. My videos, songs, photos, data would do much better on a disk that can store more than ten times the amount possible on DVD data.

You do realize you can get DL DVDs, right? It's not like they're new...

ambcorp2000
12-02-2006, 12:43 PM
Let me recap the reasons:
- Unlike standard DVDs, to enjoy this new format, you must have a high def television. Although the number is growing, the high estimate of families with a HD television is right at 20%.
- The format war and player prices are hurting acceptance by those with HD televisions. I bought my first DVD player 6 months after the format came out for $399 + tax. That worked with all DVDs with all studios (ignoring the stupid DIVIX fiasco). For me to do the same today would be much more expensive, since it would require two players.
- I get an outstanding DVD picture on my HD television. The last time I had a large group over to watch a DVD movie (Narnia) the group repeatedly commented that they didn't see how the picture could get much better. Granted, non of them have seen the HD-DVD or BD demos, but they are partially right - the picture improvement from SD-DVD to high def DVD is (IMO) not as impressive as the improvement from VHS to DVD.


To the above points I cannot help but agree. Except the Narnia movie part - the simple answer is - see it for yourself in a movie theatre.

Let me explain my general point by taking an example of some of the parallel trends that may help take BD/HDDVD to take off - Lets examine the emerging phenomena of media integration so that my gaming station, my media player, TV etc. all are just one system. This may not be an emerging phenomena at all - we all are used to the good old entertainment center in our living room! It's just that this furniture can now truely come off age and do what is supposed to - combine home PC + a gaming console + TV + media storage + other frills. This is a great gizmo and also saves me a lot of money.
Irrespective of whether they participate in the BD/HDDVD war all or at least many companies have enough products in the market to prove that they are game for media integration.
Once this happens friend.. can you imagine the exponential rise in our insatiable need of digital media? Of course HD digital data will still stream, will store itserlf in a HDD but then why will it stop hoppin around in my pocket (or back pack) or display itself proudly in a super store? And my friend, if BD/HDDVD don't take off that's exactly that will happen. There is no niche market for them just beacuse they will be propelled skywards by so many forces.. media integration is just ONE small small example.
Probably this is also the reason why its worth fighting for. There's nothing great or too expensive about this new trend. It's just about a 10 times leap in the amount of digital storage that the common man will get to use. With higher memory size and possibilities, complexities cannot be helped. Let these complexities not tangle us up!
A note appreciation - your 10 points are quite well concieved - good enough to start this huge debate - Thanks for providing me/all with this platform. Having expressed my point of view I am also keeping my fingers crossed to see the of HD media success unfold in front of all of us.

ambcorp2000
12-02-2006, 12:51 PM
You do realize you can get DL DVDs, right? It's not like they're new...
DL DVD is just 2X not enough for most of us I guess...

Steeb
12-02-2006, 02:48 PM
DL DVD is just 2X not enough for most of us I guess...

Okay, but you were bitching about using "DVDs that can barely store 4.3gig of data." It appeared that you were ignoring or unaware of DL DVDs.

borromini
12-02-2006, 03:45 PM
...READ MY LIPS - ALL OF YOU WILL HAVE A COMP SUPPORTING ONE OF THE FORMATS VERY VERY SOON NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK TODAY!! Lips? You do realize you're posting in a forum and not making a public speech?

Oh, thanks for notifying us on our futility to think about this subject.

Razor05
12-02-2006, 04:57 PM
Lips? You do realize you're posting in a forum and not making a public speech?

Oh, thanks for notifying us on our futility to think about this subject.

And screaming at the same time...tsk tsk.:rolleyes:

drumfiend
12-03-2006, 12:19 AM
Even tho the numbers say that about 20% of homes have these tv's, that has to change this year or next with the drop in prices of these things. They've become so affordable for people, my friend at BB has sold some LCD flat panels to folks mounting them to the inside of their mobile home. That's got to say somethin for HDTV's affordability.

drumfiend
12-03-2006, 12:28 AM
Even tho dvd-a & sacd were flops, one simply must take into account that those formats were never BROADCASTED into people's homes as HD's 720p & 1080i are today. A simple powered antenna can get billy bob's favorite prime time hd LOCAL programming into his house WITHOUT paying a service prodiver. Not only that, but DirecTV and Time Warner are now full swing in the process of converting to a more prominent HD format (after DirecTV's long hindered upconversion of local HD programming and Time Warner's crappy analog package that accompanies even the highest HD tier, they can get underway with what people are really after from the programming they pay out their ears for). Bottom line, expect 50-75HD channels from either, expecially DirecTV by the end of 2007.
I have to agree that Sony and Toshiba, especially, never should have broken off negotiations to merge technologies and that one will most likely fizzle the other out. But if I had to choose one, it would be Sony's 1080p, increasingly exposed, and multi-liscensed Blu-Ray. Had they liscensed their product last time, Beta might have actually had a future. Good to see they learn from their mistakes. For now tho, I would be happy enough buying an upconversion DVD player, don't forget the HDMI cable, and save myself about 300-1000 bucks, especially since my HD tv isn't 1080p.
But as for the argument that HD is a fad, no way no how. After the taste that 720p left in people's mouths and the uproar of questions and amazements that the public has witnessed, HD is here to stay in a growing market of expanding source and falling prices of screen sizes and types. 1080p is the next step forward, premature perhaps, but nonetheless in plain sight. Right now we have one 1080p source, the Blu-Ray. Who knows who the first local network will be to broadcast in full HD. It may be several all at one time much like the changeover to 720p in primetime programming was.
I feel bad for Billy Bob tho if he either bought off the internet or from some store on either the arrogant whim that he already knew all he needed to know or just didn't get the help and information he needed. Make no mistake folks, these tv's are, more often then not, designed to be part of a system. The author of the article here is right when he says that screen and source must go hand in hand or you're wasting your time and money. Atleast do some research on the type of tv you're interested in before you set foot in a store and if you're too lazy to do that, I went to a circuit city on a lunch break recently, and i have to say all 3 of the people i talked to were very knowledgeable and good at their information, not to mention non-commissioned. I loved it. Anyway, these things are still investments, even tho they've sky-bombed in price these last 6 months.
Be ready to get what you need to make it work. Don't just get one thing and think you're gonna see the picture they have on display at the store. Set 5-10% of your spending amount aside for things like cables and other accessories. Get it all at once and try to work a deal, in the attempt to reduce un-necessary trips to the store, irritation, and that 'I swear, I'll return it all' mentality over a missing cable or something. Believe me the only thing worse than not getting a new HDTV you want so bad is having one and returning it over a bad experience, and depriving yourself of your favorite primetime Local HD show when the tv you should be watching it on was sitting in a box not 10 feet from you no more than a week ago.[/QUOTE]

oblioman
12-03-2006, 02:59 AM
Simply put, the author of the article is a daggy [email protected]@ktard with no forsight what-so-ever. He/She has no concept of the fact that the industry has grown exponentially in the past 10 years. Think about it. What computer were you using 3 years ago? How many of you even discussed HD 3 years ago? The leaps and bounds technology has achieved in the past 10 years will be nothing compared to the next 5 years. HD is not a niche market (20 % is more than niche), consumers will demand more and better HD. If the market saturation is at 20% today - give it two years and I'll say it's at minimum 50%. Throw in the fact that digital tubes will be mandatory in the next couple of years - how many consumers will opt for something that is capable of 720/1080i - I would bet that most of them will opt for HD. The author of the article is a fuzz eared, hairy nostriled dinosaur of the past. Disregard the naysayers.

borromini
12-03-2006, 08:57 AM
Simply put, the author of the article is a daggy [email protected]@ktard with no forsight what-so-ever... What are daggy [email protected]@ktards? :confused: Oh wait...are you drunk again? :)

GLOW
12-03-2006, 10:57 AM
ALL OF YOU WILL HAVE A COMP SUPPORTING ONE OF THE FORMATS VERY VERY SOON NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK TODAY!!

I'm not sure how true this is. A majority of people do not need more than 4.3 gig's of disc storage as of this moment. Sure it would be nice to have a disc that can hold 15/25/30/50/etc gig's of data, but unless they are copying the entire contents of their HDD, they don't really need it. DVD's are a cheap way to get a decent amount of data onto a single disc. Sure, down the line it will be necessary to upgrade to a higher capacity but atm I don't think many people care about having more capacity than DVD.

paulc
12-03-2006, 11:51 AM
You do realize you can get DL DVDs, right? It's not like they're new...

Well, there is an issue with DL media; cost per MB goes through the roof! In general, I get 8x SL DVD media for 25-28 cents per. 8X DL DVD media is running 2.30 each. Twice the capacity at 5 times the cost.

The "curve" for DL media pricing seems to not even be close to the "curve" for SL media. I've been watching DL pricing for a while now... and the slightly good news is I'm seeing the very first movement on the curve. I'm seeing 2.4X +R DL media priced around a buck and a half (in 100 lots).

Steeb
12-03-2006, 03:10 PM
Well, there is an issue with DL media; cost per MB goes through the roof! In general, I get 8x SL DVD media for 25-28 cents per. 8X DL DVD media is running 2.30 each. Twice the capacity at 5 times the cost.

The "curve" for DL media pricing seems to not even be close to the "curve" for SL media. I've been watching DL pricing for a while now... and the slightly good news is I'm seeing the very first movement on the curve. I'm seeing 2.4X +R DL media priced around a buck and a half (in 100 lots).

Yeah, I know DL discs are more expensive. Again, I was merely pointing out that he wasn't limited to 4.3GB discs, as he was claiming.

ambcorp2000
12-04-2006, 08:01 PM
And screaming at the same time...tsk tsk.:rolleyes:
Oops... those were bad comments! Didn't mean all that tough. Thanks for letting me know... Apologies too :)

Palmag
12-11-2006, 10:10 PM
I bought an LCD monitor a month ago,I had an old LG 54cm CRT tv and let me tell you the sensory explosion when I hooked up my Samsung LCD to HDTV. I have never been one to watch much free to air TV but when I looked at the quality of picture and sound I was awed. I was disapointed though that my cable carrier only sends out a SD signal and not a HD, I immediatly notice the difference when I switch between free to air and cable.
I have only seen Blu ray in action and I can see the difference straight away, I havent seen HD DVD yet so I can't decide which one I like best, but on price alone I think HD-DVD could edge Blu Ray out.

iceblu121
12-16-2006, 02:16 AM
i read the artical that mayank posted i disagree is a lot of ways as far as hd dvds and blu ray not being the next best thing and not making it. how many people out there have hd tvs and now there current media format sux we bought these damn tvs not cause there thin and light because of what quality of picture we can get from it who cares if hd dvd and blu ray didnt hit the market as big as standard dvds did when it first came out.why is that duhhh cause whoever bought a dvd player in already had a friggen tv as most people do.now with hd tvs most people dont have hd tvs so thats why the damn sales are much lower then when the first dvd players where released the younger crowd ages id say 20 to even pusin it to 45 are the ones gona be into gettin these hd tvs and blu rays etc nobody younger then that really and do u accpect grandma to know what the heck hd is technology today isnt even fair for the consumer now they got this 1080p now i see there comin out with friggen 3d tvs i mean let people adapt to somthing b4 throwing all this new stuff out way thats my thought anyways and those 3d tvs are no way gona be cheap at all

iceblu121
12-17-2006, 03:25 AM
Even tho the numbers say that about 20% of homes have these tv's, that has to change this year or next with the drop in prices of these things. They've become so affordable for people, my friend at BB has sold some LCD flat panels to folks mounting them to the inside of their mobile home. That's got to say somethin for HDTV's affordability.
even tho i mean they are somehwat afforadable they are still pricey if u think about it that is there are no more 3 4 5 hundred dollar hd tvs at price maybe a 19 inch but thats about it u want a normal 32 inch lcd ur payin atleast $1800 bux which not many people are willing to spend that much on a tv set.people like us here would cause to us its worth that money to see hd tv supposly i talked to a bestbuy saleman and he said the fcc wants everything hd at the end of 2007 this i hope.i didnt spend 2 grand on a tv to watch 480i
oh and have to add this
CABLEVISION SUX
ty

fryet
12-18-2006, 11:09 AM
One thing I wanted to add to this. Not all cable companies are ready for a switch to HD. My cable company, advanced broadband, only offers 6 HD channels, and that doesn't even include all of the 4 major networks. In all fairness, they do have a digital (non-HD) service that would pass the switch requirement, but their HD offerings is very poor.

ah802
12-18-2006, 11:42 AM
even tho i mean they are somehwat afforadable they are still pricey if u think about it that is there are no more 3 4 5 hundred dollar hd tvs at price maybe a 19 inch but thats about it u want a normal 32 inch lcd ur payin atleast $1800 bux which not many people are willing to spend that much on a tv set.people like us here would cause to us its worth that money to see hd tv supposly i talked to a bestbuy saleman and he said the fcc wants everything hd at the end of 2007 this i hope.i didnt spend 2 grand on a tv to watch 480i
oh and have to add this
CABLEVISION SUX
tyJeez... you don't get out much. In around my area (Canada) 32" LCD's are currently in the $700 CDN range (that's about the price of what a same sized CRT is/was) which would be ~$500 U.S. and I've seen plenty of 20" LCD's at sub $300 and this is with all the technological advances... WS, flicker fixed, digital + analog tuners etc.. Sure; last years prices still have some reeling in sticker shock, but get over it... this year I've seen discounted deals of 37" LCD's at $899 CDN. OTH If you want top end (name brand Sony, Panasonic etc) then you'll pay their price... they believe that brand power allows them to charge double & more.. even though forums like this point out they're using the same panels that some the cheaper panels have.

Of course to-day, you'll see CRT value sales.. as stores dump old stock at a loss. New technology just wasn't mean to compete with that... re: the analog lic change... this will see dumping of many TV sets cheap up here... none that I want to buy.

I look forward to HD, but it looks like the cable guys are dragging their feet, and there's really no incentive in Canada for broadcasters to upgrade their equipment to HD. Their argument is that they will not get any extra money for it (advertisers are unwilling to pay a premium for it) and they will gain no new users. Cable PQ has been crap for quite a few years, and HD in Canada might be easy to get... but PQ isn't.

I hope people evolve their own HD collections.. and cut their monthly bills down to zero. Local OTA broadcasting is the best route for me, and I'm hoping that there will be a resurgence.. side by side with HD disks... the middle man is no where to be found.

ambcorp2000
12-18-2006, 05:04 PM
In US there is no dearth of HD cable, though not every channel has switched to HD, the bigger players like ESPN have and thats what really matters.

This truely reflects in the southwards trend of the HD prices. If I compare the price of non-HD CRTs to HD CRTs there may still be a price difference, but as rightly pointed out, this difference is more because many stores are selling their junk cheap! A friend of mine got a 21" non-HD CRT for $50! My opinion is that he should have been paid $50 to clear the junk off :)

Having said that non-HD CRTs are still hugely popular especially in non-US/non-Japan part of the globe. US/Japan have traditionally been trend setters for all gizmos and that holds good for all forms of TVs. Hopefully this year's Christmas trend will catch on. I got a Sanyo CRT HD for $450 last year. This year I saw Sanyo LCDs selling for just a little more. Though I shall wait another year to change, I am not sure that a lot of people can resist the temptation this Christmas!

akron05
12-18-2006, 05:07 PM
I find myself agreeing with everything said in this article. Have always thought that the release of HD-DVD / BD was premature, given the low penetration of HD televisions in the market. The war makes it worse, since people like myself (who would have a HD television and might have purchased a high def player) are sitting on the sidelines.

There are a limited number of people who jump in early, frequently justifying this with comments like "you only live once - enjoy high def DVDs now". And these tend to fall into two categories:
- those that are willing to buy both formats (very expensive and out of reach financially for most), or
- fanatically commited to one format, almost with religious intensity.

I don't think that the formats will completely fail - niche market is more likely.

They could become more mainstream, if:

-If the format(s) become mainstream, it will be in a decade or so. It took DVD's about 7 years to surpass VHS in popularity, the same will hold true for HD DVD and BluRay
-One format will have to win out
-Once HD tv's are in about 40% of households

akron05
12-18-2006, 05:09 PM
Even tho the numbers say that about 20% of homes have these tv's, that has to change this year or next with the drop in prices of these things. They've become so affordable for people, my friend at BB has sold some LCD flat panels to folks mounting them to the inside of their mobile home. That's got to say somethin for HDTV's affordability.

I don't think we'll ever reach the point where EVERYONE has high-def. Digital, yes, high-def, no

Most lower end TV's now that are SD have built-in ATSC tuners. DVD's look identical on those to analog TV's, but they tune digital stations. Those will still make up the bottom 30% of the market even 20 years from now, IMHO. I would predict that in 20 years, 70% of households will have some form of a high-def TV.

meh130
12-19-2006, 04:24 PM
So long as HDTVs are outnumbered by old TVs, you can't call the players anything but niche either.

The problem is, "old TVs" (i.e., standard definition), cannot display the full resolution of DVDs (4:3 480p, and 16:9 480p anamorphic).

So does that mean progressive scanned DVD players are niche? They were at one time, now probably 90%-95% of the DVD players sold are progressive scanned, and of those probably 90%-95% are either not connected to TVs which can display a progressive picture, or if they are connected to an ED or HD TV, are not connected via component cables.

Several things have to happen for HD formats to gain the level of penetration needed to not be "niche".

The format war needs to be won. The players' component costs and subsequent prices has to fall like a rock (just like the original DVD players eventually did). These two things will cause the market to bifurcate, and there will be no reason for a standard DVD player priced greater than $50. Today's "midmarket" (i.e., $50 to $150) DVD players are upscaling models with HDMI outputs. Two years ago the midmarket player was a progressive scanned model with a built-in DTS decoder. Two years before that it was a progressive scanned model which did not have a built-in DTS decoder.

When the HD format DVD reaches that point, most new mainstream purchases will be capable of playing HD format discs. Then standard and HD discs will be like fullscreen and widescreen DVDs today. Two options.

This will not happen at the same rate DVD player adoption did because DVD was one format. Also, for most people, DVD is "good enough".

But DVD formats have not driven HD sales, ESPNHD and other HD sports broadcasts have.

fryet
12-19-2006, 06:04 PM
You make a good point. If the cost of HD players drops to where they are close in price to normal DVD players, then I can see them becoming the dominant player. People will buy them even if they can't use the advanced functionality just so that they will be ready whenever they do get around to buying an HDTV. They may also start to buy HD movies as well, so that they don't have to buy them again when they get an HDTV - but once again, this assumes that the price differnce between DVD and High Def DVDs is minimal.

akron05
12-19-2006, 10:36 PM
So does that mean progressive scanned DVD players are niche? They were at one time, now probably 90%-95% of the DVD players sold are progressive scanned, and of those probably 90%-95% are either not connected to TVs which can display a progressive picture, or if they are connected to an ED or HD TV, are not connected via component cables.

That's what annoys me. I know plenty of people that have the proper EQUIPMENT to watch Prog-scan DVD and/or HD broadcasts, but because their equipment is hooked up via composite, s-video, or (cringe) RF input, they aren't watching it in anything but 480i. I don't know if it's because people are lazy, or just don't know that they have to connect through component or HDMI to get the full effect.

paulc
12-21-2006, 10:20 AM
One interesting point to consider. Say you go from a 32" CRT to a HD set. AND to make sure the size of things stays the same, you figure out that a 40" HD has almost the exact same screen height. A DVD will look over 80% larger on the 16:9 set than the 4:3 set. It's all in the nature of showing a widescreen movie on a 4:3 set vs. a 16:9 set. I KNEW I'd get a larger display on the 16:9 but I was very blown away to see exactly how much.

Given this factor, HD DVDs of either camp are not all that compelling. And part of that is movies are generally shot on film. And ones shot on video seem to be "processed" to look like they were shot on film. AND "film look" gives a director a LOT of opportunity to manipulate the image. I have a filmmaker friend who shoots Fuji stock and has it developed for saturation so her stuff has quite the garish look. Frequently, directors go for the gritty look by loading the image with grain/noise. There ARE many times where one may have to "stare intently" for a period of time to decide if you are seeing the additional resolution of a HD picture.

falcondan95705
12-24-2006, 02:57 PM
I Disagree with the Article... HDDVD is NOT a leap forward??? Who is this guy trying to kid?? It is leaps and bounds ahead of tape and far better than DVD..Laser was better than DVD...CD music STINKS compared to Vinyl... I have been waiting to get HDTV for along time.. Finally got Satelite and now I have HDDVD as well... This is what I have waited for .... There is too much money and time invested in this new format.. Shoot... Listening to this guy we all may as well stayed with analog tv...

akron05
12-26-2006, 08:25 AM
I Disagree with the Article... HDDVD is NOT a leap forward??? Who is this guy trying to kid?? It is leaps and bounds ahead of tape and far better than DVD..Laser was better than DVD...CD music STINKS compared to Vinyl... I have been waiting to get HDTV for along time.. Finally got Satelite and now I have HDDVD as well... This is what I have waited for .... There is too much money and time invested in this new format.. Shoot... Listening to this guy we all may as well stayed with analog tv...

I disagree too. I think once people finally start figuring out HOW to enjoy HDTV (since half the people who have one either don't get HD content or don't use the right connections to the TV to watch it properly) one format or the other will win out.

doggie
01-05-2007, 04:51 PM
I am stuck with a $350 Sony digital camera that will only accept Memory Sticks that have a maximum capacity of 128MB. Meanwhile, there are Compact Flash cards that can take 4GB cards. And what kills me most is that after Sony abandoned the Memory Stick in less than 2 years, they came out with Memory Stick Duo, which are incompatible with Memory Stick devices. I will NEVER be victimized by proprietary formats again! Where's the minidisc? The laserdisc? The SACD? Screw Sony and their costly pet projects at my expense. Cheers to a quick death to Blu-ray.

blue02gt
03-10-2007, 10:26 PM
I don't see the big hubbub over Blue Ray and HD DVD. Especially since the electronics companies have kinda shot it in the foot by making DVD Players that Play Blue-Ray, HD-DVD, and Standard DVD's all in one. Everyone who has Standard DVD's will just buy the players to get a better quality picture out of their regular DVD's rather than spend money on the new formats.

Lee Stewart
03-11-2007, 04:58 AM
LESS THAN ONE YEAR

That is how old HiDef DVD is. What kind of miracles were people expecting from this format(s)? IMO the person who wrote the article is a younger person who has been used to the super fast changes that have come with many of the technologies we use today.

As I have stated in other threads, there is only one other time in the past that you can compare HDTV to and that was Color TV. You HAD to get a new TV to enjoy the benefit color tv offered.

IMO HD disc is going to be the slowest growth format we have ever seen. Reason - I don't have to buy a HD disc player to watch HDTV. There is plenty of HD programming available, even some for free (OTA).

LD and DVD offered something other than just better PQ and AQ, they offered OAR for movie lovers and there are many who love this aspect.

So I'm in CC looking at HD DVD's and decide to pass on buying anything. That night I sit down and watch WATERWORLD in OAR and DD 5.1 in HD on UHD and it looked great! So how much better would the HD DVD of this movie looked . .. 5% . . 10%?

So what I am doing is making a list of the HD movies shown that are NOT in OAR and when one of those is released, then I would have a reason to purchase it, the same as I did for LD and DVD. But if its on HDTV in OAR I am not spending $20 or $25 to own it when it's available to me through my HD STB as part of my $100 per month cable package.

I started to realize that at $20 a pop HD DVD is going to get expensive to build a library in comparison to the $5.00 I have been spending on DVD's. And how many times am I going to watch that HD DVD?

Of course HD disc is a niche market. And it's going to say there for quite some time. But as far as we know, this is it for the next 20 years or so. If it was the only method of getting HDTV then it would have triple the sales it does. But HD disc has competition from HDTV and I am sure I am not alone in my views and habits concerning HD disc and HDTV.

paulc
03-11-2007, 09:59 AM
Actually, think about you DVD library, and remember the day you first got a 16:9 HD display? Remember when you popped that first one in?

I went from a 32" 4:3 CRT to a 40" 16:9 HD LCD. Almost the exact same vertical height. A DVD's image on screen was about 80% LARGER than my old 32" 4:3! Widescreen SD if you will. Lemme tell you, it's damn good AND FAR better than what I was used to on the 4:3. Essentially, the next step (getting to better resolution of HD) just isn't as big a leap as the step I just took by going to a 16:9 set.

Add in that folks at times forget about the filmmakers artistic vision. It can be made to look like nothing you might expect from additional resolution. Look at a film like Spielberg's War of the Worlds. I've seen it in HD and widescreen SD (from the DVD). You know what? Not a whole hell of a lot different. You have to watch quite closely AND only judge by certain scenes to tell which is which version.

mentalmummy
03-12-2007, 12:22 PM
HD is much better than DVD but it can be difficult at first glance to see the difference between a well upscaled dvd and a High Def DVD.

I think HD will only really take off here in the UK in about two years, we have the analogue switchoff starting then and many people are already buying HD ready sets because of the adverts on tv saying about tv`s being HD ready - people are starting to associate HD ready and digital tv and so in a few years time as the deadline gets nearer the number of HD sets here will rise, then people will start buying the cheaper HD DVD players and already more people are buying Sky HD satellite.

HD is a niche market but so was CD and for a while DVD.

The signs seem to point to, at least here, High Def tv taking off as the analogue switch off approaches. A lot of people I know who aren`t into HD yet are buying HD ready sets because thanks to tv ads (and the "HD ready" logo plastered in all the tv shops) they know that new tv`s should be HD ready.

Sky HD will have dropped in price by then, it`s already dropped to about 200 for the box from 300, and then people will have an affordable alternative to standard definition tv.

It was the same with the switch from 4:3 to 16:9 sets here, as Sky and terrestrial tv showed more widescreen content people switched to the widescreen sets.

I think the advertising has prepared Brits for a HD future. Hopefully :thumbsup:

Diogenes
03-12-2007, 02:38 PM
I think one of the big problems is that the respective prices ($499 and $999) make it just to big a gamble for many people, especially when which format will win out is still up in the air.