High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
Rules HDTV Forum Gallery LINK TO US! RSS - High Def Forum AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button Groups

High Definition News & Informative Articles Get the Latest High Definition News & Informative Articles Here! Please post newsworthy information here only! This forum is NOT for your first post. Thank you!

Research firm says HD DVD sales will rise

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-16-2007, 11:26 AM   #31  
HD Fan
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Posts: 1,023
Default The enemy of high def video

Chris, I think your 40% number for homes with HD televisions is high, but lets assume it is accurate for the moment. That would convert to about 40 million households. Lets assume that 1 million have HD-DVD players and 5 million BD / PS3 players. As you said, a format that is stillborn.

So what is keeping this 40 million from buying into high def video? Here is my unscientific list of reasons, in order of impact:

(1) These 40 million are not convinced that high def video (either format) is needed. They are satisfied with SD-DVD, which does look pretty good on their HD televisions.

(2) Prices of hardware (players) and software (movies). Prices are dropping but still above what Joe Public is willing to pay.

(3) Availability. There is only have one eisle devoted to movies of BOTH formats at BB (vs about 8 for SD-DVD).

(4) Format war. To my surprise when talking with friends, a lot of them are aware that there is a format war and some (a minority) can name the two contestants. Most are more aware of BD.

You want high def movies to succeed, as do I and those in this forum. Assuming that one or the other format will not just dissappear any time soon (if ever), what needs to be done to address the issues I raised above? Lets be positive and not deal in "what ifs" (such as comments about Sony as a company or who did / did not start the format war). Concrete solutions to get people to buy into either format, I don't care which (I will own both in 2008).
SLedford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2007, 11:31 AM   #32  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
Chris Gerhard's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLedford View Post
Chris, I think your 40% number for homes with HD televisions is high, but lets assume it is accurate for the moment.
Here is one estimate of 60 million homes by 2008 year-end:

http://broadcastengineering.com/infr...hdtv-20040811/

We should have a good idea of the number of homes with HDTV by year-end 2007 in a couple of months, but all indications I have seen are that number is over 40 million already. My point is the HD DVD prices have been better than predicted and sales worse then predicted, the format is doing very poorly by and standard of measurement possible in my opinion.

Chris
Chris Gerhard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2007, 12:01 PM   #33  
HD Fan
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Posts: 1,023
Default I agree with you

Chris, I agree with you when you point out that HD-DVD has not done as well as I had hoped, but I think we can say the same about BD. High def movies are not taking off like I would like. I very much want high def to become the standard, and it is not happening.

The point of my post was that we (the high def movie enthusiasts and the industry) are too busy focusing on the format war and ignoring the real enemy, which is SD-DVD. If we magically had only one format on Monday morning (and let's assume it is BD), it would not change much of anything.

I am going to get a BD player when 2.0 profile players are available for $299 or less, something I expect to see this Spring. So HD-DVD going away would not change anything for me, a HD television owner and a willing convert to high def movies. Since I have an HD-DVD player (two, actually) I would continue to buy HD-DVD movies till I bought the BD player, then only BD movies. I am already not buying SD-DVD movies.

What about Joe Public? If HD-DVD goes away, what changes with him. Heck, chances are he hasn't even heard of HD-DVD (and /or BD), so nothing changes for him. He is still happy with SD-DVD, still not convinced he needs to by a BD player, etc.

What I want to hear is solutions to this problem. How do we get Joe Public to buy into high def movies? And lets just focus on those that already have a HD television, which we are saying is about 40 million people, a very healthy market.

So what are the answers?
SLedford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2007, 01:36 PM   #34  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
Chris Gerhard's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLedford View Post
Chris, I agree with you when you point out that HD-DVD has not done as well as I had hoped, but I think we can say the same about BD. High def movies are not taking off like I would like. I very much want high def to become the standard, and it is not happening.

The point of my post was that we (the high def movie enthusiasts and the industry) are too busy focusing on the format war and ignoring the real enemy, which is SD-DVD. If we magically had only one format on Monday morning (and let's assume it is BD), it would not change much of anything.

I am going to get a BD player when 2.0 profile players are available for $299 or less, something I expect to see this Spring. So HD-DVD going away would not change anything for me, a HD television owner and a willing convert to high def movies. Since I have an HD-DVD player (two, actually) I would continue to buy HD-DVD movies till I bought the BD player, then only BD movies. I am already not buying SD-DVD movies.

What about Joe Public? If HD-DVD goes away, what changes with him. Heck, chances are he hasn't even heard of HD-DVD (and /or BD), so nothing changes for him. He is still happy with SD-DVD, still not convinced he needs to by a BD player, etc.

What I want to hear is solutions to this problem. How do we get Joe Public to buy into high def movies? And lets just focus on those that already have a HD television, which we are saying is about 40 million people, a very healthy market.

So what are the answers?
I just don't think that either of these formats can ever overcome DVD. With DVD in almost 100% of homes in the US, I believe a signifcant percentage isn't going to abandon DVD for something the same but a little better. I don't know whether that percentage is 50% or more or less, but it is a large number that will feel that way for now and forever. So the alledged HD DVD plan to force accetance even though it isn't wanted just sounds dumb to be. What is the point? DVD software and hardware is less expensive to manufacture than HD DVD software and hardware and that will never change, let the market that wants DVD continue with DVD until something new and profoundly different can replace DVD. The Blu-ray plan to offer better quality software for the percentage of the market that wants that is the only plan that makes sense. I don't know what percentage of the households in the US Blu-ray can reach with that plan, maybe 35%, maybe 60% once HD DVD is no longer around to confuse the market. Right now, neither of these formats are doing anything, Blu-ray is obviously doing much better worldwide, but it isn't doing much. I don't think it is too late, and if HD DVD can check out now and leave the market to Blu-ray, it might still happen. At some point, neither format will ever be able to gain any kind of a foothold on even the market that would have been interested.

Chris
Chris Gerhard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2007, 02:30 PM   #35  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard View Post
Of course there are many examples of a format that was manufactured to take advantage of new audio/video technology. S-video inputs in displays was one. The products to use the inputs were SVHS, EDBeta, and Hi-8 among others. Receivers with 5.1 surround inputs or digital inputs with built in decoders to decode the surround sound source. For analog 5.1 inputs, the products were first DVD and CD with Dolby Digital or DTS audio then later SACD and DVD-A. Various digital inputs in audio processors are common now for various audio codecs. Component video inputs in displays was offered for progressive scan DVD players is another in a long line of developments.

I know one of the favorite responses here is that an HDTV is required for HD DVD and that is the reason it isn't selling in great quantities. I always say that is absurd. HDTV is now in about 40% of homes in the US, the number is growing rapidly so I need to look now to get a better estimate, I might be low. Assume 100% of homes in the US and multiply the HD DVD penetration by 2.5 and you still have a tiny number, the format is basically stillborn.

Chris
I'm just thinking out loud here, but to me, none of those things you listed were a new format in the sense of a new medium. Most of them were different encoding methods on existing media and only required a player with different decoders, not a whole new playback system.

Although one needed a new display for progressive scan viewing, one did not need new DVD's, nor did one need a new audio system for SACD or DVD-A, just a new player. (Obviously you needed a multi-channel audio system for surround sound but it wasn't a requirement to appreciate the superior fidelity of the format. The requirement for a multi-speaker system dates back to Quadraphonic records and is one of the big obstacles to success for multi-channel audio formats--hardly anyone thinks it's worth the cost and inconvenience compared to the benefit).

S-VHS is close, but even then all you needed was new player--having an S-Video input on your display was a big benefit, but S-VHS even looked better on Composite and you could use an SVHS tape to record conventional VHS and you could play an SVHS tape in a VHS player if the content was VHS.

So, no, I still can't think of any new format that required both a new player and a new playback system in order to appreciate any benefit.

And of course, I have to ask, what makes you think consumers want Blu-Ray any more than they want HD DVD? There is cetrainly no evidence of that unless you want to misconstrue PS3 sales as evidence of a consumer desire for Blu-Ray over HD DVD (and BD disc sales indicate that's a non-starter) and misconstrue BD giveaways and discounts as evidence of consumer desire for Blu-Ray over HD DVD (and we'll see how that goes in the coming weeks).

Last edited by BobY; 12-16-2007 at 02:37 PM..
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2007, 03:52 PM   #36  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard View Post
I just don't think that either of these formats can ever overcome DVD. With DVD in almost 100% of homes in the US, I believe a signifcant percentage isn't going to abandon DVD for something the same but a little better. I don't know whether that percentage is 50% or more or less, but it is a large number that will feel that way for now and forever. So the alledged HD DVD plan to force accetance even though it isn't wanted just sounds dumb to be. What is the point? DVD software and hardware is less expensive to manufacture than HD DVD software and hardware and that will never change, let the market that wants DVD continue with DVD until something new and profoundly different can replace DVD. The Blu-ray plan to offer better quality software for the percentage of the market that wants that is the only plan that makes sense. I don't know what percentage of the households in the US Blu-ray can reach with that plan, maybe 35%, maybe 60% once HD DVD is no longer around to confuse the market. Right now, neither of these formats are doing anything, Blu-ray is obviously doing much better worldwide, but it isn't doing much. I don't think it is too late, and if HD DVD can check out now and leave the market to Blu-ray, it might still happen. At some point, neither format will ever be able to gain any kind of a foothold on even the market that would have been interested.

Chris
I think what we have here is a big mess. The fact is as long as either companies, Sony and Toshiba, has chance of winning neither will back down. They both invested too much money and time on this war and to back down and lose those money is not an option for either. This war should never have happened in the first place. But it did and it is too late to retreat now. I believe this war is only going to get more bloody until one side wins out or both goes self destruct.
dontknowjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2007, 04:51 PM   #37  
We Are Right (WAR) !
 

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Great White North
Posts: 625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard View Post
Many people that want HD DVD to succeed repeat that line "quality is the same". I own both and believe Blu-ray is better. Same source, same codec, same bitrate, same care used for the transfer and the quality is the same for both, no doubt. Since Blu-ray can use much higher bitrates, Blu-ray objectively has to be better and all sites I have followed that provide subjective reviews indicate that Blu-ray is better on average. My PS3 indicated that "Disturbia", a Dreamworks title that was released on both formats has peak rates for audio/video exceeding 40Mbps, the HD DVD couldn't have exceeded 30Mbps. I haven't seen the "Disturbia" HD DVD and don't know whether AVC was used like the Blu-ray version or VC-1. I am still waiting for scientific evidence that any rate over 30Mbps is wasted and no benefit possible and I don't think that evidence will ever be presented. I doubt if the Blu-ray maximum rate of 48Mbps provides the absolute best possible quality, but I accept that 48Mbps is better than 30Mbps. The higher rate isn't needed with every title, but some have hard to render action scenes, extremely dark scenes or extremely bright scenes that can benefit from the extra bandwidth available. I will immediately concede that the technological advantage for Blu-ray will not have a signficant impact on the format war and certainly won't win the format war for Blu-ray, but I do take exception with the common claim that Blu-ray isn't better. Whether or not the improvement is material is up to each individual and dependent on a lot of factors. It may even be that most people wouldn't care about the quality difference and it may even be that most people don't care that both of these formats are better than DVD.

Chris
That's your opinion only. I also own both formats and prefer HD DVD - why? Because it is much, much more efficient than BD and produces at least as good an image, if not better. I specifically asked an encoder (the company is called Rocket in Toronto) if a four hour HD DVD (30gb) movie could be put on a 30gb disc with lossless audio. Here's someone, who is not only and audio/video enthusiast, but also a professional in the bussiness - his response was yes and it would be transparent to the master they use to compare their work! That's good enough for me. Let there be one format and let it be the cost effective efficient one. I don't have a problem donating my BD player to Sony's museum of failed formats.

Cheers,

Grant
Deja Vu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2007, 04:58 PM   #38  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
Chris Gerhard's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobY View Post
I'm just thinking out loud here, but to me, none of those things you listed were a new format in the sense of a new medium. Most of them were different encoding methods on existing media and only required a player with different decoders, not a whole new playback system.

Although one needed a new display for progressive scan viewing, one did not need new DVD's, nor did one need a new audio system for SACD or DVD-A, just a new player. (Obviously you needed a multi-channel audio system for surround sound but it wasn't a requirement to appreciate the superior fidelity of the format. The requirement for a multi-speaker system dates back to Quadraphonic records and is one of the big obstacles to success for multi-channel audio formats--hardly anyone thinks it's worth the cost and inconvenience compared to the benefit).

S-VHS is close, but even then all you needed was new player--having an S-Video input on your display was a big benefit, but S-VHS even looked better on Composite and you could use an SVHS tape to record conventional VHS and you could play an SVHS tape in a VHS player if the content was VHS.

So, no, I still can't think of any new format that required both a new player and a new playback system in order to appreciate any benefit.

And of course, I have to ask, what makes you think consumers want Blu-Ray any more than they want HD DVD? There is cetrainly no evidence of that unless you want to misconstrue PS3 sales as evidence of a consumer desire for Blu-Ray over HD DVD (and BD disc sales indicate that's a non-starter) and misconstrue BD giveaways and discounts as evidence of consumer desire for Blu-Ray over HD DVD (and we'll see how that goes in the coming weeks).
If you wanted to switch from LaserDisc to progressive scan DVD, you needed a new player, a new display, and new media. If you are saying you think it is different because you don't have to actually use the progressive scan option, that is true. If you buy HD DVD, you can connect to your old display and watch it in SD. All of the things I mentioned are exactly the same. Been listening to stereo music and you want SACD surround music, you need a surround sound amplifier, a new player and new software. I believe Blu-ray has sold far greater quantities than HD DVD everywhere in the world that both products have been marketed, that is my basis for believing that consumers want Blu-ray over HD DVD. It isn't a particularly complicated conclusion I came to in that regard.

Chris
Chris Gerhard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2007, 05:07 PM   #39  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
Chris Gerhard's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post
That's your opinion only. I also own both formats and prefer HD DVD - why? Because it is much, much more efficient than BD and produces at least as good an image, if not better. I specifically asked an encoder (the company is called Rocket in Toronto) if a four hour HD DVD (30gb) movie could be put on a 30gb disc with lossless audio. Here's someone, who is not only and audio/video enthusiast, but also a professional in the bussiness - his response was yes and it would be transparent to the master they use to compare their work! That's good enough for me. Let there be one format and let it be the cost effective efficient one. I don't have a problem donating my BD player to Sony's museum of failed formats.

Cheers,

Grant
Nonsense, HD DVD can not produce a better image. All factors being equal, the image is the same, the files are the same. Blu-ray can use higher bitrates, the resulting file is objectively of higher quality. That is just a fact. Will you or I always be able to tell the same source, same codec and same care used for both but the Blu-ray encode using higher bitrates results in a better image, I doubt it. But it is absolute complete and total nonsense to say that HD DVD is at least as good maybe better. Every single online site that provides subjective reviews of the two formats that I can find all show Blu-ray releases to be rated higher on average for video and audio. The audio part is easy, Blu-ray uses lossless audio often and HD DVD doesn't use it often. The video improvement has to be a result of the higher bitrate encodes for Blu-ray in my opinion. Does that mean anything in regards to the format war, definitely not much. The claim repeated here that HD DVD offers better quality was the first in a long line of BS claims I have seen often repeated here.

Chris
Chris Gerhard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2007, 05:52 PM   #40  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard View Post
If you wanted to switch from LaserDisc to progressive scan DVD, you needed a new player, a new display, and new media. If you are saying you think it is different because you don't have to actually use the progressive scan option, that is true. If you buy HD DVD, you can connect to your old display and watch it in SD. All of the things I mentioned are exactly the same. Been listening to stereo music and you want SACD surround music, you need a surround sound amplifier, a new player and new software. I believe Blu-ray has sold far greater quantities than HD DVD everywhere in the world that both products have been marketed, that is my basis for believing that consumers want Blu-ray over HD DVD. It isn't a particularly complicated conclusion I came to in that regard.

Chris
Yes and if you wanted to upgrade from a Victorola to a CD player you had to replace everything, too...

I doubt most people upgraded from LD to Progressive Scan DVD players. More than likely they upgraded from LD to a DVD player and from a DVD player to a progressive scan DVD player, since progressive scan came a number of years after the introduction of DVD's. If they went from LD directly to Progressive Scan, it simply means they waited a long time to upgrade and skipped over a generation. Besides, LD was never a mass consumer success like VHS or DVD. My point, though, was consumers didn't need to replace the DVD's they already had when they upgraded to the benefits of progressive scan.

It's fairly safe to say the vast majority of people upgraded from a VCR to a DVD player and from tapes to discs, but did not have to upgrade their TV to experience a benefit from the DVD player. When they upgraded to a progressive scan DVD player, they needed to upgrade their TV to experience a benefit from progressive scan, but they did not have to upgrade their discs. When they upgraded to a widescreen TV, they needed to upgrade to widescreen discs, but they didn't need to upgrade their DVD player. Etc.

As for SACD, you can't possibly believe the reason the format was developed was to specifically serve the tiny market for surround audio? Clearly it was developed to bring higher-fidelity to the existing, much larger, market for stereo. Surround was a side-benefit for those who were interested, but there was no need to invest in a surround sound system to benefit from SACD, you only did that if you wanted surround sound.

Again, as far as I can see, Hi-Def discs are the only format I can think of that require the average consumer to get a new player, new discs and a new TV in order to benefit.

At this point, consumers don't want either Blu-Ray or HD DVD. Blu-Ray's higher sales are strictly a result of PS3 and not any real consumer demand for Hi-Def discs as evidenced by disc sales.

Last edited by BobY; 12-19-2007 at 05:59 PM..
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2007, 06:30 PM   #41  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
Chris Gerhard's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobY View Post
Yes and if you wanted to upgrade from a Victorola to a CD player you had to replace everything, too...

I doubt most people upgraded from LD to Progressive Scan DVD players. More than likely they upgraded from LD to a DVD player and from a DVD player to a progressive scan DVD player, since progressive scan came a number of years after the introduction of DVD's. If they went from LD directly to Progressive Scan, it simply means they waited a long time to upgrade and skipped over a generation. Besides, LD was never a mass consumer success like VHS or DVD. My point, though, was consumers didn't need to replace the DVD's they already had when they upgraded to the benefits of progressive scan.

It's fairly safe to say the vast majority of people upgraded from a VCR to a DVD player and from tapes to discs, but did not have to upgrade their TV to experience a benefit from the DVD player. When they upgraded to a progressive scan DVD player, they needed to upgrade their TV to experience a benefit from progressive scan, but they did not have to upgrade their discs. When they upgraded to a widescreen TV, they needed to upgrade to widescreen discs, but they didn't need to upgrade their DVD player. Etc.

As for SACD, you can't possibly believe the reason the format was developed was to specifically serve the tiny market for surround audio? Clearly it was developed to bring higher-fidelity to the existing, much larger, market for stereo. Surround was a side-benefit for those who were interested, but there was no need to invest in a surround sound system to benefit from SACD, you only did that if you wanted surround sound.

Again, as far as I can see, Hi-Def discs are the only format I can think of that require the average consumer to get a new player, new discs and a new TV in order to benefit.

At this point, consumers don't want either Blu-Ray or HD DVD. Blu-Ray's higher sales are strictly a result of PS3 and not any real consumer demand for Hi-Def discs as evidenced by disc sales.
I keep in touch with many SACD fans and I can guarantee that surround sound is the reason I bought SACD and almost everybody else I know bought SACD. The huge majority of SACD releases have a surround sound layer, surely over 75%. I just looked at my list of my collection of 200 SACD's and 160 are surround. I am not saying that everybody had to buy anything new to make SACD work, nor did everybody have to buy anything new to take advantage of these new formats. I had an HDTV years before owning HD DVD and Blu-ray. I had one for OTA, D-VHS and DirecTV with TiVo. I would think almost all HD DVD and Blu-ray owners had the HDTV first and since HDTV is already in over 40% of households in the US there is a significant market that purchased HDTV for other reasons, not either of these formats. I don't think there are many consumers that thought, "gee, I want HD DVD, let me go buy an HDTV so I can get HD DVD". It has always been the other way around and always will be. I use my HD displays for much more than these two formats.

Lack of a customer base owning an HDTV is not the problem for these two formats, in my opinion it is the format war that is killing these two formats. At least we can agree that neither format is doing much. HDTV will continue to grow at a brisk pace, with or without these two formats, the argument that lack of a market with an HDTV is the problem is just silly. I haven't kept track, but I am pretty sure my use of a source for my HD displays goes in this order from most frequent to least frequent.

1. DirecTV DVR
2. Comcast cable DVR
3. D-VHS
4. DVD
5. Blu-ray
6. HD DVD
7. Live OTA HD from an STB

I don't remember the last time I watched 6 or 7, but I own 9 HD DVD's and have never even watched 6 of them. All 6 of those will be viewed soon. I do rent HD DVD, but recently my queue has been 100% Blu-ray.

Chris
Chris Gerhard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2007, 10:52 PM   #42  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

I didn't say the people who bought SACD weren't interested in surround sound, I said the manufacturers didn't design SACD to appeal strictly to those who wanted surround sound. They designed it to appeal to a much larger market of stereo users, but failed to attract that market. I imagine it's very likely that the overwhelming majority of SACD owners want surround sound, but all that says is SACD failed to appeal to the broad market and the only people who bought into it were niche audiophiles who were interested in things like surround.

I don't believe 40% of American households are watching HD content, even if it's true that 40% of American homes have HDTV's (and I'd like to see a link for that, your buddies at Nielsen say as of October 2007, 30% of American homes have HDTV's and only 13.7% of American homes have the capability to watch HD programming, while only 11.3% are actually watching programs in HD.: http://www.tvpredictions.com/nielsenhd103107.htm ).

So the real impediment to adoption of both HD DVD and Blu-Ray is people aren't really interested at this point.
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2007, 01:54 AM   #43  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard View Post
Nonsense, HD DVD can not produce a better image. All factors being equal, the image is the same, the files are the same. Blu-ray can use higher bitrates, the resulting file is objectively of higher quality. That is just a fact. Will you or I always be able to tell the same source, same codec and same care used for both but the Blu-ray encode using higher bitrates results in a better image, I doubt it. But it is absolute complete and total nonsense to say that HD DVD is at least as good maybe better. Every single online site that provides subjective reviews of the two formats that I can find all show Blu-ray releases to be rated higher on average for video and audio. The audio part is easy, Blu-ray uses lossless audio often and HD DVD doesn't use it often. The video improvement has to be a result of the higher bitrate encodes for Blu-ray in my opinion. Does that mean anything in regards to the format war, definitely not much. The claim repeated here that HD DVD offers better quality was the first in a long line of BS claims I have seen often repeated here.

Chris
Yes Chris, I agree that BD is a better technology. But the only problem is they are not fully utilizing that technology and shows no sign of doing so. If they had, it probably have won the war by now. But the FACT is that they haven't and as long as they don't they will never win this war. It's like person with a IQ of 120 matching wits with someone with 90 IQ. Of course 120 IQ person will win. But what if he uses less than 90 IQ? That is what is happening here. If you want the BD to squash HD-DVD, than perhaps you should urge them to step up to their full potential. Until then HD-DVD will never go away. It may even win this war.
dontknowjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2007, 01:54 AM   #44  
Every day is Friday
 
oblioman's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Hooooterville
Posts: 9,279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard View Post
I keep in touch with many SACD fans and I can guarantee that surround sound is the reason I bought SACD and almost everybody else I know bought SACD. The huge majority of SACD releases have a surround sound layer, surely over 75%. I just looked at my list of my collection of 200 SACD's and 160 are surround. I am not saying that everybody had to buy anything new to make SACD work, nor did everybody have to buy anything new to take advantage of these new formats. I had an HDTV years before owning HD DVD and Blu-ray. I had one for OTA, D-VHS and DirecTV with TiVo. I would think almost all HD DVD and Blu-ray owners had the HDTV first and since HDTV is already in over 40% of households in the US there is a significant market that purchased HDTV for other reasons, not either of these formats. I don't think there are many consumers that thought, "gee, I want HD DVD, let me go buy an HDTV so I can get HD DVD". It has always been the other way around and always will be. I use my HD displays for much more than these two formats.

Lack of a customer base owning an HDTV is not the problem for these two formats, in my opinion it is the format war that is killing these two formats. At least we can agree that neither format is doing much. HDTV will continue to grow at a brisk pace, with or without these two formats, the argument that lack of a market with an HDTV is the problem is just silly. I haven't kept track, but I am pretty sure my use of a source for my HD displays goes in this order from most frequent to least frequent.

1. DirecTV DVR
2. Comcast cable DVR
3. D-VHS
4. DVD
5. Blu-ray
6. HD DVD
7. Live OTA HD from an STB

I don't remember the last time I watched 6 or 7, but I own 9 HD DVD's and have never even watched 6 of them. All 6 of those will be viewed soon. I do rent HD DVD, but recently my queue has been 100% Blu-ray.

Chris
Nice point, me was wondering when someone would bring up the fact that a lot of us had HDTV's before the entry of BD & HD DVD. Bought me first HDTV back in 2001 or early 2002 for OTA purposes. Damn good Sony RP that still goes nearly 10 hrs. a day. Me had to dust that reliable old Sony a couple of years ago!!
oblioman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2007, 06:22 AM   #45  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
Chris Gerhard's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobY View Post
I didn't say the people who bought SACD weren't interested in surround sound, I said the manufacturers didn't design SACD to appeal strictly to those who wanted surround sound. They designed it to appeal to a much larger market of stereo users, but failed to attract that market. I imagine it's very likely that the overwhelming majority of SACD owners want surround sound, but all that says is SACD failed to appeal to the broad market and the only people who bought into it were niche audiophiles who were interested in things like surround.

I don't believe 40% of American households are watching HD content, even if it's true that 40% of American homes have HDTV's (and I'd like to see a link for that, your buddies at Nielsen say as of October 2007, 30% of American homes have HDTV's and only 13.7% of American homes have the capability to watch HD programming, while only 11.3% are actually watching programs in HD.: http://www.tvpredictions.com/nielsenhd103107.htm ).

So the real impediment to adoption of both HD DVD and Blu-Ray is people aren't really interested at this point.
I disagree, the impediment to growth for Blu-ray is the format war. My estimate of 40% of households in the US have an HDTV is based on the predictions that will be the number by year-end so we can see that about February or March next year. Here is the most recent prediction for year-end 2008 which places the figure at 60 million homes or about 60%, the growth is terrific for HDTV.

http://broadcastengineering.com/infr...hdtv-20040811/

Here is the old prediction of 40% I recall reading:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...3/ai_101566858

The other stuff I have read didn't show up in the quick search this morning, but we will know the actual calculations of the actual numbers soon enough.
Chris

Last edited by Chris Gerhard; 12-20-2007 at 06:34 AM..
Chris Gerhard is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


to Research firm says HD DVD sales will rise
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Digital downloads, DVDs and DVRs slowing Blu-ray growth The_Omega_Man High Definition Media 37 09-21-2008 10:41 PM
Blue Ray Technologies and CDC Reach Exclusive Agreement for Super Blu-Ray Discs Nikopol High Definition Media 10 09-09-2008 02:09 PM
Good news for the HD DVD supporters PeterPP High Definition Media 82 01-08-2008 09:54 AM
Study: New HDTV Owners Lean to HD DVD Hip Name Here High Definition Media 16 12-11-2007 05:46 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:13 PM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands