10 Reasons Why High Definition DVD Formats Have Already Failed

paulc

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

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

Oops... those were bad comments! Didn't mean all that tough. Thanks for letting me know... Apologies too

Palmag

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

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

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

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

Jeez... 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.